Musics I done

Friday, March 30, 2007

christ

if i hear another person say 'i was vegetarian for ten years and then i gave up because i had a keabab and it was really nice (&cetera)' i will slash my wrists, which i found out just now really hurts, even compared to hacking at a splinter in your foot with a knife.

a little context, maybe.

you've gotta notice there's a lot of them; the apostates. is there a ten year cycle or something? why do people give up?

for a start it's not unusual. look at any rebellious character; the 'millions of retired liberals' to quote half man half biscuit, the character in 'the ragged trousered philanthropists' who converted to the right wing because he decided the proles deserved the misery they got. it's hard to stay alternative for a while when there's no support. and that's the main thing.

i believe (and that's a strong word) that reason leads to vegetarianism. i also am of the opinion (perhaps a less strong word) that we are not all blessed with reason*, or rather, that reason is not universal, or is not the ultimate deciding factor in any decision process. we are only animals of course. reason is something that happens on a neuronal level; one cannot argue with simple additions of proteins and electrical charges. to abstract it to a conscious level is almost literally playing with fire; the physics are simple, but the complexity is horrendous. so reason only plays a small part. we wish it didn't but it does. of course we want to fall in line with the unreasonable majority, and after years of trying to no avail people will revert; behavioural psychology has many examples of this. it's hard to kick against the pricks; especially when the pricks are infectious.

but fuck, we are winning. there are more veges in the west than ever before. and sometimes, i really feel like i'm at war.

i don't think that everyone who gives up meat does it based on reason. most people who became vege that i know didn't even qualify it by reason to begin with, and that includes myself. it's only in continuation that they claim it to be 'the intelligent option'. and we might watch the barbarism of ducks when throwing bread at them; so does that mean we should sink to their level? if we did, we'd hunt them to extinction like so many other creatures.

some say that 'ultimately it's a matter of taste'. but it is not a matter of taste, not when they're chopping down rainforests to plant soy crops to feed your cattle. if you are even aware of environmental issues then fucking stop eating meat. if not, then read fucking monbiot dot com - and then stop eating meat. it's the first and easiest thing you can do to reduce your carbon buzz word footprint. what's your problem?

it is so hard to keep going when no one else makes the effort. when the world is clearly doomed to suffer a massive catastrophe and there's nothing we can do about it, because fucking people. why should idiots get all the fun? why did we get cursed with the intelligence to tell right from wrong, and even worse, the knowledge that it probably won't make any fate-damned difference whatever we do?

this is where lao tzu gets it wrong. if i have not drowned, he has said, it is because i have stayed afloat by letting the currents take me. but we simply can't afford to 'go with the flow' anymore. the flow is the universal consensus of idiots - the veritable confederacy of dunces. please, don't sink to they're level - rejoice in your freedom, excericse your illusion of free will. and if swimming against the tide condemns us too, then i guess we're doomed wither way. but as alan moore makes beautifully clear in v for vendetta, dignity is all we have and it can never be stolen from us - only given away. would you rather sign the confession you didn't write, or be taken behind the sheds, raped, and shot? similarly, would you rather live by a code of ethics that were never yours, or stand up for yourself, put forward the strong argument that you believe in and see if anyone is listening? only you would ever know. but who else does it matter to?

but what it comes down to; ultimately, we are all simply vessels for memes. i am carried away by the environmentalism meme (of which vegetarianism is a consequence). it is memes that are self aware, not us. either that or we too are self aware memes (surely i am just the grilly meme!). we can work harder at spreading the memes, but that too is just a peculiarly self-aware meme. spread that one first. the meme of free-will and the meme of determinism both lead to the ultimate self-replicating meme - the meme that says we should replicate memes. only by open rational discourse can we save this planet. and the 'rational' meme is all that can save us. because otherwise, the 'celebrity big brother' meme will just trump everything.

and it works both ways, the meme-individual interaction, just like the individual-society interaction; each influences the other. and you end up in a tautology so huge you can't see it's horizon.

if what i call reason is just another meme, then what good does it do us? did i forget my nihilism? no. i know every thing's meaningless, i just don't think that's an excuse to be a dick. because people who are selfish are clearly not nihilists, they're solipsists. but maybe, yes. a true nihilist would do nothing, nothing at all. a tempered nihilist might take the easiest route to death - which may be the long slow one. but isn't nihilism too just a meaningless meme, as valid as any other? i suppose i... [unfinished paragraph]

maybe in six years i will revert to being an eater of meat. i can't say i won't. but it won't be because i suddenly realised that all the things i've outlined above are wrong. it could only be because i didn't care about them any more.

that'll do, pig.

* i don't want to claim that i hold the 'ultimate truth'. i realise that what i consider 'reason' is just my opinion. but it's a very fucking well thought through opinion, so fuck off.

sub note.. thinking back, dangerously in light of certain false memory experiments detailed in 'opening skinner's box' i think i may have always been geared towards vegetarianism; i do remember being told in infants that 'kidney' was an organ of the body, and being disgusted, although 'steak' didn't seem to have the same resonance, and i did continue to eat kidney for about 15 years after that, so i don't think it invalidates what i've said. but as much as i became a vege through subconscious decision, i can't defeat the essential premises of what i've said. maybe that's a cause and effect thing; even if it is, is my reason wrong? this peice hasn't been about my actual reason at all, more the circumstances surrounding reason. but, you know...

5 comments:

Grilly said...

i might just add that when talking about 'meaningless memes', i want to explore the idea that memes account for the appearance of reason in terms of 'meaning' without having to refer to it (as in, when people say 'there's a reason for everything' they confuse reason in terms of explanation with reason in terms of humanist meaning).

i might also just add that the point about retrospective justification is a classic psychological trick as well - we shape our ideas to our behaviour not the other way round, they say. but i think that's dangerous to say - we must reclassify thought itself as a behaviour and then re=evaluate that sentence.

unimbued said...

I have reason. Reason 3 with the NN-XT sampler.

Anonymous said...

Dear GrillyMeme,

There are some problems with your post (or would 'article' be better?). For the most it is beset with astonishing rage, and understandable rage at that. You are right about meat-eating, but I question the depth of your fury. It is questionable to apportion meat-eating with the bulk of climate change. You characterisation of nihilism is skewed and you have a worryingly counter-intuitive view on free will. Let me pore over your points one by one and pray that I do not bore you.

[snip suicide isn't painless]
Don't slash yourself. Self-flagellation is a delicate art and should be practised only under the right circumstances. It is right to hurt yourself to diminish the ego, but not to protest about others’ misdoings. Besides, some of the more decadent meat-eaters might literally make a feast from your self-inflicted death.

[snip retired liberals]
There are two issues here: people changing their minds, and people caring enough about their beliefs to act upon them. Firstly, you should not, ever, bemoan a person the decision to change their minds about something. It’s hard enough already without the intelligent jumping on their heads about it. If somebody is a liberal and then they become a fascist, don’t attack them for changing their minds per se: condemn them for the fresh view. For if somebody goes the ‘other way’, ought they be condemned? Would you really denounce the reformed Nazi for his U-turn? No, a change of mind is a morally neutral thing; don’t go dragging it in to a moral argument.
Secondly, however, you are quite right to identify contradictions between words and SUBSEQUENT actions. Read Plato’s Gorgias http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gorgias for more argument about this point (is it possible to know the difference between right and wrong and then to do wrong?), or Iris Murdoch’s The Black Prince (“Man truly manifests himself through the long patterns of his acts, not in any nutshell self-theory.”) If one maintains one thing and does another, he is a hypocrite. Hypocrisy is an affront to rationality, and the Kantian notion of the universalisability of one’s actions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwork_of_the_Metaphysics_of_Morals is a very important moral axiom; we ordinarily baulk at one who says “do as I say not as I do”. If it’s wrong for me, why isn’t it wrong for you?

[snips Rationality]
Going against rationality, as some philosophical doctrines have attempted to do, is a surprisingly tricky thing to do. I believe humans are hard-wired for it, and even if some aren’t they tend to die quite quickly. After all, one of rationality’s central tenets is the continuity of the past, present and future; what holds once for one circumstance will hold again in identical circumstances. We can’t cross the road without taking a walk of faith on this analysis. Yet we do suchlike, unthinkingly, many times a day. It’s like Cartesian doubt. Possible in theory, but can you try living it? The effort to concentrate would be all consuming. I will state now and stand by this until I die: everybody who is capable of understanding what rationality is accepts it as a way of life AT LEAST tacitly. This may not sound very dramatic, but it’s actually a great start. Anybody with language, ANYBODY, knows that internal contradictions are bad, and that consistency is good. That doesn’t mean that people won’t feign to disagree, usually for their own attempted benefit, but they don’t believe it the same way that somebody COULD believe it is ok to exterminate half the world’s population based on something trivial like the colour of their toilet paper. Hating pink toilet paper is a bizarre, but coherent, belief. Not believing in rationality is impossible. Literally impossible.
Sorry to labour the point, but it’s important. It is a (the only?) source of hope: people can be convinced of what is right and wrong. But it is not a war. You can achieve more with love than you can with barbed words and sharp metal. You are wrong to be so angry. People are uneducated and misguided, but it is because of the environment in which they have grown. Nobody is irredeemable because what has made him bad can be reversed. That environment can be changed by you, but do it right. Attack, and you risk pushing more away than you draw towards. Rationality is the way in, but love and flattery are the sweeteners. Anger inspires fear, and fear breeds rebellion. You did the right thing in directing towards Monbiot. But the angry words around the direct made even me not want to read what he’s got to say. And I read and agree with his stuff most weeks.

[snip nihilism]
Nihilism is misrepresented. You are not one. It’s about more than meaninglessness. It’s about unscientificness and impossibility of truth. It’s existentialism’s evil twin. And it must be regarded as an evil because it tries to dismiss discussion of morality with the rhetorical ‘how can you know?’ We CAN know. And people are capable of improvement. Meaning is conferred to life in many different ways, and no, you don’t need God add real value to existence. Some things DO matter, and in a similar way to the antirationalism, it is actually surprisingly difficult to believe in nihilism. Mostly it is a youthful pose, favoured by the intelligent and contemptful strata of the disaffected. But just because somebody acts cool, doesn’t mean they have a clue what’s going on. They usually don’t, in fact. People who say they are nihilists are the same ones wed to their Blackberries and Lexuses a decade later.

Finally free will … oh well I can’t be bothered about this one. I mean, you already know what I’m going to say about free will don’t you. If not, go back and ready everything I’ve just written, carefully. We aren’t meme-replicating machines, even if we replicate memes. Are we naught but petri dishes for viruses? If so, which ones were we created for? Memes are emergent properties, floating on the surface of our existence. Just because we cannot (should not?) rid ourselves of them, doesn’t make them the reason for our existence. Rationality isn’t a meme in this sense. Memes are accidental; rationality, as detailed above is essential http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence.

That’s all I’ve got for now.
Sorry for so many wikilinks, but it's really an excellent entry point. Don't trust everything in it though.
Alun

Anonymous said...

It's so good that vegetables don't have feelings. I really hope vegetables don't have feelings. Otherwise I'd have to eat rocks - and I don't just mean salt - I'd need something more substantial than that. Is there anything that isn't animal, vegetable or mineral in this world? I suppose I could eat Platonic Forms. In theory - that should sustain me better than the things themselves.

Sorry - I'll read all of it shortly I just had this thought.

Grilly said...

how did you manage to post that without getting picked up by my statcounter?