I would like to address a claim that is sometimes made against stoics, particularly against some of the ideas of Marcus Aurelius, who said, among other things, “Permit nothing to cleave to you that is not your own, and nothing to grow upon you that will give you agony when it is torn away.” Given the extremely elevated status of friends and interpersonal relationships in our society, this concept doesn’t jive well with the idea that we all have to form deep bonds with one another. The idea of being stoic and of suppressing your emotions as subservient to your mind seems to conflict with the idea that we’re supposed to share our feelings with others. Why the belief is that if someone else is aware of the factual state of your existence creates a bond is beyond me, but it is implicitly assumed in our interactions with one another. The most canonical example is when you encounter someone you know and ask them how they’re doing, what’s going on with them, or the like. Both of you probably know, if you thought about it, that the other person’s answer is irrelevant. Neither of you could give a damn. But it’s the greeting you use because it is a sharing of information of a moderately personal nature, or at least it’s a question requesting that information which implies a certain closeness. Whether you’re doing it to provoke that sense of intimacy in the other person, in the impressions of people listening in, or to convince yourself, I don’t know. However I do know that very little of what is commonly thought of as conversation is an actual sharing of empathic significance or deep thoughts. What is commonly accepted as “small talk” is the norm of human interaction, and it is accepted as having zero functionality.
Now, I am of course being a little over-literal here. The purpose of small talk is that it is talk where everyone concerned might be uncomfortable in having a real conversation, it fills up the time and allows people to get comfortable with one another. However it is not and will never be the goal or endpoint. It is vital that just “being with” other people is never something you’re setting out to do, because standing next to other humanoid figures and flapping your vocal folds is, in and of itself, not really a worthwhile activity. If you’re interacting on an empathic, mental, philosophical, or whatever medium in a way that gives you genuine enjoyment such that you would actively choose to enjoy that person’s presence in favor of some other activity you enjoy then of course it’s a good thing- that’s just a basic pursuit of your own satisfaction. This is obvious and a trivial proof, but I think I need to inject it here so I’m not scaring off exactly the people who need to hear this.
The best corollary to this whole mess is our modern conception of sex, especially among men. Men tend to be in a position of weakness and insecurity due to having conflicting internal models and programming and all manner of other nonsense going on in their heads leaving them a little lost and confused. One of the dominant themes that result is a pursuit of sex that is driven more by social power than actual personal satisfaction. Many men are more gratified by the fact that they are having sex than they are enjoying the sex itself. They’ll brag to their buddies about it and allow themselves that extra iota of self-respect because they “got laid.” The self-destructive side of this thinking is that they honestly believe they aren’t worth anything unless they can convince a woman that they are worthwhile enough to sleep with. I am unsure of how many women have this problem, but it is widespread among men. I suspect that because women are dealing with this population of men, they live in sexual abundance and don’t develop the same complex- attractive women at least if not all women. I am speculating now, but I find it probable that women have a similar complex revolving around marriage, gratified more by the fact of being married than they enjoy the marriage itself, resulting in the “must get married” effect at a certain age. Many, many people of both sexes are gratified more by the presence of other people than they are actually enjoying being with them.
The simple fact of the matter is that if you go out seeking deep bonds, what you will find is the most superficial of relations with people as desperate for companionship as yourself. Deep bonds, described as such, actually don’t exist as we conceive of them. It’s not that you spend a lot of time with someone or that you have known them for a long time, or even that you know a great deal about them and their personal preferences such as their favorite flavor of ice cream. In fact, I would go so far as to say that knowing a huge amount about their preferential minutiae actually subtracts significantly from the goal that most people are seeking. If there’s a woman I like, I could care less what her favorite flavor of ice cream is. The question is whether or not she is fun to be around. If I was to feverishly try to get her to like me or memorize her personal preferences, that’s work. Stupid, counterproductive, and manipulative work, at that. That’s all. Perhaps we have deep empathy, perhaps we’re alike, maybe we have good discussions or great sex, it makes no difference (OK, I lie) the question is only if she’s a positive presence in some- preferably many- ways.
Part of the problem is the widespread perspective of the “personality.” And for the love of life NEVER evaluate someone’s “personality” as ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ Both those words are the most abused semantic identities ever created, and they both can mean nearly anything while being very specific about one thing and one thing only- and by hiding the implementation of that judgment there is no way to argue with it. There is no such thing as a personality- a person is composed of the sum of their mind and actions derived from it. There is no way that you can ascribe someone a personality which if they do something that is “not like them” then they’re being fake or somehow not being themselves. Whatever the circumstances, they are merely exhibiting a decision-making pattern you haven’t previously observed or were otherwise unaware of. It is the same person, ergo they are the same person. This idea that we can understand someone else, ascribe them a simplified model that will predict their behavior and then expect that behavior from them is disgusting. People are very complex- one person is far more complex than the sum of all of their understandings of other people, much less someone else’s understanding of them. It can’t be your personality that you like coffee, and that you’re doing something bad when you don’t drink coffee. The drive to be consistent is not a natural one- it’s a societal stamp mark on the inside of your brain that tells you to be simple so that others can understand you better. But who gives a flying shit about whether other people understand you? Do what you want! If you wake up and wonder if eggs scrambled with cocoa and baking soda tastes good with ketchup, then go right ahead and try it! It doesn’t have to be your personality that you eat weird things- it’s just something you want to do, so you do it. That’s a bit of a weird example, but it holds. Why we don’t expect one another to do what we want is just beyond me, especially in our day and age with so many options available. There are all manner of stigma against jocks, nerds, cheerleaders, sluts, you name it, there’s a stereotype that someone wants to slot you into. So, how about, just to screw with them, completely break their model of the world by totally not fitting into the model they would like you to. Just for fun.
So here’s the question. “Permit nothing to cleave to you that is not your own, and nothing to grow upon you that will give you agony when it is torn away.” The idea here is that you are your own pursuits and not permitting external people or objects to influence you or your goals. This is both a warning against addictions of all forms, perhaps especially social ones, and a caveat emptor for everything you allow into your life. You control your personal sphere- to the best of your ability at least. It is your responsibility and nobody else’s to make sure that only elements you want are a part of your life, and it’s your duty to yourself to safeguard the vaults against the thieves that would seek to plunder your wealth.
I have something to say about victimization here. Blaming the victim for a crime committed against them is the original scam. It is the classical attempt to cheat and then get away with it, and the more serious the crime, the more potent a tactic it becomes. The idea that you control your person means that yes, to a degree, you are responsible if something bad happens to you. There are precautions you could have taken, etc. etc. No matter the event, there are always choices you could have made to avoid that outcome you deem makes you a victim. However part of the idea of being actually in control means that you are never a “victim” of other people’s choices or actions, because the very idea implies that you aren’t actually in control. So you are only actually a victim when the aggressor has actively applied intelligence to disable, short-circuit, or otherwise evade whatever defenses or precautions you have taken against being taken advantage of. Think of it like this: if you’re on a desert island and a bear comes and steals your food, then you’re a victim. But you could have done any number of things to prevent your food from being stolen, such as hanging your food from a tree, out of reach. The bear is fundamentally at fault here (I don’t believe the conventional idea of “blame” either, so this explanation might be a little awkward without a background but I’ll have to go on anyway) but that doesn’t mean you can sit there and rage about how that damn bear has made you a victim. Your actions, to the degree that you invested resources to prevent an undesirable outcome, resulted in some probability of that undesirable outcome occurring- a risk. Now, there are obviously far too many *possible* risks to address, but we can exercise our reason to determine which ones we need to address, which ones are worthwhile to address, and which ones we can safely ignore. If you ignore a risk you should not have, then you are responsible for that mistake, even if you aren’t the acting agent of the aggression committed. A bear is too animate. Let’s go with physics. You leave your food outside for a long time, and it rots. Well? You are responsible because you misjudged the risk of it rotting, didn’t take sufficient precautions, and now your food is gone. In this case, there is no aggressor at all- it’s you against the laws of physics, but the situation is exactly identical. You can mope around claiming to be a victim, perhaps go to the government and demand that your food be replaced… yada yada. Now, I absolutely do not want this concept of judgment and addressing of risk to be confused with actually blaming the victim as the active agent in their own victimization. These are completely different concepts entirely. An agent acting in a way that is exploitative of another agent is doing so because their incentives line up appropriately to make that a course of action they find acceptable. The idea of punishing them is to tip these scales enough that it is no longer economical to exploit others. There is of course the problem of giving the power of retribution to who, exactly, which I won’t go into here because this isn’t a post about anarchism. The reason why you can’t have the punishment be equal to the crime (remove connotations of law or government) committed is that the risk of capture is never 100%. Let’s say a thief steals purses. If he gets caught 50% of the time, but each time he’s caught he only has to return the amount he stole, then it doesn’t really change the thief’s decision-making circumstances that much. However, if the cost is losing a hand then the thief will think twice before stealing that purse because there would need to be a lot of money in there to justify a 50% chance, or even a 1% chance, of losing a hand. Now, the funny thing about punishment is that you also have to account for a certain probability of false positives. So if an innocent man is accused of stealing that purse and gets his hand cut off, well that’s pretty damn unjust, isn’t it? So we have to scale back the punishment until it is enough to stop thieves while being acceptable to the innocents based on the risk of being hit with that false positive. Keeping in mind that we are assuming the populace has a say in what the punishments are. If you’re a totalitarian government, you could give a damn what the civvies say, and drastic punishments make sense because it’s less crime you have to deal with, freeing up resources for you to put towards your own ends. Draconian methods of control are, pound for pound, more efficient in terms of resources spent versus results achieved. Their main problem, in fact, is that they are so efficient that it makes life a living hell for nearly everyone.
After that long digression, back to the main issue. If you’re simply enjoying another person’s presence, then there’s no further expectation in the matter. If they leave, you’re no longer enjoying their presence. You start to run into problems when you ascribe ultimate value to people or objects, because you can’t unlink ultimate value as long as you actually perceive it as “the ultimate good in the whole universe.” Now we run into a very controversial edge case when dealing with the loss of loved ones. I say it’s an edge case because it doesn’t happen very often relative to our lifetimes. We’re not losing loved ones every other week. A model that was focused primarily on dealing with death of the most intimate friends (I will not say “and family” because if your family are not your close friends then why are you with them?). You know what, I’m going to elaborate on that parenthetical thought. Your family, especially your nuclear family such as parents and immediate siblings, are people. You know them for longer, and have more opportunity to become very good friends with them, and when you’re a child there is a certain amount of not-having-a-choice in the matter that forces you to make friends or make war, and rational individuals choose the former in all but the most extreme circumstances. So there’s just very close friends. The fact that you’re biologically related is of no philosophical significance whatsoever. Medical significance, yes, but only because knowledge of your family’s genes can be used to deduce your genes. Social significance, of course not. So I will treat death of family as the death of friends who were equally close as family members. Now, to be honest, this is a topic that I’m reluctant to exercise my usual methods of beating to death because there may be readers who have such a powerful subjective experience of the matter that I will waste my time if I try to dismiss the bits that require dismissal, focus in on what is significant , and use it build up a new model that more accurately fits reality and rationality. We have arrived at the idea that being with people is something you do for yourself, but it seems like lunacy to say that the death of a loved one shouldn’t hurt because you aren’t able to enjoy their presence any more. That’s just not strong enough, right? BUt isn’t that exactly what mourning is? You won’t speak to that person again, or see them, or talk to them, or whatever else. If you could do those things then you wouldn’t care if they were technically dead- that’s just a cessation of some bodily functions. If they could die and leave the person intact, now wouldn’t that be a wonderful thing- you wouldn’t have to worry about death. This is actually a fairly direct deduction for most people, but the idea that the physical death isn’t the source of their trouble, isn’t. It is the result of the event of death that they’re mourning. Many religions exploit this weakness in thinking to interject “But life does continue after death!” and then the explanations, the fairy tales, and the bullshit that follows. They are careful, however, to always exclude the very functionality that death precludes because they are unable to provide it. They can’t help you talk to your dead loved ones, so they hide them away somewhere as ghosts or in heaven where you will go, too, once you die. The intuitive universality of the death process makes this nearly logical, except that a slight elaboration can add a significant degree of control over the behavior of the people who want to believe. And some of the crueler religions take advantage of exactly these people, and make this death process conditional upon your life, and exactly prescribed behaviors. The most common trick is to exploit vague semantic identities such as “good” and “bad” which enable retroactive changing of what exactly those conditions are for live updating of the behavior of the believers based on what is expedient at the time. I’m always amazed and fascinated at the complexity of religion as an organism, and the huge potential that religion proves memes have as a life form.
I am not suggesting that you shouldn’t feel pain- what a ridiculous assertion for a stoic. The idea is that pain, like other sensations or emotions, are there to help you, not govern you. If you felt fear and were unable to do anything else but freeze up, curl up into the fetal position, and pray, then what use is that? For animals like the possum, it is an irresistible instinctive reaction programmed into them because in 99% of cases (at least in the genes’ experience) this is an effective defense mechanism, and giving the possum control over the matter would just screw up the system. This isn’t strictly accurate because possums evolved their primary featureset in the time before memetic delegation had been “invented” by evolutionary processes. The application of reason is itself a major feature of humanity, and quite novel in genetic terms. If you wanted to be truly biological about it, you can look at memetic evolution as the ultimate genetic trick, but the problem is that it is so effective it makes genes obsolete. Also, intelligence is so effective that genetic evolution can’t keep up with the rate of change. For the prurient example, we have invented cars and now they’re everywhere. And now possums, with their very effective defense mechanism of freezing up when afraid, causes them to get run over by speeding cars, and the genes can’t un-wire that feature given the new environment because they aren’t able to perceive and judge. I would like to say, though, that genes are definitely alive. Not just in the sense that a person is alive, but the gene of HUMANS is alive in a strange information amalgamation of the genes in every person in a way that we really can’t quite comprehend because there’s too many people, too much noise, and too much uncertainty about genes themselves. The day that we truly understand genes completely, we won’t need them anymore because we’ll be able to construct our own biological machines to any specification or design we like. They’re just like any other machine, but far more complicated and sophisticated. Especially the organic ability to reproduce. Interestingly, though, the body is itself one of the few things that we are currently unable to separate our selves from. Some can conceive of what that might be like, and most of them have it wrong (I guarantee that I do, but it’s more complete than most, at least). Note that the objective is to separate your self from as much as possible of what you don’t want, of that which subtracts from your good or your happiness. I would argue that, for as long as it works, your body adds immensely to that happiness. And as far as it doesn’t, it subtracts immensely. So an ability to perfectly fix the human body, a hypothetical perfect medicine, would obsolete the need for mechanical bodies unless their features were so far beyond those of a human body (which is the case) that you could get even more out of one. Probably the main advantage is the ability to add processing power and memory, and the ability to have direct inputs. Anyway, permit nothing to cleave to you that is not your own. I am not my body, but insofar as I use it, rely upon it, and wish to keep it, it is mine.
So if I don’t even value my own body enough to want to keep it, what does that mean? Well, I never said that I didn’t value my body, just that the value it provides is of the material sort, similar to eating a burrito, except that instead of the satisfaction of the burrito, my body contains the hardware necessary to eat the burrito, and without it any sort of gustatory satisfaction would be impossible (not strictly true- a perfect simulation of the experience is an identity). This is similar to having a computer. The computer in and of itself doesn’t actually provide a whole lot of satisfaction, but the things you can do with it will. Perhaps the computer hardware hobbyists who make it a point of pride to have the best possible machine wired up in the best possible configuration get significant enjoyment out of simply possessing the hardware itself. However, even with that example, we see parallels with the human body, such as with fitness junkies who make it a point of pride to have bodies sculpted out of steel, and enjoy simply having it. Important note: most of these “fitness junkies” are doing it because of other people, not because they genuinely enjoy it, or because they even want the results. And they get further conflicted by the fact that they are causing a change, which might conflict with their perception of themselves, or with others’ perceptions, and for some reason they’re anxious to step outside of that box.
Anyway, my entire point is quite simple, as usual, but it’s dressed up with many trimmings like mirrors in every corner of the room to show off the gleam on the little gem in the middle. The idea that you should be dependent on others, the idea that that constitutes good social practices, the concept of a social personality, all of these things are foisted upon us because others had them foisted upon them. We are the monkeys conditioned not to reach for the bananas within our reach because someone, at some point in the past, was punished for trying. So now we have to live with everyone else. But the most vital point is this: they don’t matter. If you want to reach for that banana, they could physically stop you, but if they do then you have a clear and objective obstacle in your way, which can be overcome, instead of the hazy, confusing aimlessness of contradiction.