happy people disgust me

originally posted by: introspectionist
That's why I've been saying for a long time a real truth seeker is alone, he has no friends and wants no friends.

Who says you can't search for truth with friends?

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: introspectionist
Obviously my posts tickle some form of inferiority complex in you, whatever it might be. Otherwise you wouldn't be so eager

Cool story..

I'm not eager to do anything with or for you..If you want to feel that you are somehow more enlightened or have through your terrible struggles gained some insight into the human condition then have at it.

My stance has always been that people go through periods of suffering and joy in life and you need to experience each exquisitely to appreciate and learn from the other.

I also think it's funny when people judge based off threads . You keep telling anyone who smiles "you are befuddled" as if you have the knowledge to make such a statement.

It's okay though, enjoy your misery.

Your response and the fact that it got four stars just proves my point.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: introspectionist
That's why I've been saying for a long time a real truth seeker is alone, he has no friends and wants no friends.

Who says you can't search for truth with friends?

You can but only to a certain degree. If you really want to be a truth seeker you cannot be afraid of ostracization.

originally posted by: introspectionist

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: introspectionist
That's why I've been saying for a long time a real truth seeker is alone, he has no friends and wants no friends.

Who says you can't search for truth with friends?

You can but only to a certain degree. If you really want to be a truth seeker you cannot be afraid of ostracization.

Diogenes was alone because he chose to be.

a reply to: beezzer

Even if you choose to be alone you cannot be afraid of ostracization. Normally people who choose to be alone aren't. It's those who are that sacrifice all kinds of things in their mind in order to have friends.

a reply to: introspectionist

Ahh picking out Huxley of all authors. Well if you think that the world in Brave New World was one that was happy 100% of the time, then you're forgetting a passage in the book:

"There's a great deal in it," the Controller replied. "Men and women must have their adrenals stimulated from time to time."

"What?" questioned the Savage, uncomprehending.

"It's one of the conditions of perfect health. That's why we've made the V.P.S. treatments compulsory."

"V.P.S.?"

"Violent Passion Surrogate. Regularly once a month. We flood the whole system with adrenin. It's the complete physiological equivalent of fear and rage. All the tonic effects of murdering Desdemona and being murdered by Othello, without any of the inconveniences."

"But I like the inconveniences."

"We don't," said the Controller. "We prefer to do things comfortably."

"But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin."

"In fact," said Mustapha Mond, "you're claiming the right to be unhappy."

"All right then," said the Savage defiantly, "I'm claiming the right to be unhappy."

www.huxley.net...

So even Huxley's Brave New World was not all positive, all the time, for that was found to be unhealthy. Instead, Huxley's world artificially stimulated negative emotions (fear and rage) once a month to maintain the health of the population. The thing that is stripped away from this VPS experience is the human complexity component, I guess one could call it. Instead of experiencing fear by a natural setting such as a fear of dying from illness or being pursued by someone who means one ill, it is solely the emotions that are artificially stimulated--not the human scenarios. Savage argues for the right to have that human complexity involved in both generating unhappiness and, its oppositional human emotion, happiness. He's arguing for humanity to be human--not to have their unhappiness or happiness being artificial.

Huxley was also an extraordinary jerk who thought very highly of himself. If Huxley had been in any role in the book, it would've most likely been the role of the Controller. There's a reason why he chose to name John Savage "savage". He was significantly elitist as was his brother.

Orwell was more a humanist unlikely Huxley's tendency towards trans-humanism. If I recall correctly, Orwell and Huxley were not fond of each other personally. You should probably do a little more reading about the both of them as they were very oppositional to each other. Orwell was pessimistic in his view of the progression of civilization and it's stripping of all things in humanity (both pleasure and pain). Huxley was rolling around in the pleasure part with a dose of artificial pain to keep one's constitution up. One wanted to free the world. The other, control it.

Imagine how this little bit in a letter from Huxley would've flown with Orwell, for example:

About 99.5% of the entire population of the planet are as stupid and philistine....as the great masses of the English. The important thing, it seems to me, is not to attack the 99.5%...but to try to see that the 0.5% survives, keeps its quality up to the highest possible level, and if possible, dominates the rest. The imbecility of the 99.5% is appalling--but after all, what else can you expect?

Aldous Huxley by Harold Bloom

Huxley was pro everything that Orwell stood against. Pro-eugenics (as was his brother, Julian) and found democracy to be a problem. The absolute opposite of Orwell really.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

So Orwell was a humanist who wanted to free the world as opposed to Huxley who was an extraordinary jerk who thought highly of himself and wanted to control.

Maybe you are right.

But I think it's quite possible that Huxley was simply more enlightened. And you see him as more evil because that's how your perception interprets those areas of him that you are unable to comprehend.

Jews are a light unto the nations, indigenous people in Papua New Guinea aren't.

But I know nothing, I'm just a seeker.

a reply to: introspectionist

But what Aldous wanted was for everyone to be happy and this entire thread has been about how happy people disgust you? You just painted yourself in a corner there. How can you rectify that Aldous was enlightened in wanting everyone to be happy (through artificial means and stripping away human portions like family, desire to improve one's station and more) when you hold happy people in such contempt? I perceive any that try to reign in genetic diversity under some label of improving the lot of humanity as being short sighted. Homogenize humanity and you risk losing everything that makes humanity special--innovation, creativity, art, and more.

I've lived with an indigenous tribe and though life was rougher even with technology permeating throughout the tribe, I'd say that they were far happier than our own culture. They knew their place in the world and tried to strive for a constant balance with nature in it. They were more spiritual and their sense of family was infinitely stronger, too. A family Christmas party would have 30 or more attending. Thanksgiving would require 3-4 turkeys being made (not a problem since family pitched in). Life may have been rougher but it was more fulfilling.

a reply to: introspectionist

Most people are happy because they choose to be, not because life is somehow easier for them. The world and what it throws at you is not usually a choice; but what you can choose, is how you will react to the arrows.

Helen Keller said: “A happy life consists not in the absence, but in the mastery of hardships.”

a reply to: WhiteAlice

I've only read Brave New World and my impression was that it was brimming with sarcasm.

As for what you said about the indigenous people, yeah that was exactly my point. I posted earlier a quote about how miserable the orthodox Jews are. I know that unevolved people generally are a lot more loving, in harmony with nature etc. The Jews, to quote The Believer, invented the atom bomb, communism, and infantile sexuality. Yet, and exactly for the same reason, they are a light unto the nations and the indigenous people in Papua New Guinea aren't.

dirty no class @#$%#%^$%#%s like you making this world an even worse place is why I agree to a point with the OP because it'a hard to be happy knowing scum like you are out there.

a reply to: introspectionist

No, Huxley was a total product of his time. Born and raised in the upper echelon of British society, he really had a quite tainted view of society as well as a very privileged position. In the 19th century, Sir Francis Galton had authored a series of studies basically validating an almost "divine right" mentality but through genetics. He authored several papers discussing the pristine genetics of the elite as well as postulating these elite genes eventually being drowned into obscurity by the sheer number of less genetically amicable individuals. Aldous and his brother, Julian, were not the only ones that really took to Galton's ideas. Bertrand Russell was yet another British intellectual/"elite" that also suggested a variety of things to basically cleanse the gene pool. I don't know whose stances were worse. Huxley supported enforced sterilization as did Julian and the former wrote "A Brave New World" where genetics were controlled at every level. In the Scientific Outlook, however, Russell proposed controlling genetics as well for the elite and non and also suggested the "disposal" of those elite who felt pity for the non-elite/working class. Disposal as in elimination from the land of the living.

Pretty grotesque stuff. We tend to associate "master race" thinking with Hitler but Hitler was actually in "good" company. It wasn't until after Hitler's actions that many of the eugenicists started backing away from their ideas and proposals. They were all pretty much a product of their times or the times just before them. In 1848, Europe was being rocked by revolutions within the working class, fueled by the writings of Karl Marx. Between those uprising workers and Charles Darwin, it's not hard to figure Galton's motivations. He had a substantial impact on much of the intellectual literature, research and even policy up until the 1940's. Huxley was just many of his ilk--a total elitist snob.

Your friends are waiting for you, OP...



All jokes aside, I can see where you're coming from when you say that there is no way to be truly happy 24/7 but there really isn't anything that is possible to do 24/7...especially when related to someone's emotional state. However, to say that happy people, as a whole, 'disgust' you...well that sounds to me like there are a lot of things that you need to say to the people in your life. Face to face. Not vaguely venting on internet forums.

I've had a pretty #ed up 29 years. In short, I've lived through things that have driven others to take their own lives, beyond the standard "been to hell and back, got the t-shirt" sad story. My childhood was #ed because of my parents. Guess what? That was a long time ago. Wanna know what I did? I matured, learned that humans are a #ed up creature capable of limitless good and evil and are also a creature capable of great change (and deep reflection on the past) and GOT THE # OVER IT.

Hatred is a much more difficult feeling to perpetuate. To be hateful there needs to be a reason, a catalyst of sorts. If it feels easy to be a hateful person, then I suggest you step back and truly do some searching around inside yourself. You'll figure it out. Hell...I'm willing to bet you already have 2 or 3 things that pop into your head every so often and 'remind' you as to why you hate happy people.

Sorry, just my opinion. I feel like I've been where you are, honestly.

I'm usually pretty bloody grumpy and at odds with the world to be honest but I have to say, this thread actually cheered me up a bit... I found myself whistling and singing always look on the bright side of life... So thanks for that, maybe that was the true goal of the thread? A touch of reverse psychology? Well, works for me! XD

a reply to: WhiteAlice

In short, he was indeed a pessimist, when it came to his outlook on the intellectual capacity of the masses. Whereas Orwell perhaps was more of a pessimist in his outlook on where the system as a whole is headed.

originally posted by: introspectionist
a reply to: WhiteAlice

In short, he was indeed a pessimist, when it came to his outlook on the intellectual capacity of the masses. Whereas Orwell perhaps was more of a pessimist in his outlook on where the system as a whole is headed.

On the contrary, read the quote you butchered again. It is an argument for the subjugation of the masses. That is NOT pessimism--that's being a control freak. A low brow way of saying the same thing would be like saying "I don't like the way most people want the world to work so I think we should take it over because we're so much better." He didn't say that the masses were evil or would have the overriding tendency towards evil. He simply said they were stupid. That's not pessimism--that's elitism and his book tended toward that view of a "perfect" society. Huxley didn't perceive his society in A Brave New World as depraved. Only perversely liberated while being genetically suppressed. Huxley, I'd hazard, was probably one of the biggest creeps of his time and yet, so many sing his praises. Really amazing truly.

Orwell, on the other hand, was a pessimist, undoubtedly, between 1984 and Animal Farm. Very negative view of the future and perception of it being rife with corruption and evil more so than anything good or beautiful. Total pessimist.

**To put it very clearly, A Brave New World is viewed as dystopian but it's really Huxley's utopia. It is a match with his personal beliefs. Orwell's novels are dystopian both to the author and the readers.

a reply to: WhiteAlice

I personally believe that Huxley was like most great minds. They see how stupid the masses are and that there is no hope of changing that, so they have to be mind controlled. And you let the useful idiots do what they're doing and just channel the forces. His description of the worship of the deity Ford I think is an illustration of that. And the more I research in the truth movement the more I side with people like Huxley. Views of people like yourself are the reason these people hide most of their ideas inside secret societies. I don't believe in democracy in the way a lot of people do. I believe mind control, great minds controlling lesser minds, is necessary, because, as I said in another thread, people will do what they think is right even if they do something they wouldn't have done, had they had greater minds.

I started a rant thread where I ranted. I think I have done that now. I'm off to work to build the machine.

a reply to: introspectionist



Hey...we all have our grouchy days! Now pay your fine! (she types...joking and laughing)

a reply to: introspectionist

Ditto.
Look at those idiots thinking life is so beautiful bla bla bla bla bla.
Especially the materialistic, it's someone else's problem I'm an American so who cares people.
I wish some people were different.

a reply to: introspectionist

That almost smells like a series of closeted ad hominems, introspectionist, or at the least, being terribly presumptuous. I have my reasons for disliking the idea of controlling another person's mind. Thinking that something like a form of mind control would be used to the benefit of society as a whole is incredibly naive. If we look at the history of mankind, even those upper echelons, we don't find saints. We find human beings with their own sets of vices that can turn even the smartest mind into something monstrous. Intelligence does not guarantee goodness or prevent the potential for abuse. I believe in a free society as that is the one that guarantees the most diversity of ideas. Sometimes wisdom comes from unexpected quarters.

If Huxley were alive today and spouting what he did, I would set myself as his enemy without a doubt.