LibertineNY
Ex-Bluelighter
Was bored one night and decided to write this. Need some input, please
The other day I was sitting at a friends house listening to two people talking about goodness and human evil. The first was simplifying the matter to the point where I had no choice but to object. He was asking if human negativity could exist without kindness. His mistake was treating the issue with the basis of negativity in relationship to positivity being like light is to a shadow where a shadow is the mere absence of light. Hypothetically speaking, there is no need for shadows, if there was nothing blocking the way of the light, the light can continue to shine unobstructed. Unfortunately, in the case of positivity and negativity, both are completely dependent on each other and constantly have to be balanced in order for the human race to survive. It is easy to see the consequences of a world with pure negativity. Everyone would be in constant battle with one another and eventually, everyone would kill off everyone else. For practical purposes, humans can not be driven by sole negativity because a. it decreases our chances of survival and b. we are naturally social being not apt to survive on our own so we strive to build positive relations between one another for the sake of being part of a clan that makes life easier for us. But what is a world full of pure positivity? While many might not think of it, it would also be an unsustainable world. Humans are driven by competition, as much as we try to moralize our basic drives and talk of hypothetical utopian societies, they can not exist. The world simply doesn't have enough resources for everyone to survive and even if it did, inequalities would still exist (one person would inevitably get a better patch of land than their neighbor or someone would be more attractive than the other) causing competition to ensue. Humans are a unique animal, both a lone hunter and a pack creature simultaneously. We need the pack to survive but we are trying to overthrow the pack leader at the same time and if not overthrow, to come as close in ranking as possible. From personal experience, I find that the hardest emotion to achieve is contentedness. Once a person reaches a goal, satisfaction is quickly replaced by a "whats next" mentality always trying to outdo ourselves. It's very rare to find a person who doesn't have a burning need to move forward. The only people who I met like this are opiate addicts who, upon discovering they can suppress their lack of content with a drug and become perfectly fine sitting blissfully while their peers surpass them in all aspects that society deems important (work, family, ect.) Society doesn't encourage being content either. Those who are happy with their current standing in life are seen as "unmotivated" and "lazy". Most people do not understand their lack of competitive drive and shun them. Why does society shun most drug addicts? Not because they are inherently bad people, after all the mere terminolical term "drug" was made up entirely by peolple. The substances that fall under that classification constantly change and what's considered perfectly fine today may get you several years in prison for possessing tomorrow. Furthermore, many of the stereotypes associated with drug addicts (they're liars, thieves, ect) stem not from the effect of the drug but from the societal repercussions users face. They are forced to lie, steal, cheat in order to achieve the minimum standard for survival. They aren't violent out of spite, a study I read with regards to heroin addicts made a point to say that they are generally non-violent, the only laws they usually break are the ones necessary to obtain their fix. They don't start fights or draw too much attention to themselves because it is counter-intuitive, why take steps beyond those necessary to achieve chemical contentedness? So why do we shun people who achieve this state of mind? Because it screws up the whole process of natural competition. How do you dominate a person who you don't have anything to persuade them with? How do you make them work for you when they don't need anything more to make them happy? The whole industry of marketing works on the principal of making people believe that an unnecessary product is their key to happiness, this coupled with the fact that humans are rarely content for long creates lifelong customers for unnecessary crap making it viewed as essential. The difference is how people go about obtaining these items and which items they place value on. People in the lower class will generally be more susceptible to marketing strategies, seeing minor objects like the newest phone that will be worthless in a year or the latest sneakers as being their goal. They attain it through any means necessary and then wait to be told what the newest path to temporary happiness is, feeding the pockets of the upper class and confining themselves to societies bottom because there's no point in saving up money or trying to do well in school when you can scrap up enough working for "the man" to get what you want in that moment and then start the cycle again. These people are happy because they believe they are progressing and the upper class is happy because they get their followers. These people are under the impression that they are purchasing affluence People in the middle class have a somewhat transparent and disillusioned view of these supposed " status symbols" they make their goal in life to reach the upper class through patience, labor and skill. These people generally are more willing to make sacrifices for a chance to get into the exclusive club at the top. Neither of them have much of a chance in breaking into the upper-crust, however. The so called 99% percent will stay in the 99% percent because the upper class gets their satisfaction not from the material items they have as a result of that wealth but from the power they get over other people. Humans are parasitic in a way. We all live off the ambition and drives of others, forever figuring out ways to use others wants for our own self gain.We can not function in a Utopian altruistic society of nothing but goodness. Pleasure is relative, our happiness is only measured by our level of superiority to others.
We can not solve all the worlds problems or even all our own problems because others will inevitably pop up. We are all walking on the treadmill of life, never really getting anywhere. And whats to be done with this information? This grave realization must be embraced somehow, or dissatisfaction will perpetually gnaw away at ones life. We must begin to analyze our desires in terms of why we want them and prioritize accordingly. We must learn to understand which of our "failures" are significant and which are not failures at all but merely a lack of excess.
The negatives in our life are an essential contrast to the positives. We can not appreciate what we have without being reminded of that which we do not have. We must take our time in achieving our goals for it is the only way to offset the inevitable dissatisfaction we will face once our goals are attained. Lastly, we must view our suffering as a measure of our strength rather than a reminder of our weaknesses. The more we suffer, the more self sufficient we are because the less we have, the more we can live without.
The other day I was sitting at a friends house listening to two people talking about goodness and human evil. The first was simplifying the matter to the point where I had no choice but to object. He was asking if human negativity could exist without kindness. His mistake was treating the issue with the basis of negativity in relationship to positivity being like light is to a shadow where a shadow is the mere absence of light. Hypothetically speaking, there is no need for shadows, if there was nothing blocking the way of the light, the light can continue to shine unobstructed. Unfortunately, in the case of positivity and negativity, both are completely dependent on each other and constantly have to be balanced in order for the human race to survive. It is easy to see the consequences of a world with pure negativity. Everyone would be in constant battle with one another and eventually, everyone would kill off everyone else. For practical purposes, humans can not be driven by sole negativity because a. it decreases our chances of survival and b. we are naturally social being not apt to survive on our own so we strive to build positive relations between one another for the sake of being part of a clan that makes life easier for us. But what is a world full of pure positivity? While many might not think of it, it would also be an unsustainable world. Humans are driven by competition, as much as we try to moralize our basic drives and talk of hypothetical utopian societies, they can not exist. The world simply doesn't have enough resources for everyone to survive and even if it did, inequalities would still exist (one person would inevitably get a better patch of land than their neighbor or someone would be more attractive than the other) causing competition to ensue. Humans are a unique animal, both a lone hunter and a pack creature simultaneously. We need the pack to survive but we are trying to overthrow the pack leader at the same time and if not overthrow, to come as close in ranking as possible. From personal experience, I find that the hardest emotion to achieve is contentedness. Once a person reaches a goal, satisfaction is quickly replaced by a "whats next" mentality always trying to outdo ourselves. It's very rare to find a person who doesn't have a burning need to move forward. The only people who I met like this are opiate addicts who, upon discovering they can suppress their lack of content with a drug and become perfectly fine sitting blissfully while their peers surpass them in all aspects that society deems important (work, family, ect.) Society doesn't encourage being content either. Those who are happy with their current standing in life are seen as "unmotivated" and "lazy". Most people do not understand their lack of competitive drive and shun them. Why does society shun most drug addicts? Not because they are inherently bad people, after all the mere terminolical term "drug" was made up entirely by peolple. The substances that fall under that classification constantly change and what's considered perfectly fine today may get you several years in prison for possessing tomorrow. Furthermore, many of the stereotypes associated with drug addicts (they're liars, thieves, ect) stem not from the effect of the drug but from the societal repercussions users face. They are forced to lie, steal, cheat in order to achieve the minimum standard for survival. They aren't violent out of spite, a study I read with regards to heroin addicts made a point to say that they are generally non-violent, the only laws they usually break are the ones necessary to obtain their fix. They don't start fights or draw too much attention to themselves because it is counter-intuitive, why take steps beyond those necessary to achieve chemical contentedness? So why do we shun people who achieve this state of mind? Because it screws up the whole process of natural competition. How do you dominate a person who you don't have anything to persuade them with? How do you make them work for you when they don't need anything more to make them happy? The whole industry of marketing works on the principal of making people believe that an unnecessary product is their key to happiness, this coupled with the fact that humans are rarely content for long creates lifelong customers for unnecessary crap making it viewed as essential. The difference is how people go about obtaining these items and which items they place value on. People in the lower class will generally be more susceptible to marketing strategies, seeing minor objects like the newest phone that will be worthless in a year or the latest sneakers as being their goal. They attain it through any means necessary and then wait to be told what the newest path to temporary happiness is, feeding the pockets of the upper class and confining themselves to societies bottom because there's no point in saving up money or trying to do well in school when you can scrap up enough working for "the man" to get what you want in that moment and then start the cycle again. These people are happy because they believe they are progressing and the upper class is happy because they get their followers. These people are under the impression that they are purchasing affluence People in the middle class have a somewhat transparent and disillusioned view of these supposed " status symbols" they make their goal in life to reach the upper class through patience, labor and skill. These people generally are more willing to make sacrifices for a chance to get into the exclusive club at the top. Neither of them have much of a chance in breaking into the upper-crust, however. The so called 99% percent will stay in the 99% percent because the upper class gets their satisfaction not from the material items they have as a result of that wealth but from the power they get over other people. Humans are parasitic in a way. We all live off the ambition and drives of others, forever figuring out ways to use others wants for our own self gain.We can not function in a Utopian altruistic society of nothing but goodness. Pleasure is relative, our happiness is only measured by our level of superiority to others.
We can not solve all the worlds problems or even all our own problems because others will inevitably pop up. We are all walking on the treadmill of life, never really getting anywhere. And whats to be done with this information? This grave realization must be embraced somehow, or dissatisfaction will perpetually gnaw away at ones life. We must begin to analyze our desires in terms of why we want them and prioritize accordingly. We must learn to understand which of our "failures" are significant and which are not failures at all but merely a lack of excess.
The negatives in our life are an essential contrast to the positives. We can not appreciate what we have without being reminded of that which we do not have. We must take our time in achieving our goals for it is the only way to offset the inevitable dissatisfaction we will face once our goals are attained. Lastly, we must view our suffering as a measure of our strength rather than a reminder of our weaknesses. The more we suffer, the more self sufficient we are because the less we have, the more we can live without.
