Camus, Existentialism and the Idea of Suicide

From Camus' opening, "An Absurd Reasoning," to his long essay, "The Myth of Sisyphus":

There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest— whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories—comes afterwards. These are games; one must first answer. And if it is true, as Nietzsche claims, that a philosopher, to deserve our respect, must preach by example, you can appreciate the importance of that reply, for it will precede the definitive act. These are facts the heart can feel; yet they call for careful study before they become clear to the intellect.

Camus elaborated in the 1955 edition's preface:

The fundamental subject of The Myth of Sisyphus is this: it is legitimate and necessary to wonder whether life has a meaning; therefore it is legitimate to meet the problem of suicide face to face. The answer, underlying and appearing through the paradoxes which cover it, is this: even if one does not believe in God, suicide is not legitimate. Written fifteen years ago, in 1940, amid the French and European disaster, this book declares that even within the limits of nihilism it is possible to find the means to proceed beyond nihilism. In all the books I have written since, I have attempted to pursue this direction. Although The Myth of Sisyphus poses mortal problems, it sums itself up for me as a lucid invitation to live and to create, in the very midst of the desert.

What remains to be demonstrated by Camus' essay, is that living and creating (or something) are "means to proceed beyond nihilism." I suppose it is also intended to persuade the reader to willingly accept Camus' "invitation." Does he pull it off? Does it work? Is it useful? Camus died in a car accident, not by suicide, so maybe it worked for him.

Another question: did Camus and Sartre come to some of the same non-theistic insights about the nature of reality and suffering the that the Buddha and meditation practitioners can? I think so, but I've rarely seen the connection made by Buddhists or by existentialists. A re-reading of this essay would be instructive. There's no sitting meditation in existentialism, no liturgy, no religious rituals handed down over generations. It's interesting -- what does existentialism get that maybe Buddhism doesn't? And what does Buddhism get that maybe existentiallism doesn't? Could some of the differences be due to the practice of meditation? Note Camus' mention of "the heart" in the above, which resonates with Buddhism's emphasis on compassion and insight. Note also his Zen-like "no place" position, mentioned in the introduction:

The absurd, hitherto taken as a conclusion, is considered in this essay as a starting-point. In this sense it may be said that there is something provisional in my commentary: one cannot prejudge the position it entails. There will be found here merely the description, in the pure state, of an intellectual malady. No metaphysic, no belief is involved in it for the moment. These are the limits and the only bias of this book.

Another thought in the same vein -- holocaust survivor and psychiatrist Viktor Frankl wrote about his views, as a survivor of gas camps, on man and life and meaning. I read a book of his last year when my (now ex-)wife left me: Man's Search for Meaning. I was riveted by his survival story, which led him to conclude that life is essentially meaningless, we are alone in the Universe, and man has an inherent responsibility to define his life's meaning by his own will. At least that is how I understood it. I would like to read that again.

I am sure Buddhists and existentialists and others would agree on some basic propositions about man, life and meaning, but the differences are in how they respond -- Frankl with his "logotherapy" and will power, Buddhists with a non-theistic religion of meditation and precepts, and existentialists with, typically, artistic creativity and political action.

Insightful Review of Wolf Creek + Hostel

This link, Wolf Creek + Hostel, goes to a well-written, somewhat analytical review of the new "grindhouse" horror films Wolf Creek and Hostel.

Sample paragraph:

There's no hint of existential conundrum in these pictures--and although my saying that may cause you to roll your eyes, consider that the best grindhouse films (The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, Last House on the Left, The Hills Have Eyes, Black Christmas, Deliverance, The Evil Dead, and so on) have something going on under the skin whether you care to engage it or not. What Wolf Creek and Hostel have is one already-notorious scene apiece and a lot of nothing going on in their ugly, empty little heads. They're cinema as punishment, providing no vicarious thrill; like the televised geekshow "Fear Factor", they just ask the question of how much can you take before you turn away. You watch them, you feel sorry for and superior to the filmmakers and the kids laughing for the benefit of their friends, and then you tell everyone you can that there's a difference between good, terrifying, nihilistic horror flicks and stupid exercises in braggadocio such as Wolf Creek and Hostel.

Nihilism, absurdity and existentialism were on my mind today. Recently I had been thinking about how absurd (psychotic was the word that seemed to fit the situation best at first) my divorce was. Then I remembered that the whole Universe is absurd.

Dictionary.com/Word of the Day: cynosure

Once in a while I see a completely unknown (to me) word of the day, or more often one that I've heard but am not sure of its meaning. Today's word is the former for me, a word I did not know: cynosure.
cynosure \SY-nuh-shoor; SIN-uh-shoor\, noun:

1. Anything to which attention is strongly turned; a center of attraction.
2. That which serves to guide or direct.
3. [Capitalized]. The northern constellation Ursa Minor, which contains the North Star; also, the North Star itself.

My GPS Coordinates (roughly)

At work I've been dealing with GPS, coordinate system transformations (Cartesian to geodetic), and plane geometry a lot lately. It's nice to be learning a new domain to which I can apply my software engineering skills. Knowing a programming language and development tools is one thing; knowing a few domains (or even one) in business or engineering applications is a whole other issue -- the latter allowing you to build useful stuff with the former.

The WGS84 (geodetic lat/long standard used by GPS satellites) coordinates for my address are:
42.3256950 latitude and -71.3973710 longitude

Which can also be expressed as:

Degrees, Minutes & Seconds
Latitude Longitude
N42 19 32 W71 23 50

GPS
Latitude Longitude
N 42 19.542 W 71 23.842

UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator grid system)
 X Y
19N 302466 4688722

Data obtained using the handy form at GPSVisualizer, which uses the free (for non-commercial use) online geocoder database. If you look on a satellite image on Google Maps the coordinates seem to be off by a few hundred feet. But that's pretty close for a free mailing address-based lookup.

Alternate translations of WGS84 provided by GPS Coordinate Converter, Maps and Info.

Monogamy and Commitment

The one thing I counted on in my marriage was commitment. Not perfection, not happiness, not love alone, no. I knew commitment would be important. I knew commitment was where all my previous relationships had failed -- not with me leaving, but with her leaving, whoever she was.

I am sure that pattern has something to do with me -- correlation? Causation? How wonderful would a truly testable science of the mind be.

Anyway, I am uncommitted again, single, free, in the same boat with Hugh Hefner and, well, a lot of lesser known single people, such as my mom and brother.

Why would I ever choose monogamy again? Last time I almost did not survive it. I lashed my life so fast to the mast of monogamous marriage -- I swallowed the key, I threw off the anchor, I happily painted myself into a corner. And when that ship was quite suddenly blasted to splinters, I was way out to sea, alone, wrecked, shattered in a complex, grown-up world where I was expected to, quite simply, get my shit together quickly or suffer serious consequences.

This question is for me, for myself. Look here, man. Answer me. Why the fuck do you think it would work the next time? Love? Passion? Signed documents? Legal declarations? What bond hasn't been tried and broken?

It's no good being able to make and keep a commitment if no one will keep it with you. Keep your commitment to yourself. You owe no one else any commitment. You always attract the wrong kind. Or you settle too soon. Or people change and there's nothing you can do about it, so expect them to be faithless, whinging on about their happiness and how you fucked it up. Never give them a chance. Even not knowing the cause, the last one was too close to death, too painful, too destructive of my secret hopes, dreams and faith. Promise me you'll never let that happen to me again.

The Opposite of Bad News

Nothing's worse to hear from another person than "I don't love you anymore" or "your loved one is dead." Finding out some junky thing you have is worth tens of thousands of dollars is apparently one of the best kinds of news in the world. People can't hide their sheer delight at such news. Check out Antiques Roadshow's 2004 greatest hits sometime. Highly recommended for its joyous scenes of people reacting to good news. It has all the money shots, like UFC's greatest knock-outs.

Dismantle Your Ego for $600

I have felt helped at times in my life by the work of Cheri Huber. At other times I have felt hurt by it, such as when my ex-wife used one of her books to, unbeknownst to me, help her "remove her dependency on Scott." I happened to be using the same book to help me quit nail biting and my ex-wife picked it up (so I learned in a marriage counselor's office) and began using it to "free" herself from . . . me.

I have read most of Cheri's many books, listened to her radio shows, written in to her radio show and participated in one of her email classes. I have compared her work with my own intuition and experience and with the work of other practitioners and thinkers in the fields of psychology and Buddhism.

Here is an excerpt from a recent email class description from her Living Compassion Web site:

The cost of $600 is due before the class begins. We require payment up front so that later on, when the voices of ego are trying to talk you out of participating, you will remember that significant financial commitment, and the voices won't so easily sabotage your effort. Remember, this class is designed to dismantle the ego. To dismantle the ego, the ego cannot be in charge of decisions about dismantling the ego.

You might think the added justification for the $600 cost is totally unnecessary (I do) and the reason given to be a bit disingenuous or contrived. That doesn't interest me, though, as much as that last line:

"To dismantle the ego, the ego cannot be in charge of decisions about dismantling the ego."

So who is dismantling the ego? Who am I if I am not my ego? Does this other me work, pay bills, feed my hunger, feel my pain, take care of my needs?

For me, someone who has fervently attempted to escape, transcend, dismantle or dissolve the ego by various means in this lifetime, that statement reveals a delusion in Huber's view of reality. There is no one to dismantle the ego but the ego. There's no one else to be in charge of decisions about dismantling the ego but my ego. Oh, except Cheri Huber or someone else to whom you delegate your ego's decision-making.

Nathaniel Branden did a good job addressing the issue of ego dissolution in the last chapter of his psychology book "Honoring the Self: Self-Esteem and Personal Tranformation" (1985). He specifically addresses the New Age concept (usually associated with Buddhism) of self-transcendence, which is just another word for "ego dismantling." If the self is transcended, who is doing the transcending?

Tricky popup that got through

Usually Google Toolbar or Firefox's built-in popup blocker blocks these annoying pop-up ads, but this one got through when I was using a different computer. The pop-up looked like it might be an actual security-related screen from my browser (Firefox). The message in the text was convincing. The similarity to a Firefox window and the convincing message made me move my mouse toward the download button, but I thought twice and looked more closely at the dialog for clues since I'd never seen Firefox do this before. Then I noticed the originating URLs displayed in the corners. I saved a screenshot of it and drew in red on the image to reveal the deception. That button isn't a real button, it's just a picture of a button with an invisible link behind it.



If you click on the image above you can see it full size. Later I noticed in the small, faded text near the bottom of the window it says "All information in this advertisement (emphasis mine) courtesy SoftwareOnline.com, which is not affiliated with Microsoft Corporation."