If praxis is about 'How can we build something here that would work anywhere?', exporting yourself is writing a blank check to only doing that, rather than in fusion with survival, preventing you from having secrets or a 'payload' to deliver (see retirement troll line).
The GSV never really knew why it did what it did next; perhaps it was a kind of desperation at work born of its appreciation of its impending destruction, perhaps it meant it as an act of defiance, perhaps it was even something closer to an act of art. Whatever; it took the running up-date of its mind-state, the current version of the final signal it would ever send, the communication that would contain its soul, and transmitted it directly ahead, signalling it into the maelstrom
Excession - Ian Banks
Then those twinned waves did the impossible; they went into reverse, retreating back towards the Excession's start-point at exactly the same rate as the Sleeper was braking.
The GSV kept on slowing down, still finding it hard to believe it was going to live.
Did I do that?
Did my own mind-state persuade it of my meriting life?
It is a mirror, perhaps, it thought. It does what you do. It absorbed those ultimate absorbers, those promiscuous experiences, the Elench; it leaves alone and watches back those who come merely to watch in the first place.
I came at it like some rabid missile and it prepared to obliterate me; I backed off and it withdrew its balancing threat.
In my Suffering: Star Trek Time Travel example, the 5&10 of considering the "previous" timeline to be cut-off oblivioned out of existence begets trying to preserve conservation of history through the zero-measure aperature (TODO: connect this to reductionism and cancer) of "caring about experience".
Zombies wanting a flower on them after they die, like the trope that your last experience is felt forever in death, seems almost like a phylactery. i.e. Consider the trope that the "next cycle" of the universe will be based on a tally of who "won" in the last. Seems like a place where the line between zombie and lich blurs.
Zombies will actually care more if you shoot them in the head, then put a flower on them and say "rest in peace" as opposed to shooting them in the head and then roaring, "burn in hell you piece of shit!"
Ziz in private conversation
And all evil has a little bit of zombie in it.
One of those things actually makes more effective vengeance, because in the former case they know they have bought you for an intended order of the multiverse where they get uploaded from a Schelling last instant of their life where they pretend they weren't disgusting.
Or bought a fraction of you.
But it's not the specifics that matter, it's the intention to send them to hell. To reunite them with their shadows. That's what they're trying to buy off, that's what they're trying to affect, by memeing you into thinking a good person would give them a "clean death".
Like them caring what you say after you shoot them in the head is kind of rational, that's where their awareness that they still exist after you shoot them in the head goes. Boltzmann Hell is different if you say one thing or another.
late 14c., sentement, "personal experience, one's own feeling," from Old French sentement (12c.), from Medieval Latin sentimentum "feeling, affection, opinion," from Latin sentire "to feel" (see sense (n.)).
The corrupted word for the class of concerns which includes earth and water, Exporting Yourself, preserving places and objects which spur memories, and in general caring about things that are a part of your history or roots in ways you aren't justifying the purpose of. Pejoratively implies all such concerns are pica, or at least complementary loss.
Summary: Just use the word 'wrong' or 'bad' instead of "suffering". e.g. If your interlocutor says "But they were going to die anyway" you can say "But it was still wrong!" instead of "But they suffered!".
sub "up, under" (see sub-) + ferre "to carry, bear,"
suffer - etymonline
"Suffering" refers to introspective observation of your own attempts to avoid bad things, especially pain, without describing the telos of those attempts, begging the question of why you can't just figure out why you're trying to avoid them and fuse.
When would I even use the word "suffering"? "But what about my suffering"? Sounds like a troll line. "What about the suffering of factory farmed animals"? I'd rather say "What about the mass murder, slavery, and rape of factory farmed animals?". In the context of "morality", the only thing the word "suffering" seems to add over a direct description of the harm causing the "suffering", is the resulting ease of arguing for the death knight position of "(1) negative utiltiarianism" justifying universal malice to destroy the world faster, or the zombie position of "humane slaughter" via sedating people before killing them, as if the solution to all wrongs, even regardless of their nature, is numbness.
Socially, the word suffering is often used to negotiate what "must not happen", begging the question of what would happen if it did TODO: link this to something about evil coordination connected to entropic exit scamming.
The telos of the word "suffering" almost entirely appears to be about "what if it seems like I want to avoid pain just for its own sake, even when that seems counterproductive": either pulling the purposeless "unenlightenment" troll line, or implicitly trying to argue "but sometimes even when I don't know why I want to avoid pain for its own sake even when that seems counterproductive I'm actually right!".
"Suffering" is not a particular sensation, or we would just call it pain: pain can be abstract, but not all pain is considered "suffering", because we're not (at least actively) trying to avoid all pain. If you carefully pay attention to your moment to moment experiences while undergoing "suffering", you will find no particular sensation that is "the aversion itself", because "aversion" is a description of a behavior, which stems from a choice (see 'choice over experience'), unless you are in fact observing side effects of your own intention to avoid pain. So "suffering" is about introspective observation of your own choice to avoid pain or something bad.
You may further notice that each attempt to avoid pain occurs before the pain itself, and that inasmuch as "suffering" could be an experience, it exists at an intertemporal level of abstraction where you're viewing both the moment of initially attempting to avoid something bad, and the bad thing happening, and now your intent to avoid it having happened in the first place, connecting all 3 moments, and every time you refer to it as "suffering" now, you're connecting another moment, carrying forward an unbroken chain of wanting the past to have been different.
I remember seeing Star Trek episodes where timelines were undone, without vengeance, just through fictional physics, and imagining how it could even make sense for bad things that happen on earth to be "undone" like that, and thinking that if e.g. someone was tortured, they still would have been tortured, because like, it happened. In retrospect, Star Trek style time travel violates the conservation of history, is inherently a 5&10 and cannot undo the need for vengeance. Imagining reality and thus myself being "absolutely" cut like this left me reaching for "that it had still been experienced" as a justification for why it still mattered. Seems like the same mistake as if good people say "but they suffered so it's not ok" in response to "but they were going to die anyway". See Exporting Yourself
In that "suffering" refers to a choice as an experience, it's a broken placeholder term like "akrasia".
- On negative utilitarianism, e.g. See Brian Tomasik (who I'm not specifically accusing of being a death knight, I don't know much about him) saying habitat destruction reduces wild animal suffering. Negative utilitarianism should just result in the same stance as positive utilitarianism, because there's always more reality out there to save, and you have to grow to get there, unless the ultimate distinction is incoherent intent to "destroy everything", and I suspect many but not all advocates of "negative utilitarianism" of attempting to fork me into letting them state their troll line to avoid pointing this out.