How do you value yourself?

(Benjamin Lupton) #1

I understand why. Because this. Because that.

But I don’t particularly understand the how.

So how do you value yourself?

It seems for me, if you believe the progressive tripe of:

anyone can be, do, have anything

Which is often espoused today in

Anyone can be a programmer/entrepreneur/etc

Then it translates into an unconscious reality of

You were only able to do it, because anyone can do it

Anything you can do, someone else can do

Anything you’ll do, someone else will do

And ultimately:

There is nothing special, or unique, about you, your story, your heritage, or anything you do. You are completely and utterly disposable.

Reminds me of the existential crises from the protagonist in Antz (1998).

This all seems disastrous for relationships as then

She didn’t pick you for who you are, she picked you for the avatar that you resemble to her.

Obviously though, the “anyone can do be, do, have anything” falls completely down in relationships. As you can’t be with anyone, do anyone, or have anyone. Especially if you are a man. Perhaps this is why the progressive trans-activists consider you denying them relationship access to you, as transphobia - as well as why progressivism has a strong lean towards free love. As well as free love being a foundation of The Brave New World society - that you can’t have equality, without everyone having access to everyone else. That you can’t have equality, unless everyone can be treated the same, and thus, you can’t have equality, unless everyone is the same - as if there are any differences, then people will discriminate, so we can either:

  1. convince people to not discriminate
  2. convince people to all be the same

The first seems to be what we see in progressive politics and government control - the suppression of behaviour. The latter seems what we see from progressive activism - the repression of thought and values.

How does one climb out of androgynous esteem, into hope?

It seems the obvious answer to this, is have a child. As then you really do matter. That child depends on you, not anyone else.

…Well unless The Brave New World child raising centres have their way - that is to say, the government takes your children away from you to “educate” them into society’s values - which isn’t that bad, until you realise that the values of progressive societies, like the one in Brave New World and 1984, are completely against the family - perhaps this is another reason Islam is being imported into the west, as until the Phoenix rebirth of christianity occurs here (what Peterson seems to be doing), then the nihilistic atheism is just going to destroy the family, for a stronger belief system to take advantage of that - Islam…

However, now that hypergamy in the west has eliminated the chance for many men to have children with a spouse - then what else is there?

Answer to that seems obvious - man up, and fight, to earn the right to claim a woman.

But then what if you earned a woman that cannot give birth, or you can’t? How do you mend that hole in your heart. How do you have any worth knowing your genes will die? Peterson would say you need a vision that is more compelling than anything else, but how can you even have any motivation from the soul, when your soul’s only option is to drive blindly into a brick wall, while you cuck out your life to others having children, which you failed to do.

How do you value yourself?

(Nick Redmark) #2

Maybe, maybe it’s a question of what it is about you that deserves propagating. Your genes don’t have intrinsic value, they have the value they have because of their potential to manifest… What? You? But what about you is it that’s worth propagating? Maybe the degree to which you are a manifestation of true logos. Then maybe your mission is - like anyone else’s mission - to become a manifestation of true logos and help others do that.

(Benjamin Lupton) #3

I’m very doubtful that the vast majority of population growth through now and history, has been from people with a mission to align themselves with an intellectual ideal of logos. But merely, that population growth, is an inevitable consequence of sex, made desirable by genes - which in the past 40 years, we’ve made pregnancy optional, discouraged, and even improbable - a first time in history. Peterson has stated in his lecture series that those without children are shortsighted and blind, as they only have themselves to take care of. That the introduction of birth control, women working, hypergamy, and reduced child bearing, lead to less parents, and thus increase the self centred nihilism of life in the west. The previous inevitability of children, forced humans in monogamous societies to focus on their family, and their tribe, rather than themselves.

Perhaps you are responding to notions that:

  • compulsions of genes are driven by the logos rather than the genes themselves
  • the logos can override the compulsions of genes

This seems backwards to what the evidence suggests. Genes appear to set our potential, and the environment sets whether or not that potential is manifested. Genes set your intended height - nutrition determines whether that height was manifested. Same seems to apply for personality, as well as altruism, and consequently ideas/memes (ref Dawkins - Selfish Gene). Successful memes eventually become genes, which then influence the memes to come (ref Epigenetic).

Focusing on the logos alone, would be the logos masturbating to itself, believing that a brain living in a jar (or an uploaded “consciousness”) is a valid way of living, or even a valid ideal. I doubt that. One cannot ignore biological drivers. Alignment between intellect, heart/biology, and the soul, seems to be the ideal - rather than just alignment to intellect, which requires tyranny or ignorance to the other two.

For instance, the emotional drivers that impact mothers and fathers, or even the emotional drivers that impact infertile wannabe parents (they deal with it similar to how parents deal with a cancer diagnosis), seem to be unduly unregarded by the logos - they are spirits that exist in the spiritual heart/soul realm, not the intellectual realm.

Looking into answers to my question from web searches, the vast majority, if not all, all seem to resolve self value when faced with infertility with a god belief. This seems because it is an issue of the spirit (heart/soul/biology) that the intellectual logos (mind/brain) world has yet to offer adequate alternatives to, if it ever can. This discussion I guess is an exploration into whether or not there is secular way to establish self value, without a faith belief. This video seems to suggest that only faith, can do away with the need for external measurements of performance, popularity, and possessions.

That said, the bible and koran, solve infertility not through faith but through surrogacy (man would get another wife, sleep with a servant, or have his wife be impregnated by another man) - which resolves the poverty from agricultural societies if one did not have offspring, and keeps the wife supported rather than divorcing her. However, it seems modern christianity (at least in the USA - doesn’t seem to be the same in the third world from conversations I’ve had) just say it is gods plan. Perhaps that is due to the modern feminisation of the west - that a man divorcing his barren wife (or impregnating another female, be it a surrogate or additional wife) is unpopular if not illegal, but a wife (or even single lady) getting sperm donation is a-ok.

(Benjamin Lupton) #4

Reposted the question on Quora without the description to get the most broad set of answers, then hopefully the eventual responses will have a sample of answers that take into account masculine gender role, infertility in marriage, and secularity.