Antinatalism- The Greatest Taboo
- Thread starter Jeff Coleman
- Start date
The Black Ferris
Chymist
I've been listening to this argument for years. There are also occultists working with what is called anti-cosmic current, in an attempt to undo what the demiurge has done and reach a state of 'true freedom' in uncreation, a state without limitation. They believe we are trapped here by a sadistic and egotistical force of some sort.
Plenty of people think people suck. Thinking humans suck is a time honored tradition. I suck and you suck. You know it and I know it.
So forgive me if this 'antinatalism' doesn't sound 'far out'. If you think about anything, it sounds like the same old ego gratification crap packaged as taboo.
Poor humans. Material existence is so darn hard. Why do we even have chairs? What is it worth and what does it mean? It's nothing, but torture! Why go on? Woe is me! Woe is me.
I do like, though, how he plays on our compassion for children and parents. No one wants to be in pain or see their children in pain. But he makes an awful lot of assumptions. After all, if it doesn't matter, than what's the difference?
Not that I am in any way against making a stand, but this doesn't seem like a winning battle to me. Not that life does, but at least there's stuff to do. Sounds like if these guys get their way, there won't be anything to do.
Unless, of course, you should actually achieve 'godhood'. In which case, you could always trap unlimited potential in a slow vibrational state and spin it for a while. It makes a nice puppet show.
But then, I'm biased. I've already been born. I'm a father. I like Earth. I enjoy being here. I enjoy the illusion and look to it as an encrypted mystery that I must spend my time solving, even if in the end there will be no reward or punishment or even an answer. I enjoy the exploration and the sense of discovery. I have been to 'alien' lands beyond description and experienced states as close to non-existence as one can and still live. I am a user of anti-cosmic current, but only to shake things up. And I love to create! To draw forms out of the ether and make them 'solid'! I make these things my business.
In my opinion, people like the gentleman who made this little seminar, are just bored because they've bought the real lie. Life is simple, Death is easy and there is no such thing as Magic.
The truth as I have found it, so far, however, seems just the opposite. Nothing is simple, Nothing is easy and there is no such thing as no such thing.
You can go home if you want, but I think I'll stay a while. This just might be the party that brings the house down.
Thanks for posting this. It gave me something to rant about during my bout of insomnia.
Sin cerely,
The Black Ferris
Entertaining the Gods since 1974
Plenty of people think people suck. Thinking humans suck is a time honored tradition. I suck and you suck. You know it and I know it.
So forgive me if this 'antinatalism' doesn't sound 'far out'. If you think about anything, it sounds like the same old ego gratification crap packaged as taboo.
Poor humans. Material existence is so darn hard. Why do we even have chairs? What is it worth and what does it mean? It's nothing, but torture! Why go on? Woe is me! Woe is me.
I do like, though, how he plays on our compassion for children and parents. No one wants to be in pain or see their children in pain. But he makes an awful lot of assumptions. After all, if it doesn't matter, than what's the difference?
Not that I am in any way against making a stand, but this doesn't seem like a winning battle to me. Not that life does, but at least there's stuff to do. Sounds like if these guys get their way, there won't be anything to do.
Unless, of course, you should actually achieve 'godhood'. In which case, you could always trap unlimited potential in a slow vibrational state and spin it for a while. It makes a nice puppet show.
But then, I'm biased. I've already been born. I'm a father. I like Earth. I enjoy being here. I enjoy the illusion and look to it as an encrypted mystery that I must spend my time solving, even if in the end there will be no reward or punishment or even an answer. I enjoy the exploration and the sense of discovery. I have been to 'alien' lands beyond description and experienced states as close to non-existence as one can and still live. I am a user of anti-cosmic current, but only to shake things up. And I love to create! To draw forms out of the ether and make them 'solid'! I make these things my business.
In my opinion, people like the gentleman who made this little seminar, are just bored because they've bought the real lie. Life is simple, Death is easy and there is no such thing as Magic.
The truth as I have found it, so far, however, seems just the opposite. Nothing is simple, Nothing is easy and there is no such thing as no such thing.
You can go home if you want, but I think I'll stay a while. This just might be the party that brings the house down.
Thanks for posting this. It gave me something to rant about during my bout of insomnia.
Sin cerely,
The Black Ferris
Entertaining the Gods since 1974
qcrisp
Grimscribe
I liked the Black Ferris' reply here, but I must say, I also agree with most of what was said in the first clip (I haven't listened to the second one yet, but I think I get the gist). My own personal take on this is that I simply cannot understand why people have children, unless they do it by default and unthinkingly, because everyone does. In other words, I can't understand why any thinking and sensitive person would inflict life self-awareness on anyone. No one has yet come up with a convincing way of turning life from a horror into the kind of dream we are promised as children but never, ever actually get. To me there seems to be absolutely no possible excuse for perpetuating life. Having said that, I think that this clip becomes absurd in the same way that the Church of Euthanasia and so on are absurd, because there's no point in crusading for non-existence, because the premise of the whole crusade is pointlessness itself. I kind of feel like this sort of thing is almost an ultimatum to the universe - give us want we want or we're "outta here". Which, actually, is an idea that makes me smile. I quite like it, really. But it is absurd. And calling yourself an anitnatalist is absurd, and having websites about it is absurd. If existence is evil and pointless then nothing matters anyway, and we might as well watch while it plays itself out. But, personally, I still could never bring myself to perpetuate this nightmare, so... I suppose I tread a circle on this one. Here's a related link: Population control. s Blog I might put the antinatalist clips on my blog, actually. I feel kindly disposed towards them.
Odalisque
Grimscribe
References to sucking seem strangely apt on a thread with natal in its title. It is, after all, what infants do.
I wonder when and why suck came to be used as a verb meaning to be bad. I'm sure that it had not assumed this meaning when I was young. The very fact of a verb meaning to be bad seems strange. The ancient Egyptian language had numerous adjective verbs of this kind, but I don't believe that they're common in English. (By adjective verb, I mean verbs meaning to be [an adjective].)
The Black Ferris
Chymist
I guess I still don't get it. Maybe it's because I am a Dollmaker.
So, you guys are saying that if you were a 'CREATOR BEING' floating along as the endless void, you wouldn't make a place like this?
"Well, uh... I have such compassion for unlimited potential so, I just don't wanna trap it, O.K.?"
What sort of existence would be acceptable to a puppet? What sort of world would you be happy to bring a child into?
I know if my child were still floating out there on the 'other side', I'd still grab him and say, "Hey, man, you gotta check this place out!"
Perhaps, the Earth is the true entity and we fool ourselves into thinking we are more than a process toward her evolutionary goal. This is why I can never quite think of humans as any sort of true evil. Nor can I worry much about 'saving the planet'. Seriously? Have you seen this thing? Earth will have what it wants. We all have our part to play. Even in killing yourself, you are only being asked to return what did not belong to you so that it may be used for raw material. Nightmare, maybe, but who's?
I guess I'm just a creator being at heart. But I can tell you that if I had created this universe, I WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN FUCKING AROUND!
MONDAY MORNING, 8 'O CLOCK, FIERY BALLS OF GAS, SHIT SMASHING INTO OTHER SHIT, EXPLORERS, ARTISTS, SCIENTISTS, INTERDIMENSIONAL TRAVEL... (neat, but... little boring.. something's missing... hmm... what could it be? Oh I know!) MONSTERS!
I don't know, maybe you guys are right. Maybe non existence is more original.
Sin cerely,
The Black Ferris
So, you guys are saying that if you were a 'CREATOR BEING' floating along as the endless void, you wouldn't make a place like this?
"Well, uh... I have such compassion for unlimited potential so, I just don't wanna trap it, O.K.?"
What sort of existence would be acceptable to a puppet? What sort of world would you be happy to bring a child into?
I know if my child were still floating out there on the 'other side', I'd still grab him and say, "Hey, man, you gotta check this place out!"
Perhaps, the Earth is the true entity and we fool ourselves into thinking we are more than a process toward her evolutionary goal. This is why I can never quite think of humans as any sort of true evil. Nor can I worry much about 'saving the planet'. Seriously? Have you seen this thing? Earth will have what it wants. We all have our part to play. Even in killing yourself, you are only being asked to return what did not belong to you so that it may be used for raw material. Nightmare, maybe, but who's?
I guess I'm just a creator being at heart. But I can tell you that if I had created this universe, I WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN FUCKING AROUND!
MONDAY MORNING, 8 'O CLOCK, FIERY BALLS OF GAS, SHIT SMASHING INTO OTHER SHIT, EXPLORERS, ARTISTS, SCIENTISTS, INTERDIMENSIONAL TRAVEL... (neat, but... little boring.. something's missing... hmm... what could it be? Oh I know!) MONSTERS!
I don't know, maybe you guys are right. Maybe non existence is more original.
Sin cerely,
The Black Ferris
The Black Ferris
Chymist
I think suck is another surfing term. Like getting sucked under a totally tubular wave. "Dude! That SUCKS!"
Then again, "go suck an egg"? When? Why? Eh...
Then again, "go suck an egg"? When? Why? Eh...
The Black Ferris
Chymist
Acclaimed Kabbalah scholar Gershom Scholem discussing the cosmology of
controversial 17th-century kabbalist Nathan of Gaza:
"From the beginning there are in Ein-Sof two kinds of light or
aspects- the "thoughtful light" and "the thoughtless light." The first
comprises all that is focused on the purpose of creation. But in the
infinite wealth of Ein-Sof there are forces or principles which are
not aimed at creation and whose sole purpose is to remain what they are and stay where they are. They are "thoughtless" in the sense that they are devoid of any idea directed to creation...What is called the power of evil, the kelippah is in the last resort rooted in the noncreative light in God himself. The duality of form and matter takes on a new aspect: both are grounded in Ein-Sof. The thoughtless light is not evil in itself but takes on this aspect because it is opposed to the existence of anything but Ein-Sof and therefore is set on destroying the structures produced by the thoughtful light...The whole process of creation proceeds therefore through a dialectic between the two lights; in other words, through a dialectic rooted in the very being of Ein-Sof."
-Gershom Scholem, from "Kabbalah" by Gershom Scholem, pp. 270
controversial 17th-century kabbalist Nathan of Gaza:
"From the beginning there are in Ein-Sof two kinds of light or
aspects- the "thoughtful light" and "the thoughtless light." The first
comprises all that is focused on the purpose of creation. But in the
infinite wealth of Ein-Sof there are forces or principles which are
not aimed at creation and whose sole purpose is to remain what they are and stay where they are. They are "thoughtless" in the sense that they are devoid of any idea directed to creation...What is called the power of evil, the kelippah is in the last resort rooted in the noncreative light in God himself. The duality of form and matter takes on a new aspect: both are grounded in Ein-Sof. The thoughtless light is not evil in itself but takes on this aspect because it is opposed to the existence of anything but Ein-Sof and therefore is set on destroying the structures produced by the thoughtful light...The whole process of creation proceeds therefore through a dialectic between the two lights; in other words, through a dialectic rooted in the very being of Ein-Sof."
-Gershom Scholem, from "Kabbalah" by Gershom Scholem, pp. 270
Viva June
Mystic
You are arguing from false premises. Non-existence is, by definition, not a mode of being and certainly not a place, which is exactly why it is always better than being "smothered with the burdensome overcoat of matter", as Ligotti put it.
Edit: I misquoted. My apologies to Mr L.
Last edited:
Odalisque
Grimscribe
I agree that non-existence is neither a place nor a mode of being. But I fail to see why that makes non-existence better than being.
The Black Ferris
Chymist
Exactly the point. If it is being said that 'no one chooses this' than we first have to establish that there is something in nothingness to bring into somethingness. Obviously this might not be the case, but if it were, how would you ask? What would the frame of reference be? How could you know whether it would be favorable over non-existence?
Again, this argument is absurd. I love it, but that doesn't change the facts.
I gladly shoulder the burdens of certain realities, even if I can't be trusted to stick to the common story. I am in no way opposed however, to others laying down their burden.
But this whole thing is much like a human telling a martian that Earth is the best! A two dimensional creature doesn't understand depth, only length and height. It has no frame of reference.
For that matter, pertaining to this conversation, neither do we.
Sin cerely,
The Black Ferris
Again, this argument is absurd. I love it, but that doesn't change the facts.
I gladly shoulder the burdens of certain realities, even if I can't be trusted to stick to the common story. I am in no way opposed however, to others laying down their burden.
But this whole thing is much like a human telling a martian that Earth is the best! A two dimensional creature doesn't understand depth, only length and height. It has no frame of reference.
For that matter, pertaining to this conversation, neither do we.
Sin cerely,
The Black Ferris
The Black Ferris
Chymist
And, forgive me, but ... THAT'S the part of what I said that was chosen as a quote?
Wokka wokka wokka, man.
Wokka wokka wokka.
Wokka wokka wokka, man.
Wokka wokka wokka.
vegetable theories
Acolyte
I don't know much about antinatalism, but ignorance has never stopped me having an opinion before....
I don't object to the antinatalists assessment of the world as a hell-hole of suffering, and I certainly don't object to his impulse to suicide.
I don't object to his opinion that suffering is a bad thing, but I do object to the conclusion that he draws from this fact. Because suffering is a bad thing, he believes it would be better if nobody suffered.
How can he speak for other people ?
For many people, god help them, suffering is a worthwhile cost for living.
This is just as bad as saying, Because I believe life is sacred I'm going to make it illegal for you to leave it in a easy painless way.
It's the reverse argument.
I also object to the accusatory tone of his argument.
I object to the way he is blaming people for having children.
But thanks for posting this.
I don't object to the antinatalists assessment of the world as a hell-hole of suffering, and I certainly don't object to his impulse to suicide.
I don't object to his opinion that suffering is a bad thing, but I do object to the conclusion that he draws from this fact. Because suffering is a bad thing, he believes it would be better if nobody suffered.
How can he speak for other people ?
For many people, god help them, suffering is a worthwhile cost for living.
This is just as bad as saying, Because I believe life is sacred I'm going to make it illegal for you to leave it in a easy painless way.
It's the reverse argument.
I also object to the accusatory tone of his argument.
I object to the way he is blaming people for having children.
But thanks for posting this.
yellowish haze
Grimscribe
I don't know much about antinatalism, but ignorance has never stopped me having an opinion before....
I don't object to the antinatalists assessment of the world as a hell-hole of suffering, and I certainly don't object to his impulse to suicide.
I don't object to his opinion that suffering is a bad thing, but I do object to the conclusion that he draws from this fact. Because suffering is a bad thing, he believes it would be better if nobody suffered.
How can he speak for other people ?
For many people, god help them, suffering is a worthwhile cost for living.
This is just as bad as saying, Because I believe life is sacred I'm going to make it illegal for you to leave it in a easy painless way.
It's the reverse argument.
I also object to the accusatory tone of his argument.
I object to the way he is blaming people for having children.
But thanks for posting this.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, vegetable theories. I wouldn't have put it better.
Jeff Coleman
Chymist
Vegetable Theories,
I don't know if it is accurate to say that the author of those videos is suicidal.
You bring up a good point in saying that the antinatalist is speaking for everyone when he says that it would be better if none of us had ever been born. It is impossible to speak for other people, who might very well think that their suffering is worthwhile.
But, on the other hand, it could be said that people who have children are saying "because I think that suffering is a worthwhile cost for living, I will bring another person into life. If they happen to disagree with me, tough for them."
What seems to be ignored for the most part in these discussions is the fact that people who have children are bringing other people into the world, people who might very well disagree with the attitude towards life that their parents hold. People who would not otherwise exist as conscious beings if their parents hadn't decided to bring them into life.
I disagree that saying that people shouldn't have kids is just as bad as trying to make it illegal for someone to commit suicide in the least painful way possible. For one thing, the person who made those videos doesn't seem to be trying to make procreation illegal, he is just imploring people to not procreate. Even if he were trying to make procreation illegal, it wouldn't be the same thing. If someone tries to establish laws that prevent a person from committing suicide in a comfortable manner, they are trying to prevent a person from causing perceived harm to themselves. Anti- procreation laws would seem to me to have more in common with laws against harming other people.
Do you see the ethical problem in bringing a person into this world who has no say in the matter, and who might greatly regret their birth? I feel like I am arguing for logic that seems screamingly obvious to me, but apparently isn't to other people. People often say it is wrong to harm other people, but they rarely extend the logic into this realm.
As for the accusatory tone, the person who made those videos is the father of two children. I'm sure he regrets his part in bringing them to life, but he seems to care for them.
It is difficult for me to avoid making a value judgement about parents. I have to admit that I think it is wrong to have children, and I judge people who are parents accordingly, even if I think highly of them otherwise. I haven't figured out yet how to get around having an opinion about something and judging people according to that opinion. If you know the secret, please share it with me. I would rather it was not the case.
I don't know if it is accurate to say that the author of those videos is suicidal.
You bring up a good point in saying that the antinatalist is speaking for everyone when he says that it would be better if none of us had ever been born. It is impossible to speak for other people, who might very well think that their suffering is worthwhile.
But, on the other hand, it could be said that people who have children are saying "because I think that suffering is a worthwhile cost for living, I will bring another person into life. If they happen to disagree with me, tough for them."
What seems to be ignored for the most part in these discussions is the fact that people who have children are bringing other people into the world, people who might very well disagree with the attitude towards life that their parents hold. People who would not otherwise exist as conscious beings if their parents hadn't decided to bring them into life.
I disagree that saying that people shouldn't have kids is just as bad as trying to make it illegal for someone to commit suicide in the least painful way possible. For one thing, the person who made those videos doesn't seem to be trying to make procreation illegal, he is just imploring people to not procreate. Even if he were trying to make procreation illegal, it wouldn't be the same thing. If someone tries to establish laws that prevent a person from committing suicide in a comfortable manner, they are trying to prevent a person from causing perceived harm to themselves. Anti- procreation laws would seem to me to have more in common with laws against harming other people.
Do you see the ethical problem in bringing a person into this world who has no say in the matter, and who might greatly regret their birth? I feel like I am arguing for logic that seems screamingly obvious to me, but apparently isn't to other people. People often say it is wrong to harm other people, but they rarely extend the logic into this realm.
As for the accusatory tone, the person who made those videos is the father of two children. I'm sure he regrets his part in bringing them to life, but he seems to care for them.
It is difficult for me to avoid making a value judgement about parents. I have to admit that I think it is wrong to have children, and I judge people who are parents accordingly, even if I think highly of them otherwise. I haven't figured out yet how to get around having an opinion about something and judging people according to that opinion. If you know the secret, please share it with me. I would rather it was not the case.
Last edited:
Karnos
Chymist
I am fascinated by these kind of ideas, even if I am not that passionate about them.
I find a lot of people saying that non-existence is preferable to the actual state of existence, and who knows, maybe they are correct. But as it has been pointed out on this thread; what's the frame of reference? if by non-existence we are talking death, and death, by all of what our rationale can tell us, can simply be defined as the ceasing of all censorial stimuli, how can we claim it to be preferable?
Quite frankly, I don't remember the nothingness I was dragged out of before my parents conceived me so I cannot lay claims about it. I wholly agree the world is a bad, violent place, and so is the Universe itself (Do I need to remind everyone that we were about the be hit by an asteroid just four days ago?) but I don't agree with the sense of blame the man making the videos seems to lay on parents. In a way it reminds me of Boyd Rice's quite stupid statement on radio (Years ago, with Bob Larsen) about how people who drive their cars tot their work should be executed, a similar stance I have heard coming from Green Movement nazis.
I don't know, I agree in saving future generations the burden of existence, but I find myself returning the the frame of reference argument. Some people genuinely enjoy being alive, I know quite a few like them. Are these people crazy? Maybe, but they think the same of us who believe otherwise.
Personally, I don't think there is anything good or evil about existence, it just is, and so do us. Life is a big mystery, but perhaps the biggest mystery of Life is that there is no mystery at all and all of this is just philosophical fair game. Borges once wrote that metaphysics and philosophy should be classified as another form of fantasy literature, and I agree with that.
I find a lot of people saying that non-existence is preferable to the actual state of existence, and who knows, maybe they are correct. But as it has been pointed out on this thread; what's the frame of reference? if by non-existence we are talking death, and death, by all of what our rationale can tell us, can simply be defined as the ceasing of all censorial stimuli, how can we claim it to be preferable?
Quite frankly, I don't remember the nothingness I was dragged out of before my parents conceived me so I cannot lay claims about it. I wholly agree the world is a bad, violent place, and so is the Universe itself (Do I need to remind everyone that we were about the be hit by an asteroid just four days ago?) but I don't agree with the sense of blame the man making the videos seems to lay on parents. In a way it reminds me of Boyd Rice's quite stupid statement on radio (Years ago, with Bob Larsen) about how people who drive their cars tot their work should be executed, a similar stance I have heard coming from Green Movement nazis.
I don't know, I agree in saving future generations the burden of existence, but I find myself returning the the frame of reference argument. Some people genuinely enjoy being alive, I know quite a few like them. Are these people crazy? Maybe, but they think the same of us who believe otherwise.
Personally, I don't think there is anything good or evil about existence, it just is, and so do us. Life is a big mystery, but perhaps the biggest mystery of Life is that there is no mystery at all and all of this is just philosophical fair game. Borges once wrote that metaphysics and philosophy should be classified as another form of fantasy literature, and I agree with that.
Viva June
Mystic
Surely that depends on the metaphysics one subscribes to. You seem to be postulating some kind of Platonic pre-birth limbo, like an actual, non-hypothetical version of Rawls's original position. Suppose those of us who are of a more, er, materialist bent deny that such a thing exists or could conceivably exist—that makes the argument less absurd, no?
With regards to frames of reference and suchlike—are you arguing that what cannot be understood must be accepted and endured and, furthermore, passed on to others? That is a rather strange notion. Life's infinite complexity is an argument for antinatalism.
Odalisque
Grimscribe
You couldn't have reminded me of that because your post is the first mention of it I've seen. (To be reminded one has to have previously been aware of whatever it is.) Is it true that we were about to be hit by an asteroid? I don't watch the news every day. Perhaps I shouldn't watch it at all.
The Black Ferris
Chymist
I postulate no such premise. In fact, that postulation seems to me to be borne by the antinatalist. Those of us of a more, er, materialist bent have a difficult time believing in something that has never been experienced, i.e. nonexistence. Those of us who are of a less materialist bent deny that such a thing could not exist, or any such combination of all forces extant and non, certainly in the face of so much evidence, i.e. the incredibly unlikely fact that we are having this conversation.
The argument becomes no less absurd by denying the possibility of anything. However, It is not I who wants to return to a Platonic pre-birth limbo. Nor to some Edenic garden of non-existence, place or not.
What I am arguing is that this all smacks of familiarity. Like Sumerian gods arguing about how their children make so much noise and "can we not just kill them and get back to sleep?" Like christians whining about a paradise lost.
I am arguing that it is better to know than to not know. This all sounds like 'ignorance is bliss' to me.
Should I be expected to keep my knowledge to myself? Shall I tempt you with what I know?
I know that it is all the same. There is no argument because there is no difference. A Platonic pre-birth limbo, a Cullipherian post birth limbo.
The twilight limbo of this conversation on the 'internet'.
Where are we? And what is this?
I believe that antinatalists should not have children and that this may ultimately prove to be something like Darwin's natural selection.
Besides, I can't imagine a parent who wishes their child, or they, themselves, had never been born being worth anything.
In this existent world, to me, anyway.
Mr. D.
Chymist
This thread seems to have struck a nerve in a lot of our members. Before I start let me say that my frame of reference is observations made over decades and that I am a trained observer having spent my entire adult life in Security, Executive Protection, Private Invsetigation, with my last 19 years spent as a Federal Law Enforcement officer.I have noticed two things about the responses in this thread. The first is that we are assuming that though things suck today (if I may be vulgar, in my home town the phrase was "suck donkey dick" which conveys the sentiment much better than simple sucking). Maybe 100 years ago things were better and everyone was a lot happier. Maybe our grandchildren will live in a beter world. We just don't know these things. The forces that work on the world are cyclical.Secondly, whatever may be someone's philosophy or religion, or lack of the same, most people live as if life makes sense. We don't commit suicide, we get married, children are born, we buy real estate, we pay our taxes and act as if there is a future. Instead of robbong convenience stores we get jobs. We stop at stop lights. Generally we don't act as if life is only painful, brutish and meaningless.I think that intellect, while useful, is overated. Many of the most important aspects of existence are beyond thinking. This generation intuits a grim bleak face to the universe. The next one may intuit a different aspect of the same universe and neither is either true of false. They just are. Life is full of pain, as well as other things. In fact I believe that deCarte was wrong. I would change his famous phrase to"I hurt, therefore I am." We can fool ourselves too easily, but when we are hurting we know that we are alive.I am fascinated by the gap that existes between what we say and how we live. For example, how many children does the man in the vides already have, and how many more will he have in the future? I don't say that to be mean or anything. That's just how we are. (Me included.)
The Black Ferris
Chymist
I, certainly, am coming from a biased viewpoint. I am a life and death user. I use these things to make Art which would not exist if I did not exist or they did not exist. There are many unexplained things for which there is no explanation and I have seen indescribable things that I could not begin to describe to you!
I am many people's fiction. I am never bored. Here on Earth I have so much to do, I will likely not get it all done. And I love being here, being Arthur Cullipher, but Arthur Cullipher will not last forever, whether I do or not.
I suppose it only struck a nerve due to the initial late hour and my lack of a use for this sort of thought outside of this conversation. It has intrigued me to explore why someone might think this way by offering an opposing argument. The concept is a good start for a plethora of fictive werks that I will never have the time to write. For the black magician in me, seeking uncreation, it seems logical.
In my life, however, it just isn't useful.
But if it gets you through the day... ;E
I am many people's fiction. I am never bored. Here on Earth I have so much to do, I will likely not get it all done. And I love being here, being Arthur Cullipher, but Arthur Cullipher will not last forever, whether I do or not.
I suppose it only struck a nerve due to the initial late hour and my lack of a use for this sort of thought outside of this conversation. It has intrigued me to explore why someone might think this way by offering an opposing argument. The concept is a good start for a plethora of fictive werks that I will never have the time to write. For the black magician in me, seeking uncreation, it seems logical.
In my life, however, it just isn't useful.
But if it gets you through the day... ;E