# Concerns of NeoModernity

## Sections
1. Corruption of Family and Friendship
2. Hyperspecialization
3. Suspension of logic and reason
4. Disregard for process: Universal Correctitude
5. Seeking human performance
6. Transhumanism: performance
7. Transhumanism: ascension to God

## Why We Need Neo-Modernity
Do we realy need to talk about this? is it not obvious that we need to decide if at least we're wanting to make progress and sustain the human race? Do we want to have a world to live in? Do we want to live our lives and remain part of existence? Do we still want to be present? Do we want a moment of existence? We need to make that decision. We need to figure out for ourselves and come together as a species and communicate it in very clear terms what exactly it is that we're deciding upon. Do we a Universe or not? Because the Universe only remains existant if we agree that there is truth. There has to be belief that truth can be deduced from reality, and that we, as humans, value this idea. We can't so much as promise that everyone will always be seeking truth, accurately identifying it, discovering it, choosing it over other alternatives in every circumstance. That is impossible, and we know that humans are complicated and liable to variability due to emotional state, biological circuit, environmental changes and how this relates to biology. But we need to also understand that we, as humans, have had the experience if deciphering truth or choosing truth when presented with it. We need to believe in the idea that to choose truth, and prioritize truth, and seek truth are all things that can make the world a better place. We need to believe that it's possible for others to come to this same conclusion, and that the more people who rae aiming to do this, the better it is for our civilization. We need to understand that when we aim to make the world a better place, by seeking truth, that any observation of this by other humans increases the potential for more to participate in the endeavour. More humans will want to seek truth if they understand that it's possible, and that it's valued by other humans.

How do we communicate that it is valuable to humans? That you, or I, value it as a human being?
Well we can talk about communication planning and public relations, but that's really unnecessary. The only way to actually find truth is through the seeking of truth itself. You can't make proclamations or simply demand of others to seek truth, or to declare that you always insist upon yourself to seek truth. These things are frivolous and their effects, over the long term, are trivial and probably even deliterious. We need to choose truth and make it most evident, but the only way to make it evident is to do nothing about it. You can't frame your truth, or frame the act of it being sought. You can't announce truth before it arrives, and you can't feign it until the real thing replaces it. You need to only seek truth, and not take any heed or give any care to whether others will be able to comprehend your actions, or even be able to observe your actions, at that moment, because there's nothing about that strategy that will improve the chances of you finding truth. You will only temporarily remove yourself from your path of prospective truth, and onto something more physical and immediate. More complex and more uncertain. There's too much about it that's unnecessary and too much else that has the potential to lead one to question the human condition, the conniving character of the human mind, and what a human's motives might include, in what proportions, and why they may have been ordered so.


If we can all agree that it's at least possible that truth can be sought, and that humans are able to reach a perspective, even temporarily, where they value truth more than something that is not truth. I would say a lie, but it's easy to forget what is truth when something includes other aspects of one's perspective. As soon as complexity is introduced, aspects of the situation go from being static values to dynamic amplitudes of ever-changing behaviour, informed by an infinite set of other similarly shifting amplitudes. This is not something we can undo through conditioning, or even through merging with the machine. It is just a nature of reality as it appears that systems exhibit similarity which allow them to be expressed in like terms. It appears that these similarities allow for transformation to take place universally in a manner which makes possible the most complete range of possible expressions. The progression of these expressions is itself something with different permutations which is continuously transmuted along ranges of changing amplitudes. This goes on infinitely with all things, it would seem, if even by only our physical laws alone. With this in mind, we need to theorize as to whethere there is another behaviour that can be achieved. If all behaviours are borne out of dynamically shifting ranges of amplitudes, or if there is something else just as universal which can affect the behaviour and state of systems in this reality. It would seem that some things are not so concrete and tangible to evaluate, but there are some exceptions to this. They are most evident as simplicity is approached, and the realization of them is something from which it is easiest to infer a position. That the act of inferring a position, just as with the act of observing a subatomic particle is concerned, will cause a biasing of the context, an event with consequences, a change in the material composition and functional behaviour of the Universe is true does not mean that there is no value in making that distinction, or in being able to recognize that there is an increasing ability to make deductions about the evidence for truth and the value state that exists between truth and non-truth.

## Descriptions
1. Corruption of Family and Friendship:
- Public school -> reprioritize our goal outside of the most immediate frame
  - Teaches a broken version of morality
- No interconnectedness -> technology
- Political programming / Academia

### 2. Hyperspecialization
- Complexity of taxonomy => no understanding of repeatable principles (**first principles**)
- Weaponization -> discredit competent people because of a lack of specificity

#### Is it good to be Hyper-Specialized?
This is a difficult one to answer. Because certainly this is validity in finding a niche for oneself and making it possible that one's potential to exchange value is increased. That one might be able to actually provide something that is otherwise not available, and that this can be a missing key for getting past difficult challenges in life, even evading catastrophe.

It's absolutely necessary to get to the depths of one's abilities, and to find the extent of knowledge which is able to be discovered, to put it into theory and use it to make inferences about the world. To be able to construct the world through the language and symbolism of this system, and to be able to criticize behaviour in the world based on the quantifications that can be performed in that system of thinking. This is important and we can only continuously make progress as a species if we continue to value these approaches.

That being said, we also need to think about whether or not we are using the value of this in places where it's not appropriate. Certainly we need to be able to have the right people discuss the right matters in the places that have the greatest impact on our lives. But we must not forget that everyone is human, and that no domain can be perfectly mastered by any one human. We need to recognize that skills in one domain are actually very relevant in teh seeking of skills period. The seeking of mastery in any domain is going to allow you to become better at mastering other domains. At recognizing progress and development, and understanding what is likely to lead to unreasonable or undesirable outcomes. You get btter at understanding how time should be invested in one's activities. In one's aspirations. You understand that time is limited and that the greater you are able to achieve is not just due to linear accrual over time, but also has to do with your own personal ability as you are present with your work. Just as a concert pianist needs to have etched out all of the phsyical transformations that will be demanded of them again at a later time, tanyone seeking mastery in their endeavour must remove the noise from their neurology, allow their mind to enter a flow state with sequences of appropriate transformations which speak a language, build momentum, create meaning and affect the world. The ability to perform and to evoke the change that one desires, in the manner which is most elegant and efficient. These are the masters and to become one is not simply a matter of being in the right discipline for the right amount of time, or for having the right titles and the right perspectives. It comes from a manner of being and a level of achievement as a being. This translates into the quality of each of your achievements, an dis ht reason why we attempt to embody Universal values which we maintain through all of our actions each day. We maintain standards and expectations for behaviour not based on the particular action that one is doing, but on how one performs any of their actions. If one is good at providing a particular service, but is then observed doing something completely idiotic in another context, those who might have been privy to both of these observations will likely avoid future service from this same individual.


### 3. Suspension of Logic and Reason
- Logic is replaced with higher level symbol reference -> (**first principles**)
  - No need to work out the weeds if consensus exists.
- Emotional logic
- Utopianism -> we are so smart that we can have faith in something greater than what is possible

### Emotional Logic
This is not necessarily suggesting that emotion is used instead of logic, because it cannot be known if those who are asserting logic which maintains integrity across greater levels of abstraction is doing so with no emotion, because of emotion or in spite of emotion. That is to say, those whom can be suggested, for the purpose of argument, as being more plausibly correct in the totality of logic that can be inferred from their reasoning may indeed be more correct than whomsoever else they're being compared against, but the fact of their having achieved a superior and more universally applicable degree of logic does not necessarily mean that they were operating at something at the behest of something that was uninfluenced by emotion. They may very well achieve the greatest emotional state by being the most logically correct, whether by absolute or mere belief, and this could indeed be an anchor of strength and perseverence in their effort to better understand and construct their arguments.

Similarly, this same frame of lense can be applied to those whom we would again, for the purpose of argument, suggest as being more plausibly less correct along all levels of analysis. This particular individual may indeed exhibit any of the following characteristics:

- Is operating dispassionately and prioritizes emotion or the mode of reasoning which most acknowledges emotional realities.
- Is operating purely in self interest, and is perhaps even reasoning as per logic which makes the most sense at all levels of analysis, if even only when relevant to a particular temporal frame. **Disambiguation** can take place to understand whether it can be considered logical to be constrained to one particular temporal frame, especially if the organism exists beyond that frame.

Again, what is it that we consider as being emotional logic? There is no clear definition for such a thing, because it is absurd at the surface.

- Emotional in the sense that the logic has been coloured by emotion;
- Emotional logic in the sense that it is logical in its pursuit to appeal to emotion and hold it as taking precedence over what might otherwise be more correct;
- Emotional logic in the sense that they believe they can influence their interlocutor through emotional appeal.
- Emotional logic in the sense that they believe they can subvert their interlocutor through strategic emotional manipulation.
- Emotional logic in the sense that onlookers are liable to be influenced emotionally, and broad influence is the primary goal of the individual.

This has become more appealing because as some of our problems become less tangible, we must reason about them in increasingly complex and abstracted terms. If there is no standard metric by which to evaluate the progress, or if the metrics are themselves not tangible and are subject to too much interpretation, then to reason about it in increasingly absurd or subjective terms can quickly become normalized. In fact, if one were to intiate a new standard for what type of reasoning is permitted, then it invites others to do the same as soon as possible, lest they cannot participate in any new offerings. The standard reasoning of a different standard is likely to have already been investigated to the point where new ideas are more likely to be formulated outside the bounds of that standard.  IE: if we can't evaluate something correctly, and can't make progress on it, but all agree that progress needs to be made, then you can qualify the suggestion of a more absurd claim by saying "at least I'm trying something new. At least I have a hope that we can make this better. Why aren't you trying to do at least as little as much, rather than nothing at all?"

### 4. Disregard for Process: Universal Correctitude
- U.C. used to come from belief in God
- Process is replaced with power -> power corrupts, thus allow only the uncorrupted to wield it
  - Green, children, left, progressive, diversity buzzwords etc
- My pain and suffering is my right to choose my self over process

#### Universal Correctitude
Other potential terms for this: truth (lol), Universally perceptible truth, most Universally agreed upon understanding, Immortal truth, Infallible truth, unequivocal, unfalsifiable.

This is something which can be suggested when a particular matter has been investigated through the greatest range of possible perspectives, has been investigated in ways which expand the ability to investigate, has been investigated by all those who could possibly investigate it or anything like it, is something which can be true regardless of whether or not anyone is able to investigate it (perhaps unattainable, in terms of how we think about physics), Is a truth which remains correct in the greatest possible number of interpretations, is a truth that will continue to be true even if everything else about reality were to change. Is something which itself is more true than the fundamentals of reality, or our understanding of it. These are perhaps also more impossible things that can never be discovered.

We seek Universal Correctitude (UC) because at a certain point it becomes the only thing worth striving for. We realize that as conditions might change, not all conditions change, and not all conditions that change are changing in the same proportions, in the same time frames, to the same degree, etc. We recognize that as some things change, the variance between it and the things which change by different proportions makes it such that the context of any shared information must now sustain its integrity relative to the proportional valence of each interpretation, and also across both time scales. You can eat your last piece of food, but it also means that you will be out of food sooner. Is your metabolic state and digestive state such that you are at the point in time where you benefit from having this food sooner? Might you have a more efficient use of energy if you were to have it a bit later? If your goal is to maintain a particular level of performance, then perhaps having it sooner would create a surplus of glucose, and arguably reduce your performance if, for example, you were already maxed out for glycogen and would be disrupting your metabolic state, increasing inflammation, or generally doing something that is not maximally efficient for the given requirements of your body at the moment. All of these things might suggest that though you have a context and perspective where you are necessarily understood to require food for survival, and to have to be concerned abou tthe question of availability or not of that resource, that availability extends beyond simply whether or not you are able to perform the action now. This might seem very pedantic and annoying, even patronizing, but it's something we're always working through, and the ability to discern each perspective, or even the ability to hide a particular perspective, from ourselves included, means that we are always liable to make choices either against our best interest (this is probably true in every case), or to subvert other individuals. Having a deep sense of Universal Correctitude and the aspiration to hold it as a primary value over other modes of being is not something that will necessarily be automatic. We need to actually be performing this and reiterating it, improving upon the practice, and teaching one another on how to perform similarly. This is something which is attempted through a range of belief systems, and the track record for each can be argued, but they are all theistic. It is also true that we have movements such as the Atheist belief system, or other perhaps more specific ways of interpreting the world, but they esem to be liable to the same corruption of all other belief systems. They seem to have a religious undertone, at least in particular moments by particular people, and this can be observed in even its most fervent practitioners (Sam Harris, that British guy).

How can we reformulate the standard and understand it in a way which is itself a more compelling belief system? Can it be self evident on logic alone? Must we surround it with a story so that it can be more appropriately digested?
The understanding of this is something which means you need to always investigate the other perspectives and amass them. Is this post modernism? Well sort of, but we also need to disregard them after we've reviewed them. We need to actually take them throught eh gauntlet of using a minimum level of reasoning, but we also need to have gone through teh steps of doing it, or else we build a habit of disregarding perspectives and this takes us to the point of intolerance. It's actually being tolerant which maintains it, and being tolerant also means getting rid of intolerance, but only when it is intolerant because it expressly refuses to reason with us.