By the mandate of your existence, at any given time you do what is best for you in the way that you've learned and currently think is the way that works best for you to do it. This is your function. You cannot deny or escape it. It's happening to you right now. This reflects onto society in a direct function of the impact of each instance of the above in accordance with its true level of influence/impact on that society, considering the feedback of that society upon each instance of function as described above. Organizations do the same except on a larger scale and "once removed" so to speak as in there is a functional, palpable resultant of the the conglomeration of will of the individuals that effects those that interact with it. Hence the world you see before you, exactly how only YOU can see it. Note of interest: Optimally, I think function and purpose are equivalent. Thoughts?
I dunno. It was hard enough getting that part out damnit. Now you wan tit reworded? Demanding bastards. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Sadly, it seems to me it would take more rather than less.
Ok, I really want to understand your point, but since english is not my first language the post became a grey fudge of incoherency for me. So by this you mean that we only do what is best for ourselves, never for others and that this should be our function? Here you totally lost me. True level of influence? Are you saying that society is a result of our influence and that we are at the same time a result of the influence of society? Removed how? What? This I can grasp, that the experience of the existence is individual. Your point too? Function and purpose must be the same because otherwise the funtion wouldn't exist, or? Or is one function to overcome another function the purpose? How can we know the purpose?
Re: Re: Your Function /Ok, I really want to understand your point I'm only mostly certain I have one.... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! /but since english is not my first language the post became a grey fudge of incoherency for me. Pardon, i tried to be as clear as possible but they're large illusive thoughts that dissappear rapidly if dropped. The way they came out was the quickest way I could manage. /So by this you mean that we only do what is best for ourselves, never for others and that this should be our function? For others is a manifestation of doing for yourself. Your best intents towards others can only supply your ego with a healthy feedback. In other words, no matter what you're doing it cannot be in anyone's best interest but your own, even if you think it is for others (you've then made your best interest the best interest of others, which is still your best interest). You cannot escape it. /Here you totally lost me. Sorry. /True level of influence? Yes the theoretical value if you could add up your individual impact on all that you ever interacted with. /Are you saying that society is a result of our influence and that we are at the same time a result of the influence of society? Yes. /Removed how? What? Do you know calculus? Similar to the summation of a function except the summation of a bunch of summations of functions. You are the function. Oganizations are comprised of many people, each of their own function/interpretation of the organization, it's purpose.. etc. Add all that up. /This I can grasp, that the experience of the existence is individual. Your point too? Pretty much. I was driving at the 'is' of it all. The function = purpose thing has to to with the seemingly odd phenomenon that harmony between function and purpose simplifies things, making the effort expended to undertake things much less. Pardon the gross generalization, as a real explanation takes days as you might expect. /Function and purpose must be the same because otherwise the funtion wouldn't exist, or? No, but if function and purspose are at odds with one another, it's bad shit in brainville. /Or is one function to overcome another function the purpose? I think purpose follows function regardless as to whether or not you are aware of it. /How can we know the purpose? *ancient chinese dude voice* Ah, by knowing our function, our purpose is revealed.
as in "preferred", "optimal", "superior", etc. I'm afraid the semantic BS is seemingly always inevitable.
I meant in what context? Surely the "best" for your survival(physical) as a human being, directly conflicts with the "best" for maximal emotional, mental satisfaction...The best for you must necessarily have a context, for certain decisions made in one context can differ/conflict with those made in another context.
/I meant in what context? The intent is "whatever context you supply". /Surely the "best" for your survival(physical) as a human being, directly conflicts with the "best" for maximal emotional, mental satisfaction... That depends doesn't it? Kind of my point in a way. It doesn't have to conflict at all, depends on what you do with your input/talents/etc. Depends on your perspective. /The best for you must necessarily have a context, for certain decisions made in one context can differ/conflict with those made in another context. Don't you think "you" is a specific enough context? That means "whatever context you're in at the time". But that's the whole thing. You decide the context. You can set it up to where you're all conflicted, or you can set it up to where your shit is all harmonious and stuff, know what I mean? You can make things more or less complicated for yourself, depending on the context you choose to establish for yourself given your inputs/talents/etc.
The problem that i see, which is why I asked the question in the first place, is that Darwinian evolutionary theory asserts that the human will always do what it takes to ensure its survival. In order words, survival is its end, and its "best" will be that which will guarantee its survival. From your argumnet, the "best" is entirely context-dependent. Therefore, if something that is best within a certain context will kill me, I will do it, for it is my function?
/The problem that i see, which is why I asked the question in the first place, is that Darwinian evolutionary theory asserts that the human will always do what it takes to ensure its survival. In order words, survival is its end, and its "best" will be that which will guarantee its survival. yes exactly, however in modern humans "survival" is not so simple as staying alive. know what I mean? we mix our instinct to survive in with our football teams, choice of coffee, our carreer, the way we drive, taste in music, (each of these of course with a "survival weight" tailored to the individual) well, basically every aspect of our lives. to some, appearance becomes equivalent with survival, with others.. love. certainly when faced with death a new set of rules come to play, but in the other moments of life when not faced with immediate death, the game is played out abstractly but by the same rules. survival takes on an expanded meaning. /From your argumnet, the "best" is entirely context-dependent. Well, for the most part yes. Direct Life or death situations change things a bit - but if the "survival weight" (established completely subjectively mind you) of something is high enough it can even overcome your basic instinct for survival, making this subjective thing even more important that basic survival in those cases. I'm talking suicide of course. /Therefore, if something that is best within a certain context will kill me, I will do it, for it is my function? If you find it your context, yes. Hence suicide. Hence smoking. Hence for the most part whatever it is that kills most people.
I find it amusing that on one hand I find this terribly insightful and on the other hand it seems like this entire train of thought is a blatantly obvious non-statement.
And this is where my objection comes in; for the rest is self evident. You see, I do not think that your mind is functioning optimilly when you commit suicide. I believe it has reached a point where decisions are not analyzed to the effect of a 'best'. In order words, there is no context for the context is the end which is suicide.
/And this is where my objection comes in; for the rest is self evident. You see, I do not think that your mind is functioning optimilly when you commit suicide. Consider context and you'll see it's perfectly logical. CONTEXT. Suicide is context gone (what an external observer who isn't suicidal would call) destructive. Obviously however, within the context of the suicidal bastard, death is the best option - based wholly on their context.
So an 'insane' man chewing on a piece of rock he thinks is candy is doing what is best for them simply because in that immediate and present context, it is the "best"? I have to disagree for the context is perverted. The subjective view of the situation is not representative of the situation for the viewer clinically insane.
/So an 'insane' man chewing on a piece of rock he thinks is candy is doing what is best for them simply because in that immediate and present context, it is the "best"? Exactly. /I have to disagree for the context is perverted. That doesn't change that to the perciever, it is perfectly normal. I'm not justifying anything, I'm merely pointing out how things are. I'd say it is in the best of society to attempt to minimize the impact of the context of the rock-chewer on itself. /The subjective view of the situation is not representative of the situation for the viewer clinically insane. Sorry, but the subjective view is exactly representative of the situation to the rock-chewer. Insanity or not. My thoughts are more about understanding than judging, see. You're right that the guy is insane.. but everything I've said still applies, so your objections seem rooted in judgement of the character in your example rather than an objection to my analysis, yet you still seem to present it as an objection to my analysis. On the other hand I suppose this could all be summarized as: "to understand a man you must realize he's doing what he thinks is the best thing via the framework he's built for himself". Which is at best halfassed insightful.
