At last, we made it. Starting from the ontological vacuum of pure consistency, we progressed through cosmology, physics, biology, and evolution, and ended at our port of call. At last we can discuss the essence of our causes, purposes, and meanings. Still, before we begin, I believe I owe you an apology. Yes. I named this text after the name of this chapter, as the issues we are to discuss next, are the purpose of this text. While we will postpone the discussion regarding the necessity of the previous chapters for now, I would like to reemphasize, that the notions we are about to discuss, are the significant insights of this text, and not those we suggested in the previous chapters. To clarify, we are not scientists. We are consciousnesses. We went on this exhausting journey, to discover ourselves, not the world in which we exist. In fact, this is one of the reasons we took this path. By basing our discussion on pure rational metaphysical consistency, we managed to purge our misconceptions regarding ourselves, meaning, our tendencies to apply inconsistent, or alternatively, impossible beliefs on our lives. For example, at the end of the previous chapter, we concluded that our self-awareness is merely one dimension, of which our consciousness consists, a metaphysical enabler, uniform to all consciousnesses. Considering this conclusion, it is hard to find metaphysical relevance to concepts such as “spirits”, or “souls”, as these concepts imply some type of uniqueness to our individual existence, while once we remove this uniform metaphysical enabler, our consciousness transforms into a “cold” collection of contingent dimensional dispositions, and therefore, implicitly, disassociates our consciousness from our common notions regarding spirituality.
Still, as we emphasized at the end of the previous chapter, this is not enough. As we concluded, while metaphysically, our consciousness exists independently of both our body, and our brain, our brain exploits our consciousness to serve our body. Moreover, the prime function our consciousness serves for our brain, is to create new learned instincts. These instincts impose a filter over our consciousness, removing the sensations we thought of previously from our perception. Therefore, essentially, the brain makes us “work” for nothing, as we do not even perceive the fruit of our cognitive labor. For example, once we manage to learn a new language, apart from speaking it with people we could not speak with before, we do not gain anything. Supposing we will never need to use this language again, essentially, we gain nothing. Even the previous challenge becomes meaningless. The same applies to the skills we learn. While at first, the challenge is a burden, once we surpass it, yet a new set of challenge emerges, while our sense of distress, from the challenges we have not yet conquered, remains. Objectively, our level of content does not rise by attaining more knowledge, contrary to our intuitions, which continuously urge us to better our skills. These are all reflections, of the manner our brain manipulates us, to benefit the human animal we serve, or alternatively, to raise the self-sustainability and longevity, of the contingent dimensional automaton that governs our animal body.
Still, while our consciousness remains indifferent to the skills it learns, indirectly, learning these new skills, changes our consciousness, by assimilating new generalizations, into the sensations our brain stores. Essentially, our brain stores these sensations in two locations, which in turn, determine the manner our brain utilizes them. First, our brain "merges" some of these sensations with the "filter" of our consciousness, and hence, utilizes them to control the manner our brain relays inbound contingent dimensional inputs between its neural pathways. While we are not aware of these sensations, we are aware of their effect, on the manner by which our consciousness decodes inbound sensations. For example, by learning a language, sounds and symbols, which were once undistinguishable epistemological "noise", become collections of ideas. Secondly, our brain stores some sensations, as memories. These are sensations, which "passed" the "filter" of our consciousness, at some point in our lives, and therefore, carry the markings of the contingent dimensional composition, of our "filter" at the time. However, since then, this “filter” changed its contingent dimensional composition, and therefore, the sensations in our memory can no longer reemerge as new sensations. Moreover, because of this incompatibility, we find it hard to evict these sensations, through repression. Whenever we attempt to think about these memory sensations, the inconsistency between them, and the current “filter” our consciousness utilizes, prohibits us from evicting them from our brain, in the same unconscious manner we evict sensations, which we sense currently. It is only through long durations of subconscious optimizations, such as those our brain performs during sleep, that our brain manages to evict or repress these memory sensations.
Essentially, the sensations in our memory are not knowledge we attained. Indeed, we can refine these sensations into learned instincts. Still, whenever our brain incorporates our memories into its learned instincts, it does not evict them. On the contrary, it imprints these memories into our learned instincts, causing these memories to resurface, whenever we utilize learned instincts, which incorporate them into the neural pathways of which they consist. In fact, arguably, this is the manner by which our brain stores our memory. To clarify, whenever our brain utilizes a neural pathway, which utilizes a sensation, it causes the contingent dimensional composition of this sensation, to resurface in our consciousness. To clarify, the manner, by which our brain utilizes sensations, is for their contingent dimensional unification capabilities, meaning, their ability to respond identically, to several sensory inputs, consisting of different contingent dimensions. Still, the contingent dimensions of which these sensations consist, can be more complex, or alternatively, consist of more concepts, than those the brain utilizes for its contingent dimensional routing. They consist of the sensory inputs we sensed, when these sensations first came to our attention. Moreover, because these sensations carry the signature of the “filter” of our consciousness at the time, they consist of the sensations we used for generalizations at the time as well, which in turn, consist of previous memories. Therefore, possibly, these sensations may consist of memories, dating back to the first time our brain utilizes its generalization cognitive capabilities. Moreover, the same memories can exist in parallel, within the contingent dimensional composition of other sensations our brain stores. Indeed, for contemporary computers, storing memories in this fashion is “bad practice”, to say the least. The amount of data, which contemporary computers can store, imposes a practical computational limit for them, and therefore, storing so many identical memories is “costly”. Moreover, in contemporary computers, the time it takes to access data, is proportionate to the size of the data structure a computer utilizes, and therefore, had a traditional computer stored data in a manner similar to the manner our brain stores memory, its performance will be very slow. However, this does not apply to sensations. Because of the manner by which the dimension of consciousness stores contingent dimensions, meaning, as manifestations of itself, it can “access” all the contingent dimensions of a sensation in parallel. Moreover, because all these contingent dimensions are different, they are independent entities. Therefore, the dimension of consciousness can store them, independently from one another. Therefore, neither the complexity of sensations, nor the time it takes to access their complexity, imposes a difficulty for our consciousness.
To clarify, let us consider a book we read. Our memories of a book consist of more than merely its plot. They consist of the events that transpired in our lives, while we were reading this book. Indeed, we know these additional subjective memories have little to do with the contents of this book. Still, unintentionally, we cannot help but remember these subjective memories, whenever we think, hear, or speak the name of this book.
Despite the inherent subjectivity of our memory, we cannot change it. Our brain is unlike a computer, which we can upgrade, whenever we find a flaw in its design. Our biological brain is the metaphysical enabler for our existence as consciousnesses within the external world, and therefore, we are bound to its inherent deficiencies. To clarify, our memory is more than merely inefficient. Because our memory consists of such a huge collection of duplicate generalizations, unintentionally, it can allow the existence of many discrepancies in our psyche. The sensations in our memory are not dynamically interlinked data structures. Changes in the manner we understand a concept, does not automatically apply to other different occurrences of this concept, within the sensations in our memory, regardless if they share the same name. We can easily find ourselves, thinking about a concept in one manner, and at another time, think about it from a completely different perspective, and using completely different thought patterns. For example, when we evaluate the behaviors of others, at one time, we can think in patient patterns, and be friendly towards strangers, while at another time, we can think in selfish manners, which can result in a more hostile interpretation of the same dispositions. Moreover, arguably, this is the reason why it takes us so long to solve cognitive challenges. To solve cognitive challenges, we continuously replace the generalizations with which we attempt to solve them. In many cases (especially when facing tests in education establishments), we already learned the manner by which we should solve the challenge, and our entire effort, consists of recalling our previous experiences. Still, had we had the experience of repeating the same challenges, then naturally, we would not need so much time to solve these challenges, as our brain would have converted these thought patterns, into learned instincts.
Still, as we suggested in the previous chapter, apart from memories, inbound external sensory inputs, and our self-awareness, our consciousness senses an additional type of sensations, to which we usually refer, as discontent, distress, and pain. It is unclear how the brain manages to inflict these sensations on our consciousness. There can be many options. For example, as we suggested, it could be due to the metaphysical function of an additional dimension, meaning, a dimension of pain. Alternatively, it is possible, our brain disrupts the metaphysical function of the dimension of consciousness, with contingent dimensions, which are inconsistent with it, causing havoc in our consciousness. Still, regardless, the existence of pain and discontent, within our consciousness, is undeniable.
Essentially, through pain, the brain inflicts us with our wills. Pain distracts our attention from our idle thoughts and wonderings, and urges our consciousness to perform the tasks, necessary for our animal body. Our brain persistently inflicts our consciousness with pain sensations, until we satisfy our body, and hence, renders the removal of pain from our consciousness, the source of our motivations as consciousnesses. For example, when our body lacks energy and nutrients, it sends contingent dimensional signals to the brain, which the brain decodes as such a shortage. Before the evolutionary emergence of the dimension of consciousness, the brain utilized its born and learned instincts, to evict this electric surplus, by mobilizing the body of the animal, to yield the required action. For example, if by mistake, we will walk barefoot on burning coal, our brain would utilize our born instincts, causing us to jump aside, without any conscious decision to do so. However, with the evolutionary emergence and progression of cognitive generalization capabilities, the brain became underequipped to handle many situations. To clarify, as animals became more intelligent, they developed cognitive skills, on which their self-sustainability depended. However, as we explained in the previous chapter, these cognitive capabilities, exceed the capabilities of the contingent dimensional automaton, governing the animal. Therefore, the very survival of animals, which utilize the dimension of consciousness for their self-sustainability, depends on the ability of their brain, to “appeal” to the consciousness, by injecting it with sensations of pain. Moreover, to manipulate the consciousness, so it would issue a relevant behavioral response, the brain evolved to sustain many different types of pain sensations, as without this variety, the consciousness could not identify which actions it should take. To clarify, considering hunger for example, it would not be evolutionary beneficial, if we would go to sleep whenever we feel hungry, thinking we are tired, and neither would it be evolutionary beneficial to eat, whenever we feel tired. We would either grow incredibly thin, or incredibly fat, but in both cases, we will not survive.
Our consciousness has many ways, by which it can evict sensations of pain, which our learned instincts fail to evict. First, we can cry. To clarify, arguably, crying is a biological mechanism our consciousness can use, whenever sensations of pain overwhelm it, while failing to find a cognitive "solution" to this sensational surplus. To prevent long-lasting trauma, meaning, assimilation of these haunting sensations into the "filter" of our consciousness, and hence, damaging our cognitive capabilities in the future, the consciousness “orders” the brain, to physically evict its current sensational burden. In response, the brain transmits this electrical surplus into the tear and saliva glands, which eventually eject the contingent dimensions of which the sensations of pain consisted, through the closest outlets available, meaning, the eyes and mouth. Still, obviously, this is not really a solution. Many times, the source of this pain remains, and therefore, crying hardly ever solves our pains. Moreover, the brain attempts to prevent us from using the crying biological mechanism, by injecting other types of pain sensations, as we cry.
Alternatively, our consciousness can utilize unconscious optimization techniques, such as sleep, for example. As we suggested, through sleep, the brain manages to optimize its behavior, by assimilating and generalizing sensations into its neural pathways, and transforming them to learned instincts. Still, our consciousness can attempt to find “faster” solutions. First, it can attempt to solve this sensational burden, through concentration and thought. Through concentration, the consciousness causes the brain to “free” some of its neurons, with which the consciousness can simulate different dispositions and cognitive responses, while attempting to find a solution. Still, the consciousness does not generate any sensory inputs. Instead, it assembles these simulations, using the generalizations it learned. For example, when we attempt to find solution to a mathematical problem (such as proving a statement through induction or reduction, for example), we simulate different methods by which we can transform the problem, reevaluate the problem, and repeat the process, until we find one good transformation.
Secondly, our consciousness can attempt to repress the problem, meaning, it can merge the various contingent dimensions, of which the problem we face consist, into a new generalization sensation, simplifying the problem significantly, into a problem we can manage. For example, supposing there is drought, and a farmer cannot water his fields. Naturally, he can attempt to build a robust watering system. However, if he does not have the technical or financial means to build such a system, he can decide, it is because the “god of rain” is angry with him. Therefore, he can take one of his sheep, offer it to his god, and wait. Actually, this solution can work. To clarify, many times, the best solution is doing nothing, and essentially, offering a sheep to an arguably inexistent god, is identical to doing nothing (unless you happen to be this sheep, or a close relative…). In short, this solution is a wildcard. We cannot know if this solution will work in advance. We can only have faith it is beneficial. To clarify, this type of generalizations, is too abstract for our brain to assemble, through its biological unconscious optimizations capabilities, or alternatively, through sleep. Moreover, some sensations we sense throughout our lives, do not adhere to the notions these generalizations suggest, and therefore, our brain fails to utilize them effectively, while constructing new learned instincts. Still, using these generalizations, we manage to ease the burden of some pain sensations. In many ways, these sensations embody yet another type of self-organization enhancement, similar to those we discussed in the previous chapter. To clarify, these generalizations lower our burden of pain sensations, in the same manner life forms increase their longevity, through evolution.
As we already explained, similarly to all generalizations, this type of generalization has no factual basis on which it relies. The generalizations, with which we entrust our faith, have little to do with physical events, occurring in the external world. For example, if we think of the generalization we call “justice”, obviously, it has no color, size, mass, or velocity. The only reason these abstract ideas bother our consciousness, is because they help us handle situations, which would otherwise cause us distress. Nevertheless, these generalizations can be a nuisance, and inflict mental sores in our lives. If we fail to select beneficial generalizations in which to believe, these generalizations may increase the amount of pain sensations in our consciousness, rather than decrease it. For example, if we endorse the teaching of a religion, which demands we live an ascetic lifestyle, while our nature is very passionate and sensual, unintentionally, we could transform our lives into a perpetual nightmare, an internal strife, that may have no justification whatsoever. Moreover, cognitively, we change throughout the course of our lives, changing the effectiveness with which we can handle different dispositions, emotionally. Therefore, even if during the course of our lives, there were times we had to resort to faith to tolerate various dispositions, it is possible our prior convictions and persuasions no longer serve us any purpose. Actually, in many cases, these early convictions and persuasions hold us back from realizing our current potential. While this is true on the personal level, it is even truer on the cultural level. For example, again, if we consider religion, arguably, there were times when religions constituted the avant-garde of human achievement. However, since, there were many times, when religions restrained human thought, from progressing both technologically, and philosophically. To summarize, as a rule of thumb, regardless of the contents of our current beliefs, it is good practice to contemplate on our beliefs, and evaluate whether they still serve our interests. If not, we should always remember we can change them, regardless of the moral gratification we feel, whenever we remain true to our beliefs, when facing emotional turmoil.
Considering our metaphysical foundation, the more we learn about our consciousness, the more we understand the separation between our animal body, and our consciousness. On the one hand, our body is a tyrant, administrating pain sensations into our consciousness, in order to successfully satisfy its demands, while on the other hand, our consciousness can resist the body, and in extreme cases, decide to destroy the body altogether. The body exists within the external world, which perpetually persists to exist, while our consciousness shifts from existence to inexistence, on a daily basis, as well as shifts between mental worlds, ranging from wakefulness, dreams, and hallucinations. Indeed, we can comprehend and analyze this symbiotic duality. However, arguably, this balanced perspective does not serve our interests. To clarify, we are not our animal body. We are consciousnesses. Indeed, understanding the manner our body creates our consciousness, allows us to better evaluate our existence. Still, we should not make the mistake of preferring the interests of our body, over the interests of our consciousness. Our body does not “care” for the hardships we suffer because of it, and neither should we. Our body does not care, if how painful it feels to be hungry, or how mindboggling is the pain we feel, whenever we have holes in our teeth. Our body is a contingent dimensional machine, nothing more. Unlike us, it does not have emotions, and therefore, such selfishness cannot offend it.
Moreover, because our brain manipulates our consciousness, using contingent dimensions we cannot identify, inevitably, we lack some explanatory metaphysical ingredients, to connect the physical occurrences in our brain, with the epistemological occurrences in our consciousness. To clarify, naturally, there is a fundamental difference between the fact the dimension of consciousness, merges contingent dimensions as recurrences of itself, and the way it feels, to believe god would make rain drop from the skies. While arguably, we can imagine how this can be possible, somehow, this explanation is too “vague”, to constitute an argument, convincing enough to counter the intuitive arguments religions offer, in support of their teachings.
Therefore, as we previously suggested, it is time we change our terminology, by introducing a new concept, which I call, "deltas". Etymologically, I borrow this term from infinitesimal mathematics. Originally, the term describes the difference between two values within a limit expression, and is usually in use, while calculating the derivative values of numeric functions. Within a limit expression, the value of a delta variable continuously diminishes, becoming ever closer to zero. While the delta variable never reaches the value of zero, its tendency to continuously diminish, allows us to deduce, what would have been the value of the limit expression, had the delta variable actually reached the value of zero. For example, if within a limit expression, we divide the value of two, with such a delta variable, the smaller the value of the delta variable, the greater the value of the limit expression. For every possible finite value of this expression, we can find a value for the delta variable that produces it. To clarify, supposing we take the number four, using elementary mathematics, we can calculate a matching value for the delta variable, which in this case, is a half, as if we divide two by a half, we get the value of four. Similarly, if the value of the delta variable is smaller than a half, this expression will yield values greater than four. The same applies to all finite numbers. For each finite value of this expression, we can find non-zero positive values for the delta variable, with which this expression yields even greater finite values. Therefore, we can deduce, that had the delta variable actually reached the value of zero, the value of this expression, would have been infinite, and therefore, the value, or alternatively, the meaning, of this limit expression, is infinite. Nevertheless, at no point during this calculation, did the delta actually reach the value of zero. Moreover, it cannot reach the value of zero, as logically, dividing a value by nothing, is meaningless. Therefore, because the values of limit expressions, are their values when the delta variable reaches the value of zero, while the value of the delta variable cannot be zero, it implies the value of a limit expression both exists, and does not exist, meaning, it is an inconsistent element. Nevertheless, again, the meaning of such a limit expression is its value when the delta variable reaches the value of zero, hinting the meaning of a limit expression is not an existing element in the world, but rather an idea in our minds, or alternatively, a generalization of the mathematical process it describes.
This separation, between the possibly infinite meaning of a limit expression, which incorporates a delta variable, and its value for any concrete, or alternatively, finite, value for its delta variable, is analogous to the separation, between the manner our body invokes our wills, meaning, by invoking sensations of pain, and the manner by which we eventually feel it. Similarly to the manner we can calculate the values of limit expressions, which assign specific finite values for their delta variables, the manner our body generates our wills, is through a rational algorithm our body obeys, which does not include any type of semantic meaning. It is a prescription, which any other machine could have followed, had it possessed components, similar to those of which our body consists. However, this narrow perspective is relevant only to the manner our animal body operates, or alternatively, from the perspective of the dimension of life. Metaphysically, being consciousnesses, this perspective is irrelevant to us. We do not sense the manner by which our body generates sensations of pain. We merely sense the product of this process. The sensations of pain we feel, do not break down to the process by which our body constructed them, but rather remain as complete perceptions, gestalts, or alternatively, generalizations.
This is not a matter of personal preference. It is a metaphysical imperative. To clarify, it is the result of the manner by which the dimension of consciousness hosts elements within it. Metaphysically, our consciousness reinterprets all the contingent dimensional inputs it receives from our brain, as recurrences of itself, because there is no other option. Arguably, had our consciousness refrained from such reinterpretations, it could not host any contingent dimensional inputs, and hence, remain completely indifferent to the external world, leaving our animal body to die, as again, our body depends on our conscious cognitive capabilities to survive. Moreover, because the manner, by which our body manipulates our consciousness, is through metaphysical existences, meaning, dimensions, and not through argumentative persuasions, there is no way we can consciously resist it, other than killing our animal body. To clarify, theoretically, we can learn how to lesser the significance of the sensation of physical and emotional pain we feel. Still, metaphysically, because sensations of pain consist of dimensions, we cannot nullify them, as the dimension of existence sustains their persistent existence, which as we explained in chapter two, can neither nullify, nor change its metaphysical function. Moreover, the very act of negating our instinctive cognitive identity, demands a prior will, to overcome these instincts. Such a will is no different from any other will, meaning, our animal body generates it, by injecting sensations of pain into our consciousness. Had we not felt any pain sensations, we would lack the motivation to resist anything, including our wills, and therefore, inevitably, we would recline from resisting our genetic cognitive design.
Therefore, just as limit expressions redefine their meaning, from the mathematical processes they describe, into concrete values, and just as our consciousness reinterprets the sensations of pain, which our body injects into our consciousness, into sensations of will, our discussion should reflect these transformations. Instead of discussing the reason for the emergence of pain sensations in our consciousness, we will discuss the effect these sensations of pain have on our consciousness, meaning, the spontaneous emergence of wills within our consciousness. We will define these cognitive occurrences, as the “opening” of a delta. Actually, this is yet another reason why I chose the term “delta”, rather than simply calling it, the emergence of a will in our consciousness. To clarify, again, usually, in infinitesimal mathematics, it is common for delta variables to “aspire” to the value of zero, or alternatively, for the difference between two values to nullify. Therefore, allegorically, it is somewhat similar to the manner our brain operates, as it attempts to evict contingent dimensional inputs arriving from our body, or alternatively, the manner we “aspire”, that the sensations of pain in our consciousness will vanish. It is through our wills, which somehow, inexplicably, draw us to do things, without knowing why we must feel this way. To clarify, if we consider our stomach, we simply cannot explain the undeniable connection between the sense of pain we feel whenever we are hungry, and our desire to eat, and replenish this lack. It is not a general will of our stomach. For example, it is different from the sense of pain we feel, whenever we eat too much. It is a specific pain, which in turn, invokes a specific will in our consciousness. These wills are not of our design. Again, our animal body inflicts these wills in our consciousness, through sensations of pain, while maintaining its biological neurological functionality, meaning, the eviction of sensory stimulation surplus within the brain. Therefore, we need not bother understanding this process, as we are not the reason why specific conditions of our body, emerge in our consciousness, as specific sensations of pain. It is the product of millions of years of evolution, and that is all there is to it.
As consciousnesses, we translate sensations of pain as differences, between our current disposition, and dispositions, in which these sensations of pain no longer bother us. To clarify, naturally, when we feel hunger, we desire food, as both instinctively and from experience, we know it will satisfy our current hunger. Still, due to the manner by which generalizations exist in our minds, meaning, as encapsulations of collections of several different sensations, which semantically, relate to one another, within our consciousness, the food we desire, embodies the sensation of satisfaction we feel after eating it as well. Therefore, within our consciousness, we feel a “distance” or “difference” between our current disposition, and the sensation of satisfaction our body denies of us. Actually, this is another reason I chose the name “delta”, to describe these cognitive occurrences, as originally, the term “delta” means difference, similarly to the manner our wills appear in our consciousness, as a lack of the things we desire, such as, for example: “I do not have food”, “I do not have money”, “I do not have justice”, “I do not have providence”, or “I do not have that special someone”.
Still, naturally, we manage to appease some of our discomforts, and as we do, we feel relief and relaxation, or alternatively, pleasure. We will define this cognitive process, as the “closing” of a delta, or allegorically, the nullification of the difference between our current disposition, and the disposition for which we long. Therefore, essentially, by the term “delta”, we refer to the continuously changing difference between our “damaged” reality, and an ideal world, in which we never long for anything, as in it, we never feel pain. This ideal embodies our notion of goodness, while the sores of our reality it deems its opposite. Therefore, considering our initial motivation for this entire venture, the opening of deltas, is the essence of our causes, the closing of deltas, is the essence of our purposes, and the deltas themselves, are the essence of our meanings. To clarify, the opening of a delta, breaches our current cognitive status-quo, causing us to initiate behaviors, we would refrain from otherwise. Still, these behaviors are not the purpose of our actions. They are merely the means, with which we hope to close these deltas, and reestablish our cognitive status-quo. Therefore, generally, we care only for things, which share some type of a cognitive relation, with our delta-based cognitive mechanisms. Thoughts and concepts, which fail to either challenge us through the opening of a delta, or ease our sours, by closing our previously open deltas, we find insignificant, and for a good reason. Again, as we previously suggested, on its own, learning new cognitive capabilities, does not change our level of content and happiness, and neither do tasks, which do not serve any purpose for our consciousness. While theoretically, we could have enjoyed learning new things, and performing tasks, which do not bother our consciousness, our biology prevents us from enjoying these. Instead, whenever on idle, our brain inflicts our consciousness with new sensations of pain, to which we more commonly refer, as boredom. This is not because of some sinister intent. Again, our cognitive capabilities serve as our main means of survival, and therefore, the constant urge to perfect these skills, became one of our survival imperatives.
Nevertheless, again, understanding the biological reasons, why we feel discomforts, does not change our disposition as consciousnesses. To clarify, while the contingent dimensional automaton, governing our animal body, causes our brain to open deltas in our consciousness, it does not “know” the context, by which these opening deltas manifest in our psyche. This automaton merely performs the behaviors it attained through millions of years of evolution. Never during the course of evolution, did our brain “contemplate” on the actual semantic significance, of the manner by which our consciousness interprets the opening of deltas, into the concepts they represent in our minds. Moreover, the manner by which each consciousness interprets its opening deltas, is subjective, and individual. For example, if we consider our sexual urges, which naturally, cause us to want to perform the actions, which reproduction through fertilization demands, different people, interpret them in different manners. While some people may interpret them, as the will to raise a family, some may interpret them, as the will to reach sexual climax, while other, more religious and ascetic individuals, may interpret them, as a “test” of their devotion to god, and abstract contemplations.
The contingent dimensional automaton, which governs our animal body and brain, does not “care” for the manner we interpret its cognitive manipulations. Instead, it leaves it to natural selection, to ensure only evolutionarily superior interpretations flourish. For example, again, if we consider our sexual urges, then naturally, of all the interpretations, only those which result with reproduction through fertilization flourish. Moreover, as we suggested in the previous chapter, this automaton cause defects in offspring belonging to parents, which share too many similarities in their gene pool, effectively predetermining some subjective interpretations of sexuality, such as asceticism and interfamily breeding, would not flourish.
Still, our cognitive delta mechanisms are even more subjective, as through trial and error, our consciousness can decrease the significance it puts to pain sensations. To clarify, the status-quo we mentioned earlier, is context-dependent. For example, people living in extreme poverty and famine, do not suffer the same distress whenever they feel hunger, as people who have accustomed to prosperity. In fact, this confirms the necessity for the new terminology we suggested, as the contingent dimensional automaton, which governs our animal body, cannot be aware of such differences. As far as our animal body is concerned, hunger is hunger. Moreover, obviously, extreme hunger imposes a risk, to the persistent existence of the human animal. Still, our consciousness can refrain from reacting to the behavioral suggestions of our brain, and therefore, it implies, the events occurring in our consciousness, are just as significant as biological stimulations, when determining the meaningfulness we associate, with the deltas appearing in our consciousness.
Therefore, again, we should refrain from analyzing our wills and needs, from the perspective of the human animal. From our perspective as consciousnesses, the human body and brain are our ultimate tyrants, following and torturing us wherever we go. While our body allows us to feel pleasure, it allows it only by first introducing pain into our lives, while forcefully disrupting any prolonged sense of serenity, with sensations of boredom. Obviously, our existence as consciousnesses does not have to be that miserable. We can, and should, better our lives. Still, we should not rely on our natural instincts to achieve this goal. Our body evolved to be able to manipulate us as much as it can, through sensations of pain. In fact, arguably, the only reason our animal body does not torment us more, is because had it did, we would all commit suicide, and rid ourselves from our miserable existence. To clarify, again, our animal body is a life form. Similarly to all earthly life forms, it persists to exist because it manages to establish a robust kinetic equilibrium. Being as such, it does not “care” for the discontent in our lives, and therefore, had torturing our consciousness more would have yielded evolutionary superiority, natural selection would ensure our existence would have been even more intolerable.
In short, the hand nature gives us by default, is rather miserable. However, we can use our intelligence and resourcefulness, to better our reality as consciousnesses. Still, to do this, we must first better our identification of our disposition, meaning, we must further investigate the cognitive delta mechanism. Utilizing this knowledge, we could manipulate our body “back”, and establish a more enjoyable status-quo, with our animal body.
To begin this venture, we should first learn to identify the different types of deltas, appearing in our consciousness. Still, unlike our previous course of discussion, we will not differentiate between the different types of deltas, according to the biological processes that govern them. As we just explained, the biological differences, between the causes for the appearance of different types of deltas in our consciousness, are merely one factor. The semantic context of these deltas, is just as significant, if not more. Therefore, it is time we shift our discussion to be more semantically contextual, by analyzing the different types of deltas, according to the semantic difference, between their causes and purposes. To ease our discussion, we will name each delta type, differently.
1. Bodily deltas.
As their name suggests, the cause for bodily deltas, is our animal body. Bodily deltas consist of our most primal needs, which do not demand abstract generalization capabilities to comprehend. Being as such, usually, we attain the purpose of bodily deltas, meaning, the closing of bodily deltas, by adhering to our born instincts, be it to eat, drink, perform sexual activities, and the likes. The significance we put in bodily deltas, is mostly dependent on the quantity of pain sensations in our minds, all of which demanding we react to them, with a somewhat primal response. To clarify, there is no point debating about how we should fulfill sensations of hunger for example. While we can choose to be highly selective in the food we prefer, beyond a certain level of hunger, practically any food becomes delicious. Moreover, there is little need to contemplate on the manner, by which we can appease hunger. We simply need to put food in our mouths, and eat. Actually, abstractly, all deltas are bodily deltas, as the brain causes them all, and essentially, our brain is but an organ of our animal body. Still, because usually, the existence of the brain escapes our perception, while the rest of our body does not, semantically, we differentiate between the specific wills of the brain, and those of the rest of our body.
2. Logical deltas.
Again, as their name suggests, logical deltas relate to our logical, somewhat mechanical, cognitive capabilities. Neurologically, the purpose of logical deltas, is to prepare a neural disposition in our brain, with which our unconscious learning mechanisms can enhance and optimize our learned instincts. By repeating behavioral patterns, we reorganize our experiences, in a manner our brain can utilize, so to assimilate the thought patterns we repeat, into the corpus of instincts, compiling the “filter” of our consciousness. Still, as we already argued, we should focus our delta analysis on semantic issues, rather than neurological issues. Semantically, the cause, of the opening of logical deltas in our consciousness, is different from that of our bodily deltas. Logical deltas may open, whenever our brain goes on idle, meaning, due to a lack of any other type of delta. As we suggested previously, our brain recognizes this as a good opportunity to cause our consciousness to optimize its performance, and inserts sensations of boredom, into our consciousness. Essentially, our brain throws a wildcard. It does not “know” if these sensations will eventually lead to any type of effective reorganization or optimization. Still, being on idle implies, there is no significant cognitive task ahead, and therefore, essentially, these deltas impose no significant risk, to the persistent existence of the human animal. If our consciousness fails to initiate any type of useful reorganization, our brain may increase our level of discomfort, or alternatively, boredom. Still, beyond certain duration of idleness, if we fail to react to these deltas, our brain abandons the attempt, and resorts to unconscious cognitive optimization, through sleep. This is understandable. To clarify, we should remember, this process occurs when our consciousness is on idle. Had our brain persisted to increase our levels of boredom, we may misinterpret this “boredom”, as a significant problem we should solve, more significant than other non-idle cognitive demands, such as eating, drinking, and the likes. Still, our susceptibility to boredom is subjective. It is dependent on many factors, which we will discuss later. Actually, this may explain why we find it hard to sleep, whenever something troubles us, as our brain misinterprets our neural activities, as productive, not knowing all we really want is to fall asleep.
Still, even if we manage to utilize such cognitive idleness effectively, and hence, close our initial logical deltas, logical deltas may reemerge in our consciousness, and cause a supporting feedback for our cognitive progress. The brain recognizes its essential wildcard as a “good guess”, and to exploit it, urges our consciousness to continue with its useful contemplation. This process causes a chain of interleaved sensations of pain and pleasure in our consciousness, as our logical deltas open and close repeatedly. Therefore, generally, this process is enjoyable, even if the sense of pleasure it involves, is not as dramatic, as the sense of pleasure we attain from closing bodily deltas. Still, unless we are very tired, such successes cannot help us fall asleep, as our brain will not let us. Again, it is only through prolonged cognitive idleness, that our brain “gives up”, and makes us feel tired.
Arguably, of all the delta types, logical deltas are the least disturbing. Nevertheless, logical deltas impose us with one significant drawback. Once our brain incorporates our thought patterns into learned instincts, we find it hard to undo these changes, regardless if they are beneficial or not. Therefore, there may be times, our brain attempts to utilize these learned instincts, with the purpose of automatically evicting inbound sensations, while in actuality, obeying these learned instincts, increases the amount and the intensity of sensations of pain in our consciousness. Such occurrences contradict our unconscious expectations, or alternatively, beliefs, and therefore, we find them disturbing even more, as such emergences of pain sensations, imply the disposition itself should not have occurred. Therefore, these occurrences yield a spike of pain sensations, to which we respond through anger. For example, if we walk down a street, and accidentally bump our foot against an object that should not be there, usually, our cognitive reaction exceeds the attempt to reestablish our balance. Unintentionally, we cannot help but think of the lousy bastard who left the object in our path. To clarify, as we all know, we are not born with the ability to walk on two. We learn it through practice, which usually, takes several years to complete, meaning, it is a learned instinct, which the object on the street interrupted. Naturally, we do not think about this cognitive connection. Moreover, other animal species exhibit anger as well, suggesting anger is not exclusive to humans, and therefore, arguably, anger does not require conceptual justification, as its evolutionary emergence, as well as possibly, the emergence of logical deltas in general, preceded the emergence of our cognitive generalization conceptual capabilities. Still, undeniably, it is an ingredient of our existence as consciousnesses, and therefore, it is a source for discontent, just like any delta.
3. Completeness deltas.
Unlike the previous two delta types, the idea behind completeness deltas is somewhat “elusive”. The cause, for completeness deltas, is a chronic saturation of sensations of pain, of great variety. From the perspective of our animal brain, this variety prevents it from adapting any fixed unconscious method, by which it can evict such inbound input surplus. Still, again, semantically, from the perspective of our consciousness, these neural dispositions manifest in different manners. As consciousness, we feel our entire life is “broken”. We feel “something” is missing. We feel as if we “got it all wrong”, a sensation, which similarly to as with other cognitive deltas, makes us think of a better, flawless place, a place where everything “fits together”, or alternatively, where all the aspect of our lives complete one another. Essentially, such thoughts embody our "completeness ideal", which we will discuss later.
Intuitively, we could think, we can “correct” this disposition, through rational thought and analysis, or alternatively, by utilizing our logical deltas cognitive mechanisms. However, unlike cognitive dispositions we can solve through rational thought, essentially, in such dispositions, we cannot even find the problem we wish to solve. To clarify, these sores emerge due to dispositions, which are “out of our hands”. It could be because someone we cared for, or depended on, died. It could be because we see injustice everywhere, and we are powerless to stop it. It could be because the life we lead is so “perfect”, we feel a chronic boredom.
Essentially, using our existing concepts and generalizations, there is nothing we can do to fix this painful sensational burden, other than fall into depression, and feel a general resentment to practically everything. Because of this variety of pain sensations, we perceive everything as the cause of our discomfort. Moreover, we include our very being as the cause for these pains. In fact, in some cases, this cognitive condition can lead to suicidal tendencies. Naturally, we can release some of this sensational burden through crying. However, usually, the chronic nature of these cognitive dispositions, renders crying merely a temporal solution. As we explained, while crying can physically evict the sensations of pain we feel currently, it is not a pleasant experience, and it does not solve the source of our problems. In fact, arguably, crying can even increase our levels of distress, as by understanding we cry, we perceive the severity of our condition. Nevertheless, again, crying can be beneficial in the lack of any other cognitive manner, by which we can evict our sensations of pain, especially when considering infants, who have not yet matured cognitively, and hence, have not yet matured to optimize the “filter” of their consciousness, and therefore, understandably, suffer from great sensational distress. Indeed, psychiatric medicine has found chemical methods, with which we can reduce the effect of the opening of completeness deltas in our consciousness. However, being such crude instruments, mostly, their negative effect on our cognitive capabilities as a whole, overcome their benefits.
Still, there is a reason why natural selection allowed the emergence of our completeness deltas cognitive mechanisms. To clarify, there is a natural manner, by which our consciousness can alleviate these cognitive sores. In fact, arguably, this natural manner is their biological purpose. To clarify, the purpose, of cognitive deltas, is to make us consciously optimize the generalizations with which we think. The contingent dimensional automaton, which governs our animal body and brain, as well as our unconscious methods of generating new generalizations, operates mechanically. Therefore, the generalizations it yields, tend to be of a simple and concrete nature, rather than abstract, and far reaching. While in themselves, these generalizations capabilities are both effective and necessary, they hardly realize the full potential of our cognitive capabilities, the same cognitive capabilities, on which humans depend for their survival. For example, if we consider human technology, it is hard to believe we could have ever achieved it, without the cognitive effects of completeness deltas. In addition, the combination of the somewhat "flawless" attribute of the completeness ideal, along with our desire to attain it, cause us to persistently want to attain, achieve, and conquer, more than we have currently, and hence, intensify our conviction to overtake our environment. Therefore, it is not surprising, that of all earthly animals species, humans have become the most successful, as arguably, no other species is as devoted to achieving evolutionary dominance. Moreover, arguably, the emergence of completeness deltas within humans, may explain our cognitive superiority over other animals. To clarify, as we previously suggested, completeness deltas cause us to feel the sense of “emptiness”, which from our experience, we know is one of the major reasons why humans choose to believe in god. We cannot find any other animal believing in such outrageous concepts in the animal kingdom. Therefore, it hints, all other animals lack this cognitive motivation.
While indeed, it is hard to tell if belief in god ever yielded us an evolutionary superiority over other animals, again, the completeness deltas mechanism does more than merely make us superstitious. It makes us re-associate sensations, in a manner different and more potent, than the manner by which we associate them otherwise, and by doing so, enhances our cognitive capabilities, incrementally. To clarify, because it is a conscious cognitive process, we become immediately aware, whenever we generalize our existing sensations, in manners which are not beneficial, and by doing so, prevent us from attaining some undesirable cognitive “mutations”.
While completeness deltas are definitely an inherent part of our experience as consciousness, and arguably, all cognitively mature humans experience their effects, the semantics by which we experience them, are so versatile, it makes it hard for us to link them all, as recurrences of the same cognitive process. Moreover, because we find the cognitive product of completeness deltas so significant, we feel reluctant to accept their somewhat mechanical nature. To clarify, the cognitive products of the completeness deltas range between endorsing a morality, strong affection and admiration between people, and believing in god. Still, from the perspective of our consciousness, these all share one somewhat elusive concept. Love. Love appears as the pain sensation of longing, which we sense as a result of the opening of completeness deltas in our consciousness. Still, the special nature of the completeness deltas, render love different from other types of sensations of longing we sense, as a result of the opening of deltas of different types. Still, to understand this difference, first, we should understand the idea behind the term “completeness”, for which I decided to name this delta type, completeness deltas.
Abstractly, completeness is the ideal reflecting in all cognitive products of completeness deltas. This ideal suggests, we can generalize all the sensations we sensed, are sensing, and will ever sense, as a single generalization sensation. In this sense, contrary to our intuitive beliefs it is "flawless", it is different from our ideal of “perfection”, as it includes both perfection, and imperfection, pain and pleasure. Therefore, in many ways, it explains the infinite attributes, which we usually attribute to divinities, such as omnipotence, eternity, and omniscience. From our perspective as consciousness, it is the essence of our causes, purposes, and meanings, regardless if neurologically, the essence of these is radically different. Contrary to popular notions, which suggest that because we feel a desire to attain this ideal, it is possible, arguably, the metaphysical and neurological feasibility of this ideal is irrational. To clarify, had we replaced the variety of generalizations we utilize, with a single generalization, we would radically damage our cognitive capabilities, irreparably damaging our self-sustainability. Indeed, theoretically, utilizing a single generalization, as the manner by which we handle each sensation that enters our psyche, we could rid our consciousness of paradoxes and dilemmas, as all the sensations we will sense, will share the same “understandings”, and therefore, will cause no inconsistencies in our minds. However, we should remember, not all of the sensations in our consciousness, refer to abstract notions. Some of these sensations, such as those the bodily deltas inflict, are essential to the survival of our animal body. If we fail to satisfy the bodily deltas effectively, we will simply die. Therefore, while our consciousness might rid itself from sensations of pain, to attain this serenity, we will have to accept our quite immediate death. In other words, semantically, seeking this single generalization sensation, or what I call, “the infinite generalization”, is equivalent to the will to suicide. In fact, arguably, this can explain the explicit prohibition in western monotheism against suicide. To clarify, indeed, the somewhat "eternal" nature of our completeness ideal, suggests we should feel resentment toward the idea of our death. However, because western monotheism preaches of an after-life, it negates our intuitive interpretation of biological death, rendering it somewhat “acceptable”. Moreover, because western monotheism attempts to unify all aspects of reality, into the single concept we know as the western monotheist god, without such prohibition, many western monotheist religious followers, could have deduced that they could enhance their faith, through suicide. In fact, such a trend actually emerged in Christianity, which in response, motivated western monotheism to explicitly prohibit it, as obviously, had all the religious followers of western monotheism committed suicide, western monotheism could no longer exist as a religion, as all its followers would be dead. Moreover, from our instinctive sense of fear, which we feel whenever in danger, we can deduce, the idea of our own death, negates what completeness should be, as completeness is infinite in its grasp, while this fear is most certainly within our grasp. In short, again, the completeness ideal negates itself, and therefore, it cannot exist in the logical field, not even as a definition in our minds.
Still, there is more to it. Our idea of completeness includes the attempt to justify all the hardships we suffer throughout our lives, including those originating from completeness deltas. Therefore, with respect to love, the completeness deltas cause us to attempt to bridge the longings we sense, towards the completeness ideal, with our concept of goodness. In other words, the completeness deltas cause us to long for the sensation of longing to the sensation, which potentially, could solve the painful sensational burden the completeness deltas propagate in our consciousness. In short, the completeness deltas cause us to wish to be as close as possible with the things we love.
The manner, by which this principle propagates in our lives, depends on the object with which we attempt to close our completeness deltas. If we choose a religious path, it will cause us to be stricter to the teaching of this religion. If we choose the path of justice, it will make us feel commitment to acts, which potentially, could increase the level of justice in our world. If we choose the path of truth, it will cause us to devote our lives to science. If we choose to love another person, it will make us want to spend our lives with this person.
While indeed, we can choose whichever path we wish, of all the paths, the path of intimacy, is the most rewarding. To clarify, unlike other paths, the paths of intimacy, does not involve merely abstract ideas, or alternatively, ideas, which could not exist in the external world. Again, truth and moral ideals are abstract generalizations, and therefore, they do not exist in the external world. Considering religions, arguably, most religious followers, did not meet god in person, and therefore, devotion to it, leaves a perpetual “hole” in their consciousness, an entity, which regardless of their longings, is too shy or proud to meet them. However, with intimacy, the other person can actually exist. We can feel this other person. Moreover, considering our born sexual instincts, this person can relieve us from the sores of other deltas as well. For example, arguably, as men and women mature, usually, a desire emerges in their consciousness, to reproduce, or alternatively, to be parents, a desire they can satisfy, through intimacy. Still, we should note, the will for intimacy is fundamentally different from our sexual desires. While our sexual desires are the product of our most primitive bodily deltas, the will for intimacy is the product of a completely different cognitive mechanism. While arguably, sexual desires exist in all animals, the will for intimacy is exclusive to animals who suffer the sores of the completeness deltas. Currently, to the best of our knowledge, only humans possess such cognitive capabilities.
Still, regardless of the possible tangibility of intimacy, humans cannot replace “the infinite generalization”. There is a limit to what one person can provide for another, while our completeness deltas know no such limit. Moreover, sadly, in many cases, the levels of intimacy between partners is so low, they do not even attempt to appease the sores of their mutual completeness deltas. Furthermore, usually, there is an inequality between the levels of necessity between partners, a fact, which eventually, can result with such intimacy, causing more distress than pleasure. Therefore, even if we embrace intimacy, pragmatically, we should expect, we will require other means to close our emerging completeness deltas.
Innocently, we could think, that only abstract spiritual concepts can appease our completeness deltas. However, this is not the case. To clarify, as we explained, all deltas are bodily. Again, while we can interpret different delta types in different manners, essentially, our animal body and brain cause all our sensations of pain, including those which cause us to long for a divinity, or a soul mate. Therefore, in some cases, we can appease the sores of our completeness deltas, by satisfying our bodily and logical deltas. We can indulge in bodily pleasures, or spend our time meditating over issues, which should not interest us otherwise. In fact, you could claim, writing this text is a fine example of this, meaning, I wrote this text to appease the sores of my completeness deltas, by indulging in contemplation regarding issues, which should not interest me otherwise. I will not bother to affirm or refute this hypothesis.
Still, even if we can appease our completeness deltas, by appeasing our bodily and logical deltas, it does not happen by default. To clarify, the differences between the different types of deltas, are due to different cognitive processes, which cause them. If one delta type is to appease different delta types, our consciousness must actively link them. To be more specific, our consciousness must generalize pain sensations of different types, as identical. For example, we can generalize our sexual desires, with our completeness deltas, which in turn, can result with several different behaviors, depending on the delta type we repress. On the one hand, if we generalize our sexual desires, as recurrences of our completeness deltas, we will want nothing but “spiritually meaningful” sexual activities. While usually, this will result with monogamist tendencies, theoretically, it can also result with religious practices, which incorporate sexual endeavors. On the other hand, we can generalize our completeness deltas, as recurrences of our sexual urges, effectively repressing the sores of our completeness deltas, while persistently seeking sexual relief. Actually, such cognitive dispositions are quite common, especially among teenagers, and usually, they pass, due to the lack of interest of others to participate in sexual activities with them. However, obviously, some of the more charismatic or good-looking individuals, can find sexual partner easily, enabling them to appease their completeness deltas, through sexual endeavors. Moreover, obviously, there are other manners, by which one can find sexual relief, meaning, through prostitution, or masturbation. Still, with your forgiveness, let us refrain from discussing these issues in this text. While sexuality is both relevant and influential in our lives, it holds little metaphysical significance, other than the issues we just mentioned. Indeed, many other metaphysical theories, such as religions for example, impose moral guidelines and restrictions on sexuality. However, rarely will we find any rational justification for these guidelines, other than the obvious, meaning, that only through heterosexual intercourse, can humans reproduce, and that generally, children require a stable family environment, to mature emotionally, socially, and cognitively. Other than that, the only rational justification we can find, for such sexual prohibitions, is the self-preservation of the practice and dominance, of the social establishment endorsing the metaphysical theory at hand. To clarify, if we consider religions for example, they are more than merely the semantic contents of their teachings. Religions consist of social establishments, on which the livelihood of the “staff” of their orders depend, be it priests, rabbis, archbishops, and the likes. Indeed, religions provide us with teachings and practices, which we can follow, and hence, potentially, close our completeness deltas. Religions persuade their followers, that their teachings embody the “infinite generalization”, which their followers so desperately seek. However, naturally, to achieve this, meaning, to persuade their followers of their validity, first, religions must exist as social establishments. Therefore, to establish their stability, religions must negate alternate manners, which potentially, their followers could practice to close their completeness deltas, and therefore, religions impose restrictions over bodily pleasures, transforming them from legitimate bodily wills, into a moral issue, and a potential subject for taboo. Moreover, considering the emotional immensity by which we sense our sexual desires, to negate it, religions must impose harsh sexual restrictions over their followers. Still, the self-preservation of religions, have little to do with the logic of their teachings, and therefore, unsurprisingly, they fail to introduce robust argumentative justifications, regarding any topic religions deal with, merely to preserve their stability. In short, the manner, by which metaphysical theories, such as religions, deal with sexuality, is through inconsistent teachings, and therefore, they are irrelevant to consistent metaphysical theories. Therefore, again, with your forgiveness, let us refrain from discussing sexuality any further.
Nevertheless, to some extent, there is a grain of truth to the solutions religions provide for our completeness deltas. To clarify, the distinction between different types of deltas is not a matter of personal preference. As we previously suggested, these differences yield us evolutionary advantages. To be more specific, considering the completeness deltas, the sores they generate in our consciousness, motivate us to progress cognitively, as they repeatedly urge us to reevaluate our previous beliefs. Indeed, as we already concluded, our evolutionary successfulness as animals is irrelevant to our existence as consciousnesses, and therefore, innocently, we could think, it does not matter how we repress our cognitive sores. However, a different picture emerges, once we broaden our perspective. To clarify, while indeed, we should not care for our evolutionary successfulness, the evolutionary successfulness of human behavioral patterns, may still affect us, through our social environment. Our social environment reflects the natural selection of successful behavioral patterns. Moreover, as we suggested in the previous chapter, it does not matter if these behavioral patterns make us happy or miserable. They are simply evolutionarily superior. Therefore, it does not matter if it is more pleasant, to devote our lives to bodily pleasures. History clearly shows, devotion to progress, and reinvention of technology, is more successful evolutionarily, regardless of the levels of personal distress it yields. Implicitly, this devotion rejects solving the sores of our completeness deltas, through bodily pleasures, and therefore, we should expect our social environment will demand a similar devotion. In short, if we attempt to solve the sores of our completeness deltas through bodily pleasures, we should expect, our social environment would reject us morally, and therefore, potentially, could send us on a downward spiral of alienation. To explain, potentially, this rejection would increase our levels of distress, and therefore, obviously, we would attempt to appease it. However, because the manner by which we appease our distress, meaning, through bodily pleasures, is the very reason our social environment rejects us, appeasing our distress would only intensify the rejection we will receive. If we do not change our behavioral patterns, inevitably, we will accept these levels of distress as “normal”, and enter the mental state we usually refer to as “depression”. To clarify, accepting the existence of sensational pains is different from repressing them. Depression is not a cognitive method to evict sensations of pain, but rather a description of a chronic misfortunate cognitive state. While theoretically, we can find desolate social circles, which welcome our hedonist persuasions, in practice, such circles usually collapse, under the collective sense of resentment of their members.
The same principle applies to all types of deltas. To preserve our peace of mind, it is best we refrain from generalizing the sores of all types of deltas, as the sore of a single type of delta. We will call such behavioral patterns “bestiality”, as arguably, by following them, we reduce our cognitive capabilities, to those of lesser species. Still, our definition for bestiality will be broader. To clarify, our usual connotation for bestiality, refers to the cognitive condition we discussed previously, meaning, bodily bestiality, which causes us to reduce all our wills, to the gratifications we attain through bodily pleasures. Still, considering our previous conclusions, bestiality can appear in two other formats, meaning, as logical bestiality, and as completeness bestiality. Abstractly, logical bestiality manifests as “self-proclaimed enlightenment”, or alternatively, positivism. While practicing logical bestiality, we will never question the validity of our beliefs, and therefore, we will never change them. Instead, we will persistently attempt to enhance and repeat our existing beliefs. This enhancement manifests in two flavors, which can appear either together, or separately. First, we will attempt to reduce every aspect of our lives, into learned instincts, effectively repressing all the cognitive sores we feel, as the “filter” of our consciousness would “blind” us from sensing them. Naturally, this comes with a price. To clarify, there is a reason we cannot do this by default. Potentially, the dispositions we can find ourselves, during our life-cycle, can be infinitely more complex than any fixed selection of behavioral patterns we learned. In fact, as we already suggested, this variety was the reason why natural selection allowed the emergence of the completeness deltas cognitive mechanism in the first place. Therefore, to practice this type of logical bestiality, we must restrict our lives from the variety life offers, through a strict set of unfounded principles and prohibitions, not so different from those religions embrace. In fact, when taken to extreme, following a religion, may manifest as logical bestiality. Moreover, considering the cognitive evolutionary backwardness, which this behavioral pattern represents, then arguably, we would find it extremely hard to sustain such a lifestyle, without the backing of a stable social establishment. Still, similarly to bodily bestiality, even with the support of a stable social establishment, this behavioral pattern reduces our cognitive capabilities, from those we attained through evolution. To explain, individuals, who respond to the completeness deltas more effectively, always have the potential to enhance their cognitive capabilities, beyond the reach of any establishment, and through natural selection, ultimately, overtake existing orders. Actually, historical records show such social turmoils have occurred in the past, and in many ways, the social fabric we find today reflects it. To clarify, even though in many ways, the stability of religious establishments requires their followers would exhibit behavioral patterns similar to logical bestiality, ultimately, all religious establishments understand the need for technological progress, without which, they could not defend from the power mongering aspirations of other social structures. Therefore, usually, religious establishments harbor academic facilities, with which their order can evolve technologically, while still upholding some sort of obedience to their religious teachings, and hence, preserve their stability.
The second flavor of logical bestiality is somewhat more elusive, as we can easily misclassify it with the behavioral response, for which natural selection resulted with the emergence of our completeness deltas cognitive mechanisms. When we practice this type of logical bestiality, we will devote our lives to memorizing as many facts as possible, without extracting new understandings regarding our beliefs. The belief motivating this type of logical bestiality is that possessing knowledge is the reason why we exist, while blinding ourselves from the fact, that we do not utilize this knowledge to progress cognitively. To clarify, our inability to extract new understandings from the knowledge we attain, is not the result of a temporal lack of inspiration, but rather because our beliefs demotivate us from such extractions. Therefore, arguably, this second flavor of logical bestiality is not that different from the previous flavor we discussed, as essentially, by practicing it, we reduce our lives to a fixed behavioral pattern, in which we do nothing but memorize new facts, while limiting all other aspects of our lives to serve this purpose. Moreover, similarly to the previous flavor, it utilizes social establishments to support it, mainly through academic establishments. While indeed, academic establishments devote themselves to cultural and technological progress, in many cases, their staffs consists of many logically bestializing individuals, who find refuge in the sluggish manner, by which academic establishments progress. Moreover, because such individuals recline from challenging any belief, in many ways, academic establishments prefer them over individuals, who persistently attempt to achieve actual progress, as in many times, the paradigm shifts, which these progressions cause, endanger the stability of existing orders, within these academic establishments. In fact, we can find evidence of this, if we consider the story of Galileo Galilee, for example. Still, similarly to bodily bestiality, this flavor of logical bestiality is harmless. Again, as we suggested at the beginning of this chapter, we gain little from the fruit of our cognitive advancements, and therefore, essentially, as consciousnesses, we should not worry for our lack of academic ingenuity. Moreover, differently from the manner by which our social environment reacts to bodily bestiality, generally, logical bestiality does not provoke much resentment, regardless of flavor. Again, the social establishments, which harbor logically bestializing individuals, rely on their submissiveness as their source of stability, and therefore, not only do they not resent this behavioral pattern, they actually reward it. In fact, this can explain the persistent popularity of this type of bestiality, throughout human history.
Nevertheless, there are two circles, which may still feel resentment to it. First, there are those who actually achieve cultural and technological progress. Such individuals have the potential to become influential within their social fabric, and of all behavioral patterns, they resent logical bestiality the most, as in many cases, individuals, who practice logical bestiality, tend to block their path, while attempting to preserve existing paradigms. Still, usually, such groundbreaking, paradigm-shattering individuals, do not manage to change existing paradigms during the potent periods of their lives, and therefore, fail to impose a difficulty for logical bestiality. Nevertheless, throughout history, there were times when this resentment surfaced in aggressive manners, such as in the times of the French revolution, for example. Still, these are but marginal historical anecdotes. Moreover, considering the connection between anger and our logical deltas, then arguably, logical bestiality, may yield greater anger and resentment toward such ground-breaking individuals, than the resentment such ground-breaking individuals may have toward individuals practicing logical bestiality. In fact, we can find much evidence of this, considering the war religions waived throughout history, against secular avant-garde thinkers. No. The real “threat” for logical bestiality, is reflection. To clarify, through logical bestiality, we expose our minds to many ideas, which negate our cognitive stagnation. Moreover, while memorizing or following existing cultural and technological paradigms, inevitably, we learn what they are about, and therefore, we cannot help but attempt to apply them to our lives. However, when considering the semantic contents of the knowledge and practices we attain through logical bestiality, in many cases, it rejects cognitive stagnation. This is true to most philosophical teachings. Furthermore, almost all cultural and scientific breakthroughs occurred through some type of antagonism to existing orders, from which the practice of logical bestiality refrains. Innocently, we could think, religious teachings cannot impose such reflective antagonism on the practice of logical bestiality. However, considering ideas such as merit and sin, one cannot avoid their incompatibility with logical bestiality. Religious merit and sin demand our ability to choose, particularly at times of dilemmas, meaning, the ability to choose the righteous path, when facing complex moral dispositions, such as helping some people over others, and personal sacrifice. However, the cognitive stagnation of logical bestiality, prevents such convictions. Implicitly, when practicing logical bestiality, we remove the need for choice. We obey a strict set of rules, regardless if they are sensible or not. To clarify, logical bestiality is too obedient to sustain a morality. It replaces our ideas of good and evil, with correctness and incorrectness. However, in times of moral dilemmas, “correctness” is no longer applicable, as history clearly dictates. For example, if we consider the time of the Spanish inquisition, it is clear, that rigorously following religious teachings, has little to do with morality. If we fail to question our morality, our morality can easily transform into the very evil we wish to avoid.
To summarize, regardless of flavor, logical bestiality damages our self-esteem and pride. By practicing it, we fail the very practice, to which we devote, causing us ever growing distress. Again, similarly to bodily bestiality, the reason for our distress is the manner by which we appease our distress, sending us on a downward spiral of shame. In fact, this could help explain the ascetic tendencies of strict religious followers, which arguably, have reached the bottom of this type of bestiality.
While it is hard to determine which is worse, logical bestiality, or bodily bestiality, arguably, they both pale in comparison with completeness bestiality. To clarify, innocently, we could think, that completeness bestiality is not bestiality at all, as it causes us to react to completeness deltas, in a manner that fits them. However, completeness bestiality is different from merely changing the generalizations with which we think. It causes us to persistently disregard the needs of our body, as well as tamper with our learned instincts, while attempting to reach the impossible, or alternatively, “the infinite generalization”. Unlike the original cognitive advantages our completeness deltas yield, the practice of completeness bestiality persistently destroys our past cognitive achievements. To clarify, while practicing completeness bestiality, we spontaneously invent unfounded superstitions, which ensure we perceive every moment of our lives, as spiritually significant, or alternatively, as proof for our connection with “the divine”. Moreover, we can transform our alleged repeated connection with “the divine”, into a belief we are incarnations of “the divine”, regardless of the fact, we have no proof to support our outrageous claims. Still, because we refrain from utilizing the cognitive skills we attained previously, within our minds, nothing can refute our convictions.
While completeness bestiality does not demand any type of bodily asceticism, it is different from hedonism, as it rejects the dominance of our body, while determining our behaviors. Instead, it demands we invent “spiritual significance” for every action we perform, which in our minds, will reinforce our “divine connection”. Nevertheless, unlike common religious practices, which as we previously suggested, are attributes of logical bestiality, completeness bestiality does not urge us to obey past traditions, or anything of the sort. In fact, considering the obedience and submissiveness associated with logical bestiality, along with the sense of shame it brings, there is little the practice of completeness bestiality respects less than existing religions. Instead, the practice of completeness bestiality, draws us to the occult, and other nonconventional religions, which due to the lack of conclusive historical records, allow us to reinterpret them in manners fitting our desires. To clarify, while indeed, the practice of completeness bestiality rejects common religions, it does not reject the eternal nature of our concept of “the divine”. Therefore, as long as it does not dictate any specific teaching or restrictions, completeness bestiality welcomes ancient mythologies and texts of religious significance.
There are many misconceptions regarding completeness bestiality. This is not surprising. As we previously suggested, because of the significance we place in subjects related with our completeness deltas, behavioral sciences prefer to divert discussion regarding these, in fear of being blacklisted by religious and cultural establishments. To clarify, the conclusions we reached, regarding our completeness deltas, do more than merely undermine the moral validity of existing religions. They undermine the validity of faith in general, including faith in the necessity for cultural, scientific, and technological progress, as again, from the perspective of our consciousness, apart from perhaps, medicine, none of these advancements better our existential conditions. Moreover, arguably, without the metaphysical theory we compiled in the previous chapters, we cannot assert our completeness deltas even exist. Still, such denial comes with a price, especially when attempting to analyze completeness bestiality.
From aside, completeness bestiality is extremely annoying. The self-divination and inevitable narcissism associated with completeness bestiality, which lacks any rational justification whatsoever, result with inexplicable arrogance, which repeatedly undermines the importance of others. In response, naturally, people of different persuasions, show disrespect, antagonism, and resentment, toward individuals practicing completeness bestiality, which similarly to other types of delta bestiality, initiate a downward spiral of hate and antagonism toward society, while persistently attempting to reutilize self-divination, to alleviate sensations of emotional distress. To clarify, the combination of extreme narcissism, and lack of respect from the social environment, causes an imminent contradiction between the alleged connection with “the divine”, and the refusal of society to accept it, sending individuals, who practice completeness bestiality, further into the occult, especially toward religious persuasions, antagonistic to mainstream religions, such as Satanism, for example. Still, again, from afar, the struggle of individuals, who practice completeness bestiality, accompanied by both their distress, and their hyper-narcissism, cause society to dismiss them as insane. Nevertheless, completeness bestiality is not insanity, meaning, it is not a biological brain dysfunction. While we can choose to view it as a mental illness, neurologically, it is not much different from logical and bodily bestiality. To clarify, while it is possible, the reason we choose any type of delta bestiality, is because we suffer from a neurological dysfunction, we practice delta bestiality by choice, and therefore, it is no different from choosing it, due to our experiences, traumatic or normal as they may be. Moreover, completeness bestiality does not automatically imply social alienation. When practiced in a charismatic fashion, completeness bestiality can result with a cult following. To clarify, contrary to common misconceptions, individuals, who practice completeness bestiality, are not charlatans. They are not aware of the invalidity of their beliefs, as if they were, they would no longer find them appealing. Therefore, their apparent sincerity may persuade others to follow them. In fact, this can explain the sporadic emergence of cult founders, throughout human history. Still, the narcissist nature of completeness bestiality, may prevent such individuals from perceiving their followers as their equals, and hence, they may retain their sense of alienation and hate toward others, regardless of the following they attained. In fact, this can explain why cult founders directed their followers to suicide, regardless of the success of their following.
We are not born with such mental dispositions, and theoretically, we can change them. Nevertheless, if we do, then naturally, the social environment in which we practiced our bestiality will not respect or accept us anymore. Considering bodily bestiality, then obviously, once we cease our hedonist lifestyles, we will find no home in hedonist social circles. This is even truer, when considering logical bestiality. Once we are no longer obedient to the establishments we once called home, these establishments will outcast us. However, arguably, of all deltas, completeness bestiality is the hardest to abandon. Without our invented beliefs, we have no way of dealing with neither reality, nor our relative metaphysical insignificance. Therefore, while indeed inexact, we can associate completeness bestiality with insanity, as in most cases, we can heal from neither. Still, if we put our hearts and minds to it, and if we find something real and humbling, which we can admire more than ourselves, there is a cognitive path out of completeness bestiality, regardless how hard it is to cross. Intuitively, we could think, other religious persuasions, can serve as the subject of our new devotions. However, the inherent link, between religious tendencies and completeness bestiality, deems religions ineffective in such dispositions, as most probably, the spiritual connotations of religions, would lure us back to our old habits. Therefore, again, it is a hard path to cross, which requires our complete devotion, understanding it were our choices, which caused our ever-growing distress.
So far, our analysis of the different delta types, revolved around cognitive extremities, meaning, delta bestiality. I chose this path, as these extremities allow us to comprehend the effects of our cognitive delta mechanisms more clearly. However, naturally, these are not the only dispositions available, and arguably, neither are they the most common. Still, many of our conclusions, regarding the different delta bestiality types, apply to the common and healthy cognitive dispositions as well. To clarify, it is a fact that prior to this text, there was no consistent metaphysical theory available. Again, while we may have made several mistakes along the way, arguably, none of these mistakes are irreparable, in the sense they force us to reject our metaphysical model in its entirety. Still, because we did not have an equivalent theory prior, we must accept, that inevitably, some of our prior beliefs, were inconsistent and incompatible with the world in which we exist. Moreover, considering our previous conclusions, these are not just any beliefs. These are the beliefs compiling our morality, our sense of goodness, and our ideals. To clarify, consistency and rationality cannot yield a moral hierarchy. At best, by following consistency and rationality, we can determine which behaviors are beneficial. Still, these depend on context. To clarify, as we already concluded, the interests of our animal body are different from, if not completely contradicting, the interests of our consciousness. Nevertheless, intuitively, we adopt our moralities, with, or without contemplating their outcomes.
To clarify, while our morality and ideals represent our concepts of goodness, and therefore, in many ways, our peace of mind depends on their feasibility, metaphysically, they cannot exist in the world. These concepts are incompatible with the manner the external world hosts elements within it, and neither does the external world sustain them as existing regularities. The external world does not sustain one set of regularities, to elements representing what we perceive as goodness, and neither does it sustain a different set of regularities, to the elements representing what we perceive as evil. At best, we can establish social orders, which attempt to uphold our moral ideals, through judicial systems, law enforcement, religious establishments, and the likes. Still, these are all our doings. Moreover, the manner by which such social establishments uphold our moralities, are far from ideal, and in many cases, their inherent corruptions, result with them bringing more harm than good. Still, such imperfections do not tamper our moral ideals, which in our minds, remain “perfect”, regardless of their inexistence in our reality. These ideals form our concept of heaven, a place, which unlike our immediate reality, manages to realize our ideals. Moreover, understanding our inability to realize these ideals in our reality, while relentlessly holding onto them, we convince ourselves the feasibility of our ideals, depends on the involvement of a stronger intelligible force, which we usually refer to as god. Still, again, neither our concepts of goodness, nor our concept of heaven, or god, exist in the world. To clarify, if our world is indeed consistent, and if we are but passengers in it, who must obey its consistent demands, even if these concepts exist, they cannot exist in the external world. Furthermore, because our demands of such concepts, imply the existence of dispositions in the external world, even if they can exist in our minds, they cannot equal our completeness ideal. Therefore, through negation, we associate our reality with our concept of evil, and our immediate surroundings, as manifestations, of what we would otherwise refer to as “hell”. Still, because our initial motivations, for this fantastic outrageous transformation, emerge from our desire for goodness, we reject the notion our world is entirely without merit, even though in actuality, it is. To clarify, again, if our world is indeed consistent, the merits we seek in the external world are incompatible with its consistent metaphysical essence. Still, it is not that the external world is malicious, or evil. It is simply not what we want it to be, as what we desire, is but a by-product of the manner by which our consciousness compiles the generalizations with which we think.
In short, our natural and normal behavioral patterns are not that different from those reflected through the various types of bestiality. They are simply more balanced. For example, usually, we do not confuse our bodily deltas with our completeness and logical deltas, and vice versa. Instead, we give each type of delta its proper place. Nevertheless, as we previously suggested, it is not uncommon for us to confuse specific deltas of one type, with deltas of a different type. For example, while we can love to eat, our desire to stay fit and attractive, can cause us to feel shame whenever we do, effectively merging some of our logical and bodily deltas. To clarify, usually, we attain our understandings regarding our levels of attractiveness from our social environment, and therefore, these have little to do with our personal beliefs, meaning, with our completeness deltas, or with our primal urges, meaning, with our bodily deltas. Moreover, considering this, we should note, there is some similarity, between the different types of deltas, and Freud’s divisions over our sense of being, with the Id being the bodily deltas, the Superego, our logical deltas, and the Ego, our completeness deltas. Still, this is but an anecdotal remark.
The manner, by which different types of deltas merge in our minds, form interconnections between them, which in turn, determine the relative level of meaningfulness we give to our deltas. We will define this cognitive construct, as our "delta hierarchy", or alternatively, our "hierarchy of meaning". Our hierarchy of meaning represents the manner our wills transform into preferences, within different cognitive dispositions. To clarify, contrary to our common beliefs, that we follow a subjective context-independent moral code, meaning, a code to which we remain true regardless of circumstances, in actuality, our wills do not reflect anything of the sort. Our wills reflect a web of delta interrelations, dependent on our current dispositions, as well as behavioral patterns we attained. For example, while we may have a strong resentment toward crime and theft, there may be times, when we want to take that which is not ours. It does not matter if we actually perform such a felony or not, as usually, it is not the moral guideline which prevents us from doing it, but rather the fear of punishment. To clarify, such a disposition reflects three independent wills, meaning, the will to be just, the will to possess the objects we desire, and the will to refrain from punishment. Therefore, while in our minds, we may think we follow only our conscious morality, in actuality, usually, the significance of our conscious morality is marginal. Therefore, while similarly to the various types of deltas, our hierarchy of meaning represents a concept we can identify through conscious reflection, and not a feature of our biological design, differently from deltas, usually, we do not have a clear sense of it. This is understandable. Just as we cannot expect the appearance of memory sensations, which resurface unintentionally within our consciousness, we cannot expect the effect these memory sensations will have on us, and the manner by which they will change our wills.
Still, while we are somewhat oblivious to the exact composition of our hierarchy of meaning, through contemplation, we can extract some of its more influential conceptual pivots. These pivots cause us to sense extreme unintentional attraction or revolt, whenever we think about them, be it a “spiritually meaningful” concept or experience, an event we hear of on the news, a person or social circle we love or hate, an activity in which we wish to participate or avoid, and the likes. Indeed, all of these inherently relate with our hierarchy of meaning. Nevertheless, they may not be what they appear. For example, a person we hate, may in fact represent a concept we loath, such as for example, our inability to achieve much in our lives, while in actuality, this person has little to do with this concept, which in this example, could be simply resourceful and hardworking. The same applies to love. While we may think we love a person, in actuality, through devotion to this person, we become oblivious to our real problems, and therefore, none of the characteristics of this person must play a factor, while determining our levels of attraction. In fact, we can utilize the existence of such a person in our lives, to appease the exact same cognitive sores, for which we hate another.
To comprehend the exact composition of our hierarchy of meaning, we should see beyond our self-deceptions. We should attempt to reach the real cause for the meaningfulness we find in these conceptual pivots. To clarify, considering our previous example, we should understand why we feel we did not achieve anything in our lives, as obviously, hating or loving different people, will not change our lack of satisfaction with ourselves. Possibly, by finding the root causes for the emergence of these conceptual pivots, and understanding the logic behind our emotions, we can extract a different set of concepts we should find meaningful, and hence, remove the necessity for our indirect expressions of dissatisfaction.
Still, there is a limit to the amount of cognitive change we can administer through rational thought, as arguably, we can gain some of our cognitive capabilities, only through neurological optimization, meaning, by changing our learned instincts, and mutating the filter of our consciousness. To clarify, regardless of the somewhat mechanical manner by which our brain constructs the "filter" of our consciousness, again, its mechanicality does little to tamper with its meaningfulness in our lives. Indirectly, the "filter" of our consciousness, defines the concepts we take for granted, and therefore, in many ways, it defines the essence of our faith. Actually, this can explain why we find it so hard to change our faith through contemplation, as inevitably, changing our faith demands unconscious neurological optimization. Therefore, it is hard to extract a morality from these conclusions, as without the ability to actually change our "filter", we may not be able to gain any benefit, and therefore, arguably, there is no need for such contemplations. Innocently, we could think, that because usually, our moral code restricts us from attaining the things we want, and because essentially, our morality is an interchangeable idea, we should replace it with an idea that allows us to close our various deltas, without the need for moral torment, as metaphysically, there is no justification for it. However, our morality embodies more than merely our personal completeness desires. It defines the manner by which we coexist with others, the manner we should treat others, and the manner they should treat us. Moreover, our mutual morality establishes the legitimacy of our society, to enforce our morality on others, regardless of their personal desires. While in itself, this seems like the prescription for our personal oppression by the hand of society, the truth is we require the assistance of others. As we suggested in the previous chapter, arguably, humans have exceeded the use of communal role distributions beyond any other animal species in the earthly animal kingdom, and therefore, being human, we depend on the willingness of others to help us. Therefore, if our personal morality offends the people on which we depend, inevitably, we will gain nothing, as the deltas that will open in our consciousness because of our rejection by society, will counter any benefit we may attain by selfishly closing other deltas. Naturally, we can choose to live in isolation. However, in practice, such an existence is quite miserable. Moreover, considering the significant role animal communities have, in allowing successful genetic mutations to flourish, then arguably, our born instincts may induce us with pain sensations to prevent such behaviors. To summarize, unless we wish to practice completeness bestiality, it is best we refrain from undermining the morality of our social environment. Regardless if we comprehend or understand it, the morality of our social environment proved itself in the test of time, as an effective manner, by which our society can preserve its self-sustainability, and therefore, in many ways, it is a successful product of evolution. Indeed, the product of our evolution as a society, meaning, our shared morality, technology, and culture, do not adhere to the same principles evolution follows in the wild. In contemporary human society, the weak and less evolutionarily successful do not perish. On the contrary, considering our contemporary biology, humans have managed to allow the persistence of individuals, whose biological level of mutations and decadence has reached ridiculous proportions. Still, considering brilliant individuals, such as Stephen Hawking for example, and the technological advancement they brought to humanity, then arguably, countering the principles natural selection obeys in the wild, can yield evolutionary advantages.
Still, we should remain vigilant and critic, to the morality of society. To clarify, while in principle, the morality our society follows has proven itself in the past, naturally, if it makes us fall behind other civilizations, or cause us to self-destruct as a species, it will not persist in the future. Throughout history, civilizations, such as the Roman, Greek, and Ancient Egyptian civilizations for example, either dissolved in other civilizations, or became extinct, in spite of their successful heritage. We should not expect our fate must be any different. Moreover, considering the proportions we see today, between technological backwardness and birthrate, then arguably, there is reason for concern. However, considering our metaphysical desolation, meaning, the independence between the internal world in which our consciousness exists, and the external world, we should not worry for these possibly worrying proportions. Moreover, for the most of us, changing these proportions is beyond our reach.
No. We should concentrate on that which we can better, meaning, our personal morality. Indeed, as we already suggested, to refrain from needless distress, we need our social environment, and therefore, it is better we show respect to its basic moral demands. We should refrain from hurting others needlessly, exploiting that which we can do without, and any other misconduct, which we would personally find offending. Still, respecting basic human conduct is different from following the morality of others, reflexively. To clarify, usually, our morality, meaning, the moral guidelines of which we are aware, and which we follow, consists of three categories, of which only one suggests the manner by which we behave with others. The remaining two have little to do with other people, and therefore, may not yield us much benefit. First, we have reflexive morality, meaning, our moral obligation to ourselves, which are independent of any external commitment. These are different from our bodily desires. Our bodily desires are biological, and therefore, do not require a morality to concern us. While reflexive morality can manifest in many ways, arguably, its most common form is a concern for our health. At first glance, such reflexive morality seems trivial, as obviously, suffering from a disease, or incapability, causes us distress, and therefore, it is best we avoid such hardships. Still, we can easily convert this concern into a habit, somewhat similar to logical bestiality, incapacitating our potential in the process. To explain, we can always find an endeavor, that may increase our longevity, be it the food we eat, doing sports, undergo medical therapy, and the likes. Therefore, theoretically, by persistently performing such tasks, we can reduce our lives to a prescription we follow, somewhat similar to the strict set of practices religions suggest. Arguably, this is not that bad, as we can find such conducts fulfilling. Moreover, considering the popularity of such conducts, we may even receive gratification from the respect we gain from others, due to our lifestyle selection. Furthermore, differently from religious teachings, our body is there, to make us feel better. Still, such reflexive moralities may suffer from the same Achilles Heel as all other forms of logical bestiality practices, meaning, the sense of shame we feel upon reflection. If our entire lives revolve around our health, we may lessen our efforts to achieve impressive achievements in our lives. To clarify, indeed, by being athletes, we can achieve feats, for which our society will cherish and reward us. However, health-related reflexive morality is different. Health-related reflexive morality implies we cherish our health, while many times, athletes endanger their health to increase their chances of winning in athletic competitions, and in many cases, die prematurely. Indeed, again, our body may “thank us” for our practices, by making us feel better. However, this gratification is limited. Our animal body does not really “care” about us, as essentially, it is but a machine. Again, our animal body exists separately from our consciousness. It exploits our consciousness to serve it, and therefore, arguably, by practicing a health-related reflexive morality, we merely increase this exploitation. Moreover, by following such health-related reflexive morality, we may restrict ourselves from many bodily pleasures, such as tasty foods, any type of narcotic indulgence, undergoing fun yet risky experiences, and the likes. Therefore, potentially, practicing such health-related reflexive morality may decrease the levels of bodily pleasures we feel, while replacing them with sensations, which due to their repetitiveness, may result with nothing but boredom. Arguably, we might feel shame for the fact, that even though we dedicate our lives to our body, we fail to attain the full potential of our bodily pleasures. In fact, this shame may even convert into envy toward other individuals, which manage to attain bodily pleasures, while refraining from our tedious devotion to our health. Actually, this is quite common, considering the envy, which obese people feel toward naturally thin individuals. To summarize, reflexive morality can be a mixed blessing, and therefore, while practicing it may benefit us, it is good practice to remain critic toward it, regardless of any contemporary hype or popularity. To clarify, as we already stated in the introduction chapter, "Delta Theory" does not suggest a specific morality. It merely provides us with conceptual “instruments”, with which we can evaluate our morality, consistently.
Still, there is another type of morality, for which we should be somewhat less ambivalent. Differently from both the moral codes according to which we interact with others, and reflexive morality, the factual basis for this morality type, is marginal. To clarify, this morality embodies the collection of ideas, ideals, and spiritual concepts, which allegedly justify the moral codes our society follows. Intuitively, we could think, this type of morality is mostly religious, meaning, the manner by which we should behave, if we are to follow the path of god. However, we can find similar moralities in secular persuasions as well, through ideas such as freedom, justice, equality, honor, heroism, forgiveness, tolerance, successfulness, and the likes. While as we previously suggested, we embrace these concepts using our personal completeness deltas cognitive mechanisms, unless we practice completeness bestiality, usually, we become aware of them through our society and culture, meaning, they are not subjective figments of our personal imagination. Arguably, embracing these concepts as our morality is beneficial, as it makes it easier for us to follow the moral codes of our social environment, and therefore, makes it easier for us to utilize our social environment for our selfish needs. For example, if we consider strict religious communities, arguably, without embracing their religious persuasions, living in them is intolerably oppressive, while for religious followers of the same persuasion, it is gratifying. However, if we consider more secular moral concepts, such as justice for example, then arguably, their existence in our minds only increases our levels of distress. Still, it is important to stress that justice is different from basic human dignity and mutual respect. Our concept of justice demands our world would prevent injustice, while again, sadly, in practice, injustice is as widespread as justice, if not more. Moreover, justice is subjective. For example, supposing a man needs food to feed his starving family, and therefore, steals food from a merchant. Naturally, the merchant would believe catching this man and putting him in jail, is just. However, from the perspective of the man’s family, it is simply cruel, as by imprisoning him, his family would have neither food, nor a benefactor. The same applies for all secular moral concepts (which in most cases, have religious counterparts).
Obviously, had the external world sustained the existence of these abstract moralities, our lives would have been far simpler, and therefore, we empower our society with means by which it can enforce them. However, the more we empower our society for such ends, the more our society oppresses our freedom, which undoubtedly, is a significant, if not the most important moral principle we long for. In short, these moral codes are contradictive, and therefore, usually, unattainable. Their existence in our minds increases our levels of distress, while at the same time, shifts our attention from our opening deltas. They make us “blind” to what we really feel, and therefore, unintentionally, cause us to redirect our distress away from its source, and onto imaginary adversaries. For example, throughout history, there were many cases, where instead of dealing with a socio-economic crisis, nations redirected the sense of distress of their citizens, toward external or internal enemies, further surmounting the nation with agony and death. Such was the case in World War Two, as well as arguably, in many contemporary dictatorships. Moreover, in many cases, these abstract moralities convert into reflexive moralities, causing us to feel shame for our bodily urges, or more specifically, sexuality. Indeed, this does not apply to completeness bestiality, as by practicing it, we repeatedly redefine our morality, to fit our current dispositions. Still, this is a different morality altogether, if we can call it a morality at all.
Still, there is an option other than completeness bestiality. We can adjust our abstract moralities, to better fit our true desires, while retaining a stable moral fiber. Moreover, by doing so, we can actually increase the similarity between the ideals we longed for, while following external moral codes, and the lifestyle we lead, while following a morality of our design. For example, by following our own morality, we increase our level of freedom, by default. In fact, theoretically, with enough practice, tact, and finesse, we can achieve this, without risking any benefit we gained from our society previously. Indeed, strict religious communities are too rigorous in the practices they demand of their members, to allow much versatility in lifestyle. However, nothing demands we stay in such communities. We can always leave, and find a better home.
Still, honestly, doing this is not trivial. First, it demands we reclaim responsibility for our actions, back from the concepts we reject. Once we remove the moral justification for our actions, we can no longer claim justification by association with concepts such as “the will of god”, or “the greater good”. We can justify our actions only to ourselves. To clarify, as we already explained, the justification for most of our moral ideals is irrational, as metaphysically, it is inconsistent with the external world. Therefore, once we reject the manner our society interprets its morality, we cannot re-associate with it, through alternate justification, as essentially, there is nothing to justify. We cannot validate rationally, that which rejects rational argumentation. Therefore, regardless if we feel we reinterpret the morality of our society more accurately, we cannot share the same morality with our society. The morality of our social environment is not “misguided”. While rationally, it may be flawed, it evolved to become what it is, through many years of social evolution, and therefore, in many ways, its flaws can just as well be its strength, as by accepting irrational ideals, it allows people of different opinions, to share common ideals, as essentially, the morality binding them, is irrational and inconsistent, and hence, it can tolerate practically anything. Arguably, accepting this moral disassociation is the biggest difference between this type of conduct, and completeness bestiality, as it demands we accept the invalidity of our morality, in the eyes of our social environment. Moreover, it undermines the feasibility of any type of “justice”, as “justice” implies a uniform morality, applicable to all, while obviously, a subjective morality cannot yield anything of the sort. Moreover, considering the context dependent nature of our hierarchy of meaningfulness, from which we compile our subjective morality, arguably, we cannot even establish our own subjective concept of justice, as we repeatedly change our opinion regarding the essence of justice, in different dispositions.
Actually, considering this, to some extent, the individuality such a morality demands can be a nuisance, as it may force us into unintentional loneliness. To clarify, because we are to base our morality on our individual delta profile, it may be inapplicable for any other person, regardless of any possible affinities we may feel. Therefore, differently from completeness bestiality, which as we suggested, both yields a subjective morality, and theoretically, can attain a following, and form social circles, which share the same morality, or alternatively, cults, we cannot share the subjective morality this conduct yields. Moreover, it might be even bad practice to confide it, as if we discuss it with others, they may induce suggestions, which do not match our hierarchy of meaning, and therefore, deem our morality ineffective, while attempting to reduce our levels of distress. Nevertheless, sometimes, we require the assistance of external perspectives, to see through that which we take for granted, and therefore, avoiding such confinement, is not really a prohibition. It is a suggestion we should consider. Again, as we explained in the introduction chapter, “Delta Theory” does not attempt to yield any specific moral code, but merely describes possible manners, by which we can compile our morality.
Secondly, in the absence of an external morality, as well as the manner it dictates us to self-evaluate our actions, we can no longer claim, we do things we do not want to do, as essentially, there is no one else to which we adhere, other than ourselves. For example, we cannot claim we do not want to study, go to work, and perform any other boring task, as there is always a reason why we eventually do these tasks, such as purchasing goods with the money we earn, wanting better jobs, increasing our understanding of our world, keeping our minds away from disturbing thoughts, and the likes. It does not really matter. What matters is that through this conduct, we no longer do things, which we cannot justify consistently. Therefore, inevitably, we must better understand ourselves, our motivations, our needs, or alternatively, our delta profile. To clarify, external moralities define us as good, strong-willed, or correct, and rank us in a scale relative to other people, and hence, they yield our self-definition. However, once we eject from the hierarchy of external moralities, we lose this significant component. Again, we can no longer assert the validity of our actions, by claiming we serve god or the greater good, and therefore, we require a new independent system, by which we can evaluate ourselves, and the actions we perform. Indeed, as we suggested, we can claim we merely reinterpret existing moralities, and therefore, we still belong in the same moral hierarchy as others. However, it is only by the acceptance of others, who do not share our persuasion, that we may reenter existing moral hierarchies. If they do not accept us, while we still believe we share their moral hierarchy, effectively, we are inventing our own irrational morality, meaning, we practice completeness bestiality. Moreover, even if they accept us, they may place us in a hierarchic position, different from the one we perceive, and therefore, essentially, the idea we share the same morality, merely represents our mutual misconceptions. For example, many cults have diverged from western monotheism, endorsing practices, which the religions from which they diverged, would consider as “sins”, or at the very least, “bad taste”. While western monotheism agreed to harbor many of these cults, it most certainly did not accept their moralities, such in the case of many Christian sects, for example.
In short, in the absence of our previous moral system, and while attempting to refrain from completeness bestiality, our only solution is consistent reflection. We must rigorously and uncompromisingly analyze ourselves, determine what it is exactly we feel and why, and build behavioral guidelines accordingly. This is far from easy, and neither is it common. Mostly, we simply “live” our lives, and meditate on such issues, only in times of dilemmas or great distress. However, if we are to free ourselves, from the needless sores external moralities inflict us with, we can no longer live this carelessly. If we do, inevitably, we will reach dispositions, which will leave us in great distress, due to our lack of ability to cope with them, which possibly, could undermine the benefits we gained, by rejecting external moralities.
Theoretically, “Delta Theory” can help us compile our personal morality. However, it demands quite a lot of us, and in many cases, may be inapplicable to many individuals. Therefore, again, we cannot provide a general guideline, which is applicable to all people, except the advice: “consider the option”, as possibly, we can all reshape our lives, and reduce our burden of distress.
Still, ending our discussion here is somewhat “unfair”. To clarify, essentially, throughout this chapter, we undermined the validity of most of our common moralities, and therefore, it would be unfair to ask us to forget all we learned, simply because cognitively, we are underequipped to offer an alternative. We can, and should, provide as many conceptual tools, to better our chances of alleviating as much distress from our lives as possible. Indeed, we may not like the conclusions we reached, as we prefer to see our world as capable of sustaining our previous ideals. Still, as we already concluded, if our world is indeed consistent, this is impossible. Regardless if we choose to follow our own somewhat "fantastic" morality, or follow the morality of society, metaphysically, our world is incapable of sustaining such principles. Again, as we mentioned at the beginning of the previous chapter, we can claim our world is inconsistent. However, claiming this does not validate the existence of our ideals, or any other concept for that matter, as metaphysical inconsistency implies nothing. It merely allows the possibility these ideals exist, while at the same time, irreparably tampering with the metaphysical stability of our world. Still, considering the metaphysical category we attempt to populate, this option is none of our concern.
Indeed, there is an additional manner, by which we can alleviate some of our existential sufferings, which does not require any morality to validate it, as it is imprinted onto the neurological architecture of our brain, and the manner our brain utilizes our consciousness. To explain, as we suggested, the prime function our brain serves is to evict sensory inputs from it, and it evolved to evict them, in manners that yielded evolutionary superiority. Through the course of evolution, our animal body and brain attained the ability to manipulate the dimension of consciousness, and increase our evolutionary superiority further. These were the reasons for the emergence of our conscious intelligence, and hence, evolution imprinted these motivations into our neural architecture. Therefore, if we consider the "filter" of our consciousness, it does not filter inbound contingent dimensional inputs, in a manner which would reduce our sensational distress, but rather in a manner that causes us to react to them, so to attain evolutionary superiority. In other words, our animal body and brain "configured" the "filter" of our consciousness to serve their interests, and not the interests of our consciousness. Therefore, similarly to the biological self-organizations, which we discussed in the previous chapter, we can seek sensory inputs, which exhibit a similarity to sensory inputs, with which a more “benevolent filter” would inflict our consciousness, effectively simulating a somewhat “better” cognitive reality. Such “simulations” are different both from the conscious manners, by which we attempt to reduce our sensational distress, as well as from our unconscious neurological optimization mechanisms, as they do not change the manner by which we react to inbound sensations, but rather define a selection of sources, from which we receive inbound sensations. These sources transmit sensations into our mind, which sustain functionalities, somewhat similar to that of the generalizations with which we think. Because they consist of several cognitive opposites and cascades, while at the same time, do not impose any cognitive challenge, our consciousness finds it easier to evict them. They allow our consciousness to select any detail from the cognitive variety they offer arbitrarily, as essentially, all of them are equally insignificant, and therefore, cause us temporal comfort, due to the unexpected cognitive idleness they yield in our consciousness. Nevertheless, we cannot extract these sensations from memory, as the manner they affect us, demands the totality of the experience.
These sensations are what we usually refer to as beauty. We cannot prevent or deny the appeasing effect of beauty, and neither can we learn to appreciate it. The effects of beauty on our consciousness are a neurological imperative, uniform to all humans. We cannot undermine it, regardless of our morality. At most, we can choose to live an ascetic lifestyle, and prevent the appearance of sensations of beauty in our minds. Still, regardless, whenever we will sense beauty, we will feel its effects. Naturally, the soothing effect of beauty makes us desire it, because as we already explained, our consciousness merges our memories of the sensations of beauty we sensed, with the manner it affects us. Moreover, in the absence of beauty, we will feel a longing for it, which potentially, could cause the emergence of distress in our minds. Actually, this can explain the connection between religions and asceticism, as arguably, religions exploit this type of distress, to increase the levels of discontent among their followers, and direct it toward more abstract methods of gratifications, such as those their teachings offer. In contrast, some religions, such as Christianity, and polytheist religions, such as that of the Ancient Greek, utilize beauty as means to reinforce their grip over their followers, through esthetic manipulations.
Contrary to our common concepts of beauty, beauty has no inherent link with sensuality. Our senses are but one method, by which sensations of beauty can enter our minds, as beauty, can be abstract as well. To clarify, we sense beauty, whenever we can treat the complexity of the sensations in our minds, uniformly, and therefore, we can interpret abstract concepts, such as those of mathematics, as beautiful as well. In fact, this can be one of the reasons why we enjoy meditating on abstract ideas, as arguably, when we do, in actuality, we are attempting to find new unifying orders, which in turn, produce joyful sensations of beauty in our minds. Still, such abstract methods of beauty extractions demand our active involvement and effort, which some of us may prefer to avoid, while esthetic beauty, meaning, the unintelligible beauty we sense from the external world, does not, and therefore, we are more familiar with the attributes of esthetic beauty. Nevertheless, arguably, contrary to our common beliefs, some of the sensations, which we define as beautiful, may have little to do with beauty, as the reason we find them attractive, is not because of the manner they manipulate sensations in our minds, but rather due to the effects of our cognitive delta mechanisms. For example, arguably, it is possible we believe certain people are beautiful, not because of a special esthetic quality of their bodies, but rather because of our sexual urges, or our affliction with concepts they represent. Moreover, sometimes, we can feel the same type of attraction, without the use of our sight, through seductive words, or admiration to the works of others. None of these traits are esthetic.
While theoretically, esthetic beauty can emerge in our consciousness, through any of our senses, because of the detail complexity it requires, our most common acquaintance with beauty, is through sight and sound. Usually, esthetic sensations of beauty consist of varieties of details, which all share an obvious similarity, or alternatively, a collective guiding principle and logic. We can find an excellent example of this, as we watch the cascading colors of the skies at sundown. We witness the immensity of the skies, smoothly changing colors between dark blue, purple, red, and orange, and comprehend this immensity, as obeying a simple coloring principle. This sensation is different from the sensations we sense at high noon, for example, as at high noon, the sights of the world around us do not obey such ordering, but rather appear as collections of independent details.
The same applies to audial harmony. Whenever we hear harmony, we hear a collection of sounds, all of which obeying a unifying property. Actually, empirical sciences affirm this. Apparently, the wave lengths of harmonics converge, suggesting this convergence may be the reason for the sense of beauty audial harmony yields. Another form of audial esthetic beauty, comes in the form of rhythm. By obeying a rhythm, sounds, which we could otherwise interpret as noise, produce distinguishable patterns, causing us to listen to the pattern, rather than to the collection of audial sources producing it. This interpretation reduces the sensational burden in our minds, and therefore, causes a temporal sense of gratification and joy, similarly to the previous forms of beauty we discussed. In fact, the combination of harmonics and rhythms, can explain why we can tolerate the ridiculously loud music we hear in clubs and musical performances, which in many cases, can actually damage our ears biologically. Had these sounds not exhibited harmonics and rhythm, arguably, such noises would draw us insane.
Still, beauty can reach even greater heights, by incorporating dissonance, or alternatively, kontrapunkt, into the patterns it exhibits. While at first, dissonance may repel us, once we comprehend a dissonance is an inherent feature of the pattern we sense, we can further increase the amount of sensational detail, which we can perceive as a unified entity, and therefore, rid our consciousness of even more sensations, over which it would have needed to meditate otherwise. Still, there is a limit to the amount of dissonance we can tolerate, while still perceiving it as a distinguishable pattern. While we may still be able to distinguish patterns beyond this point, arguably, the amount of attention and concentration it may demand of us, will outweigh the sense of pleasure we attain from it, deeming this effort a nuisance, rather than pleasure. Nevertheless, the point beyond which dissonance becomes a nuisance is subjective. Moreover, it can change overtime. To clarify, as our cognitive capabilities mature, the "filter" of our consciousness learns to evict sensations more efficiently, effectively changing the composition of the sensations we perceive as beautiful. In fact, unless our consciousness ceases to learn new instincts, this is unavoidable. While we can persistently claim otherwise, while holding onto objects we once found beautiful, again, the effects of beauty are imprinted into our neural architecture, and therefore, do not adhere to our conscious inclinations. Actually, this can explain the possible incompatibility between our morality, and our esthetic taste, as we are consciously constructing our morality, while our neural architecture, which evolves independently from our moral convictions, forces the effects of beauty on our psyche. To clarify, while our esthetic taste is subjective, we do not design it. It is a feature of the relation between our consciousness and our animal body, and therefore, our conscious thoughts can determine it only partially.
Nevertheless, as we previously suggested, this does not imply, all beauty is esthetic, as beauty can emerge from our abstract thoughts. Moreover, obviously, the effects of beauty extend beyond the manner by which they appear in nature, and therefore, we can increase the amount of pleasure we attain through beauty, as humans have done throughout the ages, through art. Contrary to common beliefs, art does not limit itself to esthetic beauty. Art harnesses all types of beauty, be it abstract, or sensual. Still, unlike the abstract beauty, which we can find in mathematics (for example), in art we care little for purposes, other than those we attain through the effects of beauty on our psyche. This is not a drawback, and neither is it a limitation. Through the use of mimesis, meaning, by imitating, and hence, incorporating elements, existing, in either the external world, or the internal world of our consciousness, be it abstract concepts, or emotions, art allows us to utilize the effects of beauty on ideas and concepts, which otherwise, fail to exhibit any type of beauty. For example, if we consider tragedies, the manner by which the merits of the tragic hero, merge with the hero’s tragic fate, allows us to sense beauty in the sores we feel throughout our lives, and hence, reduce our general levels of distress and discontent. To clarify, through tragedies, we accept the link between greatness and misfortune, a link which we can later apply on our lives, effectively disassociating merit from justice. The esthetic qualities of a tragedy, transform it from failure to heroism, which we can choose as our perspective, whenever we encounter hardships in our lives. Comedy achieves a similar goal, by merging the lack of merit with successfulness, while due to our empathy toward the comic hero, we refrain from sensations of envy and discontent, which we might feel otherwise.
Considering this, art provides us with a useful instrument, with which we can appease our completeness deltas, while avoiding both completeness and logical bestiality, and therefore, can serve a significant role, while compiling our personal subjective morality. While arguably, art can provide us with the same comforts religions offer, because art merely asks us to be its audience, it does not demand our complete devotion. Moreover, unlike religions, which impose us with moralities that do not fit our delta profile, art offers such a great variety of messages and persuasions, ultimately, we can always find artworks with which we can sympathize, and if that is not enough, we can always attempt to create works, which we specifically design to serve our dispositions. Naturally, we are not equally capable in the realm of art, and therefore, we may recline from creating it ourselves. Nevertheless, because of the individual nature of the morality we proposed, arguably, our relative levels of artistic competence should not intimidate us. To explain, we suggested art as an instrument of moral self-validation, and not as a competitive practice, and therefore, if it serves our interests, meaning, if it helps to appease our sensations of distress, it does not matter if our levels of competence are appalling. Nevertheless, if we are to follow the path we suggested, we should not convert art, into completeness bestiality. We should always remember art is a human invention, which cannot change the regularities the external world obeys. At best, it can temporally persuade others, the world is somewhat different from what they know otherwise.
Moreover, because art utilizes the natural effects beauty renders in our consciousness, it is subject to the limitations of beauty, which therefore, impose a limit to the manners by which we can harness art to our needs. To clarify, first, again, there is a limit to the amount of dissonance an artwork can incorporate, without becoming a nuisance to its spectators. While naturally, different spectators may comprehend such dissonance differently, and hence, differ in their ability to extract pleasure from a specific artwork, if the audience to which an artwork directs, is inherently underequipped to handle its dissonance, then obviously, the artwork will fail to please its spectators. For example, if a movie directed for children, would incorporate scenes of great gore and violence, unintentionally, it might traumatize any child viewing it. Actually, the opposite is true as well. If the intended audience of an artwork is over equipped to handle its dissonance cognitively, it might find the artwork boring, and hence, fail to extract any value from it. In short, the levels, as well as the types of dissonance artworks incorporate, determine which audiences will find it enjoyable, as arguably, these levels and types are key ingredients, defining our esthetic taste, beyond, and below which, we cannot sense sensations of beauty. It is a neurological subjective limitation to the effectiveness of an artwork, contrary to common beliefs, which claim the esthetic value of some classical artworks, is universal. Secondly, similarly to beauty, art requires symmetry and similarity between the different sensations it propagates in our minds. Therefore, there is a limit to the simplicity art can exhibit, without losing its artistic quality. Indeed, art can be minimalistic. In fact, minimalism implicitly suggests, that the lack of details of minimalistic artworks, is not really a lack, but rather the product of the strict order an artwork exhibits, causing its complexity to escape our perception, and hence, induce the sense of gratification we previously associated with beauty. In fact, many times, artworks may fail to impress us, exactly because they exhibit too many details, for which we fail to identify a unifying principle. For example, arguably, baroque art suffers from this flaw. In short, as usually referenced in art circles, in art, less can be more. However, if the elements an artwork utilizes are too “mundane” or “banal”, regardless of the perspective by which we view it, spectators will fail to differentiate its ingredients, from their usual appearance in daily life, effectively nullifying the artistic value of the artwork. The same applies to the concepts and topics artworks incorporate. To clarify, if we consider literature for example, if the story a book tells is too mundane, it will fail to suggest any general principle, and hence, deem it too boring to appease us, regardless of the intents of its author. Similarly, if we identify the topic a poem or song describes, as something, to which from our experience, we attribute little significance, it will not impress us, and might even cause us to feel resentment toward the artist, for “taking things out of proportions” so to speak.
For the most part, the limitations we just mentioned are subjective, and dependent on context, and therefore, do not impose general prohibitions on art. Nevertheless, contrary to contemporary popular notions, stretching the limit of art can backfire, by eroding its effectiveness. For example, in many ways, such was the case with postmodernism. “Stretching the boundaries of art”, demands the audience has a firm concept regarding the boundaries the artwork “stretches”. For example, if we consider abstract expressionism, its artistic value depends on our prior knowledge, regarding the evolution of art, the philosophical dogmas art followed throughout the ages, and the manner the artworks respond to this conceptual corpus. Arguably, from this knowledge, the audience of abstract expressionism can extract understandings, which invoke sensations of beauty. However, without this knowledge, abstract expressionistic paintings are pretty much garbage, as they portray neither craftsmanship, nor elements we can understand. However, as time progressed, both artists and audiences, marginalized this fact, claiming art is free of any restriction, effectively detaching art from the sensations of beauty it once incorporated. While at first, the sense of liberation from boundaries was rewarding, eventually, the audience of art interpreted this liberation as total subjectivity, meaning, that artworks do not have objective value, other than the value one finds, or chooses to find, in an artwork, while as we explained, the value of art is imprinted into our neural architecture, and therefore, dependent on some factors we can hardly change, regardless of our choices. In many ways, postmodernism transformed the value of art, into an inconsistent irrational idea, similar to ideas endorsed by religions. Actually, this is understandable, as we cannot counter such arguments, without a consistent metaphysical and neurological justification for the value of art. Nevertheless, regardless of intent, postmodernism has damaged common respect toward art, from which we suffer to this very day, and therefore, it would be wise not to repeat such mistakes in the future. Still, similarly to other previous cultural trends, postmodernism will not be here forever, and considering the biological link we suggested, between our sense of pleasure and art, we should expect we will recover from its cultural setbacks, through cultural evolution.
Regardless of these limitations, beauty and art can help us greatly, when attempting to practice an enjoyable and interesting lifestyle, consistent with our personal subjective morality. Still, just as beauty and art are not historically linked with subjective morality, they are not our only aids. There are other means with which we can reduce our levels of distress, while remaining true to our subjective morality, and refraining from most delta bestialities. First, there is humor and laughter. To clarify, humor and laughter are not synonyms for comedy. Comedy is an artistic narrative pattern, while humor is far more versatile. Humor is somewhat similar to anger, in the sense that it occurs through spikes of sensational changes in our consciousness. Still, oppositely to anger, humorous sensations emerge due to sudden eviction of sensations from our consciousness, while anger occurs due to their sudden emergence. Humoristic sensations appear in our consciousness, whenever we comprehend, that the sensations which bother us, are insignificant, and therefore, our consciousness directs our brain to evict them. Still, being insignificant, they require no motoric response, and therefore, apparently, through evolution, our biology revised a method, by which our body can dispose of these sensations, as well as the neural electric surplus that carries them, through motions that neither serve nor harm our body. We know this motion as laughter. Moreover, when extremely funny, our brain can select to evict these sensations through the crying neurological mechanism. These effects can work to our advantage. To clarify, because these mechanisms are neurological, meaning, they operate uniformly, regardless of the semantics of the sensations that make us laugh, they do not differentiate between sensations relevant to that which makes us laugh, and other irrelevant sensations, and therefore, arguably, can help us evict painful sensations from our consciousness, irrelevant to the humoristic cognitive disposition at hand. Moreover, by temporally making our consciousness concentrate on understanding the semantics, which later makes us laugh, once we laugh, we feel a lapse of sensational burden, between the time of this sudden eviction, and the time we contemplated on the sensations, which later made us laugh.
Still, why do we find these sensations insignificant? Well, to explain this, it is best we simply analyze a joke. I can only hope, you have not heard this one yet.
The big brown bear, and the little white bunny, take a dump in the woods. After several minutes of hard labor, the bear asks the bunny, “Do you not hate it when shit-nuggets get stuck to your fur?” The bunny thinks about it a bit, and answers, “No, I am cool with it.” “I hear ya”, says the bear, grabs the bunny, and wipes his ass against his fluffy white fur.
In this joke (regardless if you think it is funny), first, we understand the disposition as allegorical, meaning, that the bear and the bunny represent two people, one small, and one large, as obviously, animals do not speak English, and neither do they take a dump together, in the same manner humans do in public toilets. Moreover, because bears are both big and predatorial, the fact the two animals share the experience, hints some sort of friendly connection between the bear and the bunny, a connection the joke reaffirms, through the type of questions they ask each other. Then, without any warning, the story changes radically, as the bear exhibits an obnoxiously patronizing, arguably dehumanizing behavior. In many ways, it is worse than eating the bunny, which previously was his friend. None of this makes sense, and our consciousness understands, there is little it can do with the information it gathered while listening to the joke, other than evict it through laughter. That is, if you found it funny. You could have just as well felt indifferent to this joke, and therefore, felt no different upon hearing the punch line.
The same principles apply to all jokes, and actually, it applies to tickling as well. To clarify, according to our personal experience, as well as empirical research, the sensations we feel as ticklish, are similar to sensations of pain and touch. Still, they are not really painful, and therefore, similarly to the semantics of jokes, our consciousness cannot determine a useful motoric reaction to it. Therefore, without a better choice, it uses the laughter method of sensational eviction.
Arguably, humor can be an art of its own, and therefore, just as we have not discussed the craftsmanship of any other artistic medium, we will refrain from supplying “tips” on humor. Moreover, honestly, as you probably noticed, I pretty much suck at telling jokes. Still, as a rule of thumb, it is good practice to resort to humor and laughter whenever possible, as it allows us relief from our sores, at a very low “price”. Nevertheless, we should remember, some of our problems demand we actually change our reality, changes which humor and laughter cannot provide. In many ways, humor and laughter are similar to painkillers, and while painkillers may be necessary to recover from a light flew, they hardly cure all our diseases, such as cancer or aids, for example. Moreover, we should remember that for humor to serve as means for delta alleviation, it must provoke physical motoric laughing response (as polite and silent as it may be), and therefore, more prudent forms of humor, such as polite irony and sarcasm, may not be potent enough to serve much purpose, especially if we do not follow a subjective personal morality.
Still, there is another type of activity, which intuitively, is somewhat related to humor and laughter, and can help us appease the sores of our deltas, without challenging our subjective morality, or urging us to indulge in any type of delta bestiality, which we commonly refer to as “playing games”. Despite the somewhat common childish association we have with this type of activities, playing games can yield us great joy. Despite common, somewhat physical sportive association, essentially, playing games appeases our logical deltas, and not our bodily deltas, as through playing games, we train the neural networks in our brain, to better the manner by which we respond to similar inbound neural stimulations, similarly to all types of learning, and actually, this can explain why we can find other playful animal species, such as dogs for example. In addition, contrary to the somewhat boring nature of learning, games ensure immediate external gratification, whenever we better our neurological performance, and hence, may be much more enjoyable than any other type of learning. Moreover, because games impose cognitive challenges on our psyche, playing them, demands our attention, which once we manage to master them, can cause temporal lapses of sensational burdens, which are always a blessing. Actually, if we find the challenges games impose significant enough, mastering them could result with sensations of pride, as they allow us to generalize our self-perception, as recurrences of the ideals the game represents in our minds.
Still, similarly to humor and art, if we are to utilize games as means for delta closing, and alleviation of sensations of pains from our psyche, we should remember to obey a few “ground rules”. To clarify, at times, the sense of pride we can achieve by mastering a game, can confuse us thinking the game is as significant as our real lives, which in turn, might actually increase our sensations of distress. To explain, first, nothing promises us we will always be victorious, and therefore, if we find winning a game too significant, we may feel sensations of shame, whenever we fail to beat it. In fact, this can explain the embarrassing moments, in which we can find competitive athletes, falling into tears in front of television cameras, after exhibiting poor athletic performance. Considering this, arguably, it may not be in our interests, to devote our lives to any game, as once we do, we are bound to suffer from such sensations of shame, undermining the possible benefits games offer to our psyche. Secondly, we should remember why we usually stop playing games, as we mature. The challenges games offer, are not as necessary as the challenges we face throughout our lives, due to the hardships of survival and existence, fruits of the different types of deltas, which open in our psyche. Therefore, if we devote our lives to games, we might fail to master the other, somewhat more “real” challenges life throws at us, which in turn, could transform into sensations of shame, when comparing our achievements, with those of more “pragmatic” individuals. Thirdly, because of the connection between playing games and the logical deltas, devoting our lives to games, can result with logical bestiality. For example, similarly to arguably common notions, devotion to any specific sport, in the same manner athletes portray, can result with lower cognitive capabilities, due to the scarce variety of the challenges they face. Obviously, this is not mandatory, and surely, athletes can divert some of their cognitive efforts, to issues completely irrelevant to the sport they wish to master. Moreover, as we previously explained, from the perspective of our consciousness, attaining higher cognitive skills is of little significance, when considering the amount of distress we feel in our lives. Still, without other cognitive skills at our disposal, and with the sport becoming too significant for us to attain delta alleviation, such logical bestiality can result with great distress, which undoubtedly, we should avoid. Moreover, because of the dependency between our physical fitness and our athletic abilities, and because as we grow older, our bodies are bound to suffer from biological degradation, if we devote our lives to sports, we are bound to reach a point where we could no longer master the games, and therefore, it would be wise to consider these issues, when thinking ahead.
Considering the somewhat external nature of games, being activities we are to participate in, arguably, there is one more manner, with which we can evict sensations of pain, without tampering with the semantics of our personal subjective morality. Actually, considering its popularity among contemporary new-age and artistic circles, you might wonder why we did not mention it before. To clarify, I am referring to narcotics, of all types, ranging from prescription drugs, nicotine, alcohol, cannabis, hallucinogens, morphine, and the likes. Indeed, narcotics are capable of reducing the sensations of pain we sense. In fact, some narcotics, such as morphine and heroine for example, are capable of numbing our sensations of pain altogether, suggesting that as aids for our consciousnesses, narcotics are superior to beauty, art, humor, laughter, and playing games. Indeed, the common attitude of western society toward narcotics is ambivalent at best. However, considering the inconsistencies inherent to the morality our society endorses, within the context of this text, we cannot accept this rejection automatically. Indeed, some narcotics reduce our cognitive capabilities. However, as we already explained, being consciousnesses, we do not benefit from our cognitive capabilities directly, and therefore, cognitive deficiencies cannot impose an argument for or against the use of narcotics. Moreover, arguably, some narcotics, such as amphetamines for example, can enhance our cognitive capabilities temporally, and actually, many people use them exactly for this purpose. In addition, the manner by which narcotics manipulate our neural architecture, and more specifically, the "filter" of our consciousness, can alter the composition of the sensations in our consciousness, which unintentionally, causes the surfacing of sensations in our consciousness, which we would repress otherwise. The essence of these sensations differs according to the narcotic at hand. For example, arguably, alcohol tampers with the manners by which our brain represses opening deltas, and therefore, causes us to be more “emotional” and “lustful”, increasing our empathy, and hence, unless we go beyond a certain level of intoxication, and make fools out of ourselves, alcohol can temporally increase our social skills. Moreover, artists, whose ability to create, depend on emotional motivations, can find the effect of alcohol “inspiring”. Similarly, other narcotics, such as cannabis and hallucinogens, can alter the manner by which our brain routes sensations, introducing sensations into our consciousness, of which we would never think otherwise, and hence, make us feel as if we “broaden our horizons”. Essentially, these effects are a wildcard. While indeed, they may shift us from our cognitive stagnation, and hence, provide us with new "insights", because these sensations emerge due to non-cognitive neural manipulations, arguably, they cannot exhibit much argumentative strength, and hence, may not enhance our overall intelligence. While as we previously suggested, being consciousnesses, enhancing our intelligence, does not offer us much benefits, and therefore, such “insights” are harmless, still, experimentation has shown, the use of some of these narcotics, such as hallucinogens for example, causes long-term neurological mutations, whose effects, while determining the levels of distress we feel throughout our lives, is unknown. Therefore, these effects cannot offer an argument, for, or against, the use of such narcotics.
Considering this, we could think, narcotics are an excellent solution to our existential sores. While indeed, we might be brightening the picture a bit, we have to remain true to our consistent foundation, and therefore, to refrain from the common prejudice against narcotics, such a perspective is necessary. Undoubtedly, some narcotics, such as cocaine for example, are very costly. However, this does not constitute a valid argument against their use, as it is relative to our socio-economic status, and dependent on the existence of legal prohibitions, which automatically raise their price. Indeed, narcotics are external to our body, and therefore, arguably, their effects are “unnatural”. Still, this is hardly an argument, as essentially, there is nothing natural in art as well, and neither is there anything natural in the rules of the games we play. Obviously, some narcotics can damage our health, causing us great sufferings, as we grow older. However, theoretically, with careful use, we can marginalize these effects, and actually, considering the potential pleasures narcotics offer, it is hard to determine, which is better, living five years longer at the age of eighty, or spending the years before, having the fun of our lives, as again, the use of narcotics can be quite enjoyable.
Still, in practice, this is hardly the case. While narcotics can radically reduce our current levels of distress, unintentionally, the aggressive and mechanical manner, by which they affect us, encourages us to practice delta bestiality, and hence, increase our levels of distress. Intuitively, we could think, narcotics mainly increase our tendencies to practice bodily bestiality, such as in the case of craving due to narcotic addictions. However, this is but a narrow perspective, as contrary to urban legends, usually, drug use does not result with such embarrassingly aggressive addictions. To clarify, contrary to the somewhat hysteric suggestions of law enforcement officials, smoking pot does not automatically imply, one would end up shooting crack in a stinking back alley, or wind up dead due to overdose, in a downtown dumpster.
No. The real problem narcotics face us with, is logical bestiality. Because the use of narcotics tampers with our cognitive capabilities, it prevents us from performing tasks, which demand our full attention and concentration. While usually, such inactions would cause our brain to induce us with sensations of boredom, the appeasing effects of narcotics demotivate it. Therefore, inevitably, narcotics cause us to refrain from achieving much in our lives, which upon reflection, cause us to feel shame and discontent, similarly to as in other practices of logical bestiality. Moreover, because narcotics provide us with a somewhat mechanical method to solve our distress, they demotivate us from solving the reasons why we felt distress in the first place. In most cases, the reason for the sensations of distress we felt previously remains, and due to our lack of response, may even intensify. For example, if the reason for our distress is not having a job, or money to pay our bills, then obviously, narcotics cannot solve it. Actually, our use of narcotics may increase our economic debt, as again, narcotics can be costly. This effect is incremental. The more we depend on narcotics to evict our sensations of distress, the more we refrain from attaining the cognitive skills we require to evict them, as well as increase the reason for new sensations of distress to bother us, as we persistently neglect our non-narcotic interests. Ultimately, we become dependent on these narcotics, regardless if we do not suffer from any type of bodily craving for them. Actually, some narcotics, such as hallucinogens for example, may cause completeness bestiality as well, as arguably, without them, the normality of our environment would demotivate us from believing the beliefs we invent. To clarify, hallucinogens tamper with our neural pathways responsible for receiving external sensations from the world. Hallucinogens change both the manner we perceive external stimulations, warping them spatially, color wise, and otherwise, as well as merge the contents of the generalizations our brain utilizes to process inbound sensory inputs, which usually, do not enter our consciousness, with external sensational stimulations. In many ways, hallucinogens merge the manner by which dreams transpire in our consciousness, with our wakeful interactions in the world, causing us to accept a type of equality, between our dreams and wakefulness, which in turn, we can interpret as equality, between our fantasies and reality. Indeed, nothing forces us to accept this equality. However, if we are prone to accept it, either because our achievements in life are so poor, or due to our religious persuasions, such narcotics could definitely serve as catalysts for completeness bestiality. In fact, this can explain the wide use of hallucinogens by shamans for example, as without them, arguably, they would incline from believing their outrageous suggestions. Moreover, with the use of such narcotics, the downward spiral completeness bestiality causes, along with the long-term neurological mutation they cause, could result with a general brain deficiency, such as schizophrenia and mania depression, as inevitably, neither our biology, nor our conscious wills, resist our detachment from reality.
Still, we should not link addiction with bestiality, automatically. While indeed, some addictions can result with bestiality, arguably, we cannot completely avoid addictions, regardless if we practice the morality we suggested, or not. For example, if we consider medicines, arguably, in some cases, we can claim our body is addicted to them, as without them, our body would die. Such is the case with diabetics, which without insulin, may die, and more commonly, such is the case with minerals, nutrients, and water, without which, inevitably, all earthly animal species would die of hunger. Moreover, sadly, some of us are born with neurological deficiencies, and there is no wrong in using medicines to overcome them, considering the obvious benefits they promise, such as self-dependency, and pride.
Therefore, we should not confuse our dependency on the external world, as a moral deficiency, behavioral abnormality, or a tendency we should avoid. Moreover, there is no harm in being “addicted” to a specific external element, such as a specific type of food or art, as these merely reflect our sense of taste, which is an inevitable neurological disposition. In fact, hating the object of our addictions can cause us the greatest harm, as by doing so, we reject the pleasure it promises us, while accepting the sores we feel by its lack, and feeling shame for who we are. Obviously, such behavior does not match the personal subjective morality we suggested. We merely need to be careful not to allow our addictions transform into bestializing behavioral patterns, as such behavioral patterns may cause us greater harm than the pleasures we attain, by devotion to the objects of our addictions. Moreover, if we wish to practice a personal subjective morality, and if indeed, we manage to avoid delta bestializing tendencies, it would be better if we reject any complaint by our external environment, regarding our addictions, as all in all, we merely respond to our delta profile, while in most cases, the basis for such criticism, lies in external morality, the same morality we choose to reject. Nevertheless, again, we must be vigilant, as without proper reflection, we can easily confuse such rejections, with unwillingness to avoid admitting to our delta bestiality. For example, if we consider intimacy and love, we can easily confuse it with completeness bestiality, causing us to fall into a downward spiral of self-destruction, while sinking into a fantasy world, with the subject of our desires. Nevertheless, this does not imply, we should refrain from being passionate or loving, or devoted to the objects and subjects of our addictions, as that would be pointless. To clarify, the morality we suggested is not a strict set of rules we should obey, but rather a collection of insights we should consider. If we follow them to the letter, while completely rejecting our devotions to the objects and subjects of our addictions, inevitably, we will transform this morality, into logical bestiality, and hence, gain nothing in the process. We will observe others in envy, thinking how joyful they are, while limiting our lives to a collection of rules, which ultimately, would lose any emotional justification, other than the moral gratification we will feel, due to our devotion and obedience to them. In short, the vigilance we require is not a prescription, and neither is it a morality of its own. It is simply common sense. Devotion to an addiction can take us a great length, while achieving great feats, which we would not achieve otherwise, and therefore, imposes an argument we cannot overlook. Nevertheless, once such devotions gain us nothing other than their self-empowerment, we should find ways to overcome them, methods for which we can find inspirations, within the insights we proposed in this text. Moreover, naturally, there may be other methods we overlooked in this text, and supposing they are effective, we can certainly use them.
Last, there is an additional issue we should discuss. Considering our conclusions, regarding the metaphysical disconnection between our animal body and brain, and our consciousness, the cause for the opening of the deltas we sense, meaning, our animal body, and the epistemological occurrences we suggested, transpiring every night as we fall asleep, one could ask oneself, “Why bother? Why not be done with it?” Well, the truth is, as far as we can tell, suicide might indeed bring an end to all our sufferings, and put us in a state similar to a dreamless sleep. However, this is just one possibility. It is just as possible, that without an animal body, with which our consciousness could evict the sensations of pain with which our brain inflicts it, these sensations would remain in our consciousness, even after we die. The fact is, that as we explained in the introduction chapter, we can never know the essence of consciousness-in-itself. Regardless how sensible it is, we should remember, “Delta Theory”, is but a theory. It can just as well be wrong. In fact, if we consider chapter three, then arguably, "Delta Theory" was already proven inexact. To clarify, while rewriting this text, a surprising discovery came to my attention. Apparently, experimentation has shown that the subatomic particles, known as neutrinos, can travel at a velocity, faster than the presumed speed of light. Arguably, this discovery does not really challenge the validity of our metaphysical foundation, as possibly, neutrinos may be the real “identity” of the particles we called photons. Moreover, it is possible, these measurements are wrong, and in any case, as we already suggested at the end of chapter three, there should be a variation of the logical physics, which is both similar to the variation we proposed, as well as consistent with these findings, regardless if photons are in fact neutrinos, or not. Still, regardless, while rewriting this text, I changed many arguments, corrected many assumptions, and removed sections I found no longer valid, and therefore, it will not be surprising, if in a few years, I might find other details worth correcting. Admittingly, the corrections I have made in this edition, did not undermine the validity of its original version altogether. Still, one cannot wonder, if this edition of “Delta Theory” is “correct enough”, to be able to validate a fatal action, such as suicide, even in principle.
Moreover, the theory itself does not support it. As we previously suggested, with regards to strict religious practices, suicide is an extreme case of logical bestiality. As we just mentioned, we can never verify there is “something better on the other side”, because to verify it, we must know the inaccessible essence of the world-in-itself. Therefore, thinking our death, will necessarily ease our existential distress, is an irrational thought, which metaphysically, is inconsistent with both the external world in which we exist, as well as the contingent world of our consciousness, and therefore, performing a radical task such as suicide, which effectively undermines all our deltas altogether, is the most extreme example of following a morality without questioning, or alternatively, logical bestiality. Moreover, suicide is explicitly inconsistent with our bodily and completeness deltas. First, obviously, our born instincts prevent us from such acts, through the unconscious reactions of our reflexes. For example, whenever we feel we might fall or drown, the body causes us to perform actions, which in principle, should prevent it from happening, be it attempting to regain our balance, cause us to grasp for air, and the likes. Moreover, whenever we are in such dispositions, we sense an extreme sense of fear, which mostly, is unpleasant. While indeed, it may be fun to feel the sense of freefalling in an amusement park, arguably, it is only pleasant because we have the confidence we are not really in danger, and once we lose this confidence, we immediately shift into a state of panic.
Still, no type of deltas, is more incompatible with suicide, than our completeness deltas. As we suggested, the completeness ideal includes immortality, and hence, deems the very idea of our inexistence, inconceivable. Indeed, similarly as in many religions, we could embrace a belief that the completeness ideal lies beyond death. Still, as we just suggested, following such an ideal to the extent of suicide, is equivalent to logical bestiality, a trait, which our completeness deltas, resent. Moreover, again, such an ideal downgrades the completeness ideal, as the completeness ideal strives to unite all our concepts together, and therefore, we cannot appease it, while claiming it does not exist within our mortal lives. In addition, because the completeness ideal possesses the unique paradoxical quality, of being drawn toward that which causes us harm, arguably, it might cause us to want to live, exactly because of the hardships we suffer, while attempting to validate them in our minds, as a “good thing”. Therefore, arguably, the only cognitive disposition, in which our completeness deltas might agree with our suicidal inclinations, is when we feel extreme boredom in our lives, a boredom we can easily “fix”, with intimacy, beauty, art, humor, games, narcotics, and if nothing else works, non-suicidal delta bestiality. Still, it is important to stress, that even if we choose delta bestiality as means to repress our suicidal tendencies, it will not save us from the downsides of delta bestiality, and hence, once we reestablish our "will to live", we can, and should, consider changing our persuasion again. In short, while we cannot validate suicide will better our existence as consciousnesses, we can find many epistemological arguments against it, with the prime argument being, allowing ourselves to practice logical bestiality, without considering its consequences. Indeed, in a case where one is facing an inevitable death, due to a fatal disease, while at the same time, suffers from intense physical and emotional pain (due to one’s fear of one’s impending death), then arguably, suicide, or alternatively, euthanasia, might indeed end these sufferings. Still, this is but one option, and in no way can it embody a general rule, as in some cases, people have managed to recover from fatal diseases, against all odds, and were later happy for their persistent struggle. Moreover, again, nothing can prove to us what is “on the other side”, which possibly, could be far worse than any bodily suffering. Admittingly, I do not share such a perspective. Still, the truth is, I simply cannot know this with certainty, as again, “the other side” depends on the essence of the world-in-itself, and therefore, lies beyond our knowledge. Furthermore, with our completeness deltas causing us to want "more", whatever "more" might be, then naturally, they may cause us to resent the arguments this text proposed, as our completeness deltas will not accept such a consistent reduction of our lives.
To conclude, our “best bet” is reaction to our reflection. Once we comprehend the true identity of both our hierarchy of meaning, and our delta profile, by responding to it, in a fitting manner, we can optimize our lives, with respect to the levels of pain and distress we feel, making our lives more tolerable. Alternatively, with respect to this text, we can make our lives happy, as we will not collapse under the weight of our existential sores. In fact, this humble alternative to happiness, can in itself reduce our levels of distress in our lives, as by accepting it, we relieve ourselves from the sores of our completeness deltas, which persistently attempt to motivate us to believe “there is more”. Still, there is no prescription how to achieve this. Furthermore, some may find it harder to do than others. For some of us, belonging within a social group, which shares ideals and morality, is more gratifying than “inventing themselves from scratch”. We should not overlook this, as it just as well may be, that the need to belong, is an inherent component of our delta profile, and defying our delta profile will almost always lead us to delta bestiality, as to repress the sores resulting from our incompatibility with the morality we follow, we must always resort to means of repression, strong enough to undermine these deltas, and usually, we can only achieve this through delta bestiality, with all of its inevitable downsides. We do not have to be rebels. We do not have to innovate. We do not have to follow the morality of anyone else. We do not have to make art. We do not have to use narcotics. We do not have to restrict our lives, away from bodily pleasures. We simply have to listen to ourselves, to our urges, to our deltas.
Moreover, we do not have to be consistent with the external world. As long as we refrain from completeness bestiality, if an irrational idea does us good, we can follow it, and color our lives with that which makes us happy. As I said in the introduction chapter, that is your business. You can choose to merge the suggestions “Delta Theory” proposes, with your own personal beliefs. While indeed, such beliefs might undermine some of the principles we proposed in this text, they might not undermine all of them. Therefore, again, it is your business, and within the context of this text, it is none of my concern. It is your life, your happiness, your deltas. It does not apply to all. Contrary to popular belief, that biologically, we are all equal, according to our previous conclusions, each consciousness exists in a separate contingent world, possibly obeying different dimensions and neural wiring, harboring different memories, and feeling different urges. Moreover, as we grow older, our memories change, the "filter" of our consciousness optimizes, and hence, both our hierarchy of meaning, and our delta profile, change, and therefore, we should not restrain ourselves to our younger persuasions and convictions. In addition, our animal body and brain age, and can radically change our experience as consciousnesses. We might feel chronic bodily sores, to which we will adapt, and lose our sensitivity to bodily deltas in the process, while increasing our sensitivity to our logical and completeness deltas. Our brain might deteriorate, to the levels it can no longer learn new behaviors, leaving the logical and bodily deltas, as our only sensibility. Moreover, our brain may deteriorate, to the level our instincts will erode, reducing our ability to intelligibly respond to our deltas altogether. To summarize, there can be no general solution to our lives, and we should not attempt to enforce one. If we do, inevitably, we will condemn those on which we enforce our morality, to delta bestiality, along with its inevitable downsides. While forcing others to obey our “rules”, will lead them to logical bestiality, forcing others to obey their “rules”, may lead them to completeness bestiality, and forcing others to enjoy their body, may lead them to both logical and bodily bestiality. No. It is our personal subjective mission. While indeed, this text can offer some help, through general guidelines and insights, arguably, it is the essence of our causes, purposes, and meanings, to find it for ourselves.
Therefore, it appears we are finally done. We provided the metaphysical meta-model we promised, and offered a framework, from which we can derive our morality, once selecting specific features, which match our desires. While arguably, “Delta Theory” favors some moralities over others, you can dismiss these as the convictions of yours truly. Still, considering the collection of the ideas we reviewed in this text, there are some issues I wish to discuss.
Therefore, let us shift to the closing chapter.
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
STREAM : Delta Theory : Chapter 6 : Delta Theory
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment