Peatarian Response To Nihilism And The Meaning Of Life?

[Sunny Jack]

Hi there,

I just wondered what the Peatarian response would be towards the Nihilist perspective? Nihilism being "the denial or lack of belief towards the reputedly meaningful aspects of life." I know that the evolutionary, non-theistic view suggests this idea, and I know also that the Neo-Darwinist/Dawkins perspective is at least unpopular on this forum, since it is too fatalistic and ignores certain Lamarckian/epigenetic phenomena. But Peat's view seems to be inexorably pro-life, and I wondered whether there was a credible alternate to atheistic nihilism beyond the passive-aggressive "well why don't you just kill yourself if you feel that way?" response.

Moreover, does the Peat view give a reason for living, or does it assume that those who have chosen life would wish to be healthy, which (in fact) I and most of us here do? Is there a Schopenhauerian pessimism or a Nietzschean (or other) optimism prevalent?

 

[Mastodonhugger]

Hi there,

I just wondered what the Peatarian response would be towards the Nihilist perspective? Nihilism being "the denial or lack of belief towards the reputedly meaningful aspects of life." I know that the evolutionary, non-theistic view suggests this idea, and I know also that the Neo-Darwinist/Dawkins perspective is at least unpopular on this forum, since it is too fatalistic and ignores certain Lamarckian/epigenetic phenomena. But Peat's view seems to be inexorably pro-life, and I wondered whether there was a credible alternate to atheistic nihilism beyond the passive-aggressive "well why don't you just kill yourself if you feel that way?" response.

Moreover, does the Peat view give a reason for living, or does it assume that those who have chosen life would wish to be healthy, which (in fact) I and most of us here do? Is there a Schopenhauerian pessimism or a Nietzschean (or other) optimism prevalent?

I have wondered this as well. I cant come up with a logical opposition to nihilism that still involves an atheistic prospective on life.

The more I look at life the more I feel there is some sort of natural law involved. Like there is some sort of natural ideal or key to life. I feel that morality (which involves nihilism) is not programed into us through socialization but instead programed out of us through the process. I mean look at our biology, there is an ideal, a peak of health that is achievable. However by going against nature we ruin our health.

If you look at children playing its as if there is already a moral code built into them, it is however when we become adults that we loose this natural morality. We instead revert to a much more nonsensical version, which is the law of man. Think lawyers and s**t, the laws of men are stupid and complex. However the natural law or code to the universe isn't.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I'm as curious for input as you. What I am trying to say is that morality almost by definition has to come from a higher source then us. Its clear that it is programed into our nature from birth.

I'm not saying to become religious, religion is the same as the laws of man. It was crafted by us to push an agenda just like our current laws. However to believe in a higher power is very logical in my opinion.

 

[Tenacity]

I think a Peat-inspired scientific worldview can be very meaningful. Consider the idea that everything that exists is teleological, and has a purpose. When energy flows through matter, it becomes orderly, and lifeforms become more complex. Why? I doubt we'll ever be certain of the answer, but it's an interesting and meaningful question.

Peat's articles that don't focus so much on biochemistry, Mae-Wan Ho, Szent-Gyorgi, etc, all present a case for meaning in life. I highly recommend you read them to dispel nihilism. Peat himself isn't an atheist, but I doubt he's religious either.

 

[Mastodonhugger]

I think a Peat-inspired scientific worldview can be very meaningful. Consider the idea that everything that exists is teleological, and has a purpose. When energy flows through matter, it becomes orderly, and lifeforms become more complex. Why? I doubt we'll ever be certain of the answer, but it's an interesting and meaningful question.

Peat's articles that don't focus so much on biochemistry, Mae-Wan Ho, Szent-Gyorgi, etc, all present a case for meaning in life. I highly recommend you read them to dispel nihilism. Peat himself isn't an atheist, but I doubt he's religious either.

Yeah I've always liked the idea of spiritual energy based view on life. Its not atheistic in the traditional sense and it dispels the whole nihilism argument. It also accounts for my belief in a natural law to the universe. It also doesn't dispel the possibility of a creator that is conscious aware and in control.

Even though it doesn't necessarily answer the questions we all have, it seems very real. Almost as if on some conscious level you know its true.

 

[Sunny Jack]

Great answers, thanks! It seems there is a 'teleological' view of life assumed by Peat and expanded upon by those whom he cites as influences. These include those whom he encouraged the makers of the 'On The Back of the Tiger' documentary to investigate in greater detail. It seems to tie in with an electrical view of the universe and a rejection of Big Bang cosmology. Also an embrace of "Lamarckian" epigenetics that committed Dawkins fans will regard as heresy.

This quote - "If Dawkins is right, and we are the product of mindless unguided natural processes, then he has given us strong reason to doubt the reliability of human cognitive faculties and therefore inevitably to doubt the validity of any belief that they produce—including Dawkins’ own science and his atheism. His biology and his belief in naturalism would therefore appear to be at war with each other in a conflict that has nothing at all to do with God." by Alvin Plantinga, quoted by member Such_Saturation in the Quotations section, seems a nice riposte to the Darwinian nihilism prevalent in today's culture.

You could argue that such an accepted philosophy of mechanical meaninglessness is leading to the cultural apathy in European countries in the wake of the influx of people who hold more life-affirming, somewhat Dionysian ideas. Apparently there was a similar philosophically- atheistic sense among the Roman and Greek elite at the time when Christian religious ideas were becoming popular among the lower classes, which made them relatively apathetic with regards to defending their native cultural traditions against these new Middle Eastern ideas.

So is there a generally-accepted Peat-friendly idea of a purpose to human life, and even a justification for altruism? Or is it more a pragmatic Golden Rule-type morality, i.e. 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'?

 

[haidut]

Hi there,

I just wondered what the Peatarian response would be towards the Nihilist perspective? Nihilism being "the denial or lack of belief towards the reputedly meaningful aspects of life." I know that the evolutionary, non-theistic view suggests this idea, and I know also that the Neo-Darwinist/Dawkins perspective is at least unpopular on this forum, since it is too fatalistic and ignores certain Lamarckian/epigenetic phenomena. But Peat's view seems to be inexorably pro-life, and I wondered whether there was a credible alternate to atheistic nihilism beyond the passive-aggressive "well why don't you just kill yourself if you feel that way?" response.

Moreover, does the Peat view give a reason for living, or does it assume that those who have chosen life would wish to be healthy, which (in fact) I and most of us here do? Is there a Schopenhauerian pessimism or a Nietzschean (or other) optimism prevalent?

Life in nature, as well as evolution (so far) exhibit readily verifiable (even though not always continuous) progress from lower forms to higher and more complex ones. Nature itself does the same, even in the hopelessly wrong cosmological views involving creation events like Big Bang. Direction implies purpose, or at least a goal, and maybe even final destination. Complexification and higher intelligence imply progress, and progress also suggests purpose/teleology. Purpose/teleology are incompatible with nihilism. It is this insistence on ignoring basic facts of nature that makes nihilism very suspect as philosophy. In reality, the truth is much less complicated. Nihilism is simply poorly disguised fear of mortality and learned helplessness. It is a defense reaction akin to excessive self-deprecating humor seen in depressed people - i.e. if I convince myself that life is meaningless then death does not really mean much either as an end to a meaningless state. Most nihilists have been shown to ultimately boil their argument down to the claim " if life is meaningful, why does it end?" or "how can life be meaningful if the Universe itself will end" (the second statement meaning the Heat Death as per Second Law of Thermodynamics). The first statement assumes that organismic death means loss of the accumulated meaning and the second one is wrong as the Universe has been shown to be open/infinite and increasing entropy does not apply to open/infinite systems. Back to the first statement, we don't even know what happens upon "death". If consciousness is indeed a property of all matter, and if the "soul" is an objective phenomenon like Peat's response suggests then all bets are off on what death really is. One thing is certain though - it does not mean an ultimate end/demise, thus inviting feelings of meaninglessness.
First Hint Of 'life After Death' In Biggest Ever

I have seen quite a few nihilists improve dramatically with anti-serotonin therapy or by falling madly in love

 

[johnwester130]

Would acts of kindness and empathy cure nihilism too ?

 

[haidut]

Would acts of kindness and empathy cure nihilism too ?

They could help, but the main cause is fear of the "end". So, showing conclusively that there is no "end" or at least it is not what is being described will probably help more.

 

[Dhair]

I really don't think fearing death has much to do with it. I think it's much worse than that. I think it's forcing a worldview on oneself and others that life as we know it really isn't worth living. This is at the core of both nihilism and antinatalism. It's not just an idea; it's a sickness.

 

[haidut]

I really don't think fearing death has much to do with it. I think it's much worse than that. I think it's forcing a worldview on oneself and others that life as we know it really isn't worth living. This is at the core of both nihilism and antinatalism. It's not just an idea; it's a sickness.

I agree that it is a sickness. The reason I am mentioning the fear factor is that it has been studied in nihilists quite a bit in psychiatric setting and even led to the creation of the so-called Terror Management Theory.
Terror management theory - Wikipedia

Nihilism is also very closely related to existentialism. Both Sartre and (Albert) Camus used the argument for the Universe ending as justifications for being an existential nihilist.
Existential nihilism - Wikipedia
"...The common thread in the literature of the existentialists is coping with the emotional anguish arising from our confrontation with nothingness, and they expended great energy responding to the question of whether surviving it was possible. Their answer was a qualified "Yes," advocating a formula of passionate commitment and impassive stoicism."

 

[Dhair]

I agree that it is a sickness. The reason I am mentioning the fear factor is that it has been studied in nihilists quite a bit in psychiatric setting and even led to the creation of the so-called Terror Management Theory.
Terror management theory - Wikipedia

Nihilism is also very closely related to existentialism. Both Sartre and (Albert) Camus used the argument for the Universe ending as justifications for being an existential nihilist.
Existential nihilism - Wikipedia
"...The common thread in the literature of the existentialists is coping with the emotional anguish arising from our confrontation with nothingness, and they expended great energy responding to the question of whether surviving it was possible. Their answer was a qualified "Yes," advocating a formula of passionate commitment and impassive stoicism."

How would you describe Peat's philosophy in traditional philosophical terms? Whose views would you say he aligns with?

 

[haidut]

How would you describe Peat's philosophy in traditional philosophical terms? Whose views would you say he aligns with?

For a lack of batter word - radical open-mindedness. In other words, the acceptance that all accumulated knowledge is tentative and will likely change in the future. So, to adopt a fixed absolutist world view, especially one related to life and death is unwarranted and even a bit...arrogant (on behalf of the nihilists or the Big Bang gang).
Ray Peat quotes - 180 Degree Health
"...“Once we accept that knowledge is tentative, and that we are probably going to improve our knowledge in important ways when we learn more about the world, we are less likely to reject new information that conflicts with our present ideas. The attitude of expectancy will allow us to apply insights gained at one level of generality to other levels. No particular kind of knowledge will have such authority that it will automatically exclude certain possibilities in another field of knowledge.”"

 

[Lejeboca]

Beyond the Search for Meaning: A Contemporary Science of the Experience of Meaning in Life
"Interestingly, research has shown that positive affect can compensate for low levels of a range of correlates of meaning in life, including social relatedness, religious faith, and socioeconomic status. Even among those who are lonely, who lack religious faith, and who are poor, a pretty good mood can facilitate a level of meaning in life commensurate with that of people who have many friends, religious faith, and high levels of financial resources (Hicks & King, 2008; Hicks, Schlegel, & King, 2010; Ward & King, 2016). One can be lacking in many of the things that are considered to make life meaningful, and yet a good mood may suffice to make life feel meaningful."

 

[Dean]

The older we become both as individual humans specifically and as a human race generally, the more separate we (wish to) become.

 

[Lejeboca]

Beyond the Search for Meaning: A Contemporary Science of the Experience of Meaning in Life
"Interestingly, research has shown that positive affect can compensate for low levels of a range of correlates of meaning in life, including social relatedness, religious faith, and socioeconomic status. Even among those who are lonely, who lack religious faith, and who are poor, a pretty good mood can facilitate a level of meaning in life commensurate with that of people who have many friends, religious faith, and high levels of financial resources (Hicks & King, 2008; Hicks, Schlegel, & King, 2010; Ward & King, 2016). One can be lacking in many of the things that are considered to make life meaningful, and yet a good mood may suffice to make life feel meaningful."

Note: "We use this unusual adverb `pretty' here to indicate that the level of positive mood that appears to contribute to meaning in life need not be extremely high. Rather, even the kind of mild mood boost that might come from a mood induction such as reading newspaper comics or listening to happy music leads to higher meaning in life."

 

[Mr Joe]

That's something I feel strange (or not complete) with some Peatarians, "life is just energy flow, eat well, live your time and be happy". What about the spiritual part of life ? The one that is mentionning the world "Truth".
Anyone that has ever tried to follow the path of the Truth and go against lies will be executed, fighted and live a sad life. Most people stay in a poor conscious state due to the fear of discovering a sad (but true) world, a sad reality. Thus, what's the point fighting for the truth or living a "heroic" life if all you get is pain and ennemies ? Sometimes just speaking the truth is enough to get everyone against you, is it worth it ? The answer is simple : Because Nihilism is something that the "evil" wants you to believe in order to kill any signs of vertue or desire to fight for the truth. From a Peatarian view, only living a life of "alerting people against PUFA" is enough to give your life a sense. Trying to follow the truth is the ultimate goal imo, no matter how you find it, or what form you give to it. You will come to a point where you will clearly see it. For example : SSRI is not the way to cure depression and you know it. From that point your life is meaningful. You can even give it more sense if you start to fight against all lies and you enter in the "liberation part", something that goes beyond the simple fact of eating, sleeping and living life throught energy. For sure Peat was a believer, otherwise, why would someone risk his neck saying during interviews that vaccins are BS instead of just living a happy end of life somewhere in a mountain rich in CO2 ?

 

[KDub]

Hi there,

I just wondered what the Peatarian response would be towards the Nihilist perspective? Nihilism being "the denial or lack of belief towards the reputedly meaningful aspects of life." I know that the evolutionary, non-theistic view suggests this idea, and I know also that the Neo-Darwinist/Dawkins perspective is at least unpopular on this forum, since it is too fatalistic and ignores certain Lamarckian/epigenetic phenomena. But Peat's view seems to be inexorably pro-life, and I wondered whether there was a credible alternate to atheistic nihilism beyond the passive-aggressive "well why don't you just kill yourself if you feel that way?" response.

Moreover, does the Peat view give a reason for living, or does it assume that those who have chosen life would wish to be healthy, which (in fact) I and most of us here do? Is there a Schopenhauerian pessimism or a Nietzschean (or other) optimism prevalent?

Nihilism is sophistry at its finest. It is completely illogical, but attempts to disguise itself as logic.

This is easily proven just by addressing what meaning is. Meaning in the sense that the nihilists use it is a personal sense of importance. So in even simpler terms, meaning is something an individual feels. Often it can be a shared sense that is shared with others since we are social creatures, but at its heart, meaning is a personal phenomenon.

The nihilists then switch levels of analysis and use rather stupid and very circular reasoning to fool themselves and others into thinking there is no meaning.

Meaning only exists at the personal level, but the nihilists switch levels by changing timeframes to the distant future or by switching viewpoints to someone or somewhere far away.

“In a hundred years no one will remember anything you’ve done, so therefore your life is meaningless,” sounds logical at its face, but since meaning only happens within you right now, of course it should be no surprise that it doesn’t exist outside of that frame, whether in time or space! Why should my personal sense of meaning depend at all on the viewpoint of some person in the future? How narcissistic to think you must matter to everyone else in order to have meaning. How absurd it is.

The nihilists strip you of your meaning with an illogical slight of hand that, while appearing logical at first, as any good sophistry is, cannot stand when examined closely

 

[electricsematic]

If energy and structure is dependent on every level, then on the level of meaning and understanding, nihilism has its own energy metabolism, more correctly, anti-metabolism.

Meaning itself is a charge, more correctly, both a charge and a charging event. It comes into attention in the form of differences, significances, as raw information of experience and then it is adsorbed and hold in the attentive point. If significances become tensed, uncertain, going nowhere or both directions, and if attention cannot overcome the double bind, it de-attends.

Ray notes, things should not make sense until they make sense. "Until" part is lost in meaningless states. Meaningless-ness has its own energetic event, it is a chronical discharging event, specifically caused by energy pullings due to material and spiritual causes.

The discharged form of meaning is nihilism, it is a derivative negative state. And the exact dischargings of attention, must be forensically studied with a high metabolic forensic attitude. If not, one fall prey into dischargings.

Acquired meeaning in a journey must be protected at all costs, from the viral transmissional forms of meaning puncturing states, these are both material and spiritual. Nihilistic tendencies, originated from a double bind, but after that, it gains a "viral" existence. It solidifies, becomes a "meme", and transmits itself through the penetrable holes in bodies and in meaning itself.

So the topic must be shifted from how to argue against nihilisism to how to protect against its epochal meaning-puncturing and de-flating trends especially in vulnerable states where things not making sense in naive living organisms.

It strikingly resembles conserving CO2 through deep and slow breathing, being aware of hyperventilative jolts which can be induced from outside, always conserving the experimental differential attitude, which always looks from certain multiple perspectives, supporting the high metabolics and liquidity. Remember, if meaning discharge, there is always a hyperventilative entropical momentum.


~

Nihilism is mainly a rigidified-solidified chronic cascade of non-living state in an organism, existent latently in all organisms, but in repeated exposure to trauma it takes over as a separately-working part of psyche. Organism catatonized in a dis-embedded state of metabolism, being stuck at its low metabolic pitfalls, falling into homogenization and losing of differences given in experience. Ray mentions a slime metabolism, where sugar coming into the system is mostly wasted and cannot be utilized, organism switching into more primitive oxidative state, losing it internal complexity and structure forming cancerous formations. The state is as such. Energy cannot correctly flow from the body, so the exact necessity of order and chaos is excessively questioned with an increasing loss of faith, and self-faith. Normally non-human organisms seek more energy in such states, but human is prone to deny energy and mis-direct its non-activity into a form of verbalism, nihilism is the result. And complex organic state seem as dogmatic absolutist fake idol to be destructed to such states, as if, the nihilist cannot have the multi-layered understanding regarding meaning, only able to think in terms of black and white, in absolute rigid terms.

Meaning of experience itself in such states losts its complexity, boiling down into its digital vectoral parts, as idealizations and devaluations. Only thing left is paranoid-schizoid positions and their antithetic counterparts. The state itself is dying, meaning itself is dying, separating to a homogenization. Exactly is an Entropical process.

To an entropical mind, existence of negentropy is not understandable, i.e. that net energy in a system can increase without a decrease in other, that new energy can be created. But understanding as an entropical processes is meaningless since it must also be prone to decompostion and non-standing. Entropy does not explain, nor account any intellectual position taking, and as a meaning content, it is equally entropically forced with meaning of negentropical processes, which is null. So why such entropical route is chosen in that place and time cannot be explained by the nihilist homogenizing thinking in its logical end-points, since logic also works with significances and harmonical relations. Nihilist cannot explain the singularity of experience, on why it exists here and now, and not there and thence, on why it delves into a polemic with anti-nihilist. Even the nihilistic decisions are still seem a decisions to the anti-nihilist, nihilist has the decide on a position, by trying to show itself as if no position is taken. A starting devaluation of life-content, and valuation of that devaluation cannot be seen in nihilistic states. Nihilist in a way, non-self-aware in its pursue of nihilistic argumentation, somewhat automata-like.

Such an outlined trajectory is what usually Nietzschean re-affirmation means, yet, as long as obsessed and fixated with overcoming nihilism and delving into excessive tirades into how it is overcomed in a pompous non-ending way, it is not yet aligned and recovered from chronical stress poisoning. So it usually falls into same loops, because the metabolic problem remains, later to be further separate the organisms words and deeds. And organism continue to think in terms of vectoral components as ideals and anti-ideals, subjects and objects, predicates, categories, excessive separation, verbalisms, and mimetic-memetic-genetics, but not in terms of differentiality, vortex, oxidation, redox, phase relations, magnetic attraction-repulsion, frequency, vibration, embeddings, pneumatics, membranes, energetical-morphogenetical fields, and epigenetics.

When energy is given in a correct way, organism relaxes, accepting new understandings, starts to give the sprouts of differentiality and harmony, but to continue in that way is a decision and not a local nutritive intervention, if not chosen deliberatively, new branches will die away.

There is a certain asymmetrical relation regarding a non-argumentative demonstration, only to be demonstated in life, not in paper:

- Entropical thinking is in disharmony with itself, creating a self-difference and unstabile relation, undecidability. Entropical thinking makes its act of thinking and its object far away. Two becomes three, and so on.

- Negentropical thinking is in harmony with itself, creating a self-similarity and stabile relation with itself, decisiveness. Negentropical have a harmonical relation in its object level and action level. Two can become one.

The demonstation comes only with experience and decisiveness. Not with an academic study, not with a sole words. Truth is mostly outside of verbal thinking. All of us I think is familiar with the feeling coming in a very high healthy state, a sense of alignment, euphoria---which is what attracts one into the work of Ray Peat. And in such states, we know that it is not "false light." But to a mind which is not calibrated repetitively with such euphoric moments, and with constantly remembering what is it like to be child again, one cannot demonstratively and verbally demonstrate that it is different than "false light." Experiencing self-givenness as an en-lightening is always metabolic and spiral, admitting Growth. And Ray's importance is the emphasizing into the metabolics of Truth. Intellectualist usually works in a fragmanted way, only delving into the conceptuality (for philosophy), or emotionality (for psychoanalysis), losing the energetics of the Truth. Normal human usually can see the unhealthy state of intellectualist, but they are not interested in the energetic science, they are interested with only living it. It is better than non-living, yet I should say one should be interested in both, theory and practice, just as non-human lifeforms, since they must have a negentropical relation with one another, not exploding and detaching as in the nihilist way.

Neo-positivist propaganda of burden of proof (as the responsibility for proof is in the proposer yet the type of proof is decided by the one who is burdening) or the critiquist/neo-idealist counterpart as life itself must be explained verbally-theoretically, starting from intellectualist impulse as life not criticized is a life unlived which thrusts philosophy in the wrong way creating scholastic thinking sedimented itself into modern academia, is a result of dis-embedded state of attention, having a need to prove most self-given aspect of experience.

Such foundationalist/intellectualist impulse itself is in an advanced chronical terminal anti-metabolic state, losing its own life-harmony and teleological drive, so it projects such illness to more healthy subjects, inducing to need to explain themselves, by staying somewhat idle and dormant in its anti-intelligent activity. If lively-organism starts to explain its life-processes, i.e. if the bait is eaten, the critiquist goes on the homogenize life content with anti-life content, projecting as if the lively-organism naively idealizes an absolute but in fact groundless. In fact, the critiquist is who tries to orchestrate an absolute ground away from life, but injects the responsibility to the interlocutor. This is why what is sophistry is highly hated but still praised in ancient athens, because it mostly works, for the naively imposed life. If you gaze long into the abyss you become somewhat abyss-like.

There is a ancient stoic practice for argumentation, if your interlocutor proposes anti-intelligent arguments in words, best answer is in deed to walk away.

Sadly, I have seen exactly the anti-intelligent hyper-verbal attitude possess the potentially vital and shrewd students after a few years in humanities or sciences departments, where a certain anti-spirit transmits itself through academic capital to infect new organisms. "Already-dead empty-inside puppet masters, seeks new pupils to suck the life energy of." Anti-science will waste the life energy of its students in its slime cancer metabolism, in its hypothyroid state.

If we do not look at science and philosophy metabolically, as having itself a metabolism, and do not stop the anti-metabolic ones through spirited defence of life in action, similar to supporting local and regenerative farming in the entropical forcing of big corporation and anti-life interventions, it has the force to infect all the previously intelligent organisms. And it is sad to see your most beloved ones to be possessed with such states. But higher energetical processes knows better, for such separations of life attitude.

I think this is what Ray's legacy means, ending the digital culture. Modern competitive number crunching false-empirics, neo-positivism, is married with its nihilist relativist post-modernist genderless counterpart. Both are digital.

If not, it will end the intelligent human life in the surface of earth, by making it barren, nonpolar, unattractive, infertile, and most importantly, fragile in front of a global catastrophic event due to the loss of primary energetic science.

 

[michael94]

If energy and structure is dependent on every level, then on the level of meaning and understanding, nihilism has its own energy metabolism, more correctly, anti-metabolism.

Meaning itself is a charge, more correctly, both a charge and a charging event. It comes into attention in the form of differences, significances, as raw information of experience and then it is adsorbed and hold in the attentive point. If significances become tensed, uncertain, going nowhere or both directions, and if attention cannot overcome the double bind, it de-attends.

Ray notes, things should not make sense until they make sense. "Until" part is lost in meaningless states. Meaningless-ness has its own energetic event, it is a chronical discharging event, specifically caused by energy pullings due to material and spiritual causes.

The discharged form of meaning is nihilism, it is a derivative negative state. And the exact dischargings of attention, must be forensically studied with a high metabolic forensic attitude. If not, one fall prey into dischargings.

Acquired meeaning in a journey must be protected at all costs, from the viral transmissional forms of meaning puncturing states, these are both material and spiritual. Nihilistic tendencies, originated from a double bind, but after that, it gains a "viral" existence. It solidifies, becomes a "meme", and transmits itself through the penetrable holes in bodies and in meaning itself.

So the topic must be shifted from how to argue against nihilisism to how to protect against its epochal meaning-puncturing and de-flating trends especially in vulnerable states where things not making sense in naive living organisms.

It strikingly resembles conserving CO2 through deep and slow breathing, being aware of hyperventilative jolts which can be induced from outside, always conserving the experimental differential attitude, which always looks from certain multiple perspectives, supporting the high metabolics and liquidity. Remember, if meaning discharge, there is always a hyperventilative entropical momentum.


~

Nihilism is mainly a rigidified-solidified chronic cascade of non-living state in an organism, existent latently in all organisms, but in repeated exposure to trauma it takes over as a separately-working part of psyche. Organism catatonized in a dis-embedded state of metabolism, being stuck at its low metabolic pitfalls, falling into homogenization and losing of differences given in experience. Ray mentions a slime metabolism, where sugar coming into the system is mostly wasted and cannot be utilized, organism switching into more primitive oxidative state, losing it internal complexity and structure forming cancerous formations. The state is as such. Energy cannot correctly flow from the body, so the exact necessity of order and chaos is excessively questioned with an increasing loss of faith, and self-faith. Normally non-human organisms seek more energy in such states, but human is prone to deny energy and mis-direct its non-activity into a form of verbalism, nihilism is the result. And complex organic state seem as dogmatic absolutist fake idol to be destructed to such states, as if, the nihilist cannot have the multi-layered understanding regarding meaning, only able to think in terms of black and white, in absolute rigid terms.

Meaning of experience itself in such states losts its complexity, boiling down into its digital vectoral parts, as idealizations and devaluations. Only thing left is paranoid-schizoid positions and their antithetic counterparts. The state itself is dying, meaning itself is dying, separating to a homogenization. Exactly is an Entropical process.

To an entropical mind, existence of negentropy is not understandable, i.e. that net energy in a system can increase without a decrease in other, that new energy can be created. But understanding as an entropical processes is meaningless since it must also be prone to decompostion and non-standing. Entropy does not explain, nor account any intellectual position taking, and as a meaning content, it is equally entropically forced with meaning of negentropical processes, which is null. So why such entropical route is chosen in that place and time cannot be explained by the nihilist homogenizing thinking in its logical end-points, since logic also works with significances and harmonical relations. Nihilist cannot explain the singularity of experience, on why it exists here and now, and not there and thence, on why it delves into a polemic with anti-nihilist. Even the nihilistic decisions are still seem a decisions to the anti-nihilist, nihilist has the decide on a position, by trying to show itself as if no position is taken. A starting devaluation of life-content, and valuation of that devaluation cannot be seen in nihilistic states. Nihilist in a way, non-self-aware in its pursue of nihilistic argumentation, somewhat automata-like.

Such an outlined trajectory is what usually Nietzschean re-affirmation means, yet, as long as obsessed and fixated with overcoming nihilism and delving into excessive tirades into how it is overcomed in a pompous non-ending way, it is not yet aligned and recovered from chronical stress poisoning. So it usually falls into same loops, because the metabolic problem remains, later to be further separate the organisms words and deeds. And organism continue to think in terms of vectoral components as ideals and anti-ideals, subjects and objects, predicates, categories, excessive separation, verbalisms, and mimetic-memetic-genetics, but not in terms of differentiality, vortex, oxidation, redox, phase relations, magnetic attraction-repulsion, frequency, vibration, embeddings, pneumatics, membranes, energetical-morphogenetical fields, and epigenetics.

When energy is given in a correct way, organism relaxes, accepting new understandings, starts to give the sprouts of differentiality and harmony, but to continue in that way is a decision and not a local nutritive intervention, if not chosen deliberatively, new branches will die away.

There is a certain asymmetrical relation regarding a non-argumentative demonstration, only to be demonstated in life, not in paper:

- Entropical thinking is in disharmony with itself, creating a self-difference and unstabile relation, undecidability. Entropical thinking makes its act of thinking and its object far away. Two becomes three, and so on.

- Negentropical thinking is in harmony with itself, creating a self-similarity and stabile relation with itself, decisiveness. Negentropical have a harmonical relation in its object level and action level. Two can become one.

The demonstation comes only with experience and decisiveness. Not with an academic study, not with a sole words. Truth is mostly outside of verbal thinking. All of us I think is familiar with the feeling coming in a very high healthy state, a sense of alignment, euphoria---which is what attracts one into the work of Ray Peat. And in such states, we know that it is not "false light." But to a mind which is not calibrated repetitively with such euphoric moments, and with constantly remembering what is it like to be child again, one cannot demonstratively and verbally demonstrate that it is different than "false light." Experiencing self-givenness as an en-lightening is always metabolic and spiral, admitting Growth. And Ray's importance is the emphasizing into the metabolics of Truth. Intellectualist usually works in a fragmanted way, only delving into the conceptuality (for philosophy), or emotionality (for psychoanalysis), losing the energetics of the Truth. Normal human usually can see the unhealthy state of intellectualist, but they are not interested in the energetic science, they are interested with only living it. It is better than non-living, yet I should say one should be interested in both, theory and practice, just as non-human lifeforms, since they must have a negentropical relation with one another, not exploding and detaching as in the nihilist way.

Neo-positivist propaganda of burden of proof (as the responsibility for proof is in the proposer yet the type of proof is decided by the one who is burdening) or the critiquist/neo-idealist counterpart as life itself must be explained verbally-theoretically, starting from intellectualist impulse as life not criticized is a life unlived which thrusts philosophy in the wrong way creating scholastic thinking sedimented itself into modern academia, is a result of dis-embedded state of attention, having a need to prove most self-given aspect of experience.

Such foundationalist/intellectualist impulse itself is in an advanced chronical terminal anti-metabolic state, losing its own life-harmony and teleological drive, so it projects such illness to more healthy subjects, inducing to need to explain themselves, by staying somewhat idle and dormant in its anti-intelligent activity. If lively-organism starts to explain its life-processes, i.e. if the bait is eaten, the critiquist goes on the homogenize life content with anti-life content, projecting as if the lively-organism naively idealizes an absolute but in fact groundless. In fact, the critiquist is who tries to orchestrate an absolute ground away from life, but injects the responsibility to the interlocutor. This is why what is sophistry is highly hated but still praised in ancient athens, because it mostly works, for the naively imposed life. If you gaze long into the abyss you become somewhat abyss-like.

There is a ancient stoic practice for argumentation, if your interlocutor proposes anti-intelligent arguments in words, best answer is in deed to walk away.

Sadly, I have seen exactly the anti-intelligent hyper-verbal attitude possess the potentially vital and shrewd students after a few years in humanities or sciences departments, where a certain anti-spirit transmits itself through academic capital to infect new organisms. "Already-dead empty-inside puppet masters, seeks new pupils to suck the life energy of." Anti-science will waste the life energy of its students in its slime cancer metabolism, in its hypothyroid state.

If we do not look at science and philosophy metabolically, as having itself a metabolism, and do not stop the anti-metabolic ones through spirited defence of life in action, similar to supporting local and regenerative farming in the entropical forcing of big corporation and anti-life interventions, it has the force to infect all the previously intelligent organisms. And it is sad to see your most beloved ones to be possessed with such states. But higher energetical processes knows better, for such separations of life attitude.

I think this is what Ray's legacy means, ending the digital culture. Modern competitive number crunching false-empirics, neo-positivism, is married with its nihilist relativist post-modernist genderless counterpart. Both are digital.

If not, it will end the intelligent human life in the surface of earth, by making it barren, nonpolar, unattractive, infertile, and most importantly, fragile in front of a global catastrophic event due to the loss of primary energetic science.

I agree, the false utopia of virtual reality (all forms of Internet and to an extent Electricity itself) will have to give way to organic life again.

The increasing so-called value of digital technology is reducing the humans to an almost useless state.

Mana vs Electricity

 

[gaze]

That's something I feel strange (or not complete) with some Peatarians, "life is just energy flow, eat well, live your time and be happy". What about the spiritual part of life ? The one that is mentionning the world "Truth".
Anyone that has ever tried to follow the path of the Truth and go against lies will be executed, fighted and live a sad life. Most people stay in a poor conscious state due to the fear of discovering a sad (but true) world, a sad reality. Thus, what's the point fighting for the truth or living a "heroic" life if all you get is pain and ennemies ? Sometimes just speaking the truth is enough to get everyone against you, is it worth it ? The answer is simple : Because Nihilism is something that the "evil" wants you to believe in order to kill any signs of vertue or desire to fight for the truth. From a Peatarian view, only living a life of "alerting people against PUFA" is enough to give your life a sense. Trying to follow the truth is the ultimate goal imo, no matter how you find it, or what form you give to it. You will come to a point where you will clearly see it. For example : SSRI is not the way to cure depression and you know it. From that point your life is meaningful. You can even give it more sense if you start to fight against all lies and you enter in the "liberation part", something that goes beyond the simple fact of eating, sleeping and living life throught energy. For sure Peat was a believer, otherwise, why would someone risk his neck saying during interviews that vaccins are BS instead of just living a happy end of life somewhere in a mountain rich in CO2 ?

Q: How do you stay positive in the face of the widespread corruption, stupidity and malice that you have witnessed throughout your life?

A: There’s probably a biological tendency to shift attention away from evil toward pleasanter things, but I think it’s important not to indulge too much in positivity. Have you read or listened to Vernon Coleman, The Old Man in a Chair?