Phyresis: The final answer to morality, emotions, the meaning of life, and everything

[Fuzzy Chickens]

Part 1

 

In human society, an entity's purpose can be defined as the ends for which it was created. The purpose of life - be it one person's life or all Terran life - is often pondered, because the reasons for our creation, and even issue of whether or not we were deliberately created, remain unproven. However, an entity's purpose can also be more loosely defined as the reason why it exists. Life continues to exist because it survives and reproduces. Therefore, lacking any further information behind the origins of Terran life, the discernible ultimate purpose of life (as a whole and that of each person) is to survive and reproduce. However, nonliving things like crystals do the same, yet they are not considered alive. Crystals are not alive because life, by its very definition, is change. Every living cell on the planet is in a constant state of flux, moving various chemicals into and out of itself, converting energy from one form to another, and so on. Living things react to environmental pressures on both individual and species levels. Life is constantly rewriting itself, rebuilding itself, reinventing itself. Crystals grow and shrink at their surfaces, but everything on the inside stays perfectly still, and crystals never change themselves in a way that increases their chances of survival. This is the third purpose of life - constant self-improvement. Every person should seek to always admit their faults and improve themselves, physically and intellectually.

 

Humans have developed sentience because it improves our ability to survive, reproduce, and improve. Ergo, the purpose of sentience is to facilitate one's biological dictates of survival, reproduction, and evolution. However, as a side effect, that sentience has created something that interferes with one's biological imperatives. Culture is that creation. All organisms are compelled to take whatever course of action brings them the most pleasure and the least pain, because in nature, this results in the fulfillment of biological dictates. However, in human culture, it sometimes instead results in things which go against our biological imperatives. Suicide and "safe" sex are two such things, which humans are the only species known to deliberately practice. In human culture, we are taught to aid the survival of the genetically unfit and to choose our breeding partners based on the factor (namely personality) that is most related to their upbringing and least related to their genetics . We create religions that (despite serving an important social role) forbid having multiple breeding partners and interfere with the search for secular knowledge. Humanity now survives and spreads by evolving our technology instead of our biology. Human culture has removed most evolutionary pressures and thus allowed our evolution to stagnate. Genetic defects are spread instead of weeded out. For the first time in earth history, an entire species is in a state of genetic decay. Humanity must use its sentience for its true purpose if we are to survive. We must create a new culture wherein morality is determined by biology and logic instead of by religion, people control their emotions instead of vice versa, and our technology is evolved in addition to rather than instead of our biology.

 

These are the founding principles of Phyresis. Though the word was originally coined only to mean the diametric opposite of Phthisis, a Greek word for decay of the flesh, I use Phyresis in this document to mean the continued evolution of humanity by cultural instead of environmental pressures, as well as the quest for personal self-improvement. Followers of Phyresis (who number only one at the time of this writing...) are named Phyrexians. Our goal is to use selective breeding to create a subrace of physically fit, superintelligent humans who can accelerate the march of science and technology to the point where we will be able to modify our own genetic code directly rather than through the crude and slow process of selective breeding. Our cultural and biological evolution will then accelerate at an exponential rate. Quality of life will improve exponentially. All world problems will be solved (or soluble at least) within thirty or forty years of this breakthrough, assuming that the law allows it.

 

Potential breeding partners can be judged on three sets of attributes: Intelligence, personality, and physical soundness, the latter of which includes such things as being physically attractive or having a strong sense of smell. All categories are equally important to Phyrexian long-term goals, but differ in how strongly influenced they are by genetics and how important they are to Phyrexian short-term goals. Ranked by genetic influence, physical attributes are highest and personality is lowest. Ranked by temporary importance, intelligence is highest and physical is lowest. From this, we can determine that the most important overall factor in potential breeding partners is intelligence, and the least important factor is personality. This seems perverse by the standards of contemporary Western culture, but quite natural and logical from a less subjective viewpoint. Individuals who generally rate below average in these categories may be inducted into the Phyrexian gene pool if they have some other interesting genetic trait, such as polydactyly (more than 5 digits per hand/foot) or an immunity to tear gas. In its infancy, Phyresis will be much easier for women to follow than men, because being a single Phyrexian mother of children from a non-Phyrexian father is easier than being the single Phyrexian father of children from a non-Phyrexian mother. However, as Phyrexians grow in number, finding each other and sharing in the task of raising children in the ways of Phyresis will become easier for us. Allowing children to be raised by one Phyrexian and one non-Phyrexian parent is not recommended in most cases, but can be done.

 

Self-organization among Phyrexians is important. A group of Phyrexians working together can accomplish things that individual Phyrexians cannot, Phyrexian parents may wish to seek parenting advice from a uniquely Phyrexian perspective, et cetera. A centralized website and message board could prove to be critically important. A centralized "clergy", or any self-appointed group of Phyrexians trying to exert authority over the rest, would be a very bad thing. This would be the first step toward Phyresis becoming a religion, and any movement against the central authority would lead to factionalization. Phyrexians must not "take sides" against each other. Our goals can only succeed if we present a unified front to the rest of humanity. Competing schools of thought among Phyrexians can be allowed as long as said competition remains friendly and no branch tries to claim that it is the "one true" Phyresis. The one unlikely exception to the central authority rule is the creation of a Phyrexian nation, which would obviously demand a governing body. Such a governing body must be kept in check to ensure that it does not drift too far from its purpose or from the core founding principles of Phyresis.

 

Another issue of importance is maintaining integration with the rest of human society. We're not Amish, we can't shut ourselves in our own little bubbles and avoid exposure to ideas and philosophies that contradict our own. No reason exists for why we can't play Quake 3, watch Survivor, and listen to the Rolling Stones. In fact, most such facets of popular culture serve useful purposes other than pure entertainment. Games in particular can serve as training for real-world situations. Those benefits can be safely enjoyed if their cultural influence is tempered. One thing that must never be lost sight of is morality. Morality is the one and only thing that can stop any set of principles from being corrupted or perverted for selfish means. "Weaker" cultures and species must be allowed to live or die by their own faults and never deliberately exterminated. Genetic diversity is the cornerstone of evolution, and genocide creates nothing but enemies for those who commit it. This was the ultimate downfall of such fictional cultures as the Borg from Star Trek, or our namesake Phyrexians from the card game Magic: the Gathering.

[Fuzzy Chickens]

Part 2: Morality

 

Napoleon said that religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich. Karl Marx took the concept a step further by saying that religion was a tool used by the rich to keep the poor in line. Religion certainly wasn't invented by the rich, as the world's great religious thinkers - Confucius, Siddhartha Buddah, Jesus of Nazareth, Mohammed, etc. - did not seem to have much interest in material gain. However, Napoleon was absolutely right. Humans are, on average, too stupid and overemotional to adhere to a moral code based purely on logic. But the fear of burning in Hell for eternity or being reincarnated as a dung beetle gives people a reason to stay in line, even if they have nothing to lose in their current life. Unfortunately, religion is a very inefficient way of preserving the greater good. The morals that are pushed by religion don't need to have any basis in reason, and can get in the way of biological dictates. Religion also leads to holy wars and stifles the quest for secular knowledge.

 

However, people of sufficient intelligence and willpower can be taught to control their emotions and use pragmatic morality. The obvious first requirement for this is an objective definition of moral and immoral behavior. To create such a definition is probably not my place. However, for the sake of example, I must try. Morality could be defined as whatever promotes the greater good, but this is flawed because it can be used to justify a variety of things that would be considered morally questionable, such as killing someone just because they have bad hygeine. Immorality could be defined as deliberate interference with a person's "domain" - their liberty, property, physical or psychological well-being, etc. without their unduressed and fully informed consent, except in defense of those of another person, especially oneself. This may require some subdefinition regarding what's permissible in defense of what else, but for the most part, it should work well enough for this text.

 

Assault, Theft, and Waste

 

Causing injury, illness, or physical pain to another person, and taking the risk of doing so through recklessness, all count as interfering with their physical well-being. Theft and vandalism count as interfering with another person's (or group's) property. Psychologically tormenting others counts as interfering with their psychological well-being. Waste is not commonly thought to be immoral, but it is, because it interferes with the amount of energy and material goods that are available to everyone. Waste surprisingly poses the greatest risk to the survival of our species. Thus the mantra "Phyrexia wastes nothing."

 

Abortion / Brain Death

 

Abortion within the first few months of a pregnancy does not count as interfering with another person's physical well-being because human embryos are not people. They have no intelligence or free will, and do not develop these traits until the fifth or sixth month. Some people have argued that human embryos have the potential to develop free will, but this only leads to endless opinions about the chances of various other things developing free will under what conditions and et cetera ad infinitum. A tumor has the theoretical potential, but its chances of doing so are low enough that no one cares. An unfertilized human egg has the potential, but killing those is okay because they won't develop intelligence unless fertilized. Similarly, a fertilized human egg won't develop intelligence either unless certain things happen, but that's "totally different" because... well... it "just is," or so I'm told.

The one thing that separates people from non-people is full-blown free will, not the potential to develop it. Human embryos are not people, they're vegetables. Their destruction is morally equal to "pulling the plug" on a brain-dead body whose cells are being kept alive by machines.

 

Sexuality

 

Popular culture has a rather large number of taboos surrounding sexuality. The vast majority of these are arbitrary and have no basis in fact or reason. Rape is interference with another person's liberty, just like slavery or kidnapping, and often interference with their physical and emotional well-being. It's quite immoral. "Cheating" on a spouse is only immoral because popular culture assumes that all sexual relationships are exclusive unless otherwise stated, so infidelity breaks the "fully informed consent" clause in popular culture. Phyrexians seeking exclusivity should be warned that no such assumption is made in our culture. Other popular no-nos are a bit harder to pin down. Incest isn't good for genetic diversity, and homosexuality does little to increase the population, but neither has any real victims. Intercourse between two people who aren't married or emotionally involved is victimless. Polygamy is victimless, though marriage itself is becoming an obsolete concept. Pedophilia is victimless if the younger person has a clear knowledge what they're getting into. Some people have argued that pedophilia is immoral becasue the young often demonstrate poor judgement; but a great many adults similarly demonstrate equally poor judgement. Should mentally ill adults be prohibited from giving their consent? Where is the line drawn, and who decides who has sufficiently good judgement? Logic dictates that such a line should only be drawn if an objective definition of "good" judgement can be formulated. Such a task is beyond the purpose of this text, if it is even attainable. Yet some children will still be able to pass that definition if it ever exists, so age is still irrelevant.

 

Drugs

 

The human genome codes for several enzymes whose sole purpose is to break down chemicals that are not normally found in the human body. Drug use is built into the very blueprint for our bodies. People have the ethical right to cause whatever harm they wish upon their own brains as long as they don't put other people's lives in danger. So to use drugs while pregnant is immoral, driving while using certain drugs is immoral, using hallucinogens without a trip sitter is irresponsible, lighting up around non-smokers is immoral, but for people to sit in the comfort of their own homes and get stoned off their asses without bothering anyone else is fine. Also, drugging another person without their consent is immoral, as it's interference with their free will and possibly physical well-being.

Amphetamines and other stimulants have a very important role in Phyresis. They provide mental clarity and speed to a degree far beyond what humans can naturally possess. The continued success of our species may depend on new scientific and unscientific insights that wouldn't be found by normal states of human consciousness. A few decades from now, psychonauts may be as important as astronauts.

 

Suicide

 

By all principles of common sense, if a person wishes to end a life that is their own and no one else's, for any reason, they should be allowed to do so. To deprive a person of the right to life is cruel, but to deprive a person of the right to death is infinitely crueller. All sentient life has the moral right to self-terminate. However, suicide will become an obsolete concept if and when people learn to rid themselves of negative emotions.

[Fuzzy Chickens]

Part 3: Emotion

 

The brains of all animals work on a very basic pleasure/pain system. This system (plus memory) teaches animals what's good and bad for their own survival. But physical pleasure and pain can only do so much for an animal's ability to have surviving descendants. Thus, "higher" animals also have an emotional pleasure/pain system to help fill in these deficiencies. The drive to be imitative also stems from this limitation because it's a shortcut around the often lethal "trial and error" method of learning. Interestingly, the human mind is so pliable and imitative that it can trick itself into having specific emotional responses that it would never develop on its own, just because it sees other humans reacting the same way. Some emotions are even purely synthetic creations of human culture that we only have because we are taught to have them! Yet these emotions are no less "real" than their natural counterparts, because the human brain will release whatever neurotransmitters are necessary to produce the state of mind that it observes in others! However, human intelligence and knowledge have developed enough that emotions are no longer necessary to fulfill our biological dictates. With sufficient application of intelligence and willpower, individuals can teach themselves not to have specific emotions - even ones that occur naturally.

 

Fear

 

The first emotion that I deliberately purged myself of was fear. Fear occurs in animals naturally to a degree and is easily observable, but it is a heavily learned trait in humans. A person can have such a crippling fear of snakes that they cannot bring themselves to touch one that they know is made of rubber, while Steve Irwin (the Crocodile Hunter) will never be afraid of snakes no matter how many bite him in the ass. This is because people fear whatever they are taught to fear. People can teach themselves not to fear things just as easily as they learned to fear them in the first place, and doing so generally improves one's quality of life.

 

Conversely, surviving a dangerous situation usually causes happiness, sometimes even while the danger is still present. This is the "showoff" instinct. If you prove to others that you are proficient at surviving danger, it increases your social standing and therefore number of potential breeding partners. This mechanism works even when the danger isn't real, such as on rollercoasters. Like fear itself, this feeling is easily manipulated, and people should try to replace their fears with it whenever possible and logical to do so (i.e., no getting thrills from taking turns playing Russian Roulette with your buddies).

 

Grief

 

Grief was the second emotion that I purged myself of. It is extremely difficult to observe in animals other than humans because we are the only species known to cry; still, in nature, it serves a purpose. A bear that suffers emotional pain at the loss of one of its cubs will make more of an effort to protect its cubs in the future. Though humans grieve for other family members, friends, and even pets, we are most devastated by the loss of a child. But every human eventually dies. The past, present, and future are all equally real and equally valid. A person's death is no more real after it happens than before, so there is no logical reason to be sad only near the time of death. Additionally, the death of someone close to you is no more or less a tragedy than the death of someone who you don't know. When I realized this, I grieved once for everyone past, present, and future, and have not felt sadness since. Yes, it sucks that certain people in my life are no longer alive. But the effect on my life is really no different from when people simply drift apart and I never hear from them again. Unlike the other 3 negative emotions discussed here, grief does not seem to be something that humans teach each other to feel at the wrong times.

 

There is one drawback to the elimination of sadness. Tragic works of fiction, like Titanic, no longer grip me the way they used to, if at all. Those who wish to purge themselves of sadness should keep this loss in mind.

 

Anger

 

The purpose of anger is straightforward: it drives you to destroy that which interferes with your biological dictates. It is easily observed in animals. As usual, humans feel this emotion in situations where it makes no sense to do so because they imitate each other. I stopped feeling anger when I realized that nearly everyone believes their own actions are justified. Adolf Hitler was only serving what he thought was the greater good. Even people who place their own interests above the well-being of others are merely doing what their genes and experiences have programmed them to do. The only true justification for anger is against people who are so bent that they would damage their own well-being just to interfere with that of someone else. I was once in a four-way game of "Magic: The Gathering" with a person who ruined his own chances of winning the game just so he could prevent me from winning as well. Even then, I didn't feel angry at him because he was more deserving of my pity than anything else.

 

Shame

 

For many, many years, the one and only thing that I was afraid of was embarassment. I never planned to purge myself of embarassment, but it happened anyway. I have no idea how or when it happened, but the circumstances under which I discovered that it had happened were very funny. My entire 11th Grade History class was laughing at me, and much to my surprise, I was amused as well instead of embarassed. Since then, I've never felt bad about anything negative that other people might think of me. Shame serves a very strange function; it is a negative emotional response to the exposition of one's weaknesses. It teaches animals to hide their weaknesses and avoid situations in which others would expose their weaknesses. This learned behavior benefits the individual who learns it, but does so at the expense of the species. Shame is also an emotion that is felt at times when it really shouldn't be felt because of human culture. Although it does occasionally drive people to correct whatever flaw is embarassing them, shame generally inhibits Phyresis and should be purged. But it could also be the most difficult to deliberately purge oneself of for reasons that are explained later.

 

Joy

 

Happiness, though real, is the emotion that is the most bent by human culture. People can take joy in nearly anything - money, shoes, building or fixing things, killing people, you name it. It's also the emotion that humans have most successfully manipulated in themselves. People have even taught themselves to take joy in things that cause them physical pain, "cutters" being a case in point. This is the proof of culture's influence on the shaping of human emotions, and of the hidden power of every person to alter their own personality through sheer force of will.

 

Why anyone would want to rid themselves of joy entirely is beyond me. If you're going to do something, it's better to enjoy it than not to. Instead, people should experiment with changing the things that they enjoy. Learn to enjoy your job. Force yourself to enjoy chores. Purge yourself of the happiness that comes from things that you "shouldn't" do. Over time, these emotional responses will become permanent and you will not have to force them. This will lead to a radical improvement in your perceptions about your quality of life.

 

Love

 

I'm told that Hebrew has six different words for love, and each applies to a different sense of the English word. The love between family members is natural. Many pets, especially cats, have and display this type of love toward their legal guardians (I hesitate to use the word "owners") and vice versa; it follows that they must also feel the same way about their own. However, romantic love is a very different case. There are extremely few members of the animal kingdom that mate for life, and primates are not among them. Kissing is a pure fabrication of popular culture with its roots in the Roman Empire. Notice how among all the great works of fiction from before the rise of Rome, not one of them is a love story. There are many tales of heroism and beauty and royalty, but none of "true love". This is because romantic love is a synthetic product of Romanesque culture that people trick themselves into feeling just because they think they're supposed to!

 

Romantic love, though pleasant if returned, generally gets in the way of Phyresis and should be purged. Family love does not get in the way, and in fact aids survival; it should remain.

 

Pride

 

Pride is a good thing as long as it is not taken to such an extreme that it becomes arrogance. Pride rewards excellence, but does so much less if no one is around to witness that excellence. It is another manifestation of the "showoff" instinct. It tells you to do what you're good at, to do it with as many people watching as possible, and to brag about it afterward, because whoever wins first place gets all the chicks and most of the prize money. Pride is important to Phyresis on both individual and species levels. It is important individually because it encourages people to improve themselves; it is important to the species because uniquely beneficial genetic traits are rare, and should be discovered and spread throughout the gene pool. When taken to the extreme of arrogance, pride inhibits Phyresis on both individual and species levels. Faults and flaws, genetic or personal, cannot be fixed or avoided unless they are known.

 

Humor

 

Humor is a very subjective thing that only humans seem to exhibit. Its evolutionary function is equally enigmatic. I'm not even sure that it's an emotion, but I've included it here anyway with some speculation on its purpose. I've noticed that when I'm watching something funny on TV, I'm much more likely to laugh if someone else is watching, or if I think someone else is watching. Most comedy that I've come across seems to be more or less based on insult. The most successful comedies are the ones that feature heavily flawed characters making fun of each other's problems and suffering the consequences of their own spectacular stupidity. The really good ones are those that can do this cleverly, such as if one character finds an inventive way to use another character's insult against them. I believe humor was originally to provide the impetus to expose another's weaknesses, and if possible, to do so in a way that shows off one's own strengths. It's basically a complex manifestation of the pride/shame function. This is why shame may be difficult to get rid of; it's an asymmetrically two-way emotion, and you can't change the emotional response that other people have when you are in a situation that is (or would be) embarassing.

 

Humor doesn't serve much of a purpose anymore except to entertain us. However, since it does nothing to inhibit Phyresis, pure entertainment is reason enough to keep it.

[Fuzzy Chickens]

I wrote it in a post-drug-induced state of mind. I plan to make numerous revisions and expansions, including the removal of all references to myself. Any suggestions?

[ThumbingMyWay]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Chickens

Any suggestions?

 

yeah...quit boggarting the cheeba man!....

[Fuzzy Chickens]

Sorry, I don't understand any languages other than English and Klingon.

[bluetuesday]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Chickens

Pedophilia is victimless if the younger person has a clear knowledge what they're getting into. Some people have argued that pedophilia is immoral becasue the young often demonstrate poor judgement; but a great many adults similarly demonstrate equally poor judgement. Should mentally ill adults be prohibited from giving their consent? Where is the line drawn, and who decides who has sufficiently good judgement?

oh, this is my favourite part.

 

paedophilia is not immoral because children demonstrate 'poor judgment'.

 

apart from anything else children are insufficiently emotionally, mentally and physically developed to give their consent in full knowledge of what they're doing or to cope with the consequences.

 

any suggestion? yeah. get help.

[Fuzzy Chickens]

children are insufficiently emotionally, mentally and physically developed

 

And all of that magically changes on their 18th birthday?

 

How is being "insufficiently emotionally and mentally developed" different from having poor judgement?

 

To make such a broad, sweeping generalization about kids is as irrational as making one about a certain race or gender.

 

And what's this "cope with the consequences" nonsense? What "consequences" are there to be "coped" with?

 

-------

 

-Advocate for the Brave New World

[westernxer]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Chickens

I wrote it in a post-drug-induced state of mind. I plan to make numerous revisions and expansions, including the removal of all references to myself. Any suggestions?

 

What is the name of that drug you took?

 

You truly are a demagogue in the making... other than that I think you're a cool dude who's waiting for Scottie to beam him up.

[Pocky]

Are you a member of NAMBLA?

[Fuzzy Chickens]

(a) Dextromethorphan. Great stuff. I should get around to trying it again.

(b) no, I look more like Axl Rose. Is there a NAARLA?

[westernxer]

Is it an upper or a downer? Or is it hallucinogenic like peyote?

 

Wait, just googled it... where's my cough medicine?

[RecordProducer]

Fuzzy, are you saying that when children are sexually abused that they don't cope with any consequences from that?

[moimeme]

use Phyresis in this document to mean the continued evolution of humanity by cultural instead of environmental pressures, as well as the quest for personal self-improvement. Followers of Phyresis (who number only one at the time of this writing...) are named Phyrexians.

Our goal is to use selective breeding to create a subrace of physically fit, superintelligent humans

 

Great. Last guy with that kind of plan was named Hitler. Perhaps you've heard of him.

 

So when are you going to don your sneakers and drink the poison?

[tokyo]

Therefore, lacking any further information behind the origins of Terran life, the discernible ultimate purpose of life (as a whole and that of each person) is to survive and reproduce. However, nonliving things like crystals do the same, yet they are not considered alive. Crystals are not alive because life, by its very definition, is change.

These are not the only criterial, dummy.

 

From Wikipedia

 

Characteristics common to many organisms include:

 

* Movement

* Feeding

* Respiration

* Growth

* Reproduction

* Sensitivity to stimuli

 

Humans have developed sentience because it improves our ability to survive, reproduce, and improve. Ergo, the purpose of sentience is to facilitate one's biological dictates of survival, reproduction, and evolution. However, as a side effect, that sentience has created something that interferes with one's biological imperatives. Culture is that creation. All organisms are compelled to take whatever course of action brings them the most pleasure and the least pain, because in nature, this results in the fulfillment of biological dictates. However, in human culture, it sometimes instead results in things which go against our biological imperatives. Suicide and "safe" sex are two such things, which humans are the only species known to deliberately practice. In human culture, we are taught to aid the survival of the genetically unfit and to choose our breeding partners based on the factor (namely personality) that is most related to their upbringing and least related to their genetics . We create religions that (despite serving an important social role) forbid having multiple breeding partners and interfere with the search for secular knowledge. Humanity now survives and spreads by evolving our technology instead of our biology. Human culture has removed most evolutionary pressures and thus allowed our evolution to stagnate. Genetic defects are spread instead of weeded out. For the first time in earth history, an entire species is in a state of genetic decay. Humanity must use its sentience for its true purpose if we are to survive. We must create a new culture wherein morality is determined by biology and logic instead of by religion, people control their emotions instead of vice versa, and our technology is evolved in addition to rather than instead of our biology.

Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. You are suggesting euthanasia.

 

Potential breeding partners can be judged on three sets of attributes: Intelligence, personality, and physical soundness, the latter of which includes such things as being physically attractive or having a strong sense of smell.

No problem, just don't shower for a couple of days.

 

The first emotion that I deliberately purged myself of was fear. Fear occurs in animals naturally to a degree and is easily observable, but it is a heavily learned trait in humans. A person can have such a crippling fear of snakes that they cannot bring themselves to touch one that they know is made of rubber, while Steve Irwin (the Crocodile Hunter) will never be afraid of snakes no matter how many bite him in the ass. This is because people fear whatever they are taught to fear. People can teach themselves not to fear things just as easily as they learned to fear them in the first place, and doing so generally improves one's quality of life.

His lack of fear comes from knowing how to deal with the crocodiles. You should fear crocodiles, because your instinct tells you that they are dangerous and they will eat you when you get too close. Fear is a natural instinct of your body that protects. Not having fear at all is stupid, because fear is there to protect you. Too much irrational fear of course is not desireable, but I'm not sure if that was what you were talking about.

 

Please, put up a picture, so we can judge you. And also some EKG or whatever tests they have in order to give us proof of your physical fitness. What about your above intelligence?

 

You may deem yourself to be worth a Phyrexian, but let me assure you, there were so many wannabe-Arians running around who were not really what I would have considered "dating-material". Most of them were certainly not tall and blue-eyed. I bet, they all had incredibly inferior complexes and just clung to their ideology of the Übermensch, because they needed other people to look down. Deep down inside they knew, they sucked and nobody wanted them. You are hiding your human condition and vulnerability beneath a highly superficial construction of biological, psychological, social and cultural theories.

 

You may think it's your superiority that separates you from normal humankind, when in fact it's your inability to connect with them. You should go out and experience life. People feel the need to belong to something, but creating your own social club is not going to really help you.

[moimeme]

I believe the title of the thread should be changed to "Phyresis: A Drug-Induced Pile of Twaddle, Blather, and Baseless Illogical Inanity", really.

[LucreziaBorgia]

... and here I was all this time thinking the answer was a simple "42".

[moimeme]

and here I was all this time thinking the answer was a simple "42".

 

It is!

[d'Arthez]

I guess, this is someone who read Nietzsche in the wrong fashion. One wonders if he read Zarathustra in the wrong way, or a few of Nietzsche's other works. Sadly by reading a book it is not guaranteed that the reader reads it in a correct way.

 

Karl Marx took the concept a step further by saying that religion was a tool used by the rich to keep the poor in line.

 

Originally from Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie (translated into English)

"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

In no way, Marx suggested what you attributed to him.

 

Pragmatic morality? The term is already a contradictio in terminis.

[westernxer]

I don't think Nietzshe was concerned with economic conditions, whereas Marx certainly tried to court favor with the working class in his quest to exploit the masses and overthrow capitalist society. The reference to Marx is accurate, in that religion is used to keep the working class under wraps, as an "opiate," so goes the metaphor.

 

This Phyrexian manifesto is derivative of many texts, and it's definitely utopian in nature. It suggests Aldous Huxley more than Neitzsche. Huxley was also into drugs (mescaline), while Nietzsche was just a syphilitic who went insane in the latter stages of his life. It's safe to say that many of Huxley's works were also drug-induced.

 

Pragmatic morality is word play, but it also connotes morality based on common sense instead of community standards.

 

By the way, who needs religion when we have television?

 

Time to brew some tea.

[d'Arthez]

Hmm ... I have seen Nietzsche's name spelled in three different fashions in the last post. Utopian in nature? More dystopian. I'd rather euthanize myself than live in such a world. And I am definetely an Arian , so I am not even required by these insane Phyrexian standards to do so.

 

Morality based on common sense? Even worse. That is no morality, but a defense of the status quo. Morality based on common sense is: "Do as you please and complain if someone else wants to do the same."

 

One the hand this drivel promotes sexual promiscuity, but on the other hand focuses on family values, even though exclusivity is deemed an almost pointless concept. You can't have everything, can we. And how to make common sense of the extremely large contradiction? The same way as we do nowadays. Quite an advancement!

[westernxer]

That's your problem, not mine.

 

And you're off the mark about it being dystopian. It's just a proposition... whether it results in a dystopian society is to be seen. Actually, it's never gonna happen since it's just a theoretical construct. No one proposes change just to make things worse. It happens because of our shortcomings, or else the idea wasn't practical to begin with.

 

And don't sweat me because I missed a letter. I'd rather call him Nits.h.i.t.

 

p.s. Are you Arian or "Aryan?" Both have totally different meanings.

[d'Arthez]

You know in what sense I used the term; I can't help it if English speaking people somehow make an 'y' out of the 'i' that is used in most other Germanic languages for this word.

Needless to say that I would know where I would end up if a similar idiot to Hitler came to power again. In one of the prison camps if I would get lucky. And idiot gives too little credit for the way Hitler got such a large following. Or it gives reason for concern, that even such an idiot could acquire mass following.

 

And you're off the mark about it being dystopian. It's just a proposition... whether it results in a dystopian society is to be seen.

How can you propose it being utopian in nature then? You can't; and the premises make it all too clear that it will be some idiotic Brave New World thing. That was not an Utopia, was it?

In fact the lack of real utopias in our time are telling of the state in which we find ourselves.

 

No one proposes change just to make things worse.

From whose perspective? The powers that be?

We have seen a lot of reasons to be highly sceptical about them, and the leaders that "defend civilization." Want a few examples?

 

As for disrespecting Nietzsche, that is your problem.

[westernxer]

I don't want to know anything about your Hitler youth propaganda, not while I'm listening to Wagner and engaging in shaudenfreude at your expense, driving down the autobahn en route to Ocktoberfest in my Volkswagen before watching Bayern Munchen get its ass kicked by Bayer Leverkusen. I used to like Kaiserslaughtern, but I don't care at all for Borussia Dortmund.

 

p.s. I actually like Nits.h.i.t., and I like you too, but only as a friend. That's why I'm going to let you get the last word.

[Fuzzy Chickens]

Originally posted by westernxer Wait, just googled it... where's my cough medicine?

 

I got most of mine from Walgreen's until they stopped carrying it. I think they figured out what people were using it for...

 

Originally posted by RecordProducer Fuzzy, are you saying that when children are sexually abused that they don't cope with any consequences from that?

 

Being abused != giving consent. Very very very different.

 

Originally posted by moimeme

Great. Last guy with that kind of plan was named Hitler. Perhaps you've heard of him.

 

Go back and re-read the section on Morality, dumkopf.

 

Originally posted by kooky

These are not the only criterial, dummy.

 

Wikipedia is not the say-all, end-all of everything. Scientists have no official, formalized definition of life. It's why some of them think viruses are alive and others don't.

 

Originally posted by kooky Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. You are suggesting euthanasia.

 

I suggested no such thing.

 

Originally posted by kookyYou should fear crocodiles, because your instinct tells you that they are dangerous and they will eat you when you get too close. Fear is a natural instinct of your body that protects. Not having fear at all is stupid, because fear is there to protect you.

 

Sentience has rendered fear obsolete. Why avoid something for emotional reasons when you can avoid it for logical ones?

 

Originally posted by kooky Please, put up a picture, so we can judge you. And also some EKG or whatever tests they have in order to give us proof of your physical fitness. What about your above intelligence?

 

I can put up pictures of anything. You have no reason to trust that any of them relate to me.

 

Originally posted by kooky You may deem yourself to be worth a Phyrexian

 

Why would I? That does me no good. I only benefit from others making that judgement about me. I actually don't ruthlessly embrace pragmatism enough to be completely Phyrexian; I still cling to certain matters of principle and "fundamental" right and wrong. For example, I believed that it was fundamentally wrong to make Alien versus Predator a PG-13 flick, even though that had absolutely nothing to do with how bad the movie was.

 

Originally posted by kooky but let me assure you, there were so many wannabe-Arians running around who were not really what I would have considered "dating-material". Most of them were certainly not tall and blue-eyed. I bet, they all had incredibly inferior complexes and just clung to their ideology of the Übermensch, because they needed other people to look down. Deep down inside they knew, they sucked and nobody wanted them.

 

Good for you. How is that relevant? Phyresis and racism really have nothing to do with each other. "Diversity is the cornerstone of evolution," remember?

 

Originally posted by kooky You are hiding your human condition and vulnerability beneath a highly superficial construction of biological, psychological, social and cultural theories.

 

I hide nothing. At another forum that I frequent, I've repeatedly lamented about how underweight I am.

 

Originally posted by kooky You may think it's your superiority that separates you from normal humankind, when in fact it's your inability to connect with them.

 

Actually, it's neither. What separates me from the rest of humanity is my simple wierdness. Blacklights and beanbags wierdness. My what's-so-great-about-chocolate, minesweeper-is-the-best-game-ever, The-colors-must-be-in-this-order-or-it-will-offend-my-sense-of-symmetry wierdness. Being unable to connect with people is merely an unfortunate byproduct of that.

 

Originally posted by kooky You should go out and experience life.

 

I tried that. The novelty wore off quickly...

 

Originally posted by kooky People feel the need to belong to something

 

I don't. It's another part of my aforementioned wierdness. I had a hard time wrapping my head around the whole notion of "peer pressure" when I was in [color=red]D.A.R.E.[/color]

 

Originally posted by kooky but creating your own social club is not going to really help you.

 

Yes. I realized that when my sole attempt to do so failed in High School.

 

Originally posted by LucreziaBorgia

... and here I was all this time thinking the answer was a simple "42".

 

Yes, I need to add a section on that

 

Originally posted by d'Arthez

I guess, this is someone who read Nietzsche in the wrong fashion.

 

Or someone who never read Neitzsche at all. I do, however, admire the Neitzscheans from Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda. Those bone blades are kickass

 

Originally posted by d'Arthez In no way, Marx suggested what you attributed to him.

 

I apologize. I got my info from a history book, which claimed that this was the reason why religion was stamped out during Russia's whole "communism" phase.

 

Originally posted by d'Arthez Pragmatic morality? The term is already a contradictio in terminis.

 

I disagree.

 

Originally posted by westernxer

This Phyrexian manifesto is derivative of many texts, and it's definitely utopian in nature. It suggests Aldous Huxley more than Neitzsche.

 

Oh, yes. When I first read Brave New World, I thought "hey, there's some stuff in here that I would change, but otherwise it seems like a pretty sweet deal." It's not often that you read about a government that keeps its population in line via sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll rather than book-burnings and secret police. As for being derivative, the opposite is actually true. I need to do a hell of a lot of research so that I can expand upon each section. I'd like every emotion and moral to be at least a page long.

 

Originally posted by d'Arthez

I'd rather euthanize myself than live in such a world. And I am definetely an Arian , so I am not even required by these insane Phyrexian standards to do so.

 

What? Phyrexian standards certainly defend your right to do so, but they "require" nothing of the sort, regardless of whether or not you're Aryan. You can do whatever the hell you want, as long as you don't do it in Phyrexia.

 

Originally posted by d'Arthez

Morality based on common sense? Even worse. That is no morality, but a defense of the status quo.

 

No. It is a revision of the status quo. "Here's how things are now, here's how logic dictates they should be, note the similarities and differences"

 

Originally posted by d'Arthez

One the hand this drivel promotes sexual promiscuity

 

Again, it defends the right, but it does not "promote."

 

Originally posted by d'Arthez

but on the other hand focuses on family values

 

Heh heh. Family values? I must have been on stronger drugs than I thought, because I recall writing nothing about "family values"... I think "family values" are a load of crap...

 

Originally posted by d'Arthez

the premises make it all too clear that it will be some idiotic Brave New World thing. That was not an Utopia, was it?

 

Not by Christian standards, no. But it sure worked a hell of a lot better than the way we do things now.