"development" is a fool's game. Figure out how to enjoy where you are or how to enjoy moving.

Everyone dies. Enjoy sitting where you are or the journey to somewhere else.

The fact that everyone dies in no way invalidates the game of development.

Neither does it invalidate the choice to suicide or the choice to just live out your life comfortably without risk-taking.

It doesn't invalidate anything.

It can however be used to play the game of 'I have the broader perspective'.

It kinda invalidates taking things too seriously, though.

Why so?

Isn't being fully immersed in the 'hide' aspect of existence a better way for the universe to play hide and seek with itself?

Excuse this last question if it doesn't make any sense to you.

I wouldn't equate "not taking things seriously" to "hiding" in the way you mean it at all. "Not taking things seriously", in the way I mean it, is Zen. It's mindfulness. It's the felt experience of the present moment - without Sartre's existential angst. It's abstraction from desire and anxiety.

I think you've confused what I mean by saying it's hiding. Hiding, in the sense I think you mean, would be things akin to the mindset of "oh why bother, we're all gonna die anyway"... And then because of that mindset, shutting out authentic life experiences. That's hiding. But the antithesis to what I meant when I said not to take things seriously.

I have a long winded analogy I can use to explain it better but I think you'll get the gist? Did I understand your last question or confuse it myself?

You're the one who wants to radically redefine intelligence in furtherance of some nonsensical social cause you're championing.
You could probably do with getting something off your chest. Don't try to walk it back once you get called on it...

Of course intelligence is something positive. Being able to understand and model the world better is a positive thing, full stop. Just like being able to walk as opposed to be being unable to walk is a positive thing. That a few bad people can now walk up and punch people, or participate in wars, doesn't make walking a bad thing. We don't need redefine the word ambulatory because you don't like that some people use their ambulatory ability to do bad things.

You are making the small mistake of thinking that what you value is valuable. Perhaps less so than others are in this thread.

If that is a mistake, it is indeed very small.

It depends. The conversation seems to have devolved into a discussion of 'what a good life is.' It is important to keep in mind that values are subjective.

I would say that a good life almost entirely entails having one's mind unmolested by the thoughts of Alan Watts.

Yes, which is why it is generally not a mistake to think that what you value is valuable. In fact, I would argue that VeeDDzz`'s mistake is that he isn't taking sufficient account of this. A middle-class, 9-5 life is a life is a fulfilling, happy life for millions of people, many more than would likely be satisfied with the new-experience rich kind of life VeeDDzz` prefers.

Also, devolved? Really?

Values are shared, well, shareable whatever else they are.

developement seems to be pretty consistent in dealing out "meaning in life" to people. why would you believe something so incredible stupid as if you could "choose for yourself" what to enjoy. if i want a beer or a woman its going to pretty impossible to enjoy staring out the window. SMP people are so predictable in their "opinions" that its almost laughable.

How does this follow from Brian's proposition?

Apparently, my enjoyment of pithiness obscured what I was saying. The value he sees is entirely within his eyes. The thing he values doesn't contain the value.

I figured that would be somewhat controversial.

Is yeast more evolved than pond scum?

This "choose for yourself" is no different than deciding to whether or not to practice the guitar.

To give an immediate example, I would like to be sitting next to my woman right now, but she is at work. I could brood over this like an emotional freak, but instead I will watch some Studio C videos on youtube and giggle.

I doubt that the majority of people, especially men who can't bear children, feel this way. "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation." Its just that most have little choice. Liquor, religion, and Nascar helps them distract from the fact that they won't ever play for the Yankees, sleep with a seven, or be asked for their opinion on TV.

Living organisms have potential development, growth, and cultivation.

Their opinion of whether they are happy is the only opinion that has any weight. If they are happy because they are distracted, they are happy. If they are happy because they literally have a ****-eating grin, they are happy. To question whether they ought be happy is silly. To question the methods they use to enjoy themselves is utterly ridiculous.* Their happiness cannot be an illusion.

Most people are, in fact, pretty happy.** The reason why it seems that many people are unhappy is the fact that unhappy people tend to spend a lot of time communicating with others about how unhappy they are. Some of them write poetry.

*eating **** is bad for your health, so probably worth questioning since health and happiness have a somewhat strong correlation.

Note there's a difference between people who say they're happy and people who actually are happy.

The unhappy ones are more than happy to tell you about their unhappiness.

Some of them, yes. And some of the most unhappy ones will appear to fit into the "happy" category prima facie.

I disagree. Many don't, if only to avoid upsetting their family. Also I wasn't suggesting that NASCAR changes an unhappy person into a happy one. Sometimes it might in which case I agree with you. But I was suggesting that for most it is only a temporary distraction from their overall unhappiness.

Happiness is like fruit and vegetables.

But. Most people are happy. Little things like spending time with a friend, enjoying a meal, watching something on the boob-tube, etc. trump whatever hopes and dreams you might think they have found to be dashed on the rocks of life.

Some depressed people keep their emotions bottled up, but most of us are not depressed.

Not in research studies. Researchers are wiley. They ask questions that trick the average dumbass into admitting how happy/unhappy they are.