OK, here's the deal. I'm writing a book. The name of the thread is the name of the book. The Human Condition. It's a book that deals with a lot of complex issues that form this one problem, which is the human condition. To get a sense of what I hope to accomplish, I'll list out the chapters. Each chapter is linked to the one after and the one before.

1. Mortality
2. Religiosity
3. The Four Fundamentals of Morality
4. The Adverse Effects of Negativity
5. The Social Dynamics of the Modern World
6. Societal/Cultural Differences and its Evolution Throughout History
7. Politics: The Path to Selfishness
8. Human Relations
9. The Communication Revolution
10. Technology: Are we using it or is it using us?
11. Contentment and the meaning of life
12. The Purpose of Life


I will also release this book for free on the internet. I'm not an author by trade, so I don't need to sustain myself through sale revenues. This is my way of attempting to help the world.

The reason why I wanted to write this is because I see disharmony in this world. There are wars, famine, poverty and disease ravaging parts of the world, and the rest of the world is indifferent. When confronted with this imagery directly, people become sympathetic. Without this direct confrontation of the senses, people are apathetic. People can't make an emotional attachment to something they aren't aware of. For most people, their troubles trump those of others. Whether they are actual troubles or that hashtag thing firstworldproblems, people will see it as their problem. That's understandable, but what my point is about isn't understandable, at least to me.

All the bad shit in the world is related to many things. Greed, anger, vengeance, envy. All of these factors play a part in the global framework of human relations. All of which is stemmed from ego. All positive emotions also stem from ego. It is the center of individuality. If I sit on a train with a bunch of strangers and I get a text saying something good has happened to me, I'll be happy. Will anyone else be happy? No. If I tell them the good news, they'll say "I'm happy for you, man". This was only possible by spreading my happiness to others. Even though that good fortune will not be affecting them in any way, they can still feel happy for me. That's empathy. Ultimately, all emotions are stemmed from ego.

As part of my research for this book, I have made up a list of questions that I'm interviewing people on. Each set of questions pertain to the individual chapters. I'm going around interviewing people from all walks of life. Or at least all walks of life confined to Sydney, Australia. I won't post my questions here, because I want spontaneous answers. If I list the questions here and people answer them, they will take their time to refine the answer. They might retract a statement that they would've made if they were asked on the spot. The point of the questions isn't to get insightful answers. It's too see what people think at first glance on certain issues. And from that, I'll get a glimpse of a certain portion of humanity's thoughts.

The perspective at which I approach these issues are from a compassionate neuroscience perspective. I also try to explain what spirituality is, and how it along with religion has been distorted massively in this day and age.



Now my question to you guys is this: am I doing the right thing? Is there anything I can improve on? Do you have any questions that could be added to the interview questions?

Also, if you're a Syndeysider, feel free to shoot me a PM if you're interested in sitting down in person and doing this interview. I know there's a forum rule somewhere about real-life meetups, but this isn't about anything drug related. However, if mods consider this to be over the line, I'll take this down.

Hey B,

With regards to the questions: Do you intend on transcribing the answers you receive off people verbatim in the book? Or are you going to analyse the answers you receive and structure the chapters through your own perspective? Or a bit of both?
The reason I ask has a lot to do with music, particularly a phenomena called "the red light syndrome" - When in a recording studio a musician might fall prey to anxiety over the permanence of what they are about to lay down, betraying themselves and the performance by over-thinking it. When usually they can throw down magic.
I think this can spill over into interview situations, particular with meatier topics like the ones you intend on tackling. The human capacity to self-edit on-the-fly is quite remarkable, your interviewees might very well give you the exact answers you want to hear.
To overcome this though, you could structure your questions to be as open as possible, so as to not give away too much of the context for them to attach an answer. Allowing, hopefully, for a much purer stream of thought from the victims of your choosing

I'm not sure if any of that makes sense, but I hope it does.

It makes absolute sense. I made the questions in such a way that I don't need to clarify what the question means. I let them talk. And I've often found that people that warned me to not expect any high-brow philosophical answers from them, tend to have given really insightful answers. Everyone is a philosopher. They just need to the prodded in the right direction.

I am transcribing the answers, and I'll be quoting the really deep ones. I'll also be analysing the nature of the responses, to see what the majority of people think. I'll also be taking into perspective their background, i.e. age, upbringing etc. It's this group think mentality that I want to understand. If I can see people have compassion already, then the issue is why there are little amounts of it in some places. Every answer spawns new questions.

Thanks for the advice! It really gives me a sense of direction.

Glad I could help mate

I had very similar ideas to this about maybe a year ago. I listed out all of the major problems in the world, and I wanted to write another novel about overcoming one or more of the issues. I ended up composing a short story about a psychedelic adventure throughout the United States, but no one else has ever read it. As with a lot of writing, it's more for me (the author) than for others.

I think about writing more material often. I'd honestly like to write another book, especially something about all of the psychedelic and social experiences I have had. But the issue I keep running into is that no one would really care. My insights are interesting to me, and while they may be shocking to those who know me, really what would make a random person care? They would read it and be like "ok that was mildly interesting." So the task for the author becomes raising the stakes for not just the subjects in your books, but for the subjects reading your books as well.

Everyone thinks their views are so paradigm-shattering that they can change the world. Still I don't know you personally, and from what you're writing about there is a small chance you could actually help the world. Answering these questions might help you refine the direction you are taking:


1. Are you writing to make society confront it's problems, or are you writing to make yourself confront and become comfortable with said problems?

2. Do you honestly think people are going to read your text? Why? Why should someone spend ten hours reading your book rather than spending time with their family, especially if humanity is so doomed?

3. What is original about your book, if anything at all? Is it just a convenient compilation of topics that other people have already written about with a little philosophical sugar sprinkled on top, or is it composed of completely novel realizations about the absurdity of "The Human Condition"?

4. Depending on your answers to the questions above, you must then ask if it is really worth your time to write this book. Why now? Why not after ten more years of life experience? Is the opportunity cost of authorship really worth it for you personally right now? Do you have anything better to do with your own life?


I don't mean to come off as confrontational, but I really would not want you to waste your time. It has almost happened to me on multiple occasions, and maybe it's a writer's-confidence problem, but I can just never get over how so few, if anyone, will really care about what I have to say, especially since I'm not famous nor have any institutionally-sanctioned ethos.

1. I'm writing to make society confront it's problems. I'm not dissatisfied with myself, I'm just disappointed with the world. I could easily not care in the slightest what happens to the world, but I DO care. Will I be shattered if the world doesn't change? I'll be sad, but at least I can say I tried to help. "Life is too uncertain to have regrets." - Goku.

2. Pragmatically, no. I don't think many people are going to read it. I knew this the moment I decided to write. The point of my book is not to say that the world is doomed and everything is futile. The point is saying how little changes can restructure our way of life. That is what will cause big change. Even though I have a chapter on Politics, I don't talk about political ideologies. I talk about the human nature of politicians. I use a lot of science, particularly neuroscience, to support my facts.

3. Absolutely nothing. The only thing that MAY be original is my approach. Most ideas are not original. They have been said before. When I talked to someone about my views, they said that I was unique for thinking that. I said I wasn't, I was just regurgitating some of the ideas of my role models. This wont have a little philosophical sugar. This is will be a full on diabetes inducing cake of pure sugary philosophy. I analyse what various philosophers have said, and why it's unrealistic. I aim to rip to shreds every philosopher I come across, and see what's left.

4. Absolutely. It's good practice. I don't aim to monetise off this, so that's not my goal. Why now? Why not? I see myself writing well into my 90's, if I make it that far. Merely thinking about heavy thoughts isn't enough. Sharing these thoughts contributes to the global think tank. I'm also doing this as a hobby, so I don't work on this full time. I use the 2 hour train ride to work productively. I was amazed to see how much I wrote in a small span of time. I've also cut down video game time, and invested more into useful aspects of my life. That's a positive for me.


A confrontational approach to this is good. It allows me to question what I'm doing. If I still believe in what I'm doing, then it must mean that I'm determined. If I decided to abandon this after the valid points you made, it's pretty clear that this would have been a half-arsed attempt. No, I am determined. Worst case scenario, no one reads it. I still have the experience to putting my thoughts into words that other people can understand. That enriches my life, and helps me understand.

I love it. It's good to do things you want to do. Having a purpose in mind helps the whole thing come together. What do we live for? To keep our heads down or to try to understand the complexity around us and maybe share it with others? I think you have answered that question.

Good luck. I look forward to reading when you publish.