Why Conspiracy Theories?

[constant escape]

I was arguing earlier that, if we must decide on an end, that complexification would be the most compatible with our vast distribution of beliefs. (edit: that is, closest to "omni-compatible")

But to answer your question, I think complexification could be desirable because it would measure, among other things, intricacy of engineering, allowing our tech to be ever more dense, and ever more fine, in its smartness. But that is a more specific reason than complexification itself, which would be figured as a kind of genus end, with some number of discernible species of ends, such as the specific one given above.

 

[constant escape]

Complexification I think is a trend that will continue whether or not we establish it as the center of our ideology, but I think doing so will more robustly align us with the cosmos.

 

[constant escape]

The kind of complexification I have in mind necessarily entails an ever-increasing aptitude for problem solving, which isn;t to say that there are ever fewer problems. In the relative sense, there will always be problems, but in the absolute sense, we are constantly chipping away at it and becoming more complex as a means of doing so.

In the relative sense, entering certain levels of complexity introduces us to problems that we did not previously have, but it also allows us to better manage the problems that were previously unmanageable.

 

[constant escape]

And so placing complexification at the center of an ideology would be in the interest of solving ever more complex problems. Whether or not that scale has an extremity, or increases infinitely, is a point of contention, but not necessarily an irreconciliable one, as far as I can tell.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

more robustly align us with the cosmos

why is that desirable

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

in the absolute sense, we are constantly chipping away at it

what is "it"? if "there will we always be problems" what exactly are we chipping away at?

 

[constant escape]

why is that desirable

I don't know if it is, or if it would be for everyone. But in principle it must feel nicer not to have forces working against you, especially unnecessarily.

But I would take issue with dependance on desirability - which I'm not accusing you of, as you seem rather to be productively auditing these assertions.

what is "it"? if "there will we always be problems" what exactly are we chipping away at?

Chipping away at our difference from the cosmos, our inability to think it, predict it. Growing ever more one with it, ever more able to think it, predict it, be it. (edit: "techne" as the measure, in intensity, of our skillfulness/craft in extending our reach, our ability to order/organize matter)

In this sense, there is a difference between us and even our bodies, seeing as we, the currently highest order of complexity, still experience even our own molecular constituency, our own material foundation, as external. That isn't to say one cannot feel at home in one's body - but it is saying that your home is external to you, and that your sense of presence, of identity, is limited to what feels like a kind of psychic singularity.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

dependance on desirability

we're talking about human decisions to pursue some course of action, not a process independent of human decisions

it has to somehow be desirable for people to choose to pursue it, more desirable, or at least less undesirable, than other courses of action

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Growing ever more one with it, ever more able to think it, predict it, be it

is this what you think the ultimate task of humanity is, to become more at one with the cosmos? if so, why?

I'll rephrase the original question to leave out the word "desire"

why should greater oneness with the cosmos be pursued, other than as an end in itself?

why is it better (that's what was meant by more desirable) than not pursuing greater oneness with the cosmos?

 

[constant escape]

we're talking about human decisions to pursue some course of action, not a process independent of human decisions

it has to somehow be desirable for people to choose to pursue it, more desirable, or at least less undesirable, than other courses of action

True - I was only bearing in mind the process independent of desire. Beyond the mere marketing of this, as an ideology to take up, there must be something about it that can align with, or appeal to, whatever people find valuable. Is that what you mean?

If so, I think part of what would be valuable about this is that it could prove to be an egalitarian vehicle for the kind of vital intensity that seemingly favors the likes, ideologically, of fascism. As far as I can tell.

But perhaps egalitarian in the sense of equality across demographics, at the cost of equality across individuals. Not quite clear to me yet, how those two are reconcilable.

As an ideology it can also be compatible with sustainability as an end-in-itself, rather than just sustainability as a means of preserving a limited resource.

And as a grand framework, it promises to be empirically compatible with all of science, exegetically compatible with most religions, and informed by the whole history of philosophy. At least, I don't quite see how it wouldn't be compatible as such. So in that sense, it would provide a sense of the cosmos-being-accounted-for that has been lacking since the impact of the "school of suspicion" discourse sedimented into he common/mass psychology (psychopathology, atheism).

 

[constant escape]

is this what you think the ultimate task of humanity is, to become more at one with the cosmos? if so, why?

I'll rephrase the original question to leave out the word "desire"

why should greater oneness with the cosmos be pursued, other than as an end in itself?

why is it better (that's what was meant by more desirable) than not pursuing greater oneness with the cosmos?

I believe such pursuits are the universal, top-of-the-Maslow-pyramid human concerns, the kind of pursuits that more mundane, material problems fetter or entirely preclude progress in.

 

[constant escape]

is this what you think the ultimate task of humanity is, to become more at one with the cosmos? if so, why?

Becoming one with the cosmos would end existence as we know it, in a paradoxically positive way, and would quite likely be felt as a robust and holistic returning to some womb.

I think it would be the end of problems, period.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

there must be something about it that can align with, or appeal to, whatever people find valuable

basically, yes. people don't do things they don't want to do unless they're somehow compelled to do them.

so if you're talking about a freely chosen course of action it has to somehow benefit people - that is, align with what they find valuable

 

[constant escape]

why should greater oneness with the cosmos be pursued, other than as an end in itself?

why is it better (that's what was meant by more desirable) than not pursuing greater oneness with the cosmos?

Increasing cosmic alignment, or microcosmic manifestation, would let us see eye to eye with one another in ways that could eradicate much if not all of our unproductive and cacophonous disagreements. There may perhaps remain some disagreement, but we would all be enlightened enough to engage in a properly dialectical way.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I believe such pursuits are the universal, top-of-the-Maslow-pyramid human concerns, the kind of pursuits that more mundane, material problems fetter or entirely preclude progress in

so ultimately it's a matter of belief, at some point requiring a leap of faith?

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Becoming one with the cosmos would end existence as we know it

what about everyone who doesn't want to end existence as we know it?

would you compel them to cosmic oneness for their own good?

 

[constant escape]

I think the point about the Maslow pyramid is key. As of now, the apparent value of such an ideology would primarily and disproportionately appeal to those who find themselves materially accounted for and thus at the top category of the pyramid.

But it doesn't feel radically incompatible, as a framework, with the more materially grounded problems. Perhaps the primary benefit of a populous under this ideology would be optimized dialectics, bolstered empathy, and clearer intuition.

 

[constant escape]

what about everyone who doesn't want to end existence as we know it?

would you compel them to cosmic oneness for their own good?

It would either be "heat death"/entropy (?), or the kind of dematerialization I'm talking about. Either way, it ends, provided the universe is indeed a closed system.

It would be something similar to the spirit untethered to the body, to materiality, to the "heavy matter" mentioned upthread by @luka.

 

[constant escape]

so ultimately it's a matter of belief, at some point requiring a leap of faith?

It appears that way, because I don't believe science accounts for everything there is to be accounted for. And anything operating outside the framework/system of science would entail belief, no?

 

[constant escape]

And you can't systematically operate outside the system without going schizo, so one of the tasks would be managing to systematize something as volatile as the schizo, the split-thesis, the heterogenous system.