The sweet indifference of the world

I’m dropping a few quotes here from Lešek Kolakovski’s book, "presence of myth." They touch on this modern-day attempt to crush the world's supposed indifference through sheer manipulation—an effort that, frankly, always ends in failure.

We try to beat back the indifference of the world by using technology to seize control—making everything bend to our will.

But look—even when we succeed in dominating things, that nagging sense of dissatisfaction keeps creeping back in. A technological culture that lets us strip the world like plunder doesn't actually fix its indifference; taming things is just an illusion. That feeling of being "at one" with nature? It's a lie—it's more like a necrophiliac's version of love. Nature isn't cooperative; it's indifferent. Once the world is completely covered in the scars of our technological meddling—once it's "humanized" in every detail by our constant interference—it starts looking less like home and more like a nightmare.

At its core, any attempt to use technological force to strip the physical world of its indifference is doomed. It’s not because total mastery over infinite nature is impossible—it's because at every level of technological success, we aren't gaining a partner; we're just taking prey. We subjugate things knowing they only obey us because they mean nothing to us—because they have no inherent meaning outside of our own agendas.

ruggedraven36, I wanted to jump in on what you wrote by touching on those concepts of precedence Quote : no exist it and utility, which honestly brought back some old memories from my undergrad philosophy seminars, so I’m going to pull out a few snippets from the opening post here

Precedence Quote : no exist it

Are there any other modes of existence besides these?
Take a tree, say a cherry blossom tree in full bloom (just my own little example), and we can experience it through the mode of precedence Quote : no exist it—essentially just being indifferent to it, much like we would be to a rock. It’s just "something that exists" in a totally neutral sense. Or, we could see it through the mode of utility, where it becomes "something for..." (well, soon it might be for eating cherries, or for firewood, or maybe for carving into walking sticks...).
But isn't there something more happening here? Don't we perceive that tree in another way, as something living, something that grows entirely on its own accord, possessing a mode of existence that transcends those two? Absolutely, there is.

Coming up in the next part: how logic and science reinforce this idea that precedence Quote : no exist it is the only true way to exist, which ends up unconsciously promoting a kind of inhuman indifference. And when you combine that with technology—which really only recognizes one other mode, namely utility and manipulation—you end up facing some pretty grim consequences.

by @nobody else

ruggedraven36 said:I’m dropping a few quotes here from Lešek Kolakovski’s book, "presence of myth." They touch on this modern-day attempt to crush the world's supposed indifference through sheer manipulation—an effort that, frankly, always ends in failure.

We try to beat back the indifference of the world by using technology to seize control—making everything bend to our will.

But look—even when we succeed in dominating things, that nagging sense of dissatisfaction keeps creeping back in. A technological culture that lets us strip the world like plunder doesn't actually fix its indifference; taming things is just an illusion. That feeling of being "at one" with nature? It's a lie—it's more like a necrophiliac's version of love. Nature isn't cooperative; it's indifferent. Once the world is completely covered in the scars of our technological meddling—once it's "humanized" in every detail by our constant interference—it starts looking less like home and more like a nightmare.

At its core, any attempt to use technological force to strip the physical world of its indifference is doomed. It’s not because total mastery over infinite nature is impossible—it's because at every level of technological success, we aren't gaining a partner; we're just taking prey. We subjugate things knowing they only obey us because they mean nothing to us—because they have no inherent meaning outside of our own agendas.

Ah, okay, I see where we're looking now. I don't really grasp that concept when applied specifically to technology. Look, Heidegger called technology a way of "concealing the battle"—it's just this failed human attempt to actually deal with the truth of the world. That's one of his more accurate insights. The essence of technology isn't actually about machines or gadgets. I use the term "indoctrination" to describe a whole system of values—this century-old "culture" that results in man trying to dominate the country. Whether it stems from religion or philosophy, whether people call it civilization, progress, or even the will to power, it's all driven by an anthropological mechanism that just repeats itself over and over. Only the ideological or linguistic mask changes.

Eric Newman75 said:Ah, okay, I see where we're looking now. I don't really grasp that concept when applied specifically to technology. Look, Heidegger called technology a way of "concealing the battle"—it's just this failed human attempt to actually deal with the truth of the world. That's one of his more accurate insights. The essence of technology isn't actually about machines or gadgets. I use the term "indoctrination" to describe a whole system of values—this century-old "culture" that results in man trying to dominate the country. Whether it stems from religion or philosophy, whether people call it civilization, progress, or even the will to power, it's all driven by an anthropological mechanism that just repeats itself over and over. Only the ideological or linguistic mask changes.

The tech itself? I don't see anything wrong with it. It only becomes an issue if we treat it as a tool for subjugating the planet.

I use the word "subjugation" to describe a value system—a century-old "culture" that results in humans dominating the Earth. Whether its roots lie in religion or philosophy, whether you call it civilization, growth, progress, or the will to power—it's just an anthropological mechanism that repeats itself over and over, even if the ideological or linguistic mask changes.

As far as I'm concerned, any "values" built on subjugating the Earth or exercising a "will to power" aren't universal—and they certainly aren't the true essence of civilization or progress. In the era of capitalism—especially now, in this neoliberal age—that mindset has been pushed to the absolute extreme. Worse yet, we're being sold this idea that this is some eternal characteristic of the human race, something all human action can be reduced to. That's just plain wrong. There are plenty of examples of human behavior that have nothing to do with domination or the thirst for power.

ruggedraven36 said:The tech itself? I don't see anything wrong with it. It only becomes an issue if we treat it as a tool for subjugating the planet.

I use the word "subjugation" to describe a value system—a century-old "culture" that results in humans dominating the Earth. Whether its roots lie in religion or philosophy, whether you call it civilization, growth, progress, or the will to power—it's just an anthropological mechanism that repeats itself over and over, even if the ideological or linguistic mask changes.

As far as I'm concerned, any "values" built on subjugating the Earth or exercising a "will to power" aren't universal—and they certainly aren't the true essence of civilization or progress. In the era of capitalism—especially now, in this neoliberal age—that mindset has been pushed to the absolute extreme. Worse yet, we're being sold this idea that this is some eternal characteristic of the human race, something all human action can be reduced to. That's just plain wrong. There are plenty of examples of human behavior that have nothing to do with domination or the thirst for power.

People try to spin these "values" so high up in the clouds that it actually becomes ridiculous. Every time I stumble upon someone trying to lecture me using terms like "will to power" or "evolutionary psychology," I find myself reaching for a drink just to deal with the pretentiousness. Look, I get it—alcoholism isn't a joke, it’s a serious struggle... but honestly, sometimes you just have to do what you have to do to get through it.

ruggedraven36 said:The tech itself? I don't see anything wrong with it. It only becomes an issue if we treat it as a tool for subjugating the planet.

I use the word "subjugation" to describe a value system—a century-old "culture" that results in humans dominating the Earth. Whether its roots lie in religion or philosophy, whether you call it civilization, growth, progress, or the will to power—it's just an anthropological mechanism that repeats itself over and over, even if the ideological or linguistic mask changes.

As far as I'm concerned, any "values" built on subjugating the Earth or exercising a "will to power" aren't universal—and they certainly aren't the true essence of civilization or progress. In the era of capitalism—especially now, in this neoliberal age—that mindset has been pushed to the absolute extreme. Worse yet, we're being sold this idea that this is some eternal characteristic of the human race, something all human action can be reduced to. That's just plain wrong. There are plenty of examples of human behavior that have nothing to do with domination or the thirst for power.

How, for heaven's sake? Look, I didn't just pick the Bible out of thin air. I quoted it specifically because parts of it are at least a thousand years older than Jesus Christ and Christianity itself. So, first off, it’s not just some "Western civilization" thing; you see similar views popping up in the Persian and Arab worlds too, which makes it pretty reasonable to assume they exist elsewhere. And we all know from history that both Persians and Arabs were massive conquerors.

The era of capitalism is winding down; it’s the final step in a centuries-old dialectic. So, what does universality even mean then? Something shared by the whole world could be a choice, it could be forced upon us, or it could just be something absorbed spontaneously. But that doesn't mean it isn't universal.

Eric Newman75 said:How, for heaven's sake? Look, I didn't just pick the Bible out of thin air. I quoted it specifically because parts of it are at least a thousand years older than Jesus Christ and Christianity itself. So, first off, it’s not just some "Western civilization" thing; you see similar views popping up in the Persian and Arab worlds too, which makes it pretty reasonable to assume they exist elsewhere. And we all know from history that both Persians and Arabs were massive conquerors.

The era of capitalism is winding down; it’s the final step in a centuries-old dialectic. So, what does universality even mean then? Something shared by the whole world could be a choice, it could be forced upon us, or it could just be something absorbed spontaneously. But that doesn't mean it isn't universal.

I get the feeling her post lumped the Middle East into Western civilization, whereas when she mentioned "the East," she was likely thinking primarily of Buddhism.

Nea-- said:It’s fascinating to watch how people try to justify egocentrism using the Bible and religion in general. 😉
People even pull out the most serious passages from Holy Scripture to argue that we are somehow "destined" for this—as if our innate, unshakeable selfishness is hardwired into us. They claim we should exploit the world around us because it was handed to us to use however we please... though, of course, provided we honor the Creator of both this world and ourselves.

To me, it feels like a father giving his son a toy on the condition that he behaves perfectly. The moment he slips up, the toy gets taken away.

Pope Francis's interpretation

"While it is true that Christians have sometimes misinterpreted Holy Scripture, we must decisively reject the idea that being created in God's image and having dominion over the Earth justifies absolute dominance over all other creatures. Biblical texts must be read within their proper context, using appropriate hermeneutics, recognizing that they instruct us to 'till and keep' the world's garden (cf. Gen 2:15). 'Tilling' refers to cultivation, plowing, or labor, while 'keeping' implies care, protection, supervision, and preservation. This implies a relationship of mutual responsibility between humanity and nature."

Joseph Bailey41 said:People try to spin these "values" so high up in the clouds that it actually becomes ridiculous. Every time I stumble upon someone trying to lecture me using terms like "will to power" or "evolutionary psychology," I find myself reaching for a drink just to deal with the pretentiousness. Look, I get it—alcoholism isn't a joke, it’s a serious struggle... but honestly, sometimes you just have to do what you have to do to get through it.

Exactly.

Eric Newman75 said:How, for heaven's sake? Look, I didn't just pick the Bible out of thin air. I quoted it specifically because parts of it are at least a thousand years older than Jesus Christ and Christianity itself. So, first off, it’s not just some "Western civilization" thing; you see similar views popping up in the Persian and Arab worlds too, which makes it pretty reasonable to assume they exist elsewhere. And we all know from history that both Persians and Arabs were massive conquerors.

The era of capitalism is winding down; it’s the final step in a centuries-old dialectic. So, what does universality even mean then? Something shared by the whole world could be a choice, it could be forced upon us, or it could just be something absorbed spontaneously. But that doesn't mean it isn't universal.

If a value is truly universal, we should all be able to embrace it and live by it. It makes zero sense to claim that everyone should be out there trying to dominate one another.

Melissa Stewart6 said:Pope Francis's interpretation

"While it is true that Christians have sometimes misinterpreted Holy Scripture, we must decisively reject the idea that being created in God's image and having dominion over the Earth justifies absolute dominance over all other creatures. Biblical texts must be read within their proper context, using appropriate hermeneutics, recognizing that they instruct us to 'till and keep' the world's garden (cf. Gen 2:15). 'Tilling' refers to cultivation, plowing, or labor, while 'keeping' implies care, protection, supervision, and preservation. This implies a relationship of mutual responsibility between humanity and nature."

Look, I know all that. Honestly? I actually agree with that whole reinterpretation. But I have my doubts—serious ones—that a fresh reading is going to just wipe away three thousand years of deep-seated indoctrination. And let's be real, this isn't something that just fell from Mars. This entire framework of ideas, beliefs, philosophy... it lives in the realm of myth and the collective subconscious. It goes much deeper than people realize.

ruggedraven36 said:Does that tie back into the whole idea that the actual point of living is just pure survival?

Of course it does. These are just the building blocks. You adapt to your circumstances. Why? For survival. Plain and simple. You either change yourself or you change your environment. Is there any other purpose out there? Can you reshape the entire world to be, say, free of all suffering? No, you can't. So what's left? All you really have is to pass the torch to the next generation—just like your ancestors gave you the chance to exist—while you spend your time digging into Hegel or whatever else you find meaningful along the way.

Sandra Murphy33 said:You’re talking about Life in a grand, abstract sense here, rather than the life of an individual. Isn't that right?
But we are discussing the life of the individual as such, not the overarching meaning of Life in general—specifically, why there is existence at all instead of nothingness.

From that perspective, survival is ultimately meaningless. The individual will die, and the fact that "life continues" through their descendants has zero bearing on them as a person. It might involve their genes, sure, but what actually happens to those genes is anyone's guess. For all we know, they could be spliced with the DNA of a tiger or an elephant, resulting in some humanoid hybrid—whatever. How does that have anything to do with the individual, their own survival, or the meaning of life? Please, enlighten me.

(I don't know what we did to deserve having to listen to these narratives from the series survival in the theme of man and world relationship....)

The individual? You can't distance yourself from your ancestors or your descendants without losing all sense of purpose. It's a dead end, a blind alley, total extinction...

Amanda Jackson5 said:Honestly, this is just trivial historicism reduced to the level of a pile of bones. You could swap out the word "consciousness" in that first sentence for pretty much anything else—life, nature, the laws of physics, subatomic particles, you name it—and the logic remains identical. In other words, there’s nothing inherently mysterious about the idea that everything in existence emerged from the development of something else. But why does development happen in the first place? It happens because of inherent contradictions that have to be resolved one way or another. Once those tensions are settled, things evolve in a certain direction, which usually just leads right into a whole new set of contradictions.

Is the Absolute Spirit actually alive?

Harold Doyle3 said:Of course it does. These are just the building blocks. You adapt to your circumstances. Why? For survival. Plain and simple. You either change yourself or you change your environment. Is there any other purpose out there? Can you reshape the entire world to be, say, free of all suffering? No, you can't. So what's left? All you really have is to pass the torch to the next generation—just like your ancestors gave you the chance to exist—while you spend your time digging into Hegel or whatever else you find meaningful along the way.

Of course I do.

Harold Doyle3 said:Of course it does. These are just the building blocks. You adapt to your circumstances. Why? For survival. Plain and simple. You either change yourself or you change your environment. Is there any other purpose out there? Can you reshape the entire world to be, say, free of all suffering? No, you can't. So what's left? All you really have is to pass the torch to the next generation—just like your ancestors gave you the chance to exist—while you spend your time digging into Hegel or whatever else you find meaningful along the way.

And where does that relay race actually end? 🙂

I mean... if you forgive someone... what is the actual point?

ruggedraven36 said:Of course I do.

Is anyone else actually seeing this besides you?

Sandra Murphy33 said:And where does that relay race actually end? 🙂

I mean... if you forgive someone... what is the actual point?

The relay keeps going until someone drops the ball, and then they’re out of the running.
The whole point is simply not to be the one who fails (survival).

Harold Doyle3 said:Is anyone else actually seeing this besides you?

Sure. Every single sane person out there.

ruggedraven36 said:Sure. Every single sane person out there.

Look, rational people have a better shot at survival. Pure and simple. Reason is an evolutionary edge.

Harold Doyle3 said:The relay keeps going until someone drops the ball, and then they’re out of the running.
The whole point is simply not to be the one who fails (survival).

Whose survival, exactly?
🤔

We survive until we die—whether we're connected to our ancestors or completely isolated, whether we're starving or well-fed, wealthy or broke. Survival is a given from birth to death. So when you claim that this is somehow deeply meaningful, I have to ask: compared to what?
If we look at life through that lens, is there actually anything that could be considered meaningless? And if so, why?

Unless, of course, your definition of "survival" is specifically about reaching old age after ensuring your children carry on your lineage, and then their children do the same, indefinitely...

Your idea of "survival" is poorly defined.
That term only makes sense when you're talking about animals fighting for their lives—one predator trying to eat while the other tries to escape. In human terms, where those kinds of raw struggles aren't the norm, the concept of "human survival" becomes incredibly vague.