Third Impact should've been a year ago

>Third Impact should've been a year ago

As much as I want to die, I don't think I want to be in one giant hivemind with everyone else on earth...

same

Weren't you here last year to see it all come tumbling down?

Jean-Paul Sartre — 'L'enfer, c'est les autres.'

>Weren't you here last year to see it all come tumbling down?
I was.
I wish that I could turn back time

Good riddance.

I was

Seriously though, why are so many people opposed to the idea of merging with the rest of humanity? It seems like it would be absolute perfection to me

because i don't want to be mulatto

Because capitalism needs individualism to work, and society is engineered to promote it.

Third impact is happening this January!

Black Rebellion starts in a few months. Millions will die, but it will all be worthwhile.

Omae wa mo hivemind

It's a place with no interaction, no closeness and with no physical contact, where you are trapped in your own fantasy without the possibility to love or be loved. Everyone can see your deepest desires, but you can never do anything about those desires, because there is no (You).
I also want to add something. Most people are scum. If someone's deepest desire is to be raped by a horse, or if someone is simply a serial killer or a pedo, everyone else will have to live with their thoughts and emotions, forever.
Instrumentality is revolting. It's death for the dead.

You know you pretty much just described Sup Forums right?

would "sex" scene in EoE count?

I should have made it less obvious, I know. But if I had a way with phrasing or humor I wouldn't BE here for new year, wouldn't I?

Oh god your right...

You are now aware of the fact that instrumentality already happened a year ago and we are just now starting to notice it.

If I were, I'd be able to get out of it. This is worse than Tang, this is tap water in rural Ireland after Poe's raven had taken a crap in the well.

Look behind you, that's Rei.

To kimochi warui for my tastes.

...

>Most people are scum
>a serial killer
Then why would a serial killer be bad under your own logic?

Because one means just being scum and the other means actively making things worse than they were at the start.
In other words, I've got no idea.

Game theory. Most people are scum, but if you can't at least tolerate them then you're the worst scum of all.

More like gay theory. Tolerating scum enables to be scum. Cleaning up scum may send a message. You don't have to be a serial killer to do that.

Yagami plz.

>As much as I want to die, I don't think I want to be in one giant hivemind with everyone else on earth.
>Jean-Paul Sartre — 'L'enfer, c'est les autres.'
Actually, it's a bit ironic that you'd post that, because Huis Clos (No Exit) is actually about how horrible it is that Instrumentality (or at least the kind of connection available in it) is impossible in the first place! Sartre's existentialism is actually the primary lens through which I understand the themes of Evangelion, so I'll try to explain.

Crucial context: the line you quoted is the last line of Huis Clos, a one-act play written by Sartre, about three dead people trapped in a hotel room. Garcin (who delivers the line) was a newspaper reporter who attempted to flee the country after a military coup and was shot by a firing squad. Inez was a postal clerk who seduced the wife of a friend, who murdered them both for revenge. Estelle died of pneumonia after killing the child she had with her lover. Each has committed wrongs in some sense, and, with the exception of Inez, is in denial about it.

The first three Children are the same sexes and temperaments as the characters of Huis Clos. Estelle is a submissive feminine personality who prefers not to speak much of the time. Inez is an aggressive personality who torments Garcin for his cowardice in deserting his country, which Garcin vocally denies. Garcin, like Shinji, is a coward who detests himself for it, and has trouble reconciling his self-image with his own actions: this conflict between "self-image" and "existence" as determined by actions is a cause of anxiety for all three, but compellingly, Sartre goes a bit further than EVA does re: the soul.

it did but he chose to come back & no-one noticed when the world reset

A crucial component to understanding Sartre is his existentialism: Sartre believed that your identity (what makes you you) does not exist except as it does in the form of the actions you take: what we call "personalities" are illusions we invent to predict and comprehend how other people work. You define your OWN personality (also an illusion) in order to comprehend your sense of self, and the way you do this is by using other peoples' impressions of your own personality. This can be seen in the TV ending of Evangelion, while Shinji is in the theatre talking to "Mitsuki," who says:
>I'm not Mitsuki. I'm the Mitsuki that exists in your mind.

A motif of "Huis Clos" is the utter absence of mirrors or reflective surfaces in the hotel room. This reflects (heh) the fact that the characters' only frame of reference for their senses of self is each other's impressions of themself: this is illustrative of Sartre's conception of "anxiety," because we can't define our personalities by ourselves. Later, characters attempt to use the reflections in each other's eyes as mirrors, which of course only emphasizes how much they rely on each other for self-identification.

"Mitsuki," as a "soul" or "existence," according to Sartre, does not exist: it is an illusion of Shinji's mind. By contrast with Sartre's existentialism, "souls" or "essences" DO exist in EVA: however, just like in Huis Clos, human beings cannot comprehend the "essences" of other people because of the existence of the Absolute Terror Field. "Absolute terror" in this context can read as similar to what Sartre described as "anxiety," or its use of "terror" could even be a reference to Kierkegaard, who had a lot to say about fear. Sartre would dismiss Instrumentality as a fantasy that we must learn to live without, and EVA agrees with him in that "Instrumentality is a false goal, and we must learn to exist with anxiety and without Instrumentality."

Sorry. I don't have anybody else to talk to about this.

I don't really approve of this. EVA always struck me as a humanist series, not a nihilist one. Not to accuse you of being a nihilist but you're really coming off like one: I don't think game theory supports what you're saying, either, at least not the moral valuations in it.

Let me ask you something. What would you say if one day, by pure chance, you met someone who was exactly like Shinji. Someone who has the same body language, the same reactions, and the same areas of denial? What if you had a completely unambiguous example? That would still be like that and be immediately recognized by others no matter what environment and what context you put that person in? Asking for a friend.

No problem. That was interesting.

Sut the fuc up bich

You're quoting two different posters. I mean, stuff your ears all you want though. At the end of the day, I'm not going through mental gymnastics to support my "just world" fallacy.

Gargle boggle

The gay theory post isn't mine.
>Not to accuse you of being a nihilist but you're really coming off like one.
I don't want to perpetuate the stereotype, but shikata ga nai.

Me gay

Life is shitty with people and even shittier without. I learned it a hard way. I also learned that my hatred for others is directly proportional to my self-hatred.

What world would you prefer to be in; Berserk or Evangelion?

>even shittier without
Want to know how I know you're a normalfag?

Eva without a doubt. Here's you're (you).

Have an ironic omedetou. And a (you's for everyone).

I tried suicide more than once and spent few years in my room. Please, tell me about normalfaggotry.

>use internet to talk about this

Dear lord I didn't realize people were this addicted to juse.

(sniff)
Normalfaggorty? You see, your unironic belief reveals you are indeed subscrubing to eating from the trash can of ideology.
>I also learned that my hatred for others is directly proportional to my self-hatred.
There's this user (sniff) he says, an enemy is a friend whose story I haven't hearn. NO. You don't need to hate yourself to hate Hitler. God no. People aren't a reflection of yourself. (sniff) People are people. They can be objectively capable of an evil or selfish act without being a reflection of your own deficiency as a person.
When we have the revolution, after we take the government, I put you in gulag first.

It's not the same.
I'm just interacting with words on the screen.
My Ego is much stronger than during real life interaction when I feel like I'm losing my self.

>why are so many people opposed to the idea of merging with the rest of humanity


Have you ever talked to other people?

The overwhelming majority of humanity are insufferable, self-absorbed narcissists who run endlessly in their ratwheel jobs not earning enough to support the lifestyle they're living, buy things that they don't need and can't afford, and have children that they don't actually care about just because having kids is the logical next step in a committed relationship after marriage.

The rest of them are insufferable, self-absorbed narcissists who are too lazy or stupid to do anything of their own who would, without instrumentality, die meaningless deaths and be mourned by no one.

Can you imagine being stuck together with a bunch of people you can't stand for all of eternity? Even the people that you like and enjoy the company of, can you honestly see yourself feeling the same way after a decade? Two? A century? A millennium?

That's instrumentality. Being stuck with people you hate or will learn to hate for as long as the universe continues to exist.

It's all you'd have in the Tang dimension. Fruitlessly shitposting in a sea of shitposts.

I'm not certain I understand what you mean. How would I help this person?

Well, I guess I'd look to the TV ending for that. I have to admit that it's been a while since I've actually watched it, but the climax of those episodes (immediately before pic related) is when "Shinji's" Rei tells him that "of course no one can understand you!"

It's equally fallacious, in EVA and in Sartre, to expect that ANYONE will be able to (in EVA terms) penetrate your AT field, or come to truly comprehend you as a being (for Sartre, it is because there is no "being" to comprehend in the first place). In other words, no, nobody will ever fully "understand" you, and you will never fully "understand" anyone else, and that in coming to this realization the only solution is to leave anxiety about it behind. As Shinji's "images" of his friends tell him, you have to be "good to yourself," because in a sense you're the only person who's actually be able to. When Shinji comes to this conclusion, he sees all his images congratulating him for coming to terms with the anxiety of existence.

Avoiding nihilism in existentialism can be hard: for Sartre, it's a question of refusing to conform to any pre-existing personality types, which he refers to as living in "bad faith," and his ideas there are rather confusing. For Kierkegaard, meaning is found only through a "leap of faith" in a higher power. As far as I can tell, though, Camus seems to be the closest to EVA's message. For Camus, meaning had to be found in meaninglessness itself, and EVA seems to believe that that meaning can be found in the meaningless of attempting to connect with other people, despite how painful it is. That's why Asuka and Shinji, who despise each other, find each other when they exit the LCL.

At least, that's how I read it. I'm not too sure about it all. My conviction is that the "so be good to yourself" scene is EVA's thesis about how meaningful happiness can be found for someone in Shinji's situation.

Thanks!

I'd make the argument that submitting to theories that only reinforce your macabre ideas of a humanity out to get itself and refusing to listen to anything that could contradict that is the worse "stuffing your ears"-related sin. As far as I'm concerned, a world in which everyone despises each other (or whatever you're talking about) is an absurd conclusion that does not reflect reality.

Doesn't Anno despise otaku? If that's the case, it's not unreasonable to read EVA as a call for self-hating otakus to embrace the possibility of normality if it means a respite from despising everyone. Even if you're a nihilist, isn't it better to be happy than sad?

why do so many of you think instrumentality is hell?
even if you fundamentally disagree with someone's ideals, after you merge, you'll come to see it from their point of view and they'll see it from yours/everyone elses
in essence, instrumentality is total and complete understanding for everyone.
as a side effect, it removes the notion of survival and all the problems that stem from trying to surive with finite resources

I'm not going to lie, I barely understood any of that. Thanks anyway, it was an interesting read.

I don't want understanding nor do I want to understand. I wanna real and palpable barriers between me and other people.

Normalfags attempt suicide and there's plenty of "hikkikomori" forums where attention seekers like yourself blogpost.

well if someone who felt differently merged with you, maybe one of you would change your mind

Look at how crazy people here are just because they didn't have sex or wash their armpits for a year or two. Now imagine that for a million years.

Because I value my individuality, even if part of an individual's personality is defined by suffering. I would rather suffer and be myself than have a surcease of all pain and lose all sense of self. I don't like the idea of knowing everyone's deepest inner thoughts and feelings or visa versa.

Part of what makes us individuals are those distinct borders between ourselves and other people.

>in essence, instrumentality is total and complete understanding for everyone.
Because complete and total understanding for everyone eliminates the struggle for understanding from which meaning is found. Instrumentality is cheating, too, because you don't really know everything about everybody. People won't have points of view in Instrumentality because there aren't individuals to HAVE points of view. It's just giving up: "I can't understand people, so I'll eliminate the distinctions between "people" and just become an unthinking part of them."

Socializing is hard, sure, but it's necessary for a fulfilling life. It's best to accept the suffering necessary to understand people and savor it. (There's a bit of Nietzsche here too, I think, but I haven't read NEARLY enough to be capable of citing him, and I'm not sure he talks about socialization so much as he does suffering in general. I think.)

Sorry, I did my best! I noticed a few typos in a crucial line, so I'll try and clarify.

When Rei tells Shinji to be good to himself, it's because he's the only person who is capable of doing so: nobody else can be good to Shinji, because they are incapable of understanding him. They're incapable of understanding him because there's a barrier between people (represented by the AT Field) that can't be crossed while still leaving "Shinji" as a being intact.

And seconds before the fusion is complete, I would send the other soul a smug mental image and say in their mind: Here's your (you).

>He fell for the meme of self.

I hope you're planning on clarifying that user.

ironically, i think all the disgusting hikis here on Sup Forums would benefit the most from instrumentality

i don't necessarily disagree, seeing as how shinji himself rejected instrumentality.
but i feel like that's just one possible interpretation of a hive mind.
you say they'd become a singular entity and there'd be no individual thought, but what if it was similar to the internet where everyone is connected, but without any form of security (in this case the AT fields)

>be a normal and love everyone! You'll be happy!
Like I said you're a normalfag.

>Like the internet but with no security.
What would possibly go wrong?

>Socializing is hard, sure, but it's necessary for a fulfilling life.
Can you tell me when your winter break is going to end so I can stop reading this normalfag garbage? "Socializing" is neither difficult nor fulfulling.

>isn't it better to be happy than sad?
Easier said than done.

This. I don't want or need to know how a criminal or a child molester feels like. I don't need to sympathise with them or know their inner feelings. Sometimes walls are a great idea indeed. I don't need to sympathise with someone who has caused evil to say, yes, this is evil. Same goes for disgust. Want the unclefucker to know everything about you and you about them forever? Neither do I.

worried someone will steal your identity user?
you don't need to worry because you're an open book to everyone and everyone is an open book to you
if you're worried about someone judging you, you don't need to worry because it becomes an outdated concept if everyone understands you

Well, you actually didn't say that before. I'm someone else. In any case I don't think that it's necessary to be a normalfag to believe that people are not illogically out to get everyone else, or that people are incapable of irrationally loving other people for that matter.

It's the interpretation of the "hive mind" that EVA seems to depict. By contrast with the Internet, which is a network connecting many distant and individual nodes (my individual PC with your individual PC, for example, via the servers that host Sup Forums), LCL is a gigantic homogeneous sea of red shit. The "homogeneous" part is important: there's no "security" because there's nowhere for that security to be in the first place, whereas a network between PCs is necessarily seperated from its nodes insofar as it can be called a "network."

True purely in the theoretical sense. The value of individuality is artificial and manufactured under capitalism.

Watch Hypernormalization. In practice, we have become a society of individuals with no collective action. We have become a society of consumers, defining ourselves by the media we consume rather than the traits we share. Everything is catered to our own tastes and we are never challenged to embrace a larger idea to enact change that benefits more than ourselves.

>merged with you
I dislike TOUCHING other people.
Merging would make my ghostly self puke ectoplasm.

People may not be out to get anyone else but people are inherently selfish and vacuous meatbags.

>Loss of individual agency.
Just another reason why I'd reject it.
Build an AT field and make the angerus pay for it.

Of course, we must rally around the Proletariat eh Igor? Fuck off.

MLK day, but it's certainly not a "normalfag" position that socializing can be difficult and/or fulfilling. Nietzsche died a virgin, man, and Sartre was a self-hating wackjob with a lazy eye and persistent self-image problems his entire life that helped nurture the creation of his philosophies in the first place.

I guess I'm talking quite a bit of Camus, here, too, though, so I should concede that that guy was a total fucking Chad. But I'm not.

Actually, hang on a second. How on earth is the statement that "socializing is difficult" a "normalfag" thing to say?

Agreement: Your way of though is very un-meatbag-like, user, if I may say so myself.

well maybe if you merged, and everyone understood why you disliked touching people, they'd all decided to reject instrumentality.

or maybe after being exposed to everyone else's thoughts, you'd realize you're autistic and change your mind

Don't worry, by some secret jewish calendar it's still not 2015, and recently they begun researching some hueg object under ice in the Antarctic.

That's certainly possible, but your evidence for the selfishness part seems lacking in light of the equal evidence against: for every snuff flick you can pull up there's another of people rescuing puppies or whatever the fuck. Why should I trust you, especially considering that taking you on faith would make my life less fulfilling?

Inside of the LCL Sea, I want to be part of the Loli Ocean.

Conjecture: Were I not surrounded by this lamentable mass of normalfaggotry I may be of a more pleasant disposition.

Nietzche may have died a virgin and philosohpy notwitthstanding, he was a butthurt incel. Even goodol' Schopey was a normalfag.

>how on earth
Stop strawmanning me.

Anyway, socializing and more is ridiculously easy and most amount of times involves nothing more than the most base and droll interactions. Naturally, such an act is inherently worthless due to its abundance and its nature of fluff.

>rescuing puppies or whatever act of believed sainthood isn't just an act
You seem like you're young and impressionable enough to believe people donate out of their own good will and not to feel good about themselves.

>Actually, hang on a second. How on earth is the statement that "socializing is difficult" a "normalfag" thing to say?
Because someone who really has anxiety will never stop the music to tell the whole audience about this huge problem he's having stepping in front of that same audience.
An anxious person caught red handed in their behavior will try to make a joke or an excuse, or get agitated. They will never say something they prepared in advance like "Guys! I'm your friend from your expedition! I'm totally not the Thing!"

You're annoying.
The best thing about being in a separate body is the ability to tune the fuck out other shitbags.
I can't imagine spending eternity with someone like you.

Exactly. Sociailizing is one of those things that you either can do or cannot do. There is no difficulty to it, it's just one or the other.

So incels are normalfags now, too? That's confusing.

>Stop strawmanning me.
You accused me of being a normalfag for saying "socializing is difficult but fulfilling." You were only arguing the second part, then?

>You seem like you're young and impressionable enough to believe people donate out of their own good will and not to feel good about themselves.
It can be both things. Apparently you're young and cynical enough to believe that people are incapable of doing things for irrational good reasons.

The fact that altruistic behavior exists does not invalidate the existence of selfish behaviors, and many altruistic behaviors are undertaken for reasons which are at their core selfish. Virtue signaling is a great example of this, virtue signaling behavior is ostensibly altruistic but the signaling individual's motivation is a form of personal gain, self-aggrandizement, or advancement in social status. The behavior therefor is not altruistic, it is selfish.

Incels are certainly normalfags. They're all sour grapes. I'm arguing that socialization is neither difficult to those who can and that whether you're capable of socializing or not, it is an inherently worthless act.

>irrational good reasons
Is feeding your ego what you chalk up to irrationality? People aren't these little mystery coffers waiting to be plundered. People are penniless purses devoid of intrigue and merit for the most part. Maybe a cobweb here or there.

I'm sorry, I'm really confused now. Are you saying that because there are normalfags who think they have anxiety (but who really don't) who say things like "socializing is difficult," that nobody can say that without being a normalfag? I don't think that's what you're trying to say but as far as I can tell that's the most likely thing.

I agree that seemingly altruistic behavior can be fundamentally selfish in motivation, but that certainly doesn't prove that ALL behavior which appears altruistic MUST BE fundamentally selfish in motivation.

you seem like an autistic cucklord and i'd love if you would never post again, or took another breath for that matter
i'm just saying the both of us might feel differently if we were forcefully merged with the entirety of humanity

>not wanting the tang

>I agree that seemingly altruistic behavior can be fundamentally selfish in motivation, but that certainly doesn't prove that ALL behavior which appears altruistic MUST BE fundamentally selfish in motivation.
Except it all MUST BE. One could even argue that the common love one can observe between others in today's society is merely a more advanced stage of friends with benefits. If any altruistic actions were truly altruistic, that would imply the person undertaking such actions doesn't possess a value system.

>Incels are certainly normalfags. They're all sour grapes.
But this is a confusion. Normalfags are normal and accepted in society: they get what they want and aren't considered weird. Incels aren't. How do you conflate the two?

>People are devoid of merit... for the most part
So what is "worth" or "merit," then? You seem to be preoccupied with what doesn't have it, but you haven't mentioned what does.

Agreed there, I wouldn't ever say that everything humans do is selfish, but I would say that since humans are biological replicators who's primary instinctual motivation is to carry on our individual genetic lineage, our behaviors are more often selfish than purely altruistic.

Incels are, at their core, neurotypical, the earmark of normalfaggotry. AN incel will likely, at one point or another, settle down with a festering whale.

>of what does
Ask yourself how easy it is to find true merit in a world devoid of it, one predisposed to be devoid of it, parties that are interested in it continuing to be devoid of merit, and subjects who are all the more than willing to be devoid of merit.

instrumentalityfags make me sick

Someone needs to screencap these because I am too lazy and drunk. These kinds of questions get asked a lot and I think it'd be a good macro

>Incels are, at their core, neurotypical, the earmark of normalfaggotry. AN incel will likely, at one point or another, settle down with a festering whale.
Nietzsche wasn't that. He hovered around the same woman for his entire life, even after some other guy married her (inb4 cuck jokes). He certainly wasn't "normal," even if he was an incel.

I still can't figure out why they even exist. Maybe that's kind of the point.