Thus Spoke Zarathustra

This is an important post that is also very short, so I'd say it's skippable if you read my series 'Schopenhauer' and 'Objective is Subjective'. The 'Schopenhauer' series talks about these ideas in much more depth, and it's just framed in a different way. It's the same core ideas, one framed to allow an individual to live a fulfilling life according to their values and morals by being aware of any external influence that leads them to irrational behaviour that not just may cause harm but cause them unsatisfaction, while the Schopenhauer posts talk about the same idea- with some more- extended to the level of the society, by discussing some ways to create a more compassionate and accommodating society where everyone is understood and everyone loves their fellow beings. Information density slightly above average for this one, as I indicate at the beginning of every post, and I'd say it's your call if you wish to read. Read if unsure.

Note: All the ideas presented in this post are not ideas I strongly believe in or endorse, because I am currently not knowledgeable enough to say anything with confidence, nor have I consulted anyone who is an expert on these topics, so please do not adopt any of these ideas as your own, because they are almost certainly incorrect. Read them just as a starting point for further enquiry, perhaps as an introduction that could make you more curious or interested in it, and always keep in mind the principles of Rationality, Scientific Skepticism, Critical Thinking and Open-Mindedness. Or just read it for fun, because I'm just playing with ideas here, everyone is most welcome to correct me wherever they think I'm wrong, and I'd be more than happy to change my mind in light of convincing logical reasons or empirical evidence.

"I’d say that people don’t become themselves because we absorb all this crazy stuff from the environment and then regurgitate it." ~Harry James-Potter-Evans-Verres, HPMOR.

“Man, the bravest of animals, and the one most accustomed to suffering, does not repudiate suffering as such; he desires it, he even seeks it out, provided he is shown a meaning for it, a purpose of suffering. The meaninglessness of suffering, not suffering itself, was the curse that lay over mankind so far.”- Friedrich Nietzsche

This might be one of the more interesting posts I've created, because the ideas I discuss here are ideas that I feel very strongly about personally, and as readers of my other blog posts would know, I like to keep an open mind and not get too attached to my intuition and rigorously scrutinize them with logic and rationality, and this is not an exception; the only exception still remains my the one I explained in my post about logical reasons to be ethical.

Now my brain might be once again using logic to come up with clever rationalizations in this case, as it is very good at doing and as I'm now good at catching it in other cases, but this one is different; because this concerns my true values and desires, and I don't know what they are, how they could be discovered, and what's the right way to discover them, we know so little, so it's very hard to know if my brain is rationalizing and if it's correct to do so, and what is the truth, because we know we can only get closer to truth.

This is a post with important and valuable ideas I wish everyone to understand and either adopt or critique, because as always I'm open to a productive debate and changing my mind in light of convincing logical reasons or empirical evidence, but unlike some of my other posts, (as I indicate in the beginning of every post) this one is comparatively lengthy and dense but also more important with some insights and ideas that I notice most people not being aware and hence falling for irrational behaviour inconsistent with their belief system that usually includes values such as rationality, curiosity, logic, and scientific skepticism.

If that's not what you believe in, feel free to skip this post to save valuable time and send me a message explaining why you think so, not necessarily because I disagree, I probably don't, but it could be a fruitful discussion if you are open-minded and open to a productive debate. Same goes for everyone who reads it till the end; I'd like to know your comments.

Now- this is an important point and one that might strike you as a strange one, but bear with me for a second here- I have not read any of Nietzsche's original works or anything related to his idea of Übermensch which I'm going to use in this post, and that is not because I don't want to- I'd love to, being the bookworm and lover of knowledge and novel ideas I am- but I am restraining myself for now, because as I mentioned in the previous paragraphs, we can only get closer to truth, and I wish to explain my truth before it's been distorted and changed by being exposed to someone else's ideas; someone else's truth.

I'll try to explain. This is philosophy, and the type that concerns values and ideas that have no definite truth and is open to interpretations, so we can not know the truth as there might be no truth, but we can know about different perspectives and interpretations of the same idea, and get to learn about different worldviews and thoughts of individuals with something unique to offer, that we all could learn from.

So, here's my unique interpretation of a topic I have not even read about, but know enough to write about. Because I had come up with a very similar idea myself, and of course someone seems to already have conceived of it AGAIN (context: read my post 'Good Artists Borrow, Great Artists Steal') and when I learned the gist of Overman, I realized how similar it is to my own ideas that I've been trying to develop, and so my brain very helpfully stopped me from diving further into it before writing down everything that I have come up with, so if I later try to express my thoughts, they're not something I have borrowed from Nietzsche, but more of my own unique personal experiences and perspectives. I could read other interpretations later once I am clear about my own ideas, that makes sense.

As I explain in more detail in the post about my research interests, I wish to understand all the external factors that influence our life and decisions without us being aware of it, so we can know if we can control them of not, if yes then whether or not we should, and how much we can control and can not control, which relates to the philosophy of Stoicism, so we can try to focus on ideas that we can, and forget about those we can not.

Going further, how can we control them? And if we can not, at least we can try to figure out how the complex intertwined factors interact to make life as it is easier for some and harder for some. Why are some people more intelligent than others while other have serious cognitive deficits? Why are some more calm while some predisposed to loser their temper quickly and suffer themselves and make those around them suffer too, and some who even feel like killing others and unable to suppress such desires and go on to become serial killers?

Why are some more creative than others, and some more disposed to mental illnesses and suffer, while some are more extroverted and charming and able to get what they want in life easily? What are the genetic and neurobiological basis, and how could we manipulate such cognitive abilities and personality traits through tools and techniques from various disciplines, such as: neurobiology, psychopharmacology, genetics, behavioural science, psychology, sociology, biophysics, neurotechnology, biomedical engineering etc.?

We advocate for social egalitarianism all the time because humans find it aversive that some people are better off than others, that even if it's just relative, they experience a sort of psychological discomfort that compels them to set things right, and make efforts to bring about a reform that is more equitable for everyone. But strangely I don't see this for something much more fundamental: your personality traits and your desires themselves- what makes you 'you'.

Very few people would be okay with some sort of dictators setting their preferences, interests, abilities and goals for them, and many people shudder at the idea of "playing god" and trying to manipulate the genes of a newborn to create designer babies, for understandable reasons. But they don't realize that reality is much more worse: it's literally random chance and luck that decides your early environment, genes, and neural makeup that give you your personality traits, interests, desires, everything that you value in life.

Could we break free of the desires of our selfish genes, or there even a real self that is free of all external influence- all societal expectations that we have internalized since childhood, all the evolutionary pressures and genetic dispositions that make us who we are, and the constantly changing brain, like the Ship of Theseus, is there a real me, or is the 'self' an illusion? If yes, how can we discover this self, and if not, what are it's implications, and how could we manipulate these factors, and should we, to change a person's personality and psyche from deep within? I usually refrain from talking about things I know very little about, but in this case the answer seems to point towards 'no' due to current scientific evidence in favour of determinism. I develop this idea in greater detail in my blog post about unconditional love being a myth.

This is also one of the reasons I like Rawl's thought experiment about the veil of ignorance; it sounds frightening to me that just by random chance I could have been something else. I still think about things that happened to be due to uncontrollable external factors- such as certain health problems- that if hadn't took place, would have significantly altered the course of my life and made it easier to achieve things I desired much earlier, but I'm not one to complain about the past, and I'm also grateful for what I have, and as I realize that I could have been much worse- there seem to be subjective mental states worse than Death; Death is nothing- and shudder at the thought that there exist people right now who are suffering from such disorders and illnesses, and something must be done to help them.

Coming back to the main point: I do not know if there exists such a real self independent of all external influence, and would not even attempt to come up with possibilities or go into my thoughts regarding that right now, but what I know for sure is that I do know a few things about my own self's values, preferences, interests and desires, which I have discovered through exploration and experimentation, which is unfortunately the best method we currently seem to have, but I hope that in the near future I'm able to come up with some sort of logical framework to discover your true values, because that's one of the most essential prerequisites of being rational.

If I know my true values and desires, I could live according to them and make decisions and behave in a way that maximizes the probability of my leading a fulfilling life and achieve things that I truly desire, because time is short and you don't waste your precious time on Earth like most people around me seem to, being oblivious about values and goals and not having any ambition, which is not their fault, but it is the society that conditions you to do that- and this is where I shall connect this with Nietzsche- and very few are able to even conceive breaking out of such a system and realizing in what ways it's affecting their own actions and decisions, which is still much easier compared to actually determining what are your true preferences in actually acting in that way.

As I said- and this is a distinction you must keep in mind and I won't repeat because it's just as useless and annoying as constantly reminding someone that my opinion is just my opinion and I'm receptive to your opinion; which is a good thing, but you won't like it when someone tells you this every few minutes- I'm not even talking about what our 'self' is and if we have any desires or values or interests independent of our genes and societal influence, that would be a much more daunting and for now at least unrealistic endeavour.

I'm only talking about discovering what you like and what you want; your true values and desires as your genetics happen to make you inclined or predisposed towards, where your true proclivities lie, including how you have been conditioned by your early environment, because even if you do not break free- and it might not even be possible because it's all that could be you, a cumulation of all external influences- you could still lead a fulfilling life aligned with your core values and true desires if you are able to identify them and live rationally, as in knowing what is good for you and what are the rational decisions to make based on your goals and values so you can achieve what you want. You could do if much more easily if your values and desires happen to not include causing hard to yourself or other beings, which would be the case with most people. Let's no, for now, discuss the case of those who do happen to include those things.

This means rejecting the societal norms and all societal influence as well as cutting off with society as a whole if required. Now, this may sound extreme, but this is just a hypothetical to demonstrate my point that extreme measure could be- and must be- taken if you wish to be truly free and live a life on your own terms and aligned with your true goals, perfectly rationally. This is also what I think Nietzsche would have had in mind when he wrote about creating your own values or morals and living according to them, being above everyone else, and even if not then this is definitely one of it's interpretations or another similar idea.

Think about this: No sane person could reasonably argue that you must do something that is causing you unnecessary suffering, as we saw in the blog post 'falling in love rationally', especially if the suffering is not contributing to them living a better life in any way; that's irrational. In the same way, you can not stop a person from doing what they must do to live a life they have to live to be happy or fulfilled, and that if they don't do would suffer from mental illnesses that result from unfulfilled needs and desires.

After all, it's not any individual's fault that they happen to born with genes, brain processes and early environment that has shaped their desires or preferences in a way that clashes with the prevalent morals or social norms of that particular society and particulate time period they have been born into. As you might be aware of, the universe, completely objectively and scientifically speaking, is inherently meaningless, and nothing matters in the grand scheme of things; all morals and ways of living and acceptable ways of behaving are human social constructs, and differ widely across different cultures and time periods.

This means that you could adopt the morals and accept the ways of the current society and time that you happen to be born into by pure luck, and if you are fine with it, that's brilliant, because your life would be much easier than someone who doesn't, but it is the latter type of person that is the main focus of this post. They might feel they don't fit in, or they dislike the mindset and major aspects of the culture they happen to be in, and even if they try to suppress all their desires and preferences and try to conform and pretend to be someone they are not, their true desires would manifest as mental illnesses that would try to tell them to change aspects their life.

I'm not necessarily antagonizing society, just saying that a person must follow their true values and desires as consistent with being perfectly rational as possible, and if the society they happen to be happens to have beliefs and systems in place that are inconducive to their journey to self-actualize and that they find unable to conform to without acting against their best self-interests which in other words forces them to try to fit in and behave irrational, they are much better off cutting them off from the society, or even not existing at all instead of going through such suffering, at least in my opinion.

I realize that I'm being abstract here and not giving specific examples, but I'd like to assure you that I do have personal experiences that have motivated me to come up with such ideas, even if I have decided to not talk about those experiences because I'm not sure how I feel about it, and I don't believe that anyone would believe that I am obligated to talk about personal experiences and ideas that I don't feel comfortable sharing publicly, in spite of all the oversharing that I do in this blog on a very frequent basis, but if anyone is curious, they could contact me and we could talk personally.

I used to admire certain people who happen to also be mentally ill- be they people in real life or fictional characters- and I didn't like to think this is because I'm glorifying mental illnesses, because I know that is a horrible thing to do, but now I think I know why that is the case. I like those people- I won't list their name here, not even fictional ones; don't feel like it, and this is a case in which I can go ahead with my intuition as the stakes aren't high and the cost-benefit analysis checks out- because they happen to have interests and desires different from the average member of the society, and do what they wish despite the resistance they face from society, creating their own morals and values and being Nietzsche's Overman.

As I write in my post analyzing the Unabomber, I probably won't become someone like him, but even if I do, I'm certain that I could do much better than that genius professor, and- lucky for you- I happen to have a conscience and internal moral compass that is strikingly similar to the moral codes and ethical standards widely accepted by the present society, so even if I do anything like that, I'd make sure to keep the suffering to the absolutely minimum, ending lives only if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, because I happen to not derive any pleasure from watching sentient beings suffer, and in fact eradicating all forms of suffering from the planet is one of my most important ambitious projects. (For legal reasons, everything I just said is a joke, Hahaha, I'm so funny, right? I have bugged you so you better say "right" right now or.. just kidding! Or so I'd like you to think..)

Some people might say that misfits and deviants must be ostracized, and you may be justified in saying that for serial killers and psychopaths (though I would still disagree; read my post on thinking fast and slow and a call for compassion.) but when you try to make everyone conform even if their inclination lies in being different, why can't be just be more accommodating and live and let live, when no harm is being done to anyone except the one being made to succumb to societal pressures and pushed to conform? This is why I brought in Nietzsche's Übermensch, Sartre's Existentialism and finally Taleb to drive the point home. It's about Antifragility.

Fragile systems are those that are easily damaged or destroyed by stressors and shocks, while robust systems are able to withstand stressors and shocks without being affected. However, antifragile systems go beyond robustness to actually benefit from stressors and shocks, becoming stronger, more resilient, and adaptable.

Taleb argues that antifragile systems can be found in a range of domains, from natural systems like the human body and ecosystems, to human-made systems like the economy, technology, and social systems. He also suggests that antifragility can be cultivated and enhanced in a variety of ways, such as through trial and error, redundancy, decentralization, and the promotion of diversity and variation. Taleb's concept of antifragility challenges traditional ideas of risk and stability, emphasizing the importance of embracing and learning from uncertainty, variability, and disorder to build more resilient and adaptive systems.

This is also why I think some levels of madness is common in geniuses throughout the history of science and art, because I suspect that certain levels of suffering might be required and even necessary for human flourishing and thriving of certain individuals by bringing our their true expressive selves and devote themselves to their work, channeling all their emotions to something productive, constructive and beautiful, creating meaning out of their suffering, something that they and the society could be proud of, and for some, makes their names immortal, symbolically speaking, such that they are now taught in history books all over the world, not going into the fact that memorization of their names does not just injustice, but a cruel disservice to their contributions, but that's related to the education system and belongs in another post.

That's why I think that even though currently we know the optimal amounts of suffering, there must be some suffering required to be fulfilled and make significant contributions or create something meaningful, but we don't know how much is optimal, and the cons outweigh the pros, as I explain in another blog post, so it's a noble cause in my opinion to eradicate suffering completely in al it's forms from all sentient beings, and that's one of my future projects. This idea also relates with creating your own values and meaning, and the Existentialist idea of finding meaning out of nothing, though the same could be said for Absurdism, and in my opinion in an even better way, as I explain in a post titled Absurdism.

On a related note, check out Frankl's Logotherapy from 'Man's Search for Meaning'.

The books I referred to talk a lot about how humans could thrive under suffering and how suffering is a necessary pre-condition for flourishing and bringing out your full potential, and it is true that you need to push your limits and get out of your comfort zone, put yourself in novel situations that are different from your established set pattern of behaviour so that you can learn and grow, because it is only by learning to be okay with change and discomfort that you can grow, and little by little voluntarily putting yourself in such situations you could only learn more about yourself.

But it is also very important to keep in mind that you know when to stop; you don't push yourself too hard and don't do things you are not inclined to do and that provide you with levels of discomfort and suffering incommensurate with the expected benefits it could provide. And making yourself suffer without good reason, that is, without any realistic probability of it providing you with any benefits, or making you more likely to attain what you desire, or if you happen to derive pleasure from pain and suffering itself- in which case I'd encourage you to go see a professional- is highly irrational. So is making yourself suffer if there are some benefits but not in proportion to the expected benefits or rewards, that makes it not worth it and also is a waste of time and energy with high opportunity costs.

I repeatedly advocate in this post for rising above the society, or more like acknowledging your differences and getting self-sufficient and self-dependent to discover your own values and desires and follow them in the face of any resistance you might face from society, but also being a strong believer in open mindedness and not adopting an unchanging belief- which by the way you probably have to do at some point of time if you wish to be the sort of Overman that Nietzsche describes and I talk about- here is something you have to keep in mind: usually society is correct if you are on a path that is well-known, because society knows the tried and tested method, and you can never go wrong with it, and even if you do go wrong, you would never have to take the blame, because then society at large would be at fault.

But things would be different if you are someone who wishes to explore unknown paths, travel the road not taken, do something innovative or novel that has not been done before or that very few people are able to do. That's the sort of person this post talks about, and that's when society starts getting a problem, or more like a mildly irritating pain.

I am curious to understand why it is the case that everybody is expected to conform to the way things are done by the majority, even when no one is being harmed in the process. Because, as I explain in the post, some people find it hard to fit in, and trying to pretend and fake it takes a serious toll on their mental and emotional health, which is part of the reason I am able to empathize with deviants, because in most cases we’d realize that they are probably just following their true inclinations as determined by their genes; so essentially random chance and determinism, not exactly factors under anyone’s control.

So what happens if your preferences and desires happen to be against the society? Why is it considered ‘normal’ to conform even when it’s irrational for you to do that based on your values and proclivities, inherent disposition you can not just alter at your will even if you wish, which might be the reason for the tragic incident with Alan Turing that this reminds me of, or other misfits as represented in popular culture and media, and in psychiatry and psychology where certain neurodivergent individual individuals are labelled as if they have some sort of disorder, when in fact they just happen to be different, prefer themselves the way they are without any distress or dysfunction, and in a few cases even have what people would recognize as real-life superpowers if they were to try to understand them?

On a related note, I've been thinking that researchers and individuals pursuing leisure activities could be more productive if they embrace their true values and break free from societal conditioning, which is consistent with the sort of philosophical literature I have been consuming lately. I'm also afraid that from what little I have read and heard, the current system might be biased and undesirable for those with dreams and passions, even though the collaborative efforts, division of labour and interdependence exist for a reason. I do know about the interdependence of individuals in society, and- more importantly and it's becoming more obvious to me with each passing day now- the checks and balances in place to maintain conformity. There are some serious issues with this system that I currently won't go into.

I shall develop this theory further when I feel like it, because I have a lot more to say, but unfortunately not the time to say it, which is indirectly related to the idea I just discussed, so I am confident in my ability to solve it and do what must be done, and wish you the best of luck for whatever you are doing right now, even if you're doing nothing, because nothing is everything, and doing everything takes a lot of effort, so I'm proud of you for doing nothing, and maybe I would elaborate on this idea about 'nothing' in another blog post exploring the intersection of mathematics and philosophy.

Edit: someone helpfully pointed out something that I had neglected and it made me reconsider my opinion or at least make a more well-informed decision by being more educated about the debate I'm taking a stance on. I'll post the comment in bold, and then my reply.

Collaboration is key for the progress of humankind; or why do you think do you have time to study instead of ploughing a field and taking care of satisfying your basic needs? This is due to society and its collaborative structures allowing for specialisation that you can do so. For the same reasons do we have companies and not lone individuals doing business.

Thank you very much, this insight could not come at a better time, because this is related to something I've been thinking about a lot lately. Your view is one end I have overlooked; I was playing with the idea that maybe researchers could be more productive, and not just researchers but even the common person who wishes to engage in leisure activities which may not necessarily be research but something that contributes to their flourishing and well-being, as well as benefitting the society.

I was thinking more along the lines of an interpretation of the existentialist philosophy and some ideas by Nietzsche, basically that we would do better by embracing our own true values such that you could do whatever you wish on your own and break free from what you have been conditioned to conform to without questioning it

My parents- and grandparents, and those of majority of the people, unless they come from a wealthy family- have worked day and night sometimes sacrificing their own interests and passions just to sustain themselves and enable us to study and follow our dreams. Reminds me of this quote by John Adams: "I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy."

And I have heard more similar quotes by other people, with strikingly little variation over different periods of time but the general structure nonetheless remaining the same- people study things currently valued and awarded by society to be financially secure enough- at the expense of their true passions and interests- so their children can study what they are passionate about.

So I had started thinking that just like the people who even today have to work to make ends meet, and cannot devote much time to their research activities, this system is biased and undesirable for people with dreams and passion, and some have even told me that a job is just a job and my ideal dream of going into research is just that- a dream, and I will soon get into the reality off how academia works that is inconducive to creativity-

So I must keep my interests behind and make financial security my priority so I cant sustain my research activities- if I am still motivated enough- and so I don't die of starvation, and I'm less afraid of the latter than what they said about losing my motivation or being stifled by the system in place. I think that's too pessimistic but it could be the case that reality is so dystopian that is sounds pessimistic to me cause maybe I have never stepped into the real world till now.

That might stay as it is until we reach a post-singularity, post-scarcity society where AI can automate everything and we can do what we wish without worrying about insignificant stuff, but even I think that's too utopian and currently unrealistic and I must not give it much weightage while planning my own career. It'd have been nice though.

Moreover as you said it's a collaborative effort, and everyone is interdependent on each other, and I also clearly see now the checks and balances kept in place by the society to keep a check that individuals conform to these commonly agreed upon rules and the deviants are kept to a minimum, which has some serious issues of it's own but I shall not go into them right now or this message would turn into something so lengthy and dense that no one present here would wish to read it anyway. Perhaps another time when I develop this idea and make it more concise. Thank you.

Tl;dr: this insight could not come at a better time, because this is related to something I've been thinking about a lot lately. In very brief, I'd been thinking that researchers and individuals pursuing leisure activities could be more productive if they embrace their true values and break free from societal conditioning, which is consistent with the sort of philosophical literature I have been consuming lately.

I acknowledge the sacrifices of previous generations to enable those in my generations, and future generations to pursue their passions but I'm also afraid that from what little I have read and heard, the current system might be biased and undesirable for those with dreams and passions.

Thank you for reminding me once again about the collaborative effort thing. I do know about the interdependence of individuals in society, and- more importantly and it's becoming more obvious to me with each passing day now- the checks and balances in place to maintain conformity. I also acknowledge the potential issues with this system.

Add to zarathustra n interets aptitude blog- you could push your own limits and do so in increments by putting yourself injust enough discomfort and suffering that when you get accustomed to it you move to the next stage and thus build your strength and resilinece, but there has to be a limit, and there also has to be an optimla point above which you must not go just like you don't on the first day of gym go to the heaviest machinery or equipment, and you don't from first day of school start reading Nietzsche or Schopenhauer or Camus, and you probwbly shouldn't, and that's the reason that after doing a cost benefit analysis taking into mind opportunity costs, I have determined I personally think it's ratioanl for me to harness and build on my strengths rather than push my limits and strengthen my weak points, and it also makes sense according to Adam Smith from Econ and the Scinetific method more broadly, because you specialize in what you enjoy and what you're good at, and collab or ask for help of those who are good at and interested in stuff you aren't and that's how you get stuff done cause you can't due to time and cognitive constraints master everything and learn everything all at once, and you don't want to push your limits too much that you also don't harness your strengths and also don't improve your weaknesses enough to be able to compete with those who are inclined to be naturally good at it and also enjoy it even though you don't, so it'd be rational to just discover where your inclinations lie, through exploration and experimentation, determine your true values, interests and desires by trying stuff and focusing on your internal mental states to check what you like, and then create a roadmap to live a fulfilling life that you can be proud of, constantly learning and improving, growing as a person, and also helping others cause whatever you do you are going to, by cause and effect and interdependent nature of the society, help others and help improve their lives.

Update: I'm soon going to make this much more detailed and concrete- with algorithms inspired by masking from autism community and method acting from one movie with a character I liked, and my own personal experiences of course, and I'm going to list how you could discover your true values- it works for me, seems to be working great so far, and there is scientific evidence supporting it, plus it's related to some tech and scientific research project ideas I am going to start very soon in the near future, which would make this much easier, and also solve the problem with current dating and friendship apps, and the loneliness pandemic.

Don't worry if the following isn't comprehensible; I'll explain soon. In brief, in ascending or increasing order of both difficulty and effectiveness: surrounding similar people desirable traits or abilities brain synch; conscious deliberate applying principles to real life situations extracted from observation; internalizing same principles through spaced repetition and active recall; neurofeedback training to enhance brain areas and processes to train skills transferable to real-world situations; other than behavioural, psychological and philosophical, direct interventions such as psychopharmacology, neurosurgery, genetic, neurotechnology, implants, brain-computer-interfaces and others.

Self actualize, Overman, free from external influence that compels you to act irrationally and causes too much discomfort not worth the expected utility or future benefits, or if it's the only alternative and the other alternatives have realistic, likely, potential negative consequences worse than it, but eventually create a society that is accommodating and respects everyone's personal preferences and living according to their values, interests, desires, preferences, inclinations. For more about another brief but slightly more detailed version of the latter part, see my post The Diary of an Autistic kid, somewhere towards the end. Or wait, I'll just add the relevant part here:

Here's a (not so) brief summary (I promise I have tried to keep it brief while minimizing information loss):

make very clear in brief: First level is similar to Rawl's Veil of Ignorance where you imagine you were to be born by blind luck or random chance in any part of the world, any society, any genes and family and environment, and if you'd be okay with being born anywhere. If you're not, it's not an ideal society, because if you happen to be at a relative disadvantage for no reason other than the privilege of being fortunate enough to be born in a place with genes and environment that might not just result in different genes that result in personal traits and cognitive abilities, but also give you some disease or disorder that would make you suffer, while other more fortunate people enjoy life more than the others. This is my idea about helping people less fortunate than you, because they are made to needlessly suffer, suffering that is completely unnecessary and preventable yet no one seems to care.

The idea is that everyone deserves to be understood and loved, and compassion; Irrespective of your opinion on them, which says less about them and more about your own brain, superficial social constructs and their actions: words such as dumb, foolish, stupid, gullible, evil, bad, wrong, it's all subjective value judgments and meaningless words with no basis in objective reality if it even exists, and the only thing that matters is that they need to be helped because they did not choose to be born, and be born with those genes and family environment which is often traumatic and if which you knew you'd have more empathy and compassion for them.

Similar experiment: Carl Jung's Shadow Theory, and if after reading it you think you could never do anything evil like Hitler or Bundy or people who commit crimes, then text me and I'll show you how you're probably wrong, if you care enough to engage in a discussion to get your beliefs closer to truth, but as always I'd like to be proven wrong, and it's just the fact that no one has been able to do so until now which makes me confident in my belief (while still being open-minded and rational, practicing scientific skepticism) which is not being irrational, just recalibrating my beliefs to be in line with what evidence indicates is closer to reality, such that you'd require stronger logical arguments or empirical evidence to change my mind; and it'd help to ask yourself if your argument might already be considered by me- even though I might not be as intelligent as you, I do think deeply about such things- and if I already have some good reason to reject it, and what it could be, and we could have a more productive and fruitful discussion that way. (It's also a useful life lesson I learned: always assume the person you're talking to is at least as intelligent as you are and has some insightful lessons that you could learn from if you try to closely listen and understand.)

The next level is allowing the individual to live rationally according to their values and morals, which they discover through experimentation and exploration. Armchair theorizing won't get you too far, and you need to try stuff to see what you like and what your true values are, because we are bad at predicting the emotional affect we might feel at a future point of time (see Dan Gilbert's research on Affective Forecasting). You find what your genes and early environment has predisposed you to towards feeling fulfilled for, not hedonic but eudaimonic pleasure; process not goals; journey not destination; intrinsic not extrinsic motivation through you do need some meaning or overarching goal that outlasts intrinsic motivation. You do try to improve yourself and be flexible enough to face discomfort when it's worth the expected utility keeping in mind opportunity costs, but you don't push yourself to go against your natural inclinations, not taking in mind genes, but primarily environmental and social factors; I am not elaborating cause I don't want to rewrite all of the ideas I've already described in the posts 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra' and 'Schopenhauer'.

Next level is creating a society that is accommodating of individual preferences and desires; live and let live, more in my post 'Schopenhauer'. And the last level, the eventual ambition, the goal is to control and directly manipulate these factors to achieve desirable outcomes. Uncover the mystery of the 'self' and see if there is a self independent of all genes, societal influence, neuroscientific constructs, and if it is then what it is. And if (I think this is the more likely outcome) it's not then what are the societal implications in terms of determinism and all social structures including education and law, and how we could (and if we should) directly manipulate them to create a better society and individuals who live a fulfilling life, with personality traits, cognitive abilities, morals, values, inclinations in accordance with a peaceful and accommodating society such that they can self-actualize, but more importantly, and this is the single most important goal for now: eradicating all unnecessary suffering in all it's forms for all sentient beings.

Bonus: Not anything important, just an interesting personal experience and thoughts related to.. it's from a post that I may or may not have published yet, but it's related to Nietzsche so it'd be appropriate to post it here:

I just realized.. Nietzsche, one of the philosophers who inspired me to be confident in my ideas wrote this once upon a time in a letter to his mother and sister: “My brain-suffering is difficult to assess. With regard to the scientific material which is needed for this, I am superior to every physician. It is an offense to my scientific pride, when you recommend other cures… From now I absolutely want to be my own doctor, and people shall admit that I have been a good doctor, and not only for myself alone.” Sounds familiar? And he also abused his title ‘Doctor’ (of philosophy) as a medical doctor to get pills from pharmacies. And he said his philosophy is a product of his suffering, which has shaped his ideas.

This is getting too personal now, because everything except the pills thing is so relatable I’m now afraid.. I was happy to know I have ideas similar to those of other philosophers, but.. And I didn’t even know this before I’d experienced all my.. experiences (Flowers for Algernon post) and then my ideas that I also mention several times throughout my posts are a product of general lessons extracted from my experiences of suffering reframed and sharing to help others (“people shall admit..”) after I’ve published them all and this is my last post.. but fortunately I’m not insane enough to think I’m a doctor and I also say that what worked for me may not work for others but might be a good starting point..

I know it sounds insane that you’d use your PhD as a medical credential but the scary thing is.. it would also have sounded crazy before I experienced it myself that suffering could give rise to ideas god enough to help you and others and that you can’t depend on doctors and you can only cure yourself.. I’d have laughed and mocked Nietzsche for this before it happened to me, but I have good logical reasons I explained why I cannot see a psychiatrist as I’ve even tried and it’s just not- not superior or anything, they just won’t.. get it.. which is just another more polite way to say they’re inferior.. I mean.. I don’t want to think about this. Just that I need to keep myself in check to never get use my PhD to get medicines. Moving on.

Oh another one. The is interesting. So I went out for a walk with my cousins yesterday. And today my cousin showed me how I walk- it’s very quick robotic walk without moving my hands at all, and I’ve walked like this since childhood, been mocked by students in my school all my life and even now by family members whenever they notice this. So my cousin showed me a movie clip from some old Hindi movie and told me that’s how I walk. And then I remembered something interesting.

As I said I usually don’t watch movies or series, but I’m fascinated by abnormal psychology and psychopathology and true crime in a way so I saw 2-3 episodes of Dahmer when it was released. And I realized I know someone who walks more like me, and not just walks, whose childhood is just like mine, in several ways, including the social isolation, not being able to fit in, loneliness, dropping out, it sent shivers down my spine when I first watched it and realized the similarities.

I was thinking the show was meant to depict how he, who everyone calls ‘evil’ was actually a victim of circumstance and had a very traumatic childhood- fortunately I have nice parents, and I’m also probably not homosexual- but it kind of backfired when someone, oh- Jeffrey Dahmer's own father considered suing Netflix for releasing a series about his son's infamous murders.. but, well, my point was that.. Dahmer is not the only one, there’s the Unabomber, and others I mention in my post Confessions. There are many others. And my childhood behaviour has a lot of similarities with them.

And it goes either of the two ways: serial killer or an accomplished scientist who makes novel breakthroughs. Dr. Friston and Nietzsche are two who immediately come to mind, and others in Confessions and my series on Asperger’s. I’m not just saying this for no good reason; I actually read some of such people’s biographies and there are striking similarities down to scientific explanations like cognitive empathy and rationalization ability. And I’ve been thinking I cannot go wrong and just being paranoid, after all I’ve always been the silent nice little kid who never even picked fights and was a bit too disciplined.

I was also surprised to discover they all had Asperger's too- Dr. Friston, Dr. Perelman, Sherlock, Einstein, Tesla, Newton, Ramanujan, Musk, Jobs, Gates, Zuckerberg, Unabomber, Dahmer and many others; either a serial-killer or an accomplished and respected entrepreneur or executive or scientist. No in between. My childhood has been similar from what I've read about all of them, and I too feel like both the options are better than being mediocre, average, even though I respect the preferences of people who are content with being average, I'm inclined in a way that makes me feel very unfulfilled if I don't at least try not to be average which is why I am highly motivated and like setting ambitious goals and trying my best, regardless of outcome, and I'd prefer to help people and create a better society than the other extreme..

From another post: this reminds me of a great connection I found between Nietzsche’s life and my own experiences: he abused his doctor of philosophy title as a medical doctor title to get meds because in a letter sent to his mother and sister he wrote that the psychs are not good enough to understand him, and that reminds me of something that I describe in my post Madness, when I suffered from a mental breakdown, I didn’t believe that the psychs are not good enough, but, well, I kind of did, and I actually did cure myself because it involves some of my own core values and involves reconciling clashing beliefs and contradictory worldviews, and I still don’t think anyone except me could understand that even if I tried to explain. (and that time from my asperger's doc where that sus doc prescribed the wrong meds due to the skewed incentives and Indian med system)

I have actually tried, they don’t. Plus this Nietzsche guy as some ideas logically consistent to my own yet dissimilar enough that no one can accuse me of stealing and rewording or rephrasing his ideas, yet it gives me confidence in the merit of my own ideas; another funny incident- he believed that his philosophy is a product of his suffering, which again is strikingly, eerily similar to my own belief that my past personal experiences and suffering which I describe in my posts has given rise to these ideas, which could help others or at least provide them with a framework or starting point, and Nietzsche believed that he is going to make people agree that he has been a good doctor not just for himself, but for others too, I actually quote the exact words towards the end of the post Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Do you see now, how it’s always either serial killer or accomplished researcher or philosopher, never in between? It makes sense because I have a strong aversion to mediocrity and try my best to noy be average even though I respect the opinion of those who are fine with it; it’s just a personal preference. There are many more, all of them autistic. Did you know Dahmer was Autistic? Dr. Karl Friston, Alan Turing, the Unabomber, Ramanujan, Musk, Zuckerberg, Gates, Feynman, they all had the same level-1 high-functioning autism that I have and I never even knew that before I just decided to look it up for fun to see if some people with certain traits or qualities or interests that I admire have it, and I was surprised, still am. It’s unbelievable, but it actually does make a lot of sense now that I think about their behaviour and actions and incidents from their biographies. I’d be surprised if they were no autistic.

Update: You could push your own limits and do so in increments by putting yourself injust enough discomfort and suffering that when you get accustomed to it you move to the next stage and thus build your strength and resilience, but there has to be a limit, and there also has to be an optimal point above which you must not go just like you don't on the first day of gym go to the heaviest machinery or equipment, and you don't from first day of school start reading Nietzsche or Schopenhauer or Camus, and you probably shouldn't, and that's the reason that after doing a cost benefit analysis taking into mind opportunity costs, I have determined I personally think it's rational for me to harness and build on my strengths rather than push my limits and strengthen my weak points, and it also makes sense according to Adam Smith from Econ and the Scientific method more broadly, because you specialize in what you enjoy and what you're good at, and collab or ask for help of those who are good at and interested in stuff you aren't and that's how you get stuff done cause you can't due to time and cognitive constraints master everything and learn everything all at once, and you don't want to push your limits too much that you also don't harness your strengths and also don't improve your weaknesses enough to be able to compete with those who are inclined to be naturally good at it and also enjoy it even though you don't, so it'd be rational to just discover where your inclinations lie, through exploration and experimentation, determine your true values, interests and desires by trying stuff and focusing on your internal mental states to check what you like, and then create a roadmap to live a fulfilling life that you can be proud of, constantly learning and improving, growing as a person, and also helping others cause whatever you do you are going to, by cause and effect and interdependent nature of the society, help others and help improve their lives. Also you just push yourself if the alternatives would have consequences that are likely to cause much more discomfort than the current thing you're being forced to conform to. You do what you feel like but you think, if that would in the long run make you more likely to achieve your goals and if it's the best alternative; you make well-informed decisions and calculated risks, where these terms have well-defined meanings I describe elsewhere.