The Human Evasion

[Extropy]

I have recently found about British Psychologist and Philosopher Celia Green through her genial aphorisms. The first time I read her was while googling an Ayn Rand quote, which she had positively included in one of her essays.

She shows a great respect for reality, self-ownership or individualism, freedom of the intelligent mind (art and science). But she doesn't seem to think those qualities are entirely compatible with one of society's most sacred cows: sanity. That in fact one has to evade intelligent thoughts to at least be categorized as sane, hence the Human Evasion.

Chapter 1

SANITY

On the face of it, there is something rather strange about human psychology.

Human beings live in a state of mind called 'sanity' on a small planet in space. They are not quite sure whether the space around them is infinite or not (either way it is unthinkable). If they think about time, they find it inconceivable that it had a beginning. It is also inconceivable that it did not have a beginning. Thoughts of this kind are not disturbing to 'sanity', which is obviously a remarkable phenomenon and deserving more recognition.

http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/humevas.html\

buy it at http://www.celiagreen.com/oxford-forum-publications.html

Ayn Rand on the other hand thinks that one has to be more conscious of one's own thinking, but only tangentially to be sane, rather to be happy.

I happen to agree with both statements which leads to an alarming but interesting conclusion.

So what do you think?

Edited June 20, 2011 by Extropy

[Rich Engle]

The universe is nested, and emergent in nature. It evolves. This is what science is showing us--it is an evolutionary process.

It took it somewhere around 13.7 billion years to evolve into you, me, or any of us. Now, it tries to look at itself.

That's one true aspect. Argue away but that's what happened.

rde

We are stardust, we are golden.

[Xray]

I have recently found about British Psychologist and Philosopher Celia Green through her genial aphorisms. The first time I read her was while googling an Ayn Rand quote, which she had positively included in one of her essays.

She shows a great respect for reality, self-ownership or individualism, freedom of the intelligent mind (art and science). But she doesn't seem to think those qualities are entirely compatible with one of society's most sacred cows: sanity. That in fact one has to evade intelligent thoughts to at least be categorized as sane, hence the Human Evasion.

Chapter 1

SANITY

On the face of it, there is something rather strange about human psychology.

Human beings live in a state of mind called 'sanity' on a small planet in space. They are not quite sure whether the space around them is infinite or not (either way it is unthinkable). If they think about time, they find it inconceivable that it had a beginning. It is also inconceivable that it did not have a beginning. Thoughts of this kind are not disturbing to 'sanity', which is obviously a remarkable phenomenon and deserving more recognition.

http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/humevas.html\

buy it at http://www.celiagreen.com/oxford-forum-publications.html

Ayn Rand on the other hand thinks that one has to be more conscious of one's own thinking, but only tangentially to be sane, rather to be happy.

I happen to agree with both statements which leads to an alarming but interesting conclusion.

What exactly is this "alarming but interesting conclusion"?

[Extropy]

The universe is nested, and emergent in nature. It evolves. This is what science is showing us--it is an evolutionary process.

It took it somewhere around 13.7 billion years to evolve into you, me, or any of us. Now, it tries to look at itself.

That's one true aspect. Argue away but that's what happened.

rde

We are stardust, we are golden.

Hi Rich,

I am aware of geological times, I'm not arguing against it. "the universe now looks at itsef". Humans (yes, part of the universe), or rather I (who am human), look at myself and my own consciousness. And it's fine as long as I distract myself with something else, or at east know that I will before going to sleep or tomorrow.

I have recently found about British Psychologist and Philosopher Celia Green through her genial aphorisms. The first time I read her was while googling an Ayn Rand quote, which she had positively included in one of her essays.

She shows a great respect for reality, self-ownership or individualism, freedom of the intelligent mind (art and science). But she doesn't seem to think those qualities are entirely compatible with one of society's most sacred cows: sanity. That in fact one has to evade intelligent thoughts to at least be categorized as sane, hence the Human Evasion.

Chapter 1

SANITY

On the face of it, there is something rather strange about human psychology.

Human beings live in a state of mind called 'sanity' on a small planet in space. They are not quite sure whether the space around them is infinite or not (either way it is unthinkable). If they think about time, they find it inconceivable that it had a beginning. It is also inconceivable that it did not have a beginning. Thoughts of this kind are not disturbing to 'sanity', which is obviously a remarkable phenomenon and deserving more recognition.

http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/humevas.html\

buy it at http://www.celiagreen.com/oxford-forum-publications.html

Ayn Rand on the other hand thinks that one has to be more conscious of one's own thinking, but only tangentially to be sane, rather to be happy.

I happen to agree with both statements which leads to an alarming but interesting conclusion.

What exactly is this "alarming but interesting conclusion"?

That sanity is not rational but an engineered state of cognitive (or spiritual) mediocrity that only has value in a social context. It is a conundrum.