The Purpose of Life

Posted: February 19, 2011 in Uncategorized

Today I am having a realization, which I have heard a lot about. Sometimes the dismissive quality of atheists can blind them to deeper truths.

I have made a habit of studying Positive Psychology. This is the scientific study of those things we use to describe maximum mental health.

These wonderful scientists have established clever ways to operationalize the phenomena of mental health, to establish controls, and to establish causality beyond the rigorous fire of peer review in the premier psycholgical journals, especially the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

This is as scientific as we can get about this stuff.

But social psychologist Tal Ben Shahar, says that there is a point of consilience with this stuff and the New Age movement.

I reject a ton of stuff from the New Age movement, but I do see how this kind of thinking does a lot to cultivate positive psychology in individuals. I believe that the weird academic tendencies of occultists, make these folks kind of like DIY researchers in positive psychology.

I just recently read an article about a former hipster Thelemite; Alan Cabal from the New York 70s avant garde scene reflecting and describing his occult practices as, “a form of radical self-help and advanced covert sales technique.”

Radical self-help and covert sales techniques would do much to describe Positive Psychology, and sales and business books can take many occult parallels as well. Its all intertwined.

It can be summarized for me in this way, the purpose of life is to be a fucking Artist.

To make your life your Art. The people who I have met that really do this are the people who I feel have attained true power and personal enlightenment.

Creativity and imagination are a beautiful bloom to rise from a chaotic universe governed by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (which basically predicts the ultimate decay of everything). Creativity and imagination are how we increase the valence of our positive emotions. It is how we turn up the knob on our best moments and our day to day life.

The best atheist ethicists leave us with the conclusion that we are left to make our meaning in life. I think that to do this we must truly have a freedom of heart and mind to pursue experiments of meaning.

This is Art. This is creativity and imagination.

I believe the world suffers much from two horrible aspects of human nature, ignorance and unimaginativeness. To be unimaginative is as serious a weakness as failing to understand the evidence of Darwin’s theory of evolution. To be unimaginative is as bad as believing in a talking right-winger in the sky and calling him the Holy Spirit.

The human being in bloom is a creative being, as much as he is an intelligent being. I believe that if we accept the rationalist charge to create meaning in our lives for our selves, to actualize, to achieve a kind of DIY excellence, creativity is essential.

In short, the purpose of life is Art.

  1. maf says:

    Nice new visual layout; It is much more accessible than the previous design.

    My ideas about art-making considerably changed after reading a 1983 essay by Allan Kaprow titled “The Real Experiment”.

  2. CJ says:

    I like where you’re going with positive psychology and the mixture of artistic passion. I have been using a lot of techniques suggested by Martin Seligman for two years now, and it’s helped me understand how pervasive my negative thinking can be. There’s another book by Marvin Levine titled the Positive Psychology of Buddhism and Yoga. I thought you’d might enjoy that even though it’s not really a scientific scholarly book.

    Art does seem to give meaning to life, but it seems like it’s intensity is a yearning for higher social status. I feel like that’s the main thing that motivates me. What do you think (maybe I’m taking a more cynical determinist view?)?

    I hope everything is well with you.

  3. […] Yet it is precisely these kinds of difficulties that, according to Lucas, make studies of political warfare so potentially fruitful. In common with other students of Cold War history, Lucas argues that a scholarly division currently exists. On the one hand are those works which stress the conflict’s diplomatic, economic, military and political dimensions, typically privileging the state and emphasizing questions of geopolitics and national security (which he sees as the dominant complex of ‘diplomatic’ approaches). On the other are those studies which focus on such things as ethnicity, race, gender and the media in relation to the Cold War, works which for some critics attend less to agency or causation than context and discourse (in his view a marginalized, ‘cultural’ set of approaches developed in more recent years). By focusing on the ways in which during the 1940s and 1950s a public–private alliance came into being, motivated For more on this topic you can read: Additionally on this topic you can read: For more on this read: Further you can see this related post: A great related post about this: Also you can take a look at this related read: Related to this you can read: Additionally on this topic you can read: […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s