Drabblecast 216 - The Book of Eternity

[strawman]

Look at the suffering people put themselves through who only have to put up with a few years of meaninglessness. I mean, have you seen the Kardashians?

[Unblinking]

Look at the suffering people put themselves through who only have to put up with a few years of meaninglessness. I mean, have you seen the Kardashians?

Unfortunately, I've seen a few moments here and there, coinciding with exclamations of "Oh my God, where's the remote? Where's the remote? Dammit, throw your shoe at the TV, flip the circuit breaker, do something, but please please please make it stop!"

[Polecat]

Look at the suffering people put themselves through who only have to put up with a few years of meaninglessness. I mean, have you seen the Kardashians?

Living, as I do, in Germany, I had to google the Kardashians in order to find out who they were (given the, to me, unlikely name, I had expected some sort of Sci-Fi series, and was somewhat disappointed by the reality).

I personally don´t understand why people should associate meaninglessness with suffering and misery. For many years now I have been intending to codify and start a world religion which ecstatically celebrates the senselessness of existance, and the general trend towards chaos. This religion would of course bear the title "Entroposophy". In spite, however, of all my good intentions to better the lot of humanity with this revelation, I keep finding more meaningful things to do. It's very sad...

respectfully


The Polecat

[strawman]

In spite, however, of all my good intentions to better the lot of humanity with this revelation, I keep finding more meaningful things to do. It's very sad...

respectfully


The Polecat

You see? That is exactly what I mean. As drawn as you are to the revelation of meaninglessness, the smallest whiff of meaning is enough to capture your attention. Only in death will we be freed from this compulsion of awareness.

[uncre8d1]

I'm a fan of Mike Resnick. This was not my favorite story of his, but it did have the distinction of being a Resnick story that did not make me want to cry. While I enjoy a story well told and don't always expect a twist, I think this one could have benefited from a dusting of M. Night. A veerrry light dusting.

[Mr. Tweedy]

I am compelled to post: The placement of the "Reading Rainbow" theme song at the end of the story was absolutely perfect. And by "perfect" I mean, in this case, that there exists no possibility whatsoever that any other sound could have been more awesome at that place and time than the Reading Rainbow song.

In my final second as I die, one corner of my mouth will turn up in a tiny smile, and it will be because I am remembering how the Reading Rainbow theme was played after The Book of Eternity on The Drabblecast.

[tbaker2500]

Hey Tweedy, good to see you bud.
Norm has his moments, and that was one of them!

[cinnamon]

For real? That dude should have known WAY better. If a lifetime of reading weird shit has taught me anything, it's not to go around making pledges willy nilly... so I love LOVE how finally there is a cosmology in which stupidity is a sin that leads to eternal suffering instead of something inconsequential like masturbating.



Paleohistory, snrk.

[strawman]

It is difficult to give such things much thought, but it seems to me you must allow for the possibility of a correlation between stupidity and masturbation.

[cinnamon]

Everybody masturbates. Are you saying everyone is stupid?!

[tbaker2500]

No, he's saying you're stupid if you don't.

[ROU Killing Time]

Everybody masturbates. Are you saying everyone is stupid?!

Close but not quite. I believe that the statistics actually say that 95 percent of people admit to masturbating (and the other 5 percent are lying.)

[strawman]

Actually, what I'm saying is that using one's brain and its imaginative capacity to conduct the "symphony of self-indulgence" which intentionally objectifies others probably, over time, has an effect on the way people relate to others. It's also is a form of self-medication, which probably tends to become an habitual and unconscious influence on our attitudes.

Some people watch what they eat. Ideally, it makes just as much sense to try to be intentional concerning one's neural pathways.

My wife changes the channel whenever a tv show gets violent. She has a very low tolerance for gore. But somehow we went to see Act of Valor a couple weeks ago. I realized how desensitized my TV habits had made me, as she was traumatized by scenes that didn't faze me. Fast foods, violence, eroticism all release chemicals in the brain. The process is very mechanical. Generally, control over those appetites is a healthy thing, isn't it?

[Unblinking]

Actually, what I'm saying is that using one's brain and its imaginative capacity to conduct the "symphony of self-indulgence" which intentionally objectifies others probably, over time, has an effect on the way people relate to others. It's also is a form of self-medication, which probably tends to become an habitual and unconscious influence on our attitudes.

masturbation does not necessitate objection of others. Though I admit that's probably the case most of the time. I'm not sure that even consentual sex between two people can be categorically said to not encourage objectification, it's just a mutual consentual objectification.

My wife changes the channel whenever a tv show gets violent. She has a very low tolerance for gore. But somehow we went to see Act of Valor a couple weeks ago. I realized how desensitized my TV habits had made me, as she was traumatized by scenes that didn't faze me. Fast foods, violence, eroticism all release chemicals in the brain. The process is very mechanical. Generally, control over those appetites is a healthy thing, isn't it?

I guess that depends on what you call "control" and what you call "healthy". It is possible to become addicted to sexual gratification, as it is possible to overeat. Yes, if it interferes with your daily life, then excess indulgence might be a problem, just as indulging too much in alcohol or in food. But the opposite could also be true--if you abstain from sexual gratification then you may find that in itself a distraction. (whether it's one-person or multi-person sex).

I would say that if it isn't detrimentally affecting your ability to function, your ability to interact with others, or your physical health, then what's the problem?

[strawman]

If the standard is 'whatever does no harm is good', then not a problem. But that is a lower standard than 'only that which does good is good'. If society's standard changes from the higher 'good' standard to the lower 'no harm' standard, then that is a pretty significant problem.

Even though there may be a certain appearance of hypocrisy in having a standard to which one does not measure up, there is also a benefit to admitting you fall short of your ideal. Morality is not about trying to force your standards on others. That is religion. I'd say morality is about having ideals outside of and higher than yourself, and trying to attain the ideal in spite of failure.

Which standard better supports the concept that people have an obligation to one another?