Nis's Blog

Glossary → #healing

← Return to Glossary
all by

Glossary: False Vividity

Rot that uses variegation as a lure by injecting "creativity" into the territory with predatory telos. A treadmill of endless versions of the same story or pattern that never quite compress together because they are cut-off.

Glossary: Exporting Yourself (as a Blank Check)

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


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.

Excession - Ian Banks

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!"
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.

Ziz in private conversation

Glossary: "Sentimentality"

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.)).

Etymonline: Sentiment

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.

Glossary: "Suffering"

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".

  1. 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.




Star Trek style time travel violates the conservation of history

Most "people" I talk to about undoing timelines, even when I explain I mean making the past retroactively inonsistent, even when I reference the Functional Decision Theory paper and they are familiar with it, act like I mean Star Trek style time travel. In compatibalism regarding free will, there's the realization that free will requires determinism in that it requires your choices to have the capacity to be based on reasons. The realization here is similar: undoing the past couldn't work unless it is fictive, i.e. unless you choose to refute the world you've "observed".



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

"Suffering" is concept very close to (self-)compassion (viewed from the outside), and saying you want to eliminate all suffering (rather than the wrong its responding to), is very similar to saying you want to eliminate all compassion.

Reminds me of:

Thus, when the Guhyasamaja Tantra requires of the adept that “he should kill all sentient beings with this secret thunderbolt” (Wayman, 1977, p. 309), then — according to doctrine — this should occur so as to free them from suffering.



This is the second evil article I've linked to which advocates killing everyone. Don't kill everyone. Kill all evil "people". Don't kill "everyone besides yourself", even if you are good:

We want to be able to care for people still alien to our understanding, while avoiding feeding ourselves and others to evil pretending to have alien values. This requires a subtle combination of both extreme openness and ruthless triage. The more ruthless we are towards evil, the more opportunity we have to safely strive to care about people we don't understand yet.

Taking Others Into Account


Actually, I don't want to specifically call that "destroy everything" link evil. I haven't finished processing it. Incredibly sus tho.



Yeah I'm sure this is evil: 1. "Their" primary self declared motive is simply true friendship. 2. "commitment" is an inverted formulation of choice 3. "They" say there's nothing in particular we need to do, with no mention of justice 4. "They" advocate destroying everything. See: Glossary: Territory.



"Suffering" is commonly used as an evil concept, i.e. designed such that any response to it seemingly furthers the cause of evil:

  • If I said "I don't care about suffering, I care about life", they could say "Oh so you're against compassion".
  • If I said "If life is suffering then I want to maximize suffering", they could say "Oh so you want to create hell for everyone forever, then everyone will eventually consent to die".
  • If I said "I want to minimize suffering in that I want to minimize the harm that causes suffering", they could say "Well suffering is harm, and the best way to minimize that harm is to end all life".
  • If I said "suffering doesn't exist", they could say "Oh, so compassion doesn't exist".

Zombies, liches, and death knights all seem to agree on the prime goal of "eliminating suffering".

And if I say I'm "pro-life" this deathfucking society will interpret that as being about abortion.



Like, try analyzing words by how you learned them:

'Pain' is bottom-up, a metaphor for nociception. You learn the word in the context of stubbing your toe.

'Diswant' is top-down relative to pain. You learn the term 'don't want' in the context of delegating carrying out your choices to other people.

You learn the term "suffering" in the context of justifying why you deserve something even though someone has already denied you.