The Impartial Man: The Tale of an Intellectual's Discontent

[Nerdologist]

Samadhi23

Thanks so much, Samadhi! A very thoughtful and detailed response, as usual.

Your model of consciousness just might shed some light on the curious mindset of my story's protagonist. He is so caught up in circuit 3 that he has devoted his life to upholding the rules of logic. It's as if he's the personification of logic. His aspirations seem to support this interpretation: "If I have any wish whatsoever, this is the extent of it: to avoid being wrong or stirring up controversy."

Logic, like the man, avoids being wrong. It does not take a stance on matters of truth, let alone preference. It can only say, if this is true, then that also must be true. Deductive logic may appear to reach definite conclusions about reality, but it merely describes the consequences which necessarily proceed from certain foundational assumptions.

Logic, like the man, does nothing to cause controversy. It just states the indisputable facts that follow from a person's ideas. Instead of affirming or rejecting these ideas in a way that leads to disagreement, logical analysis typically facilitates understanding of why people with different perspectives believe what they do. Understanding other viewpoints in turn leads often to a loss of confidence in one's biased opinions. What do you know, this process can also be found in my story: "He had a knack for teaching others how to understand, tolerate, and even sympathize with viewpoints which previously vexed them. As more and more people requested his counsel, more and more attained impartiality, and fewer and fewer engaged in fruitless debates."

Maybe I should have given a more thorough response to your points, but I don't feel qualified to add much to what you've already said. I'm not well-versed in psychology. Nevertheless, your explanation of consciousness has helped me to better understand the character I created, as well as myself. Nicely done.

[[NPC] VP Diedrich]

Nerdologist

Samadhi23

Thanks so much, Samadhi! A very thoughtful and detailed response, as usual.

Your model of consciousness just might shed some light on the curious mindset of my story's protagonist. He is so caught up in circuit 3 that he has devoted his life to upholding the rules of logic. It's as if he's the personification of logic. His aspirations seem to support this interpretation: "If I have any wish whatsoever, this is the extent of it: to avoid being wrong or stirring up controversy."

Logic, like the man, avoids being wrong. It does not take a stance on matters of truth, let alone preference. It can only say, if this is true, then that also must be true. Deductive logic may appear to reach definite conclusions about reality, but it merely describes the consequences which necessarily proceed from certain foundational assumptions.

Logic, like the man, does nothing to cause controversy. It just states the indisputable facts that follow from a person's ideas. Instead of affirming or rejecting these ideas in a way that leads to disagreement, logical analysis typically facilitates understanding of why people with different perspectives believe what they do. Understanding other viewpoints in turn leads often to a loss of confidence in one's biased opinions. What do you know, this process can also be found in my story: "He had a knack for teaching others how to understand, tolerate, and even sympathize with viewpoints which previously vexed them. As more and more people requested his counsel, more and more attained impartiality, and fewer and fewer engaged in fruitless debates."

Maybe I should have given a more thorough response to your points, but I don't feel qualified to add much to what you've already said. I'm no psychology expert. Nevertheless, your explanation of consciousness has helped me to better understand the character I created. Nicely done.

Did you know that I have a Twitter account because I am awesome? TWEET ME! I'LL GIVE YOU FACTS! OK bye bye! @presdiedrich

[Nerdologist]

[NPC] President Diedrich

Did you know that I have a Twitter account because I am awesome? TWEET ME! I'LL GIVE YOU FACTS! OK bye bye! @presdiedrich

You mean facts about ******** rabbits? I'm not interested, dude.

[[NPC] VP Diedrich]

Nerdologist

[NPC] President Diedrich

Did you know that I have a Twitter account because I am awesome? TWEET ME! I'LL GIVE YOU FACTS! OK bye bye! @presdiedrich

You mean facts about ******** rabbits? I'm not interested, dude.

[Nerdologist]

ARPtAPE

Hmm, am I the only one who feels impartiality such as the man in the story oddly approaches dystopian behaviour but in a twisted way?

No?

Kay. neutral

You're not the first to connect my story with dystopian themes. I did portray the community in which the man lives as slightly dystopian. As the people submit to the authority of logic, impartiality, and tolerance, they lose the will to pursue happiness and individuality. Certainly not an ideal society, if you ask me. Then again, I'm utterly clueless as to what an ideal society would look like. That would depend on individual opinion, so what one person sees as a utopia, another might see as a dystopia. For example, it seems that the people in my story do not view extreme impartiality as dystopian; on the contrary, they consider it virtuous. However, from an outsider's perspective, it might appear that happiness is much more valuable than joyless adherence to a supposed virtue.

[Xiam]

Hm. Apologies in advance for the lengthy reply, but... this kind of hit home for me.

Nerdologist

1. Do you think there is a link between extreme impartiality and discontentment?

No. If anything, I find contentment in impartiality. It reduces stress, anxiety, and frustration over those who disagree with you - because you don't disagree with them. In fact, the discontentment, to me, would come less from the impartial man, but from those irritated that he isn't providing them with any sort of debate. Note the wife, who at first was agitated by his lack of opinions, but then ended up joining him in the impartiality. If one was not happy or content with this way of thinking, why would they choose to follow it?

Nerdologist

2. Is impartiality a virtue?

Of course it is. If given two options, it makes perfect sense to consider them, consider the possibilities of both options, and make the decision which is objectively more viable. With no opinions, you have no biases to bog you down from taking the better route.

Nerdologist

3. Is religious devotion necessary or at least sufficient to provide genuine happiness?

Not necessary. Sufficient, perhaps. People can obtain sublime happiness from many sources. Religious ecstasy, scientific discovery, pure wonder at the universe. The companionship of another. A relaxing day. A show, book, movie, or game you love.

Nerdologist

4. How does one overcome discontentment?

Well, as addressed above, good to find your trigger. Something you love. Something that makes you comfortable, or gives you joy.

Now... here's the thing. In your story, this showed itself for this man, in impartiality. Which you and the story's author claimed to lead to unhappiness. But why? Because there is no conflict? In what sense is detachment and impartiality a lack of emotion?

Because in Buddhism, the way to overcome discontentment is to become detached.

See, the goal is destruction of the Ego - the illusory sense of self - to overcome the attachments and hang-ups in life, the anxieties, the fears, the wants and gimmes, the "WHY WON'T SHE LOVE ME?"s, the "WHY WON'T THEY AGREE WITH ME?"s. The discontentments in life go away when you annihilate the sense of you, and therefore the idea that the universe owes you.

Does this remove satisfaction when the universe gives something to you? Sure, perhaps. But it leaves you with something else. Because when everyone is complaining about the rain, you are enjoying it. When everyone is complaining it is hot, you shrug it off. When everyone is complaining that "So-and-so is wrong because blah blah blah!" you're asking questions and finding out why they think that way.

Because here's the thing - when you eliminate the Self, you are left with everything else. You are one with the universe. It doesn't owe you anything, because you and it are one and the same. You care for others, because without yourself to get in the way, you identify with them so much more easily. You feel compassion for them. And you are content with the connection.

And I'm sorry, but that thought makes me very happy.

Nerdologist

5. Can you sympathize with my situation?

I suppose... but more because I can see how you might have been misinformed about exactly what impartiality is.

It's not becoming a robot. It's simply not getting hung up on your biases.

Lucky~9~Lives

You wouldn't have to form an unchangeable opinion to form an opinion. That's the way I accept it, at least.
- sweatdrop

That's the way I always practice it. emotion_awesome

[Nerdologist]

Xiam

Hm. Apologies in advance for the lengthy reply, but... this kind of hit home for me.

No worries, I couldn't have asked for a better reply.

Xiam

If anything, I find contentment in impartiality. It reduces stress, anxiety, and frustration over those who disagree with you - because you don't disagree with them. In fact, the discontentment, to me, would come less from the impartial man, but from those irritated that he isn't providing them with any sort of debate. Note the wife, who at first was agitated by his lack of opinions, but then ended up joining him in the impartiality. If one was not happy or content with this way of thinking, why would they choose to follow it?

I have experienced the reduction in disagreement-induced stress myself, so I don't disagree with you. However, I only find contentment in impartiality in the sense that I have become largely indifferent and impassive with respect to matters of opinion. I haven't developed a lasting feeling which I would identify as happiness.

I guess in a way the wife was "content" with impartiality, but only in the sense that I just described in the above paragraph. The ultimate reason for her, one might say, conversion can be found in the following passage: "Eventually she became nearly as impartial as he, for he always knew the perfect thing to say in order to dispel her misconceptions of foreign viewpoints." The way I would describe this transition is, the man persuaded his wife that her viewpoints were no more valid than those of other people, and she was forced to resolve the resulting cognitive dissonance by suspending her judgment entirely. It was not a happy feeling which made her adopt her husband's neutral attitude; it was her husband's rhetorical ability.

Xiam

If given two options, it makes perfect sense to consider them, consider the possibilities of both options, and make the decision which is objectively more viable. With no opinions, you have no biases to bog you down from taking the better route.

However, if you take impartiality far enough, you might be unwilling to decide whether one option is objectively more valid than another. I often find myself unable to assess the relative viability of conflicting opinions, because I recognize that some assumptions must be made to do so. As a consequence, I tend to see different beliefs as pretty much equally likely, provided that they are internally consistent. Would you consider this type of impartiality virtuous?

Xiam

Not necessary. Sufficient, perhaps. People can obtain sublime happiness from many sources. Religious ecstasy, scientific discovery, pure wonder at the universe. The companionship of another. A relaxing day. A show, book, movie, or game you love.

Would you say that any particular source provides lasting joy, as opposed to impermanent gratification?

Xiam

Now... here's the thing. In your story, this showed itself for this man, in impartiality. Which you and the story's author claimed to lead to unhappiness. But why? Because there is no conflict? In what sense is detachment and impartiality a lack of emotion?

I am the story's author, but I think you knew that. sweatdrop

There are at least two ways in which impartiality could diminish emotion. One way is that the person attempting to be impartial actively suppresses their own emotion to reduce bias. The other way is described below.

Yours Truly

The Buddha teaches that negative emotions, or dukkha, arise from unfulfilled desires or expectations. The reverse is true for positive emotions: they arise from fulfilled expectations. Expectations are derived from opinions about the way things ought to be. So, you can see quite clearly what the issue would be with feeling happy or depressed while aspiring for neutrality.

This means that impartiality itself can lead to a lack of emotion, because someone who has no biased opinion about how the world should be cannot get upset or happy about the unfolding of events in their life.

Xiam

Because in Buddhism, the way to overcome discontentment is to become detached.

See, the goal is destruction of the Ego - the illusory sense of self - to overcome the attachments and hang-ups in life, the anxieties, the fears, the wants and gimmes, the "WHY WON'T SHE LOVE ME?"s, the "WHY WON'T THEY AGREE WITH ME?"s. The discontentments in life go away when you annihilate the sense of you, and therefore the idea that the universe owes you.

Does this remove satisfaction when the universe gives something to you? Sure, perhaps. But it leaves you with something else. Because when everyone is complaining about the rain, you are enjoying it. When everyone is complaining it is hot, you shrug it off. When everyone is complaining that "So-and-so is wrong because blah blah blah!" you're asking questions and finding out why they think that way.

Because here's the thing - when you eliminate the Self, you are left with everything else. You are one with the universe. It doesn't owe you anything, because you and it are one and the same. You care for others, because without yourself to get in the way, you identify with them so much more easily. You feel compassion for them. And you are content with the connection.

And I'm sorry, but that thought makes me very happy.

I understand how detachment from desire and selfhood might eliminate discontentment, but I don't think it would make the person happy. At least not on its own. Like you said, it would "remove satisfaction when the universe gives something to you." If nothing is desired, nothing that happens is pleasing or satisfactory. But I suppose that's not the goal anyway. The goal is to be content with simply existing, no matter how things really are. You might believe this to be a form of happiness. I think it's closer to indifference.

Funny how we're disagreeing over the nature of the impartiality we claim to possess. In actuality, neither of us is truly unbiased, but we are probably much closer than most people.

[Xiam]

Nerdologist

Xiam

If anything, I find contentment in impartiality. It reduces stress, anxiety, and frustration over those who disagree with you - because you don't disagree with them. In fact, the discontentment, to me, would come less from the impartial man, but from those irritated that he isn't providing them with any sort of debate. Note the wife, who at first was agitated by his lack of opinions, but then ended up joining him in the impartiality. If one was not happy or content with this way of thinking, why would they choose to follow it?

I have experienced the reduction in disagreement-induced stress myself, so I don't disagree with you. However, I only find contentment in impartiality in the sense that I have become largely indifferent and impassive with respect to matters of opinion. I haven't developed a lasting feeling which I would identify as happiness.

I guess in a way the wife was "content" with impartiality, but only in the sense that I just described in the above paragraph. The ultimate reason for her, one might say, conversion can be found in the following passage: "Eventually she became nearly as impartial as he, for he always knew the perfect thing to say in order to dispel her misconceptions of foreign viewpoints." The way I would describe this transition is, the man persuaded his wife that her viewpoints were no more valid than those of other people, and she was forced to resolve the resulting cognitive dissonance by suspending her judgment entirely. It was not a happy feeling which made her adopt her husband's neutral attitude; it was her husband's rhetorical ability.

Sounds to me that he got her to understand them.

My impartiality only leads me to find interests elsewhere that don't require argument. emotion_awesome

Nerdologist

Xiam

If given two options, it makes perfect sense to consider them, consider the possibilities of both options, and make the decision which is objectively more viable. With no opinions, you have no biases to bog you down from taking the better route.

However, if you take impartiality far enough, you might be unwilling to decide whether one option is objectively more valid than another. I often find myself unable to assess the relative viability of conflicting opinions, because I recognize that some assumptions must be made to do so. As a consequence, I tend to see different beliefs as pretty much equally likely, provided that they are internally consistent. Would you consider this type of impartiality virtuous?

I've had a similar problem - usually when it seems both options are equally viable. And I'd still consider it virtuous - albeit frustrating for those who want me to just make a decision already, and perhaps in regards to me still having hang-ups in regards to choosing, then worrying that I may have chosen poorly and the best option was the other, but that tends to be more of an anxiety issue than neutrality.

Nerdologist

Xiam

Not necessary. Sufficient, perhaps. People can obtain sublime happiness from many sources. Religious ecstasy, scientific discovery, pure wonder at the universe. The companionship of another. A relaxing day. A show, book, movie, or game you love.

Would you say that any particular source provides lasting joy, as opposed to impermanent gratification?

Is there a difference? I wouldn't say anything is lasting or impermanent, but certainly these things can provide moments of solace when someone is feeling overwhelmed by other things.

Nerdologist

Xiam

Now... here's the thing. In your story, this showed itself for this man, in impartiality. Which you and the story's author claimed to lead to unhappiness. But why? Because there is no conflict? In what sense is detachment and impartiality a lack of emotion?

I am the story's author, but I think you knew that. sweatdrop

Clearly I didn't. I thought you just pulled it off somewhere - well, now the pressure's really on to explain why you think contentment and a lack of interest in conflict makes someone unhappy, eh?

Nerdologist

There are at least two ways in which impartiality could diminish emotion. One way is that the person attempting to be impartial actively suppresses their own emotion to reduce bias. The other way is described below.

Yours Truly

The Buddha teaches that negative emotions, or dukkha, arise from unfulfilled desires or expectations. The reverse is true for positive emotions: they arise from fulfilled expectations. Expectations are derived from opinions about the way things ought to be. So, you can see quite clearly what the issue would be with feeling happy or depressed while aspiring for neutrality.

This means that impartiality itself can lead to a lack of emotion, because someone who has no biased opinion about how the world should be cannot get upset or happy about the unfolding of events in their life.

I saw the quote before. It seems to me that a person who is suppressing their emotions is not truly impartial or detached. They are, as many do, simply bottling it up, and it's only a matter of time before the top blows.

As for the Buddha... considering that his goal was enlightenment, and to remove suffering, and considering every image of him seems to portray him in a very serene, peaceful, almost happy manner... I wouldn't say he was rejecting it, or even teaching that you should. That's not what detachment is about. However... you are supposed to be detached from expectations of happiness. If you suppress your emotions, you're not letting go of them.

At least from what I've learned from Buddhism, it's more that it's okay to feel it, because it's going to happen... but not to dwell upon it. If you're happy, you're happy. If you're angry, you're angry. But don't burn with a seething hatred, and don't get so caught up in the happiness that you assume it will always be this way. Like a dog getting scratched behind the ear.

But maybe I'm rusty in this whole thing? I'll go watch and read some more perhaps.

Nerdologist

I understand how detachment from desire and selfhood might eliminate discontentment, but I don't think it would make the person happy. At least not on its own. Like you said, it would "remove satisfaction when the universe gives something to you." If nothing is desired, nothing that happens is pleasing or satisfactory. But I suppose that's not the goal anyway. The goal is to be content with simply existing, no matter how things really are. You might believe this to be a form of happiness. I think it's closer to indifference.

I'm starting to find this kind of weird and alien, now. It's still not connecting for me how you don't think a person would be happy because they are content with the moment. It rains, you enjoy the rain, enjoy the feeling of it on your head, the sound on the windows or through the trees or on the roof. If it's sunny, you bask in the warmth. If it's sort of chilly, you get a little kick from the brisk breeze, and you enjoy the little shiver that signals the coming winter. If it snows... you enjoy the silence and serenity as sound is absorbed by the gentle flakes as they drift lazily to the ground.

Nerdologist

Funny how we're disagreeing over the nature of the impartiality we claim to possess. In actuality, neither of us is truly unbiased, but we are probably much closer than most people.

I never said I was perfect at it. emotion_awesome

But I do seem that there's sort of a gap here, in how we approach it. You seem to consider neutrality, detachment, and indifference as a burden. Which sort of speaks to me as a significant lack of indifference. You're still sort of catching on, unwilling to let go.

Which I'll admit I'm guilty of, but... I don't know, maybe I've just been so riddled with anxiety over my life, that when I have those moments of mental silence, and when faced with two options, I just simply don't give a ********... I do feel happy. Or perhaps the better way of phrasing it is... I feel at peace.

And believe me, I know how it is to feel empty in a dead sort of emotionless sense. I've suffered depression... and hell, I've been on antidepressants. I've had that hollow, almost literally detached feeling. Less of a contentment, more of an unwillingness to be a part of anything simply because I wanted to run away and abandon the world.

That is not the kind of detachment I would recommend. I far prefer the feeling of enjoyment, being truly in the moment, and just... no need for escapism, you know? Not caught up by my thoughts, or my opinions, or any smug intellectual feelings of superiority over other people. Just simply to be. That's a really good feeling.

And yeah... I mean... I'd certainly call it happiness, because when that hits me, I'm happier than I ever was through my teenage life, or the first half of my 20's. Am I outright giddy? Well, no, not generally. But I'm happy.

Sorry, was another long post.

[Samadhi23]

I agree with the vast majority of your post, so please don't take additional commentary as being nitpicky.

Xiam

Because here's the thing - when you eliminate the Self, you are left with everything else. You are one with the universe. It doesn't owe you anything, because you and it are one and the same. You care for others, because without yourself to get in the way, you identify with them so much more easily. You feel compassion for them. And you are content with the connection.

And I'm sorry, but that thought makes me very happy.

I have spent approximately half my life learning to embrace on demand exactly the connectivity that you are speaking about. The word awesomeness no longer carries the connotation of true awe that is available for those that reach this perspective. And most definitely, elimination of the self is an incredibly important step in realizing this.

I would state, however, that merely elimination of the ego alone is not necessarily enough to reach that point. Sometimes, when one kills the ego, one can get frozen at that point of nothing without looking outwards towards the everything that is there. So in that regard, I don't think the connection can be drawn as casually as ego-loss => enlightenment (or whatever word you prefer for the realization of unity). I do, however, maintain that this is a necessary step.

[Ironic that ultimate agnosticism ultimately leads to gnosis?]

Expansiveness as opposed to withdrawal is also necessary. One can be neutral, as the wife in this story particularly seems to exemplify, by merely withdrawing from opinions. Why have them if they can just be torn down? Why not give up? This is a short-track towards running in a loop; which is not going to be exciting to put it mildly.

On the other hand, if one goes the other route of embracing all positions - even contradictory ones - this can lend impartiality and a greater perspective. By this method, when the ego is destroyed, one tends to move outwards and explore more rather than less as you demonstrated quite thoroughly.

Make sense?


Of course, this could be a problem otherwise particular to myself and/or the handful of people that I have studied on the matter. One difficulty in studying something that most people avoid is that there are limited data points available. (Abrahamic religions are not alone in the number of supposed followers more occupied with tradition, culture, or legalism than the underlying mysticism behind their religions founders and prophets - Buddhism and Hinduism are a victim of that human trait as well). So by all means, continue sharing your data point. The more detail the better. biggrin