The Relation of Good and Bad in Terms of Death

[Keep_Relentless]

Is life always worth living?
This question entails many others.
1. Is there ever a point where it is not worth it? Note that no amount of common sense or life experience will give you a definite answer on this one I think.
2. Is there a good spectrum and bad spectrum, with neutrality as the 0-point, or are there only degrees of happiness, and badness a lack of goodness? This is to say, is goodness and badness like the number line, where good is positive and bad is negative, or is it like temperature, where there is only warmth, and it's opposite simply a lack of warmth rather than an object in it's own right?
3. What is the value of death? Infinitely bad? Bad to a certain degree? Is it a possibility to gamble on? Indeed, if death is bad, is the future just as bad, as the future too, must be unknown? Unless induction has some justified validity?
4. How should we go about living? Is death so horrible that we ought to devote ourselves utterly to the very slim possibility that we might achieve immortality? Is time a factor of life, or only intensity of experience?

I whipped up a very quick, almost instinctive answer of my own and this is what I got:
Though if the one mind and one experience is all that exists there cannot be nothing after death (because nothingness cannot be an object, only a comparison of properties of objects), assuming there can we still may assume SOMETHING must happen because if we are wrong we aren't to ever know it. That said death, like the future, is completely unknown, so in at least one rational context there is no difference between living, dying, dreaming and hallucinating. But experience (i.e. the scientific Method of Induction, which is definitively flawed) tells us that we can know much about what lies ahead in life, though not certainly, at least confidently. So, live or die... it's like a gamble. Potentially death is infinitely bad; potentially it is infinitely good. Know though that we are not obliged to stay here; we were born against our will, we are here to forage and experience, we owe the world nothing.

[Serpent]

Is life always worth living?
1. Is there ever a point where it is not worth it? Note that no amount of common sense or life experience will give you a definite answer on this one I think.

You may be right about common sense, but life experience has given some of us a pretty accurate idea of where the 0 point is. Of course, that point is different for each person, depending on their tolerance for physical and psychic pain.

2. Is there a good spectrum and bad spectrum, with neutrality as the 0-point,

This one is really about labeling or vocabulary. We understand the words 'good' and 'bad' as very general terms that may cover a vast number of things, feelings and concepts; we apply them broadly. Thus, there is much overlap in various people's individual application, but no absolute congruity between any two.
In the broadest, most common sense, i would venture a tentative "yes".

or are there only degrees of happiness, and badness a lack of goodness?

If i defined good as "that which generates happiness", this could be true. But there may be good things, forces and events that have no direct connection that i can trace to any happiness that i recognize, and that, nevertheless, contribute to the overall "goodness" in/of the world.

This is to say, is goodness and badness like the number line, where good is positive and bad is negative, or is it like temperature, where there is only warmth, and its opposite simply a lack of warmth

I don't think that analogy works, because the world we know is populated by entities with independent minds and the ability to devise and to carry out acts of good and evil. In this model, if 0 is neutral, an absence of good and bad, then both sides ascending from 0 are positive. And, since neither the number of such entities nor their individual capability is fixed, we cannot determine the potential quantity of good and bad.

rather than an object in it's own right?

None of these concepts - good, bad, happiness, absence - can be objects in any but a grammatical context, they don't have an "own right".

3. What is the value of death?

To whom? Value is always attributed/ conferred by an interested party.

Infinitely bad?

Not possible: we're not equipped to comprehend infinity, let alone evaluate it.

Bad to a certain degree?

Generally - though not universally - considered so by the one whose life is to end and those to whom that life has value; the degree determined by easily understood factors.
However, any particular death may be positively good for one who benefits from it (hunter > deer) or negatively good for the one dying (pain x time + pain x time + pain x time = VERY BAD + DEATH = 0).
The awareness of death tends to have a negative effect on human happiness; on the other hand, it seems to contribute greatly to human culture and appreciation of life, which engenders some happiness - too complex and equation to solve. In nature, simply necessary to counterbalance generation.

Is it a possibility to gamble on?

Unavoidable, i'd've thought.

Indeed, if death is bad, is the future just as bad, as the future too, must be unknown?

There is death in every possible version of the future. Most of us, most of the time, try to postpone our own and hasten some others. That's known.
Various limited versions of futures may be extrapolated or imagined; some to a degree a of probability near enough certain that we don't experience approach to it as a gamble. Long-term, we're guessing.

Unless induction has some justified validity?

We're guessing. Is that what you mean? Some people's guesses look more like opium dreams; some more like musings, formulas or scrambled roof-tar. Each can be justified, and often is. Validity - in what realm? by which legitimation protocol? to whose standard?

4. How should we go about living?

From each according to hir ability to each according to hes need. Best we can.

Is death so horrible that we ought to devote ourselves utterly to the very slim possibility that we might achieve immortality?

The people who might achieve immortality are devoting others to the task of making it possible, while they themselves are quite comfortable, meantime. The ones devoting themselves are doing it for the quest, which is their idea of living.

Is time a factor of life, or only intensity of experience?

see 4

[charon]

Keep_Relentless

Is life always worth living?

Yes, otherwise it wouldn't exist.

Is there ever a point where it is not worth it?

No, otherwise there'd be no point to it.

What is the value of death?

Without death there can't be life.

How should we go about living?

As though every moment were the only moment, which it is.

Your questions imply that life and death are opposites. They're not. Death is part of life, not in opposition to it. That's why questions which query the value of life as opposed to death or death as opposed to life are faulty. Death is only a change, a shedding of what has been, it's not the ending of life. Life doesn't die.

I hope we're keeping you amused answering your endless questions! Are you unemployed? Sorry :)

[Keep_Relentless]

You may be right about common sense, but life experience has given some of us a pretty accurate idea of where the 0 point is. Of course, that point is different for each person, depending on their tolerance for physical and psychic pain.

The 0-point, point of neutrality? It is constantly shifting, but perhaps yes regarding what it feels like. I meant that death cannot be well evaluated empirically/emotionally.

This one is really about labeling or vocabulary. We understand the words 'good' and 'bad' as very general terms that may cover a vast number of things, feelings and concepts; we apply them broadly. Thus, there is much overlap in various people's individual application, but no absolute congruity between any two.
In the broadest, most common sense, i would venture a tentative "yes".

Well that is odd, as I have always seen goodness and badness levels as very fundamental properties of everything that exist. Of course the value of every object is shifting constantly, so any practical evaluation would be useless, but I think we may get a nice idea of what this good that we live for really is. It is also entirely subjective, I acknowledge that... but even so I think this is answerable.

If i defined good as "that which generates happiness", this could be true. But there may be good things, forces and events that have no direct connection that i can trace to any happiness that i recognize, and that, nevertheless, contribute to the overall "goodness" in/of the world.

This is very significant. Note when I speak of good and bad I am referring only to the individual perception. And you say that some things are unrecognisable as having a good quality, which supports your former tentative yes. That something may benefit the world somewhere sometime is irrelevant.

I don't think that analogy works, because the world we know is populated by entities with independent minds and the ability to devise and to carry out acts of good and evil. In this model, if 0 is neutral, an absence of good and bad, then both sides ascending from 0 are positive. And, since neither the number of such entities nor their individual capability is fixed, we cannot determine the potential quantity of good and bad.

Again, the quantities are not objective, but entirely subjective, entirely different from each perspective. The objective world does not feel, so an objective evaluation would not make sense; I do not see that there are objective ethics. This analogy DOESN'T work in the sense that every single object in existence, hence the neutral point and all values relative to each other, are constantly shifting, but besides that at least the analogy may help us determine whether bad things have their own spectrum.

None of these concepts - good, bad, happiness, absence - can be objects in any but a grammatical context, they don't have an "own right".

Haha. Is "property" ok? (:

To whom? Value is always attributed/ conferred by an interested party.

You're very right. Then, what is the RATIONAL value of death?

Not possible: we're not equipped to comprehend infinity, let alone evaluate it.

I don't see that that is true. Of course we can't comprehend it completely, but we can evaluate it and we can determine if something is infinitely bad I think... simply a negative happiness level for eternity. It is like recurring decimals in division, you find the pattern, logic tells you it will continue forever, no problem.
What is probably more problematic is that death, being unknown, is potentially infinitely good as well as infinitely bad, and we do know that comparing two infinite quantities is ludicrous, even if they are opposites. This could make an evaluation untenable.

The awareness of death tends to have a negative effect on human happiness; on the other hand, it seems to contribute greatly to human culture and appreciation of life, which engenders some happiness - too complex and equation to solve. In nature, simply necessary to counterbalance generation.

Yes, definitely complex in that regard, or rather, too much is unknown. But not the concept of death and what it inspires: I ask for the value of the actual event, and what is after it. Considering what we know, which is only that it is unknown, is it... prudent ... to die under horrible circumstances because the odds favour you? Which is to say: Do the odds ever favour the one who dies?

Various limited versions of futures may be extrapolated or imagined; some to a degree a of probability near enough certain that we don't experience approach to it as a gamble. Long-term, we're guessing.

Well, long-term, but also the immediate future. Why aren't the next 10 seconds from now perceived as as bad as death? They are both completely unknown. But induction tells us we know of the future, and, preposterous and faulty though this is, we believe in it.

Each can be justified, and often is. Validity - in what realm? by which legitimation protocol? to whose standard?

That of logic.
Then, when the future is, rationally, a complete unknown... existing neither in conception or actuality at any time... how is a belief regarding the future justified? We might have conviction, it might be true, but we cannot defend our conviction under logic. That is the Problem of Induction. Why do we think nothing of going to sleep at night, even though for the next (5-17?) hours we will be embarking on the wildest adventures and most emotionally straining situations? That is what this question asks.

From each according to hir ability to each according to hes need. Best we can.

Thank you. But INDUCTION ( :) ) tells us that consideration of the future and the world, as opposed to thoughtless impulsivity, can help us to attain happiness.

The ones devoting themselves are doing it for the quest, which is their idea of living.

Yes, because they see it as the meaning of life; to keep living. Evolution suggests it. Death, looming upon us, might suggest it. If after death we have the infinitely bad after all, it is definitely the meaning of life. It isn't such a crazy pursuit, because under such circumstances, the very small chance that we may secure immortality far outweighs all of the pleasure and happiness we could attain in a lifetime... insignificant compared to how horrible death might be.

[Keep_Relentless]

Keep_Relentless

Is life always worth living?

Yes, otherwise it wouldn't exist.

I do not see that that is a valid argument. Perhaps the motive is right, but nevertheless... suppose that if you kill yourself, you will have paradise? Entirely possible. Suppose that bad is a negative happiness value, and you KNOW that for the rest of your life you will stay in the negative area. But when you die, nothing happens, you don't feel, therefore you are neutral. It seems you should die? Cut your losses, so to speak?

Is there ever a point where it is not worth it?

No, otherwise there'd be no point to it.

By this reasoning, how do you ever make a decision? You could simply say "Well, there is a good reason that I am here no matter what I do"? So how do you see that some avenues are better than others? It is the same with death... it is an avenue.

What is the value of death?

Without death there can't be life.

That is a perfect objective value: everything same, everything within everything same and same as everything. But subjectively, under what circumstances are we justified in dying, for our own total happiness level?

As though every moment were the only moment, which it is.

Yes, but only at that same moment.

Your questions imply that life and death are opposites. They're not. Death is part of life, not in opposition to it. That's why questions which query the value of life as opposed to death or death as opposed to life are faulty. Death is only a change, a shedding of what has been, it's not the ending of life. Life doesn't die.

I agree with you. In fact I have said... what is the difference between the future and death? But at least induction appears to give us more knowledge of this world than the next.

I hope we're keeping you amused answering your endless questions! Are you unemployed? Sorry :)

Yes I'm glad you have responded.
I am unemployed, 15, and home-schooled. Much free time, the school work is a minor commitment (in terms of time and energy consumption).

[charon]

Keep_Relentless

Well, Relentless, if you can turn your mind so adeptly to all this brainy stuff perhaps you should be heading for university or some other form of high education. The amount and intensity of your posting indicates that your faculties are being underused or wasted. Who is home-schooling you? Are they up to the job?

But I can't pry into your life. I hope also you're keeping yourself fit and not just using one part of yourself, i.e. the brain! Can't you find some kind of temporary job to get you out of the house?

I'm far more concerned with you as a human being than the philosophy stuff although that betrays considerable academic power. Still, I don't know your whole situation.

However... life and death!

Life is everything, right? It's the whole struggle between being born and dying. All that is a reality, not just something to theorise and verbalise about. What matters is how you live, what you do with your days, what goes on in yourself. What is your life going to be? Just bumbling along as most people do or will you find something really worthwhile to do?

We can't live in a small room all our days and never get out and experience life. We shouldn't do it physically but, far more importantly, we shouldn't do it mentally. Life's for living but most people don't live, they exist. It's a miserable person who, at the end of their life, has never really lived.

If you get the feel of that then you'll see that living implies love, to have that extraordinary fullness of heart, because it's only that which makes life worthwhile. Without that life is an empty thing.

Then what is death? Just the physical ending? It can happen anytime but at your age it's a long way off yet - at least let's hope so! But there's another meaning to death which is to leave everything behind, the whole world of man with his struggles and ugliness. We have to be here physically, but inwardly to have nothing of that in you, to wipe it out of your system.

That means leaving the small room which man has created, his society with its wars, insane values and constant strife. Either we join in and contribute to it, which most people are doing, or we never touch it. Either you live in that freedom or you don't.

Are you interested in this? This is the real philosophy, not just the endless sea of words and ideas.

[Keep_Relentless]

Keep_Relentless
Who is home-schooling you? Are they up to the job?

But I can't pry into your life.

Certainly you may, but I think that this conversation ought to be reserved for a less public mode of communication.
I do as much as I can regarding the school work as it is official and so, not self-paced. This was a major blow to me but it leaves me with spare time and if I fill it well there oughtn't be a problem. I have been filling it mainly with game theory, studies of autism (I have Asperger Syndrome), and paradoxes. I have been looking to strengthen my involvement in philosophy even further.
As for who home-schools me, I essentially have free reign. My parents ensure I do as much as I have to, but don't and needn't help. I try to be, though not productive, progressing, which is to say I have ignored the counsel of many "It is a physical world, not a metaphysical world" :D

What is your life going to be? Just bumbling along as most people do or will you find something really worthwhile to do?

We can't live in a small room all our days and never get out and experience life. We shouldn't do it physically but, far more importantly, we shouldn't do it mentally. Life's for living but most people don't live, they exist. It's a miserable person who, at the end of their life, has never really lived.

This will probably make you scream in frustration but I think you are talking about the philosophical field of Ethics. :)
Believe me when I say I am thinking along these lines almost constantly. But I do not agree that living in a small room for all of one's days is not consistent with a full life. There is much that one can come to know from within that room.
I almost seem to be referring to Isaac Newton here...

If you get the feel of that then you'll see that living implies love, to have that extraordinary fullness of heart, because it's only that which makes life worthwhile. Without that life is an empty thing.

Not strictly love of a person though. Passion in general, of course! (:

Then what is death? Just the physical ending? It can happen anytime but at your age it's a long way off yet - at least let's hope so! But there's another meaning to death which is to leave everything behind, the whole world of man with his struggles and ugliness. We have to be here physically, but inwardly to have nothing of that in you, to wipe it out of your system.

That means leaving the small room which man has created, his society with its wars, insane values and constant strife. Either we join in and contribute to it, which most people are doing, or we never touch it. Either you live in that freedom or you don't.

Are you interested in this? This is the real philosophy, not just the endless sea of words and ideas.

I assume that the freedom refers to ascending beyond the small room, in a purely mental sense... if only because I cannot see that resigning oneself to one system while being shielded from another can be called freedom. Neutrality is freedom. Which is why the greatest good is to know, rather than be filled with pleasure or what have you.
If I learn a cartoon from my childhood has influenced me in some way, I strive to remove the damage, while most would express that the greatest being is immersion in just such a thing.
A significant enterprise is a lasting enterprise.

[charon]

Keep_Relentless

Asperger's is often associated with high intelligence although the frequency of it is probably exaggerated. Where the two go together it can be quite dramatic. Obviously you have that which is quite interesting :)

As for who home-schools me, I essentially have free reign. My parents ensure I do as much as I have to, but don't and needn't help

I think you need direction. Every post of yours screams that out. You can't just have free reign. A horse needs guiding otherwise it just wanders about.

I do not agree that living in a small room for all of one's days is not consistent with a full life. There is much that one can come to know from within that room

Only on one level.

I assume that the freedom refers to ascending beyond the small room, in a purely mental sense...

Yes, the psychological sense.

Which is why the greatest good is to know, rather than be filled with pleasure or what have you

Know in what sense? Knowledge is good but limited. The heart matters too.

A significant enterprise is a lasting enterprise

The enterprise is you. Asperger's is a handicap but it mustn't stop you living as fully as you can.

"It is a physical world, not a metaphysical world"

Actually it probably is a metaphysical world, but we won't get into that :)

[Keep_Relentless]

I think you need direction. Every post of yours screams that out. You can't just have free reign. A horse needs guiding otherwise it just wanders about.

Correct on all counts. Anybody who could direct me greater than I could direct myself is far more preoccupied to "train me" so to speak. I have tried online tutoring at least. While quite good, it obviously has drawbacks.

Know in what sense? Knowledge is good but limited. The heart matters too.

Probably, but I have always denied it, in the sense of denying human nature to the best of my ability. I acknowledge this yet do not change it as my experience deems it well, as I am naturally obliged to achieve and resisting this is not my greatest state, as to me reason works while emotion doesn't, and as there are very few impulses that deserve to be satisfied.

Asperger's is a handicap but it mustn't stop you living as fully as you can.

Of course not. I have never viewed it as a handicap. Everybody is different. But a difference in itself can serve as a complication.

Actually it probably is a metaphysical world, but we won't get into that :)

Yes it is. Hence I turn away those who cannot understand that which is not physically productive.

[charon]

Keep_Relentless

in the sense of denying human nature to the best of my ability

I don't understand this. Why should you deny human nature? What's wrong with it?

reason works while emotion doesn't

There's actually not much wrong with that either. We're far too emotional and emotion blurs things. Or perhaps you mean being alert and sensitive to social interactions? I'm not good at that either although for different reasons.

I have never viewed it as a handicap

Well, it probably is a sort of handicap otherwise it wouldn't have a name and be called a syndrome. But I know there are many people with AS who live quite normal lives. It depends on the severity.

What I do think is that if you didn't have AS and still had the intellectual power you have now you'd still find it troublesome. It's not easy to be so advanced. It's not just your vocabulary and knowledge, it's the ability to grasp the issue at hand. It's the ability to comprehend tricky stuff that puts you in a different bracket.

Have you approached someone who knows about gifted people, especially fairly young people? That might open doors you aren't aware of now.

http://tinyurl.com/89vg52f

http://tinyurl.com/6pggrdf

Hence I turn away those who cannot understand that which is not physically productive

Absolutely, we only think in terms of usefulness and productivity. Quite right.

[mtbturtle]

I rarely follow tinyurl especially those that do not come with any identifying information - such as a title, name.

[Keep_Relentless]

I don't understand this. Why should you deny human nature? What's wrong with it?

I mean it as a form of progression, to transcend natural urges etc.

There's actually not much wrong with that either. We're far too emotional and emotion blurs things. Or perhaps you mean being alert and sensitive to social interactions? I'm not good at that either although for different reasons.

Yes, emotion clouds judgement, but at the same time it is our only motive for action. So, I keep down everything except determination and ambition, and keep a neutral picture in the back of my mind..

Well, it probably is a sort of handicap otherwise it wouldn't have a name and be called a syndrome. But I know there are many people with AS who live quite normal lives. It depends on the severity.

Many, many people connected to it interpret it as a difference rather than a disability. I take this same stance, though I said that a difference in itself is a complication. It is the alienation that matters. There is no problem in not feeling loneliness or usual sadness without others, for example. I think, if this world did not revolve around others, I would have been dealt much better cards.
Even so I like my cards. Being detached as such has me see beyond traditions and customs, and question other seemingly unquestionable matters reinforced by irrationality.

What I do think is that if you didn't have AS and still had the intellectual power you have now you'd still find it troublesome. It's not easy to be so advanced. It's not just your vocabulary and knowledge, it's the ability to grasp the issue at hand. It's the ability to comprehend tricky stuff that puts you in a different bracket.

Have you approached someone who knows about gifted people, especially fairly young people? That might open doors you aren't aware of now.

http://tinyurl.com/89vg52f

http://tinyurl.com/6pggrdf

I have always hated treating "intelligence", and its parent "greatness", as sensible, applicable, or relevant terms.
As an example, I valued IQ testing at almost nothing before I took it. After I had taken it, I valued it at less than nothing...
If you care about such details, then know that I could speak rudimentarily before age 1, learned to read (how, nobody knows... the leading theory is from subtitles :S) and read constantly sometime between 1 and 2 (dictionaries and newspapers usually, though for years afterward I had an obsession with astronomy and retained many facts), and sometime between 3 and 4 I had learned to write, learned the multiplication and division tables, and memorised over 60 hours of movie dialogue.
They did not accelerate me in school because of relatively poor motor skills, and because it is not so easy to accelerate a student under all circumstances, especially without much parental support. I have been to 11 schools and home-schooled 3 times in addition, which is further reasoning. I was accelerated 6 years at one point but as I said, kept moving. Also I fell out of the standard that school demands many years ago.

Absolutely, we only think in terms of usefulness and productivity. Quite right.

I do not like it, it feels like a mass cultural delusion, like we have been programmed that the meaning of life is to create something for society to use. I honestly could not care.

[Gregorygregg1]

Is life always worth living?
This question entails many others.
1. Is there ever a point where it is not worth it? Note that no amount of common sense or life experience will give you a definite answer on this one I think.
2. Is there a good spectrum and bad spectrum, with neutrality as the 0-point, or are there only degrees of happiness, and badness a lack of goodness? This is to say, is goodness and badness like the number line, where good is positive and bad is negative, or is it like temperature, where there is only warmth, and it's opposite simply a lack of warmth rather than an object in it's own right?
3. What is the value of death? Infinitely bad? Bad to a certain degree? Is it a possibility to gamble on? Indeed, if death is bad, is the future just as bad, as the future too, must be unknown? Unless induction has some justified validity?
4. How should we go about living? Is death so horrible that we ought to devote ourselves utterly to the very slim possibility that we might achieve immortality? Is time a factor of life, or only intensity of experience?

I whipped up a very quick, almost instinctive answer of my own and this is what I got:
Though if the one mind and one experience is all that exists there cannot be nothing after death (because nothingness cannot be an object, only a comparison of properties of objects), assuming there can we still may assume SOMETHING must happen because if we are wrong we aren't to ever know it. That said death, like the future, is completely unknown, so in at least one rational context there is no difference between living, dying, dreaming and hallucinating. But experience (i.e. the scientific Method of Induction, which is definitively flawed) tells us that we can know much about what lies ahead in life, though not certainly, at least confidently. So, live or die... it's like a gamble. Potentially death is infinitely bad; potentially it is infinitely good. Know though that we are not obliged to stay here; we were born against our will, we are here to forage and experience, we owe the world nothing.

You assume that death is bad.
It is neither good nor bad, only necessary.
If you are bitter about mortality
It is because you have identified with ego, and not life.
Humanity is the consciousness of life,
And as such owes all humanity is or can ever be to life.

Life did not choose how I would be created.
It was a miraculous accident.
Life could not choose to have bits that live forever.

For in order to survive so long without consciousness,
Life had to adapt
Survival meant evolution,
And evolution meant death.
But as we are cast off in our season
So we are renewed.
I am my father
I am my son
I am you
We are all one
The consciousness of life.
And if I let myself
I can live forever.

[Keep_Relentless]

You assume that death is bad.
It is neither good nor bad, only necessary.
If you are bitter about mortality
It is because you have identified with ego, and not life.
Humanity is the consciousness of life,
And as such owes all humanity is or can ever be to life.

I do not mean to assume at all, ever... I seek an evaluation of death and the unknown, not out of fear but out of potential benefit, as perhaps it may be worth hurrying death along?
Certainly not bitter about mortality... in fact I do not fancy that I am mortal, but will endure forever... and as I say this is a safe assumption because if I am wrong how am I to ever know it?
You say we owe the world because it spawned us. I do not yet agree with you. Even a round of movies can illustrate this... Frankenstein comes to mind. "The monster concludes its story with a demand that Frankenstein create for it a female companion like itself. It argues that as a living thing, it has a right to happiness and that Victor, as its creator, has a duty to obey it."

Life did not choose how I would be created.
It was a miraculous accident.
Life could not choose to have bits that live forever.

Why honour life?

"Death is not the worst thing that can happen to men." -- Countless...

For in order to survive so long without consciousness,
Life had to adapt
Survival meant evolution,
And evolution meant death.
But as we are cast off in our season
So we are renewed.
I am my father
I am my son
I am you
We are all one
The consciousness of life.
And if I let myself
I can live forever.

This is nice. Assuming the science is correct.
In my past life, I was a sperm.

[charon]

Keep_Relentless

They did not accelerate me in school because of relatively poor motor skills, and because it is not so easy to accelerate a student under all circumstances, especially without much parental support. I have been to 11 schools and home-schooled 3 times in addition, which is further reasoning. I was accelerated 6 years at one point but as I said, kept moving. Also I fell out of the standard that school demands many years ago.

All the more reason to talk to someone, and the sooner the better. You'll come into your own in the right environment and unless you take steps to find or create it you'll waste away. If you were some kind of delinquent with a low IQ it wouldn't matter so much but you're not.

Why have you been to 11 different schools? Eleven? Are you an army brat? Were you disruptive? Eleven schools is a lot.

Personally I'd have nothing to do with IQ tests, which are absurd, or the government, or even parents. Parents don't know. They might mean well, if they care at all, but that's not good enough. Nor would I approach a 'normal' school. Normal schools and teachers are for normal people. They can be quite clever but that's not the same as gifted.

I suspect that after all this moving about you have little confidence. You might deny it but actually you might not know. You don't know what it's like to flourish in an environment that understands you, where you feel at home, where there's no bullying, where your abilities are really stimulated, where you're surrounded by like minds.

Get advice, it won't cost you a thing. The right places and people exist but you have to seek them out, they won't come to you.

Stop making excuses and get on with it!

[Keep_Relentless]

Why have you been to 11 different schools? Eleven? Are you an army brat? Were you disruptive? Eleven schools is a lot.

No good reason, really. Have moved house most of that number, and was moved due to various forms of detachment most of the remainder.

Personally I'd have nothing to do with IQ tests, which are absurd, or the government, or even parents. Parents don't know. They might mean well, if they care at all, but that's not good enough.

This made me smile.
Got a medical exemption from school now. Am mostly happy.

I suspect that after all this moving about you have little confidence. You might deny it but actually you might not know. You don't know what it's like to flourish in an environment that understands you, where you feel at home, where there's no bullying, where your abilities are really stimulated, where you're surrounded by like minds.

I've never had to endure bullying, well, outside of family anyway heh. Nobody in my family has ever stood it. Too unacceptable.
I wouldn't say lack of confidence, xD, but certainly resentment. Most in my state teach themselves to associate. I taught myself and later renounced all I had learned. Why feed the irrationality of others?

Get advice, it won't cost you a thing. The right places and people exist but you have to seek them out, they won't come to you.

Stop making excuses and get on with it!

Would be nice if I had a clue what I am looking for. Just as you say, I have not the slightest idea what "my environment" is supposed to be. University may have some clues.
Constant mutual analysis and discussion is good.
If you insist...? xD

[charon]

Keep_Relentless

No good reason, really

Of course there's a reason.

Have moved house

Why? Were you on the run? :)

due to various forms of detachment most of the remainder

That's not a coherent statement.

Got a medical exemption from school now. Am mostly happy

Because you're removed from an awkward environment but don't kid yourself.

I wouldn't say lack of confidence, xD, but certainly resentment. Most in my state teach themselves to associate. I taught myself and later renounced all I had learned. Why feed the irrationality of others?

You don't see it. When you say 'Why feed the irrationality of others?' that's a lack of confidence. If you had that confidence you wouldn't bother about the rationality of others. The need to stress superiority stems from inferiority. Others are what they are. If they're irrational and you are not then you're lucky, not disadvantaged.

Would be nice if I had a clue what I am looking for. Just as you say, I have not the slightest idea what "my environment" is supposed to be

I'm just showing you. You don't have an idea because you haven't explored it. You won't know what's out there until you go out looking.

[Keep_Relentless]

Keep_Relentless

Of course there's a reason.

No [good] reason. (: Long series of events that shouldn't have occurred. But this is bias. It did, always would have.

Why? Were you on the run? :)

Hehe. No, I suppose my mother liked to jump ship. Again though that is a misleading generalisation; long series of events. Sometimes it regarded business, usually it was a vision of a new region, an ambition of sorts, but no settling...

That's not a coherent statement.

Well I wandered the grounds during class time and was extremely inattentive at the first school I ever attended, for example. I suppose you or I would have to ask my parents for the details of this category.

Because you're removed from an awkward environment but don't kid yourself.

In what sense?

You don't see it. When you say 'Why feed the irrationality of others?' that's a lack of confidence. If you had that confidence you wouldn't bother about the rationality of others. The need to stress superiority stems from inferiority. Others are what they are. If they're irrational and you are not then you're lucky, not disadvantaged.

Stress superiority... I meant to stress a difference of manners, but it is true that everybody pursues their own ideals and hence are apt to regard themselves as superior to others in all circumstances, if they succeed in this regard and, I suppose, cease to learn rapidly.
For example, should I pretend to respond to certain situations certain ways because it is the norm? Bend to traditions and customs and such? Even change the way I speak? Because it is just simply not acceptable otherwise? I would not hesitate if I was presented with a justification for it to adopt, or if I had some other reason to agree, but I don't.

I'm just showing you. You don't have an idea because you haven't explored it. You won't know what's out there until you go out looking.

Then, thank you.

[charon]

Keep_Relentless

Thanks for your answer. I'll stop with the pressure now!

It looks as though you've had an incredibly unsettled time which is something which would have disturbed any young person never mind someone with AS.

In what sense?

In the sense it's temporary.

should I pretend to respond to certain situations certain ways because it is the norm? Bend to traditions and customs and such? Even change the way I speak? Because it is just simply not acceptable otherwise? I would not hesitate if I was presented with a justification for it to adopt, or if I had some other reason to agree, but I don't.

It depends how intelligently you do it. There's rebellion and rebellion. It's absolutely essential that traditional values be questioned but not in a way that causes more trouble. Mind you, sometimes trouble is unavoidable but it depends how you handle it.

I was born into an Army family and went to traditional schools. The whole thing meant nothing to me so I simply didn't respond. It never touched me, even if people think it did, and when I left I simply went off and did something else. I never belonged to any particular mould.

Many young people open rebel against their schooling and background and go off the rails. They become angry and violent, or hippies, and all the rest of it. To me this indicates they're still caught in it. If you're not caught by something there's no need to react against it. It's only those who are caught that struggle and, like a net, one is enmeshed further and further.

However if you see that something is questionable or phony then there's no need to struggle, you simply don't bother with it. Reacting against something isn't the same as being free of it. I don't know if you see the difference.

Then, thank you

No, thank you for your attention. I hope you start thinking in different directions.

[Keep_Relentless]

Keep_Relentless

Thanks for your answer. I'll stop with the pressure now!

No pressure. No problem. Imagine somebody who views all interaction in a business-like manner. That's me.

It looks as though you've had an incredibly unsettled time which is something which would have disturbed any young person never mind someone with AS.

Here you go... I might've repeated myself but this is along the lines of what I have said regarding your prodding (:
At around 12 and a half my entire world-view shifted, and over the subsequent years I have entered medical depression several times due to pure anger. The more I came to understand about the world the less I could tolerate the institution or the system, from parenting to law to education and everything around them (I suppose you could say, in any area where control is advocated). I campaigned to be home-schooled for many years, but was denied on all fronts because my social skills would suffer.
At the height of the escalation I could not sit through an assembly without a breakdown, renounced all interaction (becoming virtually a selective mute), ignored all of my lessons and teachers and worked independently from the syllabus, and was angered to the point of trembling due to a certain word or phrase used in a certain way well over a hundred times per day (this still occurs, by the way, almost constantly at family gatherings or around parents in action).

I use tumbling and martial arts tricking as an outlet. Youtube it, ;P
I almost loved to get angry sometimes because when I tumbled the adrenaline would have me fly...

I'm happy, but what I am after, and what you are only encouraging me in, is engagement.

It depends how intelligently you do it. There's rebellion and rebellion. It's absolutely essential that traditional values be questioned but not in a way that causes more trouble. Mind you, sometimes trouble is unavoidable but it depends how you handle it.

I was born into an Army family and went to traditional schools. The whole thing meant nothing to me so I simply didn't respond. It never touched me, even if people think it did, and when I left I simply went off and did something else. I never belonged to any particular mould.

Many young people open rebel against their schooling and background and go off the rails. They become angry and violent, or hippies, and all the rest of it. To me this indicates they're still caught in it. If you're not caught by something there's no need to react against it. It's only those who are caught that struggle and, like a net, one is enmeshed further and further.

However if you see that something is questionable or phony then there's no need to struggle, you simply don't bother with it. Reacting against something isn't the same as being free of it. I don't know if you see the difference.

I fancy that I see the difference extremely well.
My father has an understanding of anger comparable to mine (bipolar). We're a nice contrast along these lines.
Believe me when I say that I do not try to hate. Hate has had me obliterate every other emotion with relativity. I have always been apt to be angry, but at the same time have always had a huge level of patience and control. Determination naturally follows.
To use an example again, I have never been sad when people die. When I was much younger I had to pretend I was sad. My blase attitude towards tragedy and suicide has also turned many against me. Rather than condemn a natural sadness, or blend accordingly, I do attempt to explain, convince, condole. It can be very frustrating but such a hate is petty.

[charon]

Keep_Relentless

You're listing your symptoms. It's as we were saying before. You need to be understood in a right environment, that's all.

what I am after ... is engagement

So engage, but with the right people. Start looking.