@2 what do you mean?  I am actually curious to know if this idea called neo ludism  has any implications, fro what I can tell they are antitech proponence, but I am not really knowledgable on how can one really give up technology in the current infrastructure?
This topic has nothing to do with the previous one , why did you think it does?
I didn't even mention it.

In the last thread many people suggested that you stop taking a tour of different perspectives because it doesn't seem to be helping you, and just either pick something already or find your own happiness without someone else's ideas guiding you.
From past posts, it doesn't seem like your really capable of stopping at curiosity alone, otherwise I wouldn't have said anything.
My dad did the same thing and it never brought him anything but confusion and a bunch of random bits of knowledge.

To be fair, I at least wasn't telling anybody not to explore things. Saying you should pick a thing that gets you out of your head for a while isn't the same thing as saying never explore things. There's a lot to be said for exploring things. But there's also a lot to be said for not exploring things until you have some sort of solid grounding, so you're not pulled this way and that way by each new thing you come across. Allow me to illustrate with a sort of neo-Luddite example.

There are a lot of people who insist that modern devices are screwing up students. They're distracting, studies have shown you "learn more" from print books rather than a device, you remember more if you write stuff down, and so on. So you'll read these stories, Professor Crankypuss bans laptops, phones, and tablets from his classes! Now I know, and everybody here does too, that you can learn in other ways, e.g. hearing an audio book. So right there, I question their basic idea that books, by which I mean physical printed books, and handwriting and so on are the only real way to learn.

So let's move on to the technology itself. Again, I've used phones to read books, indeed for a while that's literally all I was doing with one. So again, we know from experience that you can turn off Twitter and email notifications and all manner of other distractions, and use your phone to read Plato or whatever. So to my mind, what makes more sense than banning technology is to have classes on teaching students how to use technology responsibly.

Books and writing and all are great things, and I'm not one of these futurist idiots on the other side of things claiming all of that stuff is going to disappear and it will be the greatest thing in the whole history of forever! But let's be honest, the technology isn't going away either. And we know, from different segments of the population, blind folks like us for instance, that you can learn equally well from other forms of technology, unless you'd like to argue that I haven't learned well in which case, I'll happily punch you in the face, because I'm smart like that.

Now obviously, we can still debate the roll of technology. An obvious reply would be that the majority of sighted people learn through sight, though you could argue that this is changing with the popularity of audio books, and therefore all of the studies that show that books and writing your own notes by hand and such are the best way to learn are the most broadly applicable. That's fine, and a great debate to have. But my point is, looking at some practical experiences and the realities of the situation can help to bring a different perspective, as opposed to something that's just anti-new technology. And it's not just things from different people's heads either, we've got some real stuff to chew on here, not just some what if thoughts we both had at three in the morning one night when we were drunk.

So fine. Explore away. But if it's just stuff that's driving you around in circles and getting you nowhere, it's time to try something else, I say. Otherwise, I'm just going to assume you enjoy going nowhere inside of your own head and get bored. Because honestly, that kind of stuff gets pretty boring after a while. It's like all those songs about weed. Yes, we got it, you love pot and you think it's super amazing. Shut the hell up, nobody else cares. See also:  NYC and/or California, you just had a baby, and so on. I wrote up a list somewhere, of songs we don't need to hear anymore. I should find it and post it.

I disagree with primitivism like ideologies. Just no. That is a romanticized view of the past.
And you don’t have to go all the way with a line of thought. Make decisions based on the individual things you agree and disagree with, and see where that takes you.

You impose pessimism on technology now. Why do you need to do this? No need at all.

I am tempted to ask for a translation ... but no, I don't even want to know. Because it's not just lack of spell checking that's the problem here. Your post doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Ah hmm. A lot of deep predictions there. But -- and forgive me for perhaps being foolish -- I still don't quite understand what this means.
And -- no need to forgive me this time -- I think you don't, either.

First, what do you even mean with "the world"? Silly question, I know. We all know what the word is, don't we? And yet, there are so many cultures out there, so many religions, morality systems, philosophies, ways of life ... don't you think you making predictions about the future of the entire humanity is a bit silly?

Just because you wish to gravitate towards an absolute, as you put it, that does not mean that others think the same way. Some hold to one of such absolutes (and there, I must repeat, are many), others do not. And you expect humanity will in the future be able to just ... agree on this? Humans, agreeing on a thing? We can't even all agree that you need food to survive!

I suppose that's what you mean with relativism? Not that we are all moral relativists, but that as a whole this is the case for humanity? But if so, please tell me how the hell you expect that to change in the future. Why will this "gravitation towards an absolute" happen, and how? Why must it? How is the world contradicting itself otherwise?
Because right now, this just seems like another brand of the "humanity is doomed" BS. And yeah, sure. We will be, eventually. But it is easy enough to say that the world is doomed because not everyone holds the same beliefs as you. Religions love that; that's why hell exists! But, instead of just can you back it up?

At this point I am probably a toxic enabler for continuing to engage with you, because any response only encourages you to keep going. But it is so difficult to resist, when you give this impression of seemingly questioning many things, yet not truly trying to answer any of them.

oh! my god, friend can i say something? so here goes!

be you the here and now.

Score.
enough of this mimimi.

@Ethin yap!  you are geting a grasp of it It may as we;;  be that we can never get out of this hole that we made out of relativism, insightful however is the fact that the power of myth is no longer active in those times, religions quite gon, gods gon, well we now play the game of questions essentially for no aperant reason , since I don't see a way out of the relativist perspective, be it metaphysical or epistemic.  By believeing in no metaphysical experience we are now limeted to a fragment, or just this temporary world, and by regecting any form of knowledge we basicly form our own conceptions.
A character from a play, a novel or a tragedy must hold to an ideal even if he or she won't reach it.  In this sence the thing is closer to reallity then we thought. 
now, I really understand why the romantic poets got in to dreams, and tryed to disciffer  the reality through feeling and experience.  They as well had a great passion for nature, and were opposed to traditional views.

There is a great german play called in english From the life of a good-for-nothing writen by the leeding romantic figure  Josef phon Eachendorff.  In many respects this character is one of the wisest persons you can meat in romantic literature.  What we need to understand is the sence of romantic wander idealism which was lost.
Well,  I believe even if I am a pessimist that poetry and literature should be a main guide to life, sommething that can show us new ways to live life more greatly with more intensity.   Also by accepting contradictions I learned we can coap better with reallity.  Far from being bad a pessimistic philosophy can counter suffering .  Much like the stoic sence of acceptance it can strengthen us more deeply.
That qwowt from Lovecraft shows truly the ideas I wanted to convay.  Yes , it shows much truth , it's not just history which has it's axsioms of decline, but also ideas.
There is one man who I admire very much that being Johan Woofgang phon Goethe .  A man who was able to reconcileate the problems of his life and his experiences and to make them sublime a friend of elements, someone with a highly esthetic sence, even though he was a clasic and the clasics see reallity and their works as a strate line.  He was capable of so much more.

I recommand Faust .   Faust is a very great introduction to the human condition .  I say.
May be who knows we will be able to find new myths and things that we make us strive for something greater though write now it's quite hard.
Well, may be it sounds stupede but it will make sence in the end I think.

Thank you, @khomus. By the start of your explanation, I was prepared to answer with "Well yes, but to be honest I didn't want an explanation as much as I wanted Wing to try and explain it in his own words", but now I realize that I actually didn't know what I wanted.

@Wing The world isn't binary. Not just 0 or 1, relativist or absolutist. If you look at its history, you'll see that you can't truly put any period of it into either side; and if you think you can, then you are oversimplifying history.
"well we now play the game of questions essentially for no aperant reason , since I don't see a way out of the relativist perspective, be it metaphysical or epistemic."
There doesn't have to be a way out. And just because there isn't a reason from your perspective, that does not mean it isn't one. Is learning for the sake of learning not enough? The thrill, the enjoyment, the advantages of seeing the world in a slightly different light?

We don't need to reach some ultimate form of understanding; we just need to get to a point we're comfortable with. I am pretty close, or at least enough that if asked what I believed the meaning of my life was, I could string a few inspirational-sounding quotes together and mean them. Gettin' there. I don't need your absolutes, and as you can see, nobody else in this topic is all that hyped about them either.

"Far from being bad a pessimistic philosophy can counter suffering ." Well yeah. Bad shit happening is less painful if you just constantly expect it. But I think I'll stick with my happier outlook on life and take the pain when it comes, thank you very much. You keep on being down there so you can't fall, wondering what is eventually going to doom us all.

I'm with @Ethin, and I promise this is my last post in this topic. Unfortunately likely not my last reply to you period; I don't have enough self control. But one can hope.