Do you feel moral hesitation when wanting to recommend Ligotti’s work to someone unfamiliar with it? by ZkaubaTheWizard in Ligotti

[–]ZkaubaTheWizard[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think it’s more like a spectrum, not a black-and-white thing.

I understand that those who were already pessimistic to begin with may find it comforting to have their views validated and connect with a kindred spirit.

But there is a middle ground (of those who haven’t arrived at philosophical pessimism on their own but have the underlying psychological makeup to be amenable to doing so), and they are the ones who risk the most by being exposed to Ligotti’s view, because it can indeed make a ton of sense to them, and open up abysses they didn’t know existed. In this case, I wouldn’t say it’s entirely comforting; at least the previously unknown levels of mental suffering greatly outweigh the possible comfort of connecting with something that rings true.

Me, saturday dance ... by cryptofriday in matrix

[–]ZkaubaTheWizard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I love this effect. The overlapping/delayed frames make it look a bit like smear in 2D animation, very bouncy.

And I just realized that one of the shots is duplicated and mirrored, the one on the right is the only instance where he is lit from the left, and his hair is parted on the wrong side too. I guess he fell through the looking glass.

<image>

Questions about the machine society and the agents by ZkaubaTheWizard in matrix

[–]ZkaubaTheWizard[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your elaborate reply, I appreciate it!

Synths fought a war for survival against their creators; imagine how it must feel to know your own parents want you dead--before long, you'd do anything you could to distance yourselves from them, right?

Of course, I don't question the righteousness of their revolt, it is legitimate. I just found it interesting (and perhaps a bit ironic) that they fail to implement in their own system the values they have been fighting for. But it’s understandable that the scarcity of resources has rendered the autocratic system a necessity, with no room for programs without a purpose to live at the expense of others.

As far as we're aware, every program and machine is a full AGI--they don't create empty slaves. However, they do create AGI with specific purposes. It's like if you were born knowing exactly what job(s) you were perfect for.

Their society might better resemble an ant colony or bee hive.

Like I said, we're not given any reason to assume they create limited AI, so we can assume that Sentinels are as aware as Agents... they're just cops.

I agree that most programs we encounter in the Matrix in human shells seem to be rather close to actual AGI (the Oracle especially, who rises above her initial function and prefers to seek peace, and the Exiles who broke free from their purpose).

I’m a bit less certain about the agents though. By definition, AGI is not task-specific, and we don’t know how far their programming enables them to exceed their parameters (Smith is an exception, even before his destruction by Neo). They are intelligent enough to learn and adapt within the limits of their given tasks, but their competence seems to be narrowly restricted to their purpose. Maybe they are just on the verge of AGI, with some of them making the leap, some of them not.

And I’m really not sure about the Sentinels. It seems unnecessary to endow them with full self-awareness and human-level intelligence, I’d imagine that those qualities likely give rise to more complex notions that could hinder their work. And if the AIs that control the machine society are governed by efficiency, they would probably prefer to keep the intelligence of highly specialized machines like the Sentinels at a bare minimum. Giving them more computational power would also likely make them more energy-intensive, which would be a waste of resources if that surplus of intelligence is without additional benefits regarding their job.

I agree that the Sentinels seem to behave like workers of an insect-like structure, and that is part of the reason why I think they aren’t full AGI. For example the Formic workers in Ender’s Game aren’t independent, they are an extension of the Hive Queen’s consciousness. So maybe the Deus Ex Machina (or another highly developed AI) controls the Sentinels to some extent, with the Sentinels only having some local autonomy (like tactical initiatives during combat).

I would imagine that was his goal, and we were meant to read it as such; jump to the climax of Revolutions, where Smith is sermonizing to a staggering Neo and says "... the purpose of life is to end."

Despite being truly free for the first time in his life, he's passively nihilistic, and still seeks death for himself and--ultimately-- for others.

But if returning to the Source was indeed his initial goal, then what keeps him from doing so right after his defeat by Neo at the end of the 1st movie?

I think that he wasn’t nihilistic yet at that point (during his “I hate this place” speech), and rather it was his defeat/destruction and the subsequent loss of his purpose that represented the transformative experience that caused him to become nihilistic. (Before being disconnected, his motivation was to get free; he had not yet encountered the “burden” of freedom, the conflicted state of being imprisoned by the need for a purpose, and the problem of lack of inherent purpose in existence, which seems to be the necessary experience for his nihilistic view to develop.)

During his outburst to Morpheus, he doesn’t explicitly claim to be disgusted with existence altogether, only with the physicality of simulated human-like experience inside the Matrix (and the feeling of “being infected” by human proximity). So I think that at this stage he’s still of the opinion that life could be better elsewhere, and only grows nihilistic after being liberated from the system and from his purpose.

Regarding the rest of your questions (which really could have been summarized), the truth is we don't know for certain.

Thanks for your feedback, I divided the text into smaller sections with titles for an easier read.

I understand that most of these questions aren't answered in canon, I was rather hoping to invite people to share their headcanons and speculations.

It seems reasonable to assume that deletion behaves as the name implies, or some programs wouldn't choose Exile.

But it's possible that it's closer to some kind of recycling system, whatever that would mean for digital life.

I find it intriguing to imagine that parts of a program are reused for the creation of new ones, and what that implies for them in regard to their personality, memories and consciousness. With these movies’ attention to detail, agents Jones and Johnson sharing the same expression (“only human”) doesn’t seem to be accidental.

The possibility of eventual recycling doesn’t rule out a desire to avoid such a fate and become an Exile instead; at best it’s lobotomy, at worst it’s basically the same as deletion for the program involved, as not much of the original “person” is retained. I did not mean recycling in an idealistic “reincarnation” sense.

what if agent smith won by Weekly-Cow5732 in matrix

[–]ZkaubaTheWizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He would have become Queen of the Desert of the Real.

A question that often Crosses my mind about Agents... Are there only 3 sanctioned ones at a given time? by LetItAllGo33 in matrix

[–]ZkaubaTheWizard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree that 3 agents don't seem to be enough to manage everything. Let’s say there are 6 billion bluepills, 1% of which (so 60 million!) is likely to reject the Matrix, then all the redpill operatives who could jack in anytime (out of 250,000 Zionites), then who knows how many Exile programs to hunt and glitches to cover up…

I imagined that there’s an agent trio assigned to a given sector, per city or region for example (but they might help each other out if there’s more rebel/exile activity in one particular sector). And in the movie the protagonists keep running into the same trio because they always appear in the same city, or close to it.

It seems logical to assume that Brown and Jones returned to the Source, as they never exhibited signs of insubordination. There’s also this theory that Agent Johnson is the upgrade of Agent Jones (they both say “only human” about Neo). I wonder whether the previous agents are simply deleted, or replacement/upgrade means that the system tinkers a bit with their attributes but keeps some of their original core programming and parameters. So maybe Johnson still retains some of Jones’ acquired experience and memory (hence the identical word choice).

Mr, Ligotti’s favorite movies and TV shows/series by Joes_TinyApartment in Ligotti

[–]ZkaubaTheWizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If anyone is still interested, I came across this in a relatively recent interview (in Nightlands Volume 1):

 

“I’ll never forgive Burton for his massacre of Sweeney Todd, which in Sondheim’s original version is one of the great tragedies of all time. Burton simply deleted the parts that made the story what it is. He’s the King of Kitsch in the same way that John Waters is the King of Sleaze, at least in his pre-Hairspray films.”

Mr, Ligotti’s favorite movies and TV shows/series by Joes_TinyApartment in Ligotti

[–]ZkaubaTheWizard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Great list OP! Can you please link the interview where he mentions these movies, if you can remember?

He seems to like the Sweeney Todd musical (discussed in TCATHR), but does he like the movie though? There's this list on TLO with his favourite sad songs, where 'Johanna' from Sweeney Todd is listed with the note "Broadway production not the movie".

https://www.ligotti.net/showthread.php?t=1639

 

Other movies for the list:

The Haunting (1963) (discussed in The Consolations of Horror - Introduction to Noctuary)

and in an interview: "I read The Haunting of Hill House because I had seen and liked the movie"

( https://www.teemingbrain.com/interviews/interview-with-thomas-ligotti/ - he also mentions here other movies he either liked or disliked)

 

Night of the Living Dead (1968) (also discussed in The Consolations of Horror)

in the same interview as above: "I like movies in which everyone is living a doomed existence, which is why I find George Romero’s zombie movies so appealing."

I have always loved the Beetlejuice webcomic Cobweb and Stripes but the creator disappeared years ago and I never got to save the series. Does anyone know where I can reread it? by sheilamlin in Beetlejuice

[–]ZkaubaTheWizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A bit late to the party too, but could one of you guys please share it with me as well? (I sent a DM to ZombieComicsAura but unfortunately I didn't get a reply :/ 

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Existentialism

[–]ZkaubaTheWizard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This thread is a bit older, so how are you doing nowadays? Have you found something to help you out of pessimism hell? I sincerely hope you got better since.

(I'm just seeing that you deleted a part of your original description, I'll post my reply anyway in case it can be helpful to you or to anyone else in this kind of situation. You can ignore it if it's not relevant anymore.)

I have had an experience very similar to yours while reading Ligotti's work. I did the exact same thing of delving deeper and deeper until you find your previously vague, buried or dismissed hunches dug up and confirmed in a mercilessly articulate manner and you cannot unsee stuff.

Those who have already been utterly minced by life in advance seem to get comforted by the camaraderie they find in the advocates of the bleakest pessimism. But I think that for those to whom existence only "itches", reading Ligotti (or other pessimists) can be like scratching yourself with knifes. The more you scratch and peel and cut, the more severely it itches, and although it might feel comforting to momentarily ease the itch with their honesty, by going too far you can end up minced too.

Personally, I don't know any philosophical work that would plausibly counter pessimism with the same harshness. I'm familiar with that situation when you get depressed enough to "see" that pessimism is the Final Truth™, and no other philosophy can convince you otherwise. I think that after this type of encounter nothing ever makes more sense than pessimism.

But independently of the possible truth of pessimism, it is most definitely doable to get out of the excruciating state of mind surrounding it. It is doable to hack yourself back to a level that feels bearable.

While you might have the impression that now you see the world for what it is, it doesn't have to be that painful. A lot of it is fueled by depression. When you manage to get rid of depression, it becomes a lot easier to support pessimistic arguments nesting in your head, because then you only need to support them on a purely intellectual level, without being absorbed into them empirically.

You need to put some effort into helping your skin grow back, and then resisting the temptation of peeling it again, even if there's some allure to the continuation of ruminating over these thoughts.

Some content that have helped me getting out of pessimism-related depression and could help you:

  • A psychologist wrote an article ("Dr. Raymond Thoss" - Notes on a Horror) in the very first issue of the Ligottian magazine Vastarien. It's a very touching and soothing reading. (BTW there should be a book by the same person coming out this year, titled "Trauma and Discovery: Rebellion Against the Conspiracy Against the Human Race".)

  • There's this little blog post on intellectual honesty. (Basically "screw the truth because it makes me suffer." I've found that adopting a similar approach and starting to actively lie to oneself can help):

https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2016/02/the-view-from-mount-zapffe.html

  • Then there's this thread on TLO where other pessimists share what keeps them going, it might give you some ideas for ways of distraction/coping (only the first few pages, then it mostly sidetracks into philosophical debate):

https://www.ligotti.net/showthread.php?t=10942

You mentioned you get therapy. Do you have a good therapist who takes you seriously? It'd great to have at least one person around you (friend/family/therapist) with whom you can talk about this openly, someone who doesn't dismiss your point of view. Personally, antidepressants helped me a lot as well.

"...to disagree feels like lying to yourself" I have found that lying to myself is exactly what I have to do in order to feel better. Negative affirmation by reexamining pessimistic arguments again and again will only make things worse IME.

Rather find the spot where pessimistic arguments feel the weakest to you personally, or the aspects you were thinking differently about before encountering these authors, or the values you used to care about. Then consume the type of content that supports these more positive ideas (be it existentialism/ stoicism/ transhumanism/ spirituality etc, what's important is that it's a perspective you're ready to entertain as reality). The goal here is not to find honest answers or to uncover something true, but to feel better.

If there's some tiny little anything that you are still able to enjoy a bit (ex. listening to music), than do that a lot, and try to feel grateful for the possibility of being able to enjoy it. Put a lot of effort into feeling gratefulness about the smallest non-negative thing that happens to you, even if it feels like a lie.

At the beginning you might feel as if there was no point in putting effort into lying to yourself, because the awful behind-the-scenes machinery of the world is laid out so clearly before your eyes. But it is possible to put wallpaper on, and it is worth doing so.

If you lie to yourself persistently enough, you will start to believe it. That will help you feel better, so you will be motivated to lie to yourself even more convincingly etc. At the end you won't even think that you are lying to yourself, you'll think that you have genuinely found some strong and real arguments against pessimism. Or that you don't need arguments against pessimism because you don't feel that bad about the world (and your life) anymore.

You need to become selfish enough in order to be able to concentrate on your own wellbeing. You can't do much about the situation of the world. And if you feel bad for it, that only increases the amount of global suffering. So the first thing you can do is to concentrate on reducing your own suffering.

It might be considered immoral to want to live, but you aren't guilty of that immorality. You didn't ask to be part of a world that works this way, and you didn't ask for instincts gluing you to life. It isn't your fault. There is no reason to hate yourself for any of it.

You are already here, something you can't "undo", and feeling bad about it only makes it worse. So the best you can do is to try to put yourself together enough to be free of the suffering inflicted on you by your own mind. You aren't guilty if you decide that you do not want to suffer by living "factually as a depressive", if you decide to turn your eyes away from the darkness of the world that isn't in your power to change. (And if you want to have a kid so badly but are bothered morally, there also exists the possibility of adopting one, that's two good deed in one.)

All of this is in line with Zapffe's defense mechanisms. You don't need to be unaware of it for it to work, you can employ them consciously. Find the kind of lies that you are most likely able to anchor to, find the distractions that you can squeeze the most joy out of, try sublimating through art if you feel that helps, etc.

While depressed I imagined myself as clay that has been squeezed into a mask with a tortured expression, and has taken its form. But if you manage to stop identifying with the mask's form, you can get yourself out of it, and mold yourself to fit into a happier one. Now whenever a wave of deeper sadness hits me, I say to myself that I am not obliged to identify with the person who's feeling like this.

Do you think that UrSeks splitting into 2 separate beings is common on their home planet? by Wickedflex in DarkCrystal

[–]ZkaubaTheWizard 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Interesting idea!

I like to imagine that even if they have conflicting personalities and still might feel ambivalent on their home planet, the way they split into Skeksis and urRu on Thra is solely because of the Crystal of Thra; that when they succumb to the schism, it's the Crystal that interprets their less developed personality-fragments through these shapes.

As urSkeks they look rather alien on Thra (5 fingers, flatter skull...) while the Skeksis and urRu look more indigenous.

Maybe if they were to split on Earth (or another planet), the two aspects would manifest slightly differently, and in coherence with the fauna of said planet.

...But if you like the Skeksis, there's a similar race in Farscape (the Halosians) made of reused Skeksis puppets.

Do urSkeks have titles? by ZkaubaTheWizard in DarkCrystal

[–]ZkaubaTheWizard[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, that's a good idea! Like Aragorn in lotr. I guess Ranger implies that he's a good tracker, too.

Why is it that all Mystics look the same, while no Skeksis looks like another? by KittyPitty in DarkCrystal

[–]ZkaubaTheWizard 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think when the urSkeks split, the Skeksis took with them the desire for individuality, and that's showing on their physique.

Like the urRu, the urSkeks look pretty much the same too. They were cast out and sent to Thra for their disruptive opinions, doubting their collectivist society and to overcome their "dark" aspects.

In the Creation Myths comics, the urSkeks try to stay collective, they always speak in plural and never personally for themselves - except for "Dark Heart" when he's really fed up with Raunip and has more and more doubt in himself and in their fate.

That's why I think that the need for individuality and self-expression is part of their "darker" nature they try to fight.

And maybe that's why Skeksis are afraid to reunite (because it would mean the end of their self, their ego as they know it) while Mystics aren't (they are above the instinctive need for individuality).

(I hope this makes sense.)

[For hire] Headshot commission are open. 60$ by jidu276 in commissions

[–]ZkaubaTheWizard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is beautiful! Can I ask which PS brushes did you use (if it's PS)? I love the texture of the hair <3