Hypothetical Science Fiction Scenario

[Ryan Rudolph]

It is far in the future, small communities of Buddha’s have emerged, and they have isolated themselves from the masses using advanced technology that no longer makes them dependent on the bigger collective. However, in contrast irrational fundamentalist religious groups have also united and are violently trying to exterminate extreme groups of non-believers like Buddha’s in order to create their own twisted utopia. Now, suppose you are a member of this enlightened community, and the community must decide how to respond to an attack from one of these pursuing groups. The conditions are as follows: you have already evaded their attacks many times, but the community is quite weary of running. And you have the technology to eradicate them before they attack as the community’s robotic surveillance technology has provided you with their exact coordinates.

What do you do? Retreat again to have them continue hunting you down? Or do you eradicate them while you have the chance?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

What kind of buddhas would run until they were weary to begin with? Eradicate them.

Speaking of running - why did you drop your last name? It's interesting that you would post this question right after removing that, and a little while after making your location less exact.
.

[Cory Duchesne]

It is far in the future, small communities of Buddha’s have emerged, and they have isolated themselves from the masses using advanced technology that no longer makes them dependent on the bigger collective. However, in contrast irrational fundamentalist religious groups have also united and are violently trying to exterminate extreme groups of non-believers like Buddha’s in order to create their own twisted utopia.

I don't think it would be wise for all the buddha to gather in one concentrated place. If their technology was sci-fi advanced, then they would deem it wiser to be spread out as far as possible and communicate on message boards. Or, whatever sci-fci extension of message boards you can think of, some sort of audio/visual tools for a more sophisticated VR maybe.

Speaking of running - why did you drop your last name? It's interesting that you would post this question right after removing that, and a little while after making your location less exact.

My guess is that it has something to do with the way I posted a bit of personal information about Ryan and myself on a Ryan's Avatar thread - - made things a bit too realistic! ;)

But maybe that's not the reason. I'm sure it must have contributed in some way, because the personal post sure as hell caused me alot of pain and fear, at least for a few hours. I assumed it disturbed Ryan a bit as well, and his name change confirms my suspicions. It was only yesterday that I was having the same fantasies of emailing Solway and getting him to take off my last name. So for that reason, it's amusing to see that Ryan was having the same thoughts as me, probably around the same time. Not only amusing, but I sympathize with the him as well.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Yeah, I kind of wondered if his girlfriend had given permission to have a picture of the two of them having sex sent off to any of his friends...

edit to add - perhaps the posting of his length and girth on the world wide web also had him chanting "non-attachment" and "none of this is real" as well.
.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory wrote:

My guess is that it has something to do with the way I posted a bit of personal information about Ryan and myself on a Ryan's Avatar thread - - made things a bit too realistic! ;)

Have you noticed that you and I are the only ones that will ‘gossipy’ reveal delusional aspects of our past? I don’t like the idea of all this past personal information being under my name, it could cause problems in the future if the wrong person decides to do a search. I think this is an geniune concern as long as I am dependent on an irrational world for my survival.

Look at Elizabeth’s past response, she is willing to judge someone’s character based on a fantasy that occurred almost two years ago, that is the danger of posting past delusions, most humans are too immature to read past gossip, and not judge harshly.

I started thinking, if Elizabeth’s judgments are like that, most other people’s are as well.

Not to mention, there is something rather womanly about gleefully confessing past delusional deeds about oneself and others. Leave the gossip to the women, I say. Speak impersonally.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Ryan, I did not judge you on your past fantasies, at least not in the way you seem to think I did. Just as I judged that since you were speaking as if you had wisdom and indicated that attractive people were actually just parroting meant that you thought that you were unattractive, I took the new information to mean that instead you thought you were attractive, and altered my interpretation of what you think. (for the reader, Ryan did clarify that he just meant attractive people have more challenges regarding giving up attachment to looks).

Most guys have had fantasies about being a porn star. I'd probably guess that almost all guys have had that fantasy. Gads, I don't even judge people for what they used to do, much less what they used to fantasize about. I judge the now, and I judge it on where the person is in the now. I would not judge a porn star harshly since that was where they were caused to be. I know people who either are or were nude dancers, and I don't judge them for that. Your fantasy is no big deal.

As for communities (note plural) of buddhas, I didn't see anything wrong with that part, especially since it was far in the future, and possible that there would be a lot more buddhas around.
.

edit to remove something in response to something Ryan removed, and to add the following suggestion:

How about if we remove all the material that is embarrassing to Ryan, including the original paragraph and all references to it? We can rephrase stuff so the threads still flow smoothly, and since all of that is about past poor judgment that is not likely to recur, there is no need for it to be here for posterity. It's your call Ryan -
.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory wrote:

My guess is that it has something to do with the way I posted a bit of personal information about Ryan and myself on a Ryan's Avatar thread - - made things a bit too realistic! ;)

Have you noticed that you and I are the only ones that will ‘gossipy’ reveal delusional aspects of our past?

I wonder what that means.

I don’t like the idea of all this past personal information being under my name, it could cause problems in the future if the wrong person decides to do a search.

Like what?

I think this is an honest concern as long as I am dependent on an irrational world for my survival.

What do you fear people might do to you?

Look at Elizabeth’s past response, she is willing to judge someone’s character based on a fantasy that occurred almost two years ago, that is the danger of posting past delusions, most humans are too immature to read past gossip, and not judge harshly.

And the consequences will be what? That they won't admire you? Think bad of you?

I started thinking, if Elizabeth’s judgments are like that, most other people’s are as well. Not to mention, there is something rather womanly about gleefully confessing past delusional deeds about oneself and others. Leave the gossip to the women, I say. Speak impersonally.

It was only a few threads ago, on the DMT thread, that you were speaking personally. My response was: "I think this is the lowest you and I ever sunk in terms of quality of expression on genius forum. "

And your reply:

lol, yeah, well at least we’ve not protecting anything, many posters are incredibly self-protective on here, always thinking of image, always anxious of how they will be perceived, I have no emotional concern in that.

So that being considered, I don't regret what I did. I said what I said with the above comment in mind, which I found dishonest the first time I read it. So I think this was a good lesson.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Elizabeth wrote:

How about if we remove all the material that is embarrassing to Ryan, including the original paragraph and all references to it? We can rephrase stuff so the threads still flow smoothly, and since all of that is about past poor judgment that is not likely to recur, there is no need for it to be here for posterity. It's your call Ryan –

LOL, no, no it’s not about embarrassment, my concerns are related to causing suffering to irrational people in my life or being refused a job or a bank loan because someone does a background google search under my name and finds a myriad of psychological confessions that could cause trouble to the inexperienced observer.

Most of humanity lacks the proper judgement to know exactly what is going on at a forum like this one.

Cory wrote:

So that being considered, I don't regret what I did. I said what I said with the above comment in mind, which I found dishonest the first time I read it. So I think this was a good lesson.

I still think there was something a little girly about the behavior, For instance: if you read back to yesterdays response, you enjoyed confessioning about others a little too much, it seemed excessive, feminine.

There is a good reason why some of the wisest thinkers speak impersonally because it disencourages emotional reactions from the part of the mind that craves juicy gossip.

[Steven Coyle]

Build a self-contained Bubbledome. Fully atmospheric; diamond shield for protection. Any potential invaders get blasted with a reverse osmosis slash fully automated mirror deflection unit -- complete UV ray gun.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

It's obvious that the Buddhas should move to a terraformed moon. This is due to the fact that it's fun to say "moon Buddha". In fact, I think there needs to be a movie called Moon Buddhas vs Space Mothra, and in it the Buddhas will have "karma guns" that cause people to suffer, at once, the full repercussions of their foul deeds. There will also be hoverboards in it, but only because hoverboards are awesome.

On a more serious note, given that one must be of a particular mindset to be considered a "Buddha", shouldn't we be discussing what the Buddhas would do, rather then what they should do? Eradicating folks doesn't strike me as something that Siddhartha would have approved of, regardless of what suffering he might face for holding such views. Then again, I'm not entirely certain, and my views of constitute a Buddha are entirely idealistic, whereas the Buddha is entirely unconcerned with his own wellbeing given that he's necessarily part of the whole (including those who aren't Buddhas). In fact, I don't imagine that a Buddha would look down on an animal or a non-Buddha as a lesser being, rather he/she'd see it as just a different being, yet the same being all at once (whoa man, this is deep!). My Buddha is a peace-loving, altruistic, and egalitarian Buddha; reflecting those views in myself which I most admire, mixed with whatever odd tidbits I happen to know about Buddhism.

Either way, as you can tell, I'm totally dumb when it comes to Eastern philosophy.

[DHodges]

LOL, no, no it’s not about embarrassment, nothing needs to be altered now that my last name has been changed. The worries are causing suffering to irrational people in my life or being refused a job or a bank loan because someone does a background google search under my name and finds a myriad of psychological confessions that could cause trouble to the inexperienced observer.

Well, maybe you know something about doing searches on people that I don't, but I think you are being a bit paranoid.

Say someone wanted to know, "Who is this David Hodges character anyway?" Well, if you did a web search, he could be this one or this one or that one or this other one that's kinda cool.

Who would think to search here? Probably only someone that you told about this particular board, I'd think.

On the other hand, I think it's a good common sense rule to not post to the Internet anything that you would not want to have read back to you in court.

[Shahrazad]

E said,

As for communities (note plural) of buddhas, I didn't see anything wrong with that part, especially since it was far in the future, and possible that there would be a lot more buddhas around.

I wonder how many Buddhas there are in the whole wide world. There could be a few.

.

[Dan Rowden]

What do you do? Retreat again to have them continue hunting you down? Or do you eradicate them while you have the chance?

Accepting the limitations of your scenario, the latter.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Expectantly Ironic wrote:

Eradicating folks doesn't strike me as something that Siddhartha would have approved of, regardless of what suffering he might face for holding such views.

This is what I thought as well as I believed the ideals of the Buddha, but lately I have been questioning my conditioning; my ideals. Many of my opinions are the result of believing others without actually examining my own biology. First of all, one must consider that the human being is programmed with a sense of self-preservation, and I think that this sense of self-preservation has the capacity to kill others, as it is a protective build-in mechanism.

So we need to ask the question, can the faculty of reason or some other agent override this build-in sense of self-preservation that the human is programmed with?

Dan wrote:

Accepting the limitations of your scenario, the latter.

This is what I thought too. Moreover, I think there are certain unique circumstances when a rational individual can kill another human being, and he can do it without any sort of emotional ramifications – much like a psychopath.

[Dan Rowden]

Build a self-contained Bubbledome. Fully atmospheric; diamond shield for protection. Any potential invaders get blasted with a reverse osmosis slash fully automated mirror deflection unit -- complete UV ray gun.

Well, see, that would have been my second choice.....

[Dan Rowden]

So we need to ask the question, can the faculty of reason or some other agent override this build-in sense of self-preservation that the human is programmed with?

Yes, it can, but that doesn't necessarily mean that self-preservation won't remain on the agenda. It's just the difference bewteen the unconscious and the conscious.

Accepting the limitations of your scenario, the latter.

This is what I thought too. Moreover, I think there are certain unique circumstances when a rational individual can kill another human being, and he can do it without any sort of emotional ramifications – much like a psychopath.

I don't know why people have to toss in stuff like "much like a psychopath" when there's no analogy at all. It's very easy to see why a Buddha would kill in certain circumstances. In electing not to he would be killing both himself and his goals. In kill or be killed scenarios a Buddha will kill - unless he has a specific reason not to (e.g. he saw the chance for a teaching that he considered more important than his life).

[Steven Coyle]

Build a self-contained Bubbledome. Fully atmospheric; diamond shield for protection. Any potential invaders get blasted with a reverse osmosis slash fully automated mirror deflection unit -- complete UV ray gun.

Well, see, that would have been my second choice.....

Yeah!

(input *Galaga* sound effects)

[Dan Rowden]

Life is one big arcade game.

[Shahrazad]

Galaga! That game had not been recalled to my attention since the early 80s. Brings back memories of when I lived in Arkansas.

.

[Steven Coyle]

Galaga is rad.

:-)

Imagine a version of Galaga Pinball: 25 cents/25 pinballs, firing at neon glowstick bumpers.

[plotinus]

You may do whatever you like, but do not do it in the streets; you may frighten the horses. ---Lady Astor

[plotinus]

It is far in the future, small communities of Buddha’s have emerged, and they have isolated themselves from the masses using advanced technology that no longer makes them dependent on the bigger collective. However, in contrast irrational fundamentalist religious groups have also united and are violently trying to exterminate extreme groups of non-believers like Buddha’s in order to create their own twisted utopia

I would suggest genetically engineering a common intestinal bug so that it would normally be benign, but in the presence of excessive amounts of adrenalin would secrete toxins which would quickly kill off overly excitable people.

The code of society would soon become: "Now let's not get excited about this matter; let's just relax, sit down and chill out."

This would be a great social advance.

[Nordicvs]

It is far in the future, small communities of Buddha’s have emerged, and they have isolated themselves from the masses using advanced technology that no longer makes them dependent on the bigger collective. However, in contrast irrational fundamentalist religious groups have also united and are violently trying to exterminate extreme groups of non-believers like Buddha’s in order to create their own twisted utopia. Now, suppose you are a member of this enlightened community, and the community must decide how to respond to an attack from one of these pursuing groups. The conditions are as follows: you have already evaded their attacks many times, but the community is quite weary of running. And you have the technology to eradicate them before they attack as the community’s robotic surveillance technology has provided you with their exact coordinates.

What do you do? Retreat again to have them continue hunting you down? Or do you eradicate them while you have the chance?

1. How the hell could "a group of buddhas" survive that far into the future? Where did they get this technology? Donationas? Theft? Did Buddha no.37489850 work in a lab and develop nanites or fusion power---how? Which University gave them the training and skills? How do they delgate tasks, division of labour? Who washed the floors, who takes out the trash? Robots? Where'd they get em, who programs them? What power source---who developed that? Who gave them the staggering amount of resources from which to found these communities and all these magical things? Which one of these sweaty, heaving slobs did the work of feeding everyone? Who was in charge of this Buddhist State? Emperor Blessed One Buddha XI? (Now, that's hilarious...)

2. They're not real buddhas---technology would be another attachment, as would be robots, so they'd have to work, and I can't picture a bunch of fatass bald guys too lazy to work build anything. What about kids? How do the Buddhites of Imperial Buddhamia breed if they don't have sex? (See first question of #1 above.) Where'd they get the manpower to even start all this, let alone upkeep this stuff---the finances to run this bubble butt empire? Why would they even run away---their superior Nirvana mojo should make them invisible against attack, like a spiritual force field, right? Do they have photonic Dharma canons? Oh, this is silly...

3. Phony buddhas can fuck off---I wouldn't want to be a part of such a hypocritcal organization, and I'd probably help the religious loons wipe them out. Call me Benedict Buddha Arnold.

I don't suspect that you thought out this nifty little scenario for more than about ten seconds, kiddo...

Amusing, anyway. Thanks. =)

[Ryan Rudolph]

Nordicvs,

This hypothetical scenario rests on the following possibilities:

1. It is possible that technology will continue to be a significant and vital part of our economy as it is now. And based on current trends, it will continue to become cheaper, more efficient, easier to manufacture to the point where it could become semi-conscious – and capable to self-regeneration, and self-replication – much like the animal cell. Technology imitates the natural world. Our best discoveries are merely copies of what nature does.

2. It is possible that future unforeseeable circumstances could force like-minded individuals like Buddhas to unite for pragmatic purposes. And this could make these groups more recognizable to other groups. This happens to a certain extent now in major cities. People of a certain race, language and religion segregate themselves from society to adapt themselves better in the collective. The Jews have thrived by using this tactic for centuries.

3. If two is possible, then it could also be possible for some sort of conflict to emerge if an ignorant group decides to eliminate competiting ideologies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nordicvs, I still sense a strong hatred within you whenever someone uses the word technology, so I must ask: Were you beaten with the backside of a toaster as a small child?

Seriously though, overall, technology improves ones quality of life, by looking at areas of medicine, nutrition, food storage and preparation, and my own intellectual life in both philosophy and the natural sciences, technology has been paramount in keeping my body and mind healthy, and it is possible to use it without attachment, so I don’t see a problem.

You need to reevaluate your position on technology – A sign that you are mistaken is based on how emotional you become when you write. Emotion is actually the sign of attachment, You are attached to your anti-technology rhetoric. You have believed this argument for so long, and haved derived so much pleasure and security from it, that you are incapable of even considering for a moment that you’re position could be incorrect.

If you are really serious about enlighenment, you're gonna need to reevaluate your position from a place where you are uncertain whether your position is correct or not.

And never assume you're already perfectly enlighened, it makes learning impossible. Delusion is always a possbility.

[Nordicvs]

Nordicvs,

This hypothetical scenario rests on the following possibilities:

1. It is possible that technology will continue to be a significant and vital part of our economy as it is now. And based on current trends, it will continue to become cheaper, more efficient, easier to manufacture to the point where it could become semi-conscious – and capable to self-regeneration, and self-replication – much like the animal cell. Technology imitates the natural world.

I will not be drawn into yet-a-fucking-nother moronic and childish futile debate on your ignorant, perverted, and pop-culture-grade-school view of what evolution is---I've shredded your silly notions already, and still you're as dogmatically irrational as a Creationist. Well, I'm going to give it a shot anyway...

("Technology imitates the natural world"---no: we try to make it so, mostly subconsciously, and as with everything else, we fail miserably.)

You switch meanings whenever you feel like it and however it supports whatever point you think you have in a given subject. Example---

In that "Are Humans Actually Evolving?" thread you state and imply that humans will be much better off once they've "risen" above all forms of petty survival and have mechanized things doing things for them---such as:

Our technological civilization grants intellectuals the leisure necessary to contemplate and inquire into life deeply, technology has made things much easier for individuals who seek out truth, less time needs to be devoted to securing basic necessity.

(It's never occurred to you that every festering "ill" a society faces is directly proportional to how technologically "advanced" it is; needless misery and depression are what we do when we have too much time on our hands. Freedom from survival is a rope we use to strangle the masculine within us and inevitably use to hang ourselves. And I can prove it.)

And:

The future of technolgy is to create self-sustaining, self-repairing systems that serve us with very little actual human labour involved. This is definitely going to be a positive development.

And, yet, in that "Male nudes in art" thread you utterly contradict yourself:

And the IQ difference between whites and blacks probably has something to do with the difficulty in surviving in colder climates. Near the equator, there is an abundance of food year round so black tribes didn’t need to be as clever, calculative, or plan ahead as much, and their languages didn’t need to be as complicated either, so the end result is that both the language center and the Neocortex is significantly stunted compared to the white races.

All of the sudden, great difficulty in life (what you view as such in your coddled, easy existence) is necessary for proper intellectual development and growth...well, buddy, make up your mind, will ya? (And for crissakes: stunted? Your bias and smugness are at least consistent.)

Plus a moreover:

Moreover, one problem with the most recent global interest in human rights is that man has become very charitable with all races, but these kind actions could be working against natural selection. For instance: I suspect Bill Gates And Oprah’s quest to save Africa is quite counterintuitive to natural selection.

Not only do you not understand "natural selection," instead of, as before, with the fretful control and manipulation ad nauseum being a "good thing," here it's not---trying to interfere in some cultures is "counter-intuitive to natural selection"---it is extremely amusing to see you use a word containing "intuition," as well, since your initial Technocratic Utopia had us completely severed from so much foolishness as "intuition"---instinct---and Nature, which you envision as a park somewhere you stroll along.

(Or do you plan on designing an InstinctBot that will have that all covered for humans in your fantasies?) Plus, you seem rather selective in which cultures are deserving of "help"---as you say: "one problem with the most recent global interest in human rights is that man has become very charitable with all races." Which 'races' are worthy and unproblematic to "help?"

Your bias is so rank and your denial so deep that you can't even see it, or really don't want to look---I called you a "Hi-Tech-Apologist" and insinuated that you're like a little kid desperately not wanting his toys taken away, and this has been quite reaffirmed in my mind. Example:

You don’t even realize how the fruits of technology have aided you? you read many books produced by technology, you turn your back on the very thing that has helped you, and you continue to use it, while preaching about its negative affects, doesnt this strike you as odd?

Here I'm supposed to be "grateful" to an abstract collection of matter manipulations in higher complexity ("technology"), and as you say I've "turned my back" on it, as if---very much as if---I have abandoned my FAITH in technology. It is very much a belief system for you as much as it's an addiction and a grand attachment that you feverishly defend, support, justify and rationalize, and press forth like a religious zealot every chance you get.

(By the way, if a man wiping smelly muck from his shoe along a sidewalk says curtly to you, "Hey, careful walking that way, guy," does this also strike you as "odd?" I'm in a perfect position to "preach" about its negative effects because I got into it feeding a video game addiction that developed into a game-design addiction, around nine years ago or so, seduced and enchanted by all the wizard-like dazzling coolness, and then internet addiction that systematically had me spending more and more time online than I was doing constructive things in the real world. I realize fully what a crutch it really is because I've used it and have seen so many others, like you, use it as well. It's all porn.)

And now you've perverted the meaning of Buddhism and redefined buddhas into future hi-tech cyber-buddhas with rayguns, fighting a just cause against oppression by religious types (straight out of comic books, all that's missing is the caped avenger and damsel in distress) who are every bit as close-minded and controlling, arrogant, and manipulative as you yourself are. You've simply replaced "God" with "Tech." And for the ills of human civilization, your solution is a Cyborg Jesus.

(No, wait: these buddhas are the damsels in distress, and in your conception the adoption of supertech into their cults---that's the caped avenger, isn't it? Yes, yes, indeed it is---and the religious collective is the token bad guy. Heh. Cute.)

Our best discoveries are merely copies of what nature does.

Not true. Nature takes chances for life's sake---we do it for own sake. Nature takes dramatic risks in accordance with a law of necessity, and favours no species for survival above all others---we are species jingoists, driven by want and the reduction of risk, and do nothing unless we ourselves benefit.

The act of discovery is revealing what already exists or manipulating it into other forms that serve purposes other than they were intended---Nature does no such thing. It doesn't need a crutch like technology to do what it does; it is pure and organic. It is alive.

Please, name these "best discoveries" of ours.

2. It is possible that future unforeseeable circumstances could force like-minded individuals like Buddhas to unite for pragmatic purposes. And this could make these groups more recognizable to other groups. This happens to a certain extent now in major cities. People of a certain race, language and religion segregate themselves from society to adapt themselves better in the collective. The Jews have thrived by using this tactic for centuries.

And yet technolgoy was employed to create and make possible not only these collectives but also the necessity for segragation through excess, greed, and overpopulation. Why is it that we can never arrange it so that technology doesn't get perverted into nukes and cages and weapons? Why is it that hell is paved with all these good intentions? Why, that no matter how we try to make it better, do we just make it worse? (In case you actually do exercise your mind a bit and think over this, be sure to repent afterwards, to the Grand Poobah Micro Chip, yunno, before she gets angry with you and takes away your Ipod.)

I'm not asking you to think deeply about any differing opinions or examine evidence carefully, or stop twisting the meaning of proper scientific terms, or even look at shit I bring up for more than two seconds, but I'd really like to see some consistency and clarity from you.

Please describe what you conceive Buddhism to be...this may help me understand better how easily you can redefine it to fit these electric wet dreams of yours...

3. If two is possible, then it could also be possible for some sort of conflict to emerge if an ignorant group decides to eliminate competiting ideologies.

Anything's possible. It's also possible for a 800-pound human to hang off a seven-story building by only one strand of hair.

Not likely, though.

Nordicvs, I still sense a strong hatred within you whenever someone uses the word technology, so I must ask: Were you beaten with the backside of a toaster as a small child?

Heh. That's not bad.

What you "sense"---again, hilarious you would use such a word---is your own defensiveness regarding the subject; no, I should say, the objects, which you love so very dearly, and would be utterly lost without.

I've made tens of thousands of posts in many dozens of forums and not one was trashing technology; check out my blog if you want---there's no entry either slamming all technology or saying it all must rot in hell. I seldom discuss it.

As I've already mentioned, I have no troubles with matter manipulation that's for a necessary purpose---for example, I have already begun designing a type of power source that uses simple physical principles and functions entirely on hydro; this will easily power the very few things I plan eventually to keep with me (and it's portable), one of which being a small computer (something I've gotten addicted to for various reasons, not the least of which is the biological requirement, as a social animal, for relationships---addressing a problem that misguided-yet-well-meaning abuse of technology created in the first place).

If you choose to view me as a hypocrite for that, fine, go ahead, it's not like I'll need therapy for that; but I've never claimed "technology is evil"---the desire for it, addictive attachment to it, and its misuse is counter-evolutionary---and perpetuates (key word) this unsound and unnatural survival of the weakest strategy humans have employed for dozens of millennia. It's inherently quite unwise, for reasons I've gotten into here a number of times.

Even as a naturalist masculist, I realize that some technology is needed, especially since humans have been suckling at its great teat for so very long; many species employ tools, manipulate matter a bit to better enable them to survive. (The stronger species that survive mass extinctions and such do it the least, however.) A bow and arrow is technology, for crissakes, so I don't know where you're getting this "anti-tech" thing from, other than your own mind---which is quite telling...

Seriously though, overall, technology improves ones quality of life, by looking at areas of medicine, nutrition, food storage and preparation, and my own intellectual life in both philosophy and the natural sciences, technology has been paramount in keeping my body and mind healthy, and it is possible to use it without attachment, so I don’t see a problem.

(How is modern man better off than he was 20 thousand years ago? No, really; start a new thread on it perhaps and I'll join you there---I'm very intrigued by this "improved quality of life" concept of yours. All I see is "improved quantity.")

And now you're back to "tech is great because everything's easier"--flipflopping all over the place. Either you have no idea what you believe or, as I said, you twist and grab and throw away whatever you see fit for whatever topic is being discussed. Eurasian hunter-gatherers of northern regions "got smarter" because they needed to in order to survive; they were taxed mentally and thus adapted. Very little new technology was needed to accomplish this (all that shit came about to the south---those "dummies" in warmer climates who couldn't think and kept breeding and switched to farming to compensate for their ineptitude).

"Possible to use it without attachment." Good fuck, you are deluded...it is an attachment. An object. A tool. You can't use it without attachment, and you can't admit that. Why? You love it.

Prove me wrong---go somewhere and live without anything but a knife for one month. Just thirty days. You appear smart, so this ought to be easy---balls, instinct, "sense", intuition, survival...these things you put down when I bring them up, which must mean you lack respect for them because your intellect can bring you out of every situation without a scratch. Take one object with you, a knife, and let that be the only unnatural tool, piece of technology, and let's see how your mind figures out how to live with only that. Talk is easy; let's see some action. Let's see what sort of man you really are, or aren't. Let's see what "superior" modern man brimming with "wisdom" can do out there without a cell phone.

There's nothing stopping you. Do it. Leave everything behind, all your attachments---prove how "possible" it is for you. Put yourself where your mouth is.

Until you do that, you're but a little kid attempting to blow smoke up my pant leg...

You need to reevaluate your position on technology –

And you are a follower of things and zealous glorifier of materialism, and I never respect those or take their advice, like I'd never accept the "wisdom" of a raging drunk on the greatness of alcohol. Sorry, nothing personal.

A sign that you are mistaken is based on how emotional you become when you write.

A sign of your tech-loving pathology, ignorance, and arrogance is how you perceive what I write as emotional and how you translate that; your mind cannot go where mine does, so you can't understand; thus, you seek out other possible explanations. "How can a grown man not be on his knees worshipping the Glory of All-Knowing Technology? He must be mentally damaged, since my conversion attempts have failed. Thus I must now label him and dismiss him that way."

(Which gadget do you use to travel across cyberspace and determine the emotional faculty of another poster anyway?)

You view things in terms of heirarchy, as well---'humans are above other animals, and because of how we measure intelligence it means we're smarter and thus better inherently.' This is how Nazis rationalized the annihilation of the Jews and attempted control (manipulation) of the entire world. As did the Romans, as do Americans, as have done every religious group back to the first invented religion. You have only a slightly different spin. Hey, I ain't judging; do whatever feeds your ego.

Any self-respecting evolutionary biologist can tell you that nothing reaches a zenith in evolution; there is no other goal except survival through adaptation. Nothing is "more evolved" than anything else; there are "less evolved" things, though (we call that "extinct"). I suggest you do some reading on biology---your ignorance I find most annoying, which you equate as emotionality and blasphemous tech-hatred. (Misotechist? I'm surprised you haven't come up with that term for me yet---well, not really: you probably haven't installed the appropriate program that would think creatively for you enough to do that...)

Emotion is actually the sign of attachment,

Don't presume to lecture me on attachment, grasshopper---that's like a toilet telling a human how to take a shit. I've given away everything I've owned and gone wandering for years. I mean everything: every object, sentimental or practical, including family photos, phone numbers, the contents of my wallet, all I owned, everything anyone had ever given me. Never saw it again. Just had the clothes on my back to avoid being arrested.... Have you ever done that?

No, you've never even left home yet, have you? This is all big empty talk from you, stuff you read that sounded kinda cool, probably because it fed your ego and gave you some pride in something.

You know nothing of doing without attachments.

You are attached to your anti-technology rhetoric.

And you're attached to your pro-technology rhetoric. So what now? Shall we take long walks together on the beach?

You have believed this argument for so long, and haved derived so much pleasure and security from it,

You never cease to amuse me---it must be the only reason I keep commenting on your distorted notions of things, so this deserves some attention because I'd loathe to be attached to you to any way.

Seriously, though, for one thing: how can one derive pleasure from suffering and doing without all things that give pleasure? That's like saying Jesus had successive orgasms once he was nailed to a cross, dying slowly; or that Ghandi went into nonstop fits of uncontrollable laughter when he starved himself for his cause.

Another thing---security? From what? By placing myself intentionally in dangerous and taxing situations without any backup or help from anyone and surviving only on the strength of my mind, body, and spirit...this is how I'm clinging to security?

You make no sense whatsoever. It's a really sloppy bait-n-switch, I have to say ("He's attacking what I love and hold so dearly, so I'm gonna turn it all around and say he's the one who's really attached!! lol!!!1"). Pot. Kettle. Black. Keep trying, sonny.

that you are incapable of even considering for a moment that you’re position could be incorrect.

And now you're talking about yourself again.

If you are really serious about enlighenment,

I'm not interested in "enlightenment," so I couldn't possibly take it seriously; everyone has a different personal definition of "enlightenment"---and you're no different: you take this, leave that, stay in denial about other things, add a big ol heaping helping of beloved technology, and your makeshift enlightenment is personalized to your liking.

To me, this is pseudo-enlightenment and tends to stink of desperate intellectual snobbery.

I'm only interested in the truth, in wisdom---mostly primal, ancient wisdom---and natural balance. To hell with paths...that's mostly for followers and those too cowardly and afraid to get right into the shit and carve their own way forward. It's for those who need a replacement religion.

you're gonna need to reevaluate your position from a place where you are uncertain whether your position is correct or not.

Good point; I'm impressed. But I've been there, many times.

And never assume you're already perfectly enlighened, it makes learning impossible. Delusion is always a possbility.

That it is.

Which is why by leaving absolutely everything and everyone you know, have known, behind, giving it all away (accepting nothing in return) and hitting the road, to somewhere unknown, completely alone, no money or bank account or safety net, this ensures that all attachments are discarded, and one seeks no permenance in anything. There is no trap and the ego is starved, if one takes no pride in this.

I've purged my entire life of this shit (urgent clinging to the static, to the feminine, to civilization; and all it's material goodies) every so often (after losing everything, by force, once long ago, dealing with the actual "loss" and pain and grief of it all, I was able to learn experientially how it deeply and insidiously it all owned me and not vice versa), and now that my final main vice (women) has been abandoned, I'm prepared to become fully nomadic, fully spiritual.

Delusion is not among the things with which I suffer. I don't think you can make the same claim, and I pointed out a few reasons why above.