I want to detach myself mentally from the shackles that are human nature. I think if one is able to intellectually make sense of it all, their conscious may overcome their subconscious.
It is untenable that humans are conscious organisms ingrained with the biological imperative of having to spread their genes and continue their tribe (in-group, or faction or whatever) the same way all organisms on this planet function. Of course, complex psychological factors come into play and translate these otherwise basic concepts into complex, and sometimes, misguided manifestations. A 'normal' model for the biological human would be to have as many children as possible in an environment that fosters them until they themselves are capable of simulating the organismic process of genetic and tribal perpetuation themselves, adulthood. Human psychology, as incurred by the various environmental factors that afflict various parts of the world and different sorts of people differently, has resulted in some people wanting one child, while others, having several, and for different, partially incorrect reasons. Some tribes (another problem, as I'll mention later, is the coherency of the idea of the 'tribe), such as the People's Republic of China, has collectively decided the best way to perpetuate their tribal existence is through limiting the amount of offspring any given mating couple could have (the former one child policy, now two child policy). Some tribes have their alpha members recognise problems of their tribal perpetuation's method - India and its' highest level of politicians recognising the problem that is their uncontrollable population.
I believe the reason nihilists and antinatalists often seem so unhealthy and are susceptible to a change of mind is because they have not truly extinguished their tribal warrior spirit or their organismic incentive to spread genes. I want to purge these primordial feelings out of me
>>1420848
cont.
The problem that arises is firstly, the coherency of the idea of a tribe. The proverbial 'tribe' that psychologists so often use consists of an easily identifiable group of people with the easily discernible mutual interest of their perpetuation. The 'modern' tribe is up to the tribesman's interpretation - some consider 'nations' their tribes, some don't extend tribal status beyond their family, some are in a venn diagram of many tribes of varying precedents in priority. The problem I see with some tribal identifications is that they're patently wrong and the 'tribesmen' themselves know it, which in turn causes cognitive dissonance and inhibition from performing properly in society. Such examples of misdesignations can include excessive dogma towards a certain political ideology (notice how all diehard anarcho-capitalists are never actually financially successful), towards an ethnic group (whites; for example - there is no 'white' tribe because there are many competing political (tribal) factions that are white, and it is also historically so. There is no 'white' tribal leader. Some white 'tribesmen' see others as the nemesis - white Americans and white Russians. The other problem is all of these people all have different associations and different ideas - varying to such extreme extents 'micro-tribes' are found as to how issues should be addressed. The English and Scottish loathed each other only a few hundred years ago; some would not be able to comprehend the fact their tribes 'merged (federalised)').
>>>r9k
>>1420852
cont
Modern allies that are seemingly tied by cultural heritage were heads against each other not so long ago. The idea of a 'Chinese' state only came when too many opposing tribes came in - before, the idea of 'China' was just 'all that was under heaven', and China would fall into many tribes - kingdoms with people that had no scruples about murdering, raping and torturing that of other kingdoms; yet now most provinces want to 'make China great again' - but what if China dissolves into something larger, or balkanises into many tribes in future? Is it biologically coherent for a Chinese man to think that he is 'perpetuating his tribe' if his descendants will be in many tribes that are varying from one another and have no relation to the idea that is 'China'?
Also, I'm not making this post because I hate children or hate nationalism or whatever. Quite frankly the opposite. I both love (and want) children, and I'm nationalist and an ethnonationalist, but I realise the incoherency and redundancy ultimately of all these inclinations and partisanships
>their conscious
>it is untenable
>when meme babies try to sound smart
>>1420896
Ok use whatever other interchangeable word there is I just got the first one I could think of. Thanks for helping faggot
>>1420848
Simple, bruh. You need to transcend your ego. Get rid of that shit. Just understand you are not the observer you are the observation itself. That's all there is to it.
>>1420915
I understand I am the observation but I don't want to participate in this self contradictory mess the way it wants me to
You know the answer. That'll detach that bitch good.
Now please rid the gene pool of your defective genes, as you're probably another self-hating white-guilty liberal.
>>1420931
>Using the term 'white' as a political designation
Why don't you kill yourself for not being able to conceive of the most basic realities of the fucking world? I'm not liberal leaning and in fact quite despise SJWs but day by day I see that the 'anti-SJW' and to some extent 'alt-right' meme I had bought is as, if not more bullshit than the SJW meme
>>1420942
Nobody cares. Detach yourself from life, now.
Sorry to shit on your parade, but this is like a robot trying to code itself
You can't, you only exist because of the very thing that gives you this human nature
>>1420925
Why not? Simplify.
>>1420956
no u
>>1420957
Nietzsche did and I'm sure other people have successfully managed this as well, including apparently >>1420966 and others in this thread
>>1420966
Perhaps it is because I am to some extent 'forced' to or that I perceive I am 'forced' to. Whenever I see people needlessly demeaning the things associated with me, I realise that some of these people will treat me worse purely by these pseudotribal associations and I am therefor forced to stand ground with the only tribe (another thing to mention perhaps, although my tribe isn't 'hated' the same way the Islamic Sunni tribe [a pseudotribe in that] is hated or whatever, it has practically no allies) that would treat me with partiality and that i could be 100% secure in
>>1420970
Read above, I guess, but even with that in mind I still feel an unreasonable amount of partisanship to these non-tribes
>>1421021
>Nietzsche did
explain
>>1421021
But that's just it. The ego that ties you to human nature is materialized (built, constructed) through that very sensation of being coerced into embracing it.
Short of uploading your consciousness into a computer or something, there is no way to escape that at a certain base-line level.
However it is possible to realize that what you read on the internet has no effect on your real life whatsoever.
you never will but you can try I suppose.
>>1421081
lol go to sleep you have plenty of time to ponder
>>1420848
>how do i detach myself from human nature
the reason it's human nature is because it's intrinsic to humans. you're basically asking "how can I stop being a human being?"
>>1420848
Try Buddhism.
you can't, you can only alter your nature
Whether it's your intention or not, it seems like you're trying way too hard to sound intellectual. This isn't a university discussion group so tone that shit down, you're not going to impress anyone here.
The way I see it, there is only one real way to detach yourself from what you're referring to as human nature, and that's to eliminate the human element. If you separate a consciousness from the human shell your consciousness will then be forced to adapt itself to the new environment it's in, whether it's digital (as suggested above), spiritual or otherwise. Even then, you have to factor in three things:
a) if you'd really find what you seem to be searching for since I'd call into the question the possibility for your human nature to have imprinted itself onto your consciousness (temporarily or permanently).
b) what new influences this alternative environment might have on your now free consciousness.
and C) all other possibilities because no one really knows how our conscious mind works, we can only hypothesise.
I'm not saying there isn't a way to do what you want, but I don't see how otherwise. Probably just not smart enough.
1/2
>>1423429
2/2
That said, I'll proposition you an alternative: Hakuna matata.
Don't worry about what you can't change. I'm not saying you shouldn't be concerned or that you should quit, but learn to let it go and deal with it at a later time when you are more knowledgeable. The fact is you are most likely stuck with your human nature, and while I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, it is something that you seemingly want to reject (even if it's only for practical purposes). If you can't outright reject it though, find another solution until you can. You say you don't want it to influence your mind, but have trouble escaping that fact, so as an alternative why not simply counter it? Take note of when you're feeling influenced, question why that is and the purpose behind it, if it's beneficial, and if you judge it not to be, make a move against it.
It's not the outright rejection and clarity of mind that you seem to be looking for, but it might be a temporary solution that could lead you to your answer. Alternatively, you might just dismiss this as simply settling for less, which I can understand.
As a proper suggestion though, perhaps you should focus inward more, on individualism rather than collectivism. Alternatively: >>1423255
>>1420848
didnt read your post or the thread but you cannot
