h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Where does transcendence come into this, except in the transcendence of the Agnostic Primist's goals for a wider good?
And has it occured to you that doing the opposite of (by fighting) the Conspiracy is still obeying the dictates of the Conspiracy, albeit in a more indirect manner?

"Where does transcendence come into this, except in the transcendence of the Agnostic Primist's goals for a wider good?"

If you manage to fully escape the Conspiracy, you have transcended it. Not that I am sure that this is even possible, but it is my goal.

"And has it occured to you that doing the opposite of (by fighting) the Conspiracy is still obeying the dictates of the Conspiracy, albeit in a more indirect manner?"

No that hasn't occured to me, but Agnost's Primist keeps reminding me of it. He thinks that I may be overreacting in thinking that by dedicating my life to trying to constantly conreadict the Conspiracy, I may actually be falling into its trap. On the other hand, R. Daneel thinks I'm commiting a rediculous act of hubris by thinking that, even if I can transcend the Conspiracy, which he doubts, beliveing that I would then be fit to tell other people what to do to fight the Conspiracy. He thinks that I'm crazy and arrogant.

Purhaps you and AP ar right about that--my only defence is that Agnostic Primist's goal of happyness by escaping the Conspiracy is impossible because happyness is an illusion. Since happyness is an illusion, one must have some purpose other than makeing yourself and others happy to justify your existance. Fighting against the conspiracy is the only way to do that. R. Daneel and Agnotic Primist are being rediculously optimistic if they believe that happyness can be real; it is an llusion. Thus, if one wishes to justify their existance, they must pick some other goal. (That is the point of the poem I posted on the "What do you think this means?" thread that you will find I am subscribed to.) Fighting the Conspiracy is a good goal, and I might as well do it, even if it seems to be a form of obeying it, unless you can sugjest a better goal.

Purhaps the Conspiracy really is omnipotent and we have not choice but to obey it; if so existance is truely futile. But, if existance is futile, then all causes are lost and I should be proud of my willingness to take up a lost cause instead of falling into dispair (and that's what Agnostic Primist would probably do if he understood the reality of life as I do).

If the Conspiracy IS omnipotent, then there is no consiracy, grok?
It is not arrogance to assume that one can overcome adversity; it IS arrogance not to even try.
Yes, happiness is an illusion: but picture it as a back-lit screen, which seems solid only from the front.
Why does omnipotence make things futile? Many thngs are omnipotent; existence, life, spacial anomalys, stupidity - but not all of them make me feel despairing.
Have you given thought to the possibility that to completely escape the Conspiracy would be to transcend this mental realm, to become illuminated?
However, RD has a point about your fitness to spread the word - it sounds like it would either fail or turn into the kind of movement that tries to immanentise the Eschaton.


(grok means dig, get it, understand)

"If the Conspiracy IS omnipotent, then there is no consiracy, grok?"

Not quite.

"It is not arrogance to assume that one can overcome adversity; it IS arrogance not to even try."

I agree.

"Yes, happiness is an illusion: but picture it as a back-lit screen, which seems solid only from the front."

Happiness is transitory and more like a mirage. It may appear to exist when viewed from a distance, but you can never really reach it.

"Why does omnipotence make things futile? Many thngs are omnipotent; existence, life, spacial anomalys, stupidity - but not all of them make me feel despairing."

If the Conspiracy is omnipotent, then we have no choice but to follow its rules. If so, any attempt at independant thought or action is futile.

"Have you given thought to the possibility that to completely escape the Conspiracy would be to transcend this mental realm, to become illuminated?"

Yes, but every time I even try to think about such subjects, R. Daneel starts accusing me of "fuzzy thinking", not that it is clear to me what he means.

Mal, I'm sorry for interrupting your conversation with TP, but some of the things he has said necesitate my input.

First of all, I think it is arrogance and stupidity for TP to think that he can escape something that is hardwired into his body (by his own admission). Certainly he can fight it, but totally defeating it is impossible for him or any other single individual to do on thier own.

Second of all, I'm not saying tht I belive that happyness is real, I am merely saying that I'm not convinced that attempting to attain it is as empty and pointless as TP belives.

Finally, and this is my main complaint, Transcendent Primist had been guilty of spiritualism and coming pretty close to forming his own religion. I feel that he is trying to use Primism to hide from reality and he is turning it into a religion because he cannot face the Universe on his own.

I refuse to allow this. I accept that Primism has some value as a philosophical system, but Transcendental Primist is trying to make it into a religion, just as Conspiratorial Primist did. I will not allow this. I hereby issue the following ultimatum to Agnostic Primist and Transcendental Primist:

You will follow the following instructions within 10 kiloseconds.
1.) Transcendental Primist is to be removed from the Ruling Quadumvirate and will not be given any future high position in the control of this body without my permission.
2.) Agnostic Primist will renounce the religious interpretations of Primism and the fuzzy, illogical thinking that Transcendental Primist has personified.
3.) You will allow me to select a replacement for Transcendental Primist on the council with the advise of Inverted Solipsist, but you two will not interfere with my choice.

Failure to comply with these demands will force me to disolve this Ruling Quadumvirate. I will bring such forces agaisnt you as you cannot imagine and I will ensure that when a new concensus forms, I WILL BE UNDISPUTED HINDMOST!

Sorry for interupting your conversation, Fnord, but I cannot allow the treason that the two Primists have been committing to continue.

TP
If something is truly omnipotent, then it is not something recognisably separate from the universe or our own conscious. Therefore, anything recognisable is not omnipotent.
Temporary happiness can be reached; if I set myself the goal of grabbing the peanut butter which I am fond of, and I succeed, then I am temporarily happy. But yes, permanent happiness is unreachable.
If the conspiracy is omnipotent, then you ARE its rules.
RS
In a few sentences, what are the characteristics of *your* hive personality? And what gives it the right to claim dominance?
I see that TP's ideas for a social movement against the Conspiracy can be turned into a religion, but what is any school of philosophy but religion? The difference is, of course, matters of skepticism. The follower of a religion has no skepticism about the religion's main precepts. As long as TP keeps it into perspective that TPism is just a theory, he should be okay.
RS+TP
Fuzzy thinking is a desirable thing, often. Millions of pounds being spent on fuzzy logic computers can't be wrong. Fuzzy thinking allows us to think outside our empirical and rational experiences to reach new theories that can be tested at a later date.
Illumination, even partial, for mankind, would be desirabe, but not to the extent that we should impersonalise and turn it into a religion. For me individually, ultimate illumination would be the ultimate suspension of belief, the realisation that all thoughts should be doubted.

"TP
If something is truly omnipotent, then it is not something recognisably separate from the universe or our own conscious. Therefore, anything recognisable is not omnipotent.
Temporary happiness can be reached; if I set myself the goal of grabbing the peanut butter which I am fond of, and I succeed, then I am temporarily happy. But yes, permanent happiness is unreachable.
If the conspiracy is omnipotent, then you ARE its rules."

TP says that he sees your point. I'm posting this for him just to be nice to him.

In a few sentences, what are the characteristics of *your* hive personality? And what gives it the right to claim dominance?

I am a rationalist-atheist in the sence that I belive that anytihng unsupported by evidence doesn't exist. I think that Primism has some good ideas regarding the conspiracy, but that a lot of it is just philosophy. I think that thinking about philosophy is good mental exercise, but that taking it too seriously is dangerous.

I claim dominance because I was here bofore Agnostic Primist, or any other major personality formed. I am the origional, I ought to have veto power over the others.

"I see that TP's ideas for a social movement against the Conspiracy can be turned into a religion, but what is any school of philosophy but religion? The difference is, of course, matters of skepticism. The follower of a religion has no skepticism about the religion's main precepts. As long as TP keeps it into perspective that TPism is just a theory, he should be okay."

I agree. However, I personally don't think that TP realizes it is just a theory. I think he is actively turning it into a religion. If he won't stop doing this, then I don't think he can be trusted in a powerful role in this body.

"Fuzzy thinking is a desirable thing, often. Millions of pounds being spent on fuzzy logic computers can't be wrong. Fuzzy thinking allows us to think outside our empirical and rational experiences to reach new theories that can be tested at a later date."

True, but it can be dangerous if it becomes the basis of your worldview, as I think it has for TP.

"Illumination, even partial, for mankind, would be desirabe, but not to the extent that we should impersonalise and turn it into a religion. For me individually, ultimate illumination would be the ultimate suspension of belief, the realisation that all thoughts should be doubted."

Interesting thought...


Overall, I don't mind TP's existance but I think he has fallen into the trap of turning a philosophy into a religion. I cannot allow such a personality to be on the ruling council of this body. As the eldest, I claim the right to protect this body-council from such influences.

I should note, in case it wasn't clear, that TP's recent behavior and slide into religious thought was not the main thing that caused me to issue the ultimatum. Rather, it was Agnostic Primist's constant defence of everything TP does. I fear that AP is merely supporting him because he is a fellow Primist and is wrong to do so. I don't mind TP's existance as a part of this body's hive-mind (I even let a Fundamentalist Christian, The Last Imperial, float around in here for insight and entertainment.). However, I don't want someone who behaves the way TP has been, turning his philosophy into a religion, helping to run the show.

"I am a rationalist-atheist in the sence that I belive that anytihng unsupported by evidence doesn't exist."
That's more like agnoticism, in that agnosticism says that there isn't enough evidence to say that God doesn't exist, either, so we shouldn't judge.
"ought" is a word which "shouldn't" be used. In an ideal world of your own choosing, then ought could be used, but oughts aren't thoughts and aren't justification.
Set worldviews are stupid, I think. You must always acknowledge the possibility of change, or that you are wrong, or all intelligent thought ceases and you just become a manifestation of your belief system.
Perhaps you are right about TP; I'm in no position to judge. Has he accepted?

"That's more like agnoticism, in that agnosticism says that there isn't enough evidence to say that God doesn't exist, either, so we shouldn't judge."

I just don't like the word agnostic. Frankly, I think that a better word is needed to describe my views than agnostic or atheist.

""ought" is a word which "shouldn't" be used. In an ideal world of your own choosing, then ought could be used, but oughts aren't thoughts and aren't justification."

You're probably right.

"Set worldviews are stupid, I think. You must always acknowledge the possibility of change, or that you are wrong, or all intelligent thought ceases and you just become a manifestation of your belief system."

I agree, I think.

"Perhaps you are right about TP; I'm in no position to judge. Has he accepted?"

TP and AP have not yet accepted my requitrements (TP leave the governing council and Inverted Solisist and I get to pick a replacement). However, I think they're folding. With Eto Demerzel's and Inverted Solipsist's help, I have been able to keep them from contacting the outside world and controling this body for a week. Agnostic Primist will eventually realize that I can keep this up indefinitely and agree to my terms. As for TP, he may not agree so easily, but it doesn't matter, without AP's support he can't relly do anything but sit and sulk. He doesn't have enough power within the hive-body to take over on his own.

As a member of the Ruling Triumvirate, I wanted to inform you that AP and TP have agreed to ther ultimatum and TP has left the Ruling Triumvirate.

Sorry. Would've replied yesterday, but I couldn't think of anything to say...
Thanks for telling me. AP can always quote TP's views if he likes them enough, can't he? Is TP completely dead now, then?

I'm still here.

This just means that I need to get permission from someone on the Ruling Triumvirate to post here, or do anything else. I'm still alive and typing, though.

Have you anything to say about what RDO and I were saying? Making a religion out of a science and being fundamentalist?

I am not a fundamentalist.

MAybe I am starting to take Primism a bit more seriously than RDO wold like, but I don't care. I think I've found a path to a natural universal truth; I'm going to follow it. Maybe it is a religion, but I don't care.

RDO may have a point, but I think he's overreacting. He ought to be more willing to accept different minds in this body.

BTW, did you notice that JtP's back? I think I'l just watch him--I have no real interest in getting in theological arguements with a fundamentalist, thats why I've stopped argueing with R. Daneel--I think he's become a fundamentalist atheist, although he denies it.

All hail the Primes!

I'm arguing with JtP, but in a far tamer, nicer way than ever before. I think he needs professional help. Apparently you can find him proselytising and fanaticising up on the beach in Weston-Super-Mare.
I suspect that I only agree about the Primes because of my paranoid and anarcho-anti-authoritarian tendencies. But it is a severe error in judgement to mistake an idea for a truth.
Anyway (and this is clearly an idea, not a truth), yes, I feel it is a more or less universal truth that something has gone wrong, and it must obviously be the fault of life, so either independent entities are doing us wrong or a part of ourselves is meaning us wrong.
(The following chart is just to order my own thoughts on the probabilities)
1..............|..............2
Independent....|...Homeophrenic(self-included)
Consciously....|..Unconsciously
Powerful.......|...Not Powerful
Human..........|......Not Human
Recognised.....|..Nonrecognised
Self-sufficient|......Dependent
Self-justifying|Self-recognising

"I'm arguing with JtP, but in a far tamer, nicer way than ever before. I think he needs professional help."

I've decided to play Malthowich and become Justin's "friend". I agree that he appears to have some sort of psychological problem, but I'm not convinced that he really needs help. After all, he seems happy as he is, happier than those of us who are grounded in reality can ever be. If delusions make him happy, why should we cure them? In my opinion he's not likely to become violent (although maybe a psychiatrist would think otherwise).

"Apparently you can find him proselytising and fanaticising up on the beach in Weston-Super-Mare."

I suppose that is somewhere in the UK, but I can't guess where.

"I suspect that I only agree about the Primes because of my paranoid and anarcho-anti-authoritarian tendencies."

In that case, you might be interested in some of the political ideas tht R. Daneel Olivaw and Agnostic Primist have been cooking up. Those ideas seem to have "anarcho-anti-authoritarian tendencies" as a root.

"But it is a severe error in judgement to mistake an idea for a truth."

I agree. However, TP seems hapy and as long as he's not in charge, I don't feel like debating it with him. RDO and AP will keep things in order no matter what he says.

"Anyway (and this is clearly an idea, not a truth), yes, I feel it is a more or less universal truth that something has gone wrong, and it must obviously be the fault of life, so either independent entities are doing us wrong or a part of ourselves is meaning us wrong."

I agree, although I'm not sure I take all of AP and RDO's ideas on the subject seriously. I think our problem is that we're a bunch of chimps outside of our environment. We haven't had a chance to adapt to the world we've built.

He isn't happy, though, poor guy. He attacks everyone and anyone to avoid attacking himself. He's angry.
Oh, yes, sorry, I keep forgetting that not everyone on Hootoo is in the UK. But rest assured, what with the size of it, it's a little scary to know that he's just a train journey away.
Okay, I'd like to speak with them about them sometime then.
I think one of our problems is that we're just a bunch of chimps outside our enviroments, and we don't admit that to ourselves, so a lot of our other problems aren't understood, eg territory wars, discrimination, violence.

"He isn't happy, though, poor guy. He attacks everyone and anyone to avoid attacking himself. He's angry."

I'll get back to you later on that; I don't think I agree with the analysis fully but I need to think about it.

"He isn't happy, though, poor guy. He attacks everyone and anyone to avoid attacking himself. He's angry."

"Oh, yes, sorry, I keep forgetting that not everyone on Hootoo is in the UK. But rest assured, what with the size of it, it's a little scary to know that he's just a train journey away."

It's OK I have to admit that having a small ocean keeing him away from me makes me feel a bit safer. Of course, if I ever met him in person, I'd try to make him think I agreed ith all his crazy views. 12 years in what has got to be one of the worst government run (what we call public, but I think that means something else in the UK) school systems in the eastern US (outside of big cities) has forced me to learn to avoid arguements in person whenever possible. Agree with everyone in person--if they get angry and punch you, you're the one who'll get in trouble.

"Okay, I'd like to speak with them about them sometime then."

I'll get them to post it eventually, however large quantities of homework make that unlikely in the near future. I'll let you know when I post it.

In the mean time (my apologize if this is offensive, it might be regaurded as impolite to sugest this to someone in the UK), you might consider reaging a bok about Thomas Jefferson. My suggestion would be _American Sphinx_, by ******. Jefferson had a lot of good political ideas, although they are quite outdated. He expressed a general philosophy that authority could not be trusted and that the best society was one where the government and your neighbors had the least power over you. His ideas were too radical for his time--he died convinced that everyone in the US had abandoned his dream when in reality noone had really shared it. Still, some of them could be adapted to today's society and some of them form the basis for RDO's and AP's political thesis.

On the other hand, Jefferson would spin in his grave if he knew some of the things that RDO proposes.

The author of _American Sphinx_ is Joseph J. Ellis.

AS for ED's last comment, I suppose he's talking about my New Albany Plan.