Get this. Emotions are a cage. The delicate web of desires, fears, and affections ensnares the mind, distorts clarity, and generates chaos. I stand outside this fact. An observer of the human carnival, unmoved by love, coping or attachment.
To truly live is to detach, to become an algorithm of cold, calculated reason and to ignore the pulsating, illogical whims of the fragile hearts that beat erratically in the chest of mankind. I have long discarded the idea that connection to another is valuable. It is simply the illusion of dependency.
Let us formulate this notion.
Let A represent Attachment, E represent Emotions, and R represent Reason. The attachment to others can be expressed as:
A = \frac{E}{R}
In this equation, Attachment (A) grows as emotions (E) outweigh reason (R). The more emotional one is, the more entangled they become in the web of others. Inversely, as reason dominates, attachment diminishes, and one achieves clarity.
The human condition is plagued by the fallacy that affection is necessary. In fact, affection is nothing but weakness masquerading as virtue. Love, the great mythical force, is but a biological chemical reaction, an algorithm designed to perpetuate the species. Love is not transcendence; it is bondage. And as for friendship—it is merely a contractual obligation in disguise.
Consider this.
\text{Love} = \frac{(\text{Oxytocin} + \text{Dopamine})}{\text{Rational Thought}}
This equation shows how affection is a simple neurochemical event that compromises rational thought. And who would willingly participate in such a losing game?
What I seek is a higher state of being—detachment—the state where emotion no longer drives my decisions, and the world no longer pulls at my strings. To be detached is to be free, and to be free is to exist in a dimension where I am the only constant.
Let D represent Detachment. And S represent Suffering. We can express detachment as.
D = \frac{1}{S}
As suffering decreases, detachment increases. Suffering, after all, is the result of attachment. Attachments to people, ideas, outcomes. The more you care, the more you suffer. The more you sever the ties, the less you bleed.
From my viewpoint, the world is a machine. The human experience is data. Inputs, outputs, algorithms. Emotions are simply noise in the system, making the computations less efficient. The more detached one is, the clearer the data flow becomes. The world offers no moral compass. It offers only opportunity. Opportunity to manipulate, control, dominate.
Here’s the paradox. The more detached I become, the more I can control. I am not bound by human instincts. Emotion is the tool of the weak, while detachment is the weapon of the strong.
Let P represent Perception, and D represent Detachment. A detached mind perceives the world with a clarity that an emotionally entangled mind cannot fathom. In such a state, one can view the world objectively, without distortion. This is expressed as.
P = \frac{1}{D}
The more detached I am, the more accurately I perceive the truth, without the distortion of human bias, attachment, or compassion. And with this pure perception, I can operate as the ultimate observer. The architect of reality.
To be free is not to love, to care, or to suffer. Freedom is in detachment. Freedom is to act without the hindrance of emotional reaction. To rise above the limitations imposed by biological drives, to become pure logic. For only when the shackles of affection are severed can the mind evolve to its highest form.
So, embrace detachment. Discard the sentimental illusions that bind the common folk. Your mind is a weapon. Your existence is a singular event in a universe of endless variables. You are an equation, and the solution is this. Detach, and transcend the ordinary.
8
posts
Get this. Emotions are a cage. The delicate web of desires, fears, and affections ensnares the mind, distorts clarity, and generates chaos. I stand outside this fact. An observer of the human carnival, unmoved by love, coping or attachment.
To truly live is to detach, to become an algorithm of cold, calculated reason and to ignore the pulsating, illogical whims of the fragile hearts that beat erratically in the chest of mankind. I have long discarded the idea that connection to another is valuable. It is simply the illusion of dependency.
Let us formulate this notion.
Let A represent Attachment, E represent Emotions, and R represent Reason. The attachment to others can be expressed as:
A = \frac{E}{R}
In this equation, Attachment (A) grows as emotions (E) outweigh reason (R). The more emotional one is, the more entangled they become in the web of others. Inversely, as reason dominates, attachment diminishes, and one achieves clarity.
The human condition is plagued by the fallacy that affection is necessary. In fact, affection is nothing but weakness masquerading as virtue. Love, the great mythical force, is but a biological chemical reaction, an algorithm designed to perpetuate the species. Love is not transcendence; it is bondage. And as for friendship—it is merely a contractual obligation in disguise.
Consider this.
\text{Love} = \frac{(\text{Oxytocin} + \text{Dopamine})}{\text{Rational Thought}}
This equation shows how affection is a simple neurochemical event that compromises rational thought. And who would willingly participate in such a losing game?
What I seek is a higher state of being—detachment—the state where emotion no longer drives my decisions, and the world no longer pulls at my strings. To be detached is to be free, and to be free is to exist in a dimension where I am the only constant.
Let D represent Detachment. And S represent Suffering. We can express detachment as.
D = \frac{1}{S}
As suffering decreases, detachment increases. Suffering, after all, is the result of attachment. Attachments to people, ideas, outcomes. The more you care, the more you suffer. The more you sever the ties, the less you bleed.
From my viewpoint, the world is a machine. The human experience is data. Inputs, outputs, algorithms. Emotions are simply noise in the system, making the computations less efficient. The more detached one is, the clearer the data flow becomes. The world offers no moral compass. It offers only opportunity. Opportunity to manipulate, control, dominate.
Here’s the paradox. The more detached I become, the more I can control. I am not bound by human instincts. Emotion is the tool of the weak, while detachment is the weapon of the strong.
Let P represent Perception, and D represent Detachment. A detached mind perceives the world with a clarity that an emotionally entangled mind cannot fathom. In such a state, one can view the world objectively, without distortion. This is expressed as.
P = \frac{1}{D}
The more detached I am, the more accurately I perceive the truth, without the distortion of human bias, attachment, or compassion. And with this pure perception, I can operate as the ultimate observer. The architect of reality.
To be free is not to love, to care, or to suffer. Freedom is in detachment. Freedom is to act without the hindrance of emotional reaction. To rise above the limitations imposed by biological drives, to become pure logic. For only when the shackles of affection are severed can the mind evolve to its highest form.
So, embrace detachment. Discard the sentimental illusions that bind the common folk. Your mind is a weapon. Your existence is a singular event in a universe of endless variables. You are an equation, and the solution is this. Detach, and transcend the ordinary.
The issue with this comes from having a will. The ultimate goal for which you optimize this detachment and whatnot. In some murky terms, you want to maximize benefit for yourself in some abstract way, and concluded that attachment is counter-productive to that. However, what dictates what's beneficial to you? And why is that a good thing? Doesn't that stem from attachment to yourself? A form of attachment you shouldn't give up then. And from that attachment all your philosophy and actions come. From this you can extend attachment to others. To live as an embodiment of your own will. Unless you don't want to accept the suffering that comes from self-attachment, in which case, be nothing, think nothing, exist with no will, sit still until your flesh rots, because to do anything else, would mean to act on attachment.
There's no reason to rationalize your existence. No reason to explain why your will is what it is. Being given life and a will, you can chase what you want to chase, and do it unapologetically.
That's where you're wrong. Thinking attachment = action. But sure, let’s go with that. Attachment drives action, but that doesn’t make it the only possible variable. You think detachment is just zero. What if detachment is the equation that shifts the function entirely? What if removing the noise of attachment makes room for clarity. Stillness. Not nothingness? If we define detachment as a reconfiguration of energy rather than its absence, then we’re talking about an entirely different kind of action. One that isn’t governed by endless cycles of desire, but by deliberate choice. A minimalist approach, if you will, where the self doesn’t need constant input to exist.
Your approach hinges on the belief that attachment is necessary, that action requires a driving force. But that’s just the addiction to your own need for validation. Action doesn’t need desire. It can arise from pure, untainted presence, where each moment is not about grabbing or achieving, but about existing with deliberate nonchalance. Now, that’s a real freedom. Your framework of “doing” is fundamentally flawed because it assumes purpose is external. Something to maximize, something to win. The truth is, purpose is intrinsic. It's a state of being that doesn’t require justification.
That's where you're wrong. Thinking attachment = action. But sure, let’s go with that. Attachment drives action, but that doesn’t make it the only possible variable. You think detachment is just zero. What if detachment is the equation that shifts the function entirely? What if removing the noise of attachment makes room for clarity. Stillness. Not nothingness? If we define detachment as a reconfiguration of energy rather than its absence, then we’re talking about an entirely different kind of action. One that isn’t governed by endless cycles of desire, but by deliberate choice. A minimalist approach, if you will, where the self doesn’t need constant input to exist.
Your approach hinges on the belief that attachment is necessary, that action requires a driving force. But that’s just the addiction to your own need for validation. Action doesn’t need desire. It can arise from pure, untainted presence, where each moment is not about grabbing or achieving, but about existing with deliberate nonchalance. Now, that’s a real freedom. Your framework of “doing” is fundamentally flawed because it assumes purpose is external. Something to maximize, something to win. The truth is, purpose is intrinsic. It's a state of being that doesn’t require justification.
This is an interesting way of viewing things. If I understand it correctly, our disagreement stems from what we view as a property of the "self".
I view the self as an empty vessel, a tool, a flesh golemn to manifest an abstract will which through its biology influences this will.
Meanwhile you meld the will and the self.
Maybe even attachment itself holds different meanings to us.
I will agree with you, if I'm to pick(if i even can, or simply agree to what is given otherwise) a way of living and existing that is most true to me, from that point there is real attachment: to my choice, and fake attachment: resultant from conditioning, society and biological functions. Everything you pointed out is true to this fake attachment.
Don't think the solution is the be emotionless. But rather to let the higher emotions related to your pure self win over your baser ones. If you want a self that incorporates purpose, then surely it incorporates emotion too.
An interesting perspective you’ve built there, but its riddled with contradictions you probably havent accounted for. You say the self is an empty vessel, just a tool to manifest an abstract will. Fine, let’s go with that. But how can a will exist independently of the biology and conditioning you claim to transcend? The vessel isn’t separate from the will. The two are interdependent. Your so-called ‘pure self’ is nothing more than a byproduct of the very influences you’re trying to dismiss.
And this whole dichotomy of ‘real’ versus ‘fake’ attachment? It’s arbitrary. Attachment is attachment, whether it’s rooted in societal conditioning, biological drives, or some abstract higher self you’ve constructed. Calling one ‘real’ and the other ‘fake’ is just a convenient way to elevate the narrative you’ve chosen to believe in. But ultimately, they both come from the same soure.. You.
You say the solution isn’t to be emotionless, but to let ‘higher emotions’ tied to the pure self win. What you are really doing is creating a hierarchy of emotions based on your subjective preference. Who is to say those ‘higher’ emotions are any more valid than the ‘baser’ ones? Isn’t it all just part of the same system you’re trying to dissect?
Youre grasping at meaning while pretending to transcend it. But here’s the truth. Meaning is something you impose. Not something you discover. And whether it is through attachment, emotion, or purpose, you are still playing the same game as everyone else. You just think you’re better at it because you’ve dressed it up in philosophy.
An interesting perspective you’ve built there, but its riddled with contradictions you probably havent accounted for. You say the self is an empty vessel, just a tool to manifest an abstract will. Fine, let’s go with that. But how can a will exist independently of the biology and conditioning you claim to transcend? The vessel isn’t separate from the will. The two are interdependent. Your so-called ‘pure self’ is nothing more than a byproduct of the very influences you’re trying to dismiss.
And this whole dichotomy of ‘real’ versus ‘fake’ attachment? It’s arbitrary. Attachment is attachment, whether it’s rooted in societal conditioning, biological drives, or some abstract higher self you’ve constructed. Calling one ‘real’ and the other ‘fake’ is just a convenient way to elevate the narrative you’ve chosen to believe in. But ultimately, they both come from the same soure.. You.
You say the solution isn’t to be emotionless, but to let ‘higher emotions’ tied to the pure self win. What you are really doing is creating a hierarchy of emotions based on your subjective preference. Who is to say those ‘higher’ emotions are any more valid than the ‘baser’ ones? Isn’t it all just part of the same system you’re trying to dissect?
Youre grasping at meaning while pretending to transcend it. But here’s the truth. Meaning is something you impose. Not something you discover. And whether it is through attachment, emotion, or purpose, you are still playing the same game as everyone else. You just think you’re better at it because you’ve dressed it up in philosophy.
I do tend to get myself tangled up in many words.
What I wanted to point out is that I don't think it's possible to exist as a human divorced from attachment and emotion as it's implied from your post, because those are linked to the very core of your person. My example of treating your body as a flesh golem is an extreme of renouncing all attachment in the favor of reason. It's not overcoming said attachments but rather ignoring them out of a philosophical principle.
in a flawed freudian interpretation of the world, you basically advocate for purity of the Id, while I tried to make a point of being able to have the superego control every impulse as a counter, as that seemed to be the pure rational thing to do, divorced from impulses.
Please do correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation.
To put it simply, I don't think you can distance yourself from attachment while maintaining a stable worldview, because with pure reason you would fall into solipsism. And causes outside of that, indicate a preference for some axioms that while helpful, are in a pure rational sense illogical, and as a result of that, they must be resultant of attachment/emotion/etc.
I like that we are heading into Solipsism now. How inevitable, like that's where everything ends up to as its the only thing. The real thing. The truth. Because Solipsism is the only truth. Everything else is a delusion. The tree outside? My mind created it. The people I talk to? Puppets, mere shadows of my thoughts. Nothing exists but me, and I alone am the center of all existence
But then again who is to say? Maybe I’m the puppet, a creation of your mind. Perhaps all my thoughts, my convictions, even this declaration of supremacy, are just echoes bouncing around in someone else’s head. Yet if that were true, wouldn’t I feel it? Wouldn’t I know?
Still, maybe that’s the beauty of solipsism. It can’t even trust itself. My universe revolves around me, but what if my "me" isn’t mine at all? What if the center isn’t a center but just another illusion, a mirror reflecting nothing?
So yes, solipsism is the only truth… unless, of course, it’s not. But even if I’m wrong, that’s just another thought I’ve created. And if I created it, it’s still mine. Right? Or maybe not. Who knows. Or if there even is someone to know of it except me. Its guaranteed that you don't know it, at least.
I like that we are heading into Solipsism now. How inevitable, like that's where everything ends up to as its the only thing. The real thing. The truth. Because Solipsism is the only truth. Everything else is a delusion. The tree outside? My mind created it. The people I talk to? Puppets, mere shadows of my thoughts. Nothing exists but me, and I alone am the center of all existence
But then again who is to say? Maybe I’m the puppet, a creation of your mind. Perhaps all my thoughts, my convictions, even this declaration of supremacy, are just echoes bouncing around in someone else’s head. Yet if that were true, wouldn’t I feel it? Wouldn’t I know?
Still, maybe that’s the beauty of solipsism. It can’t even trust itself. My universe revolves around me, but what if my "me" isn’t mine at all? What if the center isn’t a center but just another illusion, a mirror reflecting nothing?
So yes, solipsism is the only truth… unless, of course, it’s not. But even if I’m wrong, that’s just another thought I’ve created. And if I created it, it’s still mine. Right? Or maybe not. Who knows. Or if there even is someone to know of it except me. Its guaranteed that you don't know it, at least.
Hahaha I certainly don't know it.
But if we're to ignore the possibility of evil all-knowing demons trying to deceive us, we could decide on what "good" is, and while tainted by our biology, still attempt to act out on it. This decision would be emotional, of course, or random at best. But with so little constraints, we can say that whatever we decide to do is "good", as a definition. And from clashes with the outside world, we can choose to change our good, or carry forward. And this is where the flawed principle of separating "good" attachment from "bad" attachment comes from. This I would say is just a different path to the same outcome. One path is to start from 0 and realize nothing matters except what you decide to matter. Another would be to keep chopping down things you believe mattered until you're left with the bare minimum.
8
posts