Can We Still Talk About the Meaning of Life?

What other formulation can save love and the purpose of life from becoming manipulative New Age clichés and restore them as valid ideas with intellectual power, as they were throughout history? How can the concept of 'chavruta' [study partnership] redefine love and give it a broader, universal meaning, including in human-computer interfaces? On the philosophy of long-term relationships between ideas - versus the philosophy of temporary conceptual relationships

Sex as shared physical learning, not as an activity - Love as shared emotional learning, not as an emotion (Source)

The most important thing in life, which all literature, philosophy, and religion aim for, and in fact maturation and learning itself, is to transition between two brain systems: from the immediate reward system in the brain to the long-term reward system, or in other words, from passion to love. When you're a child, you're solely in the immediate system, and when you're old, and therefore happier, you're in the second system, which is much more satisfying. The first is related to biology in its beginning, and the second ends in culture at its conclusion. Therefore, artificial intelligence indeed needs to start from biology, from its brain, but needs to end in culture, in a culture of artificial intelligences, just as humans ended up in human culture. Not to live in a world of passion but of love.

The immediate, permissive, gluttonous, consumerist, entertainment culture - is a cultural regression. Not progress. It's a kind of emotional Middle Ages. The liberation of female and male sexuality in their hedonistic form, and not within couplehood, is psychological barbarism, which goes against human nature and reduces happiness. In the future, the present will be perceived as some great ideological sexual mistake and a misunderstanding of human nature and a failed experiment, an emotional holocaust, like the age of ideologies and especially like communism, hopefully not ending in an actual gender war, or physical gender terrorism, or an upgraded AIDS, or enslavement to sexual technology, or another type of catastrophe that will come at the expense of a generation of children, or simply the lack of such a generation (negative population growth will be an economic catastrophe, due to the pyramid structure of growth economy, and anyone who thinks that having children is selfish doesn't understand economics).

Then sexual liberalism will be perceived as dangerous, harmful, a huge experiment on humans that failed because it went against human nature, like communal sleeping or communal showers. Just as liberation from capital and communist equality turned into oppression, so will liberation from sexual morality and sexual equality be perceived as oppression, perhaps after the enslavement of humans through sexuality or their economic exploitation. Alternatively, the matter could end after a severe loneliness epidemic, which might lead individuals to catastrophic actions, and the proliferation of these phenomena will lead to understanding the cause. Or alternatively, just a decline of culture into bad taste and futility, like postmodernism in art, or Rococo or Mannerism (all very similar periods). Art is like a canary that heralds to culture that it has run out of oxygen reserves and vitality.

Every sensitive person feels that there is a deep moral flaw here, and all that's missing is the cultural genius-formulator who will explain in a new conceptualization why feminism has turned into a crushing monster, a destructive ideology, which created a dynamic of distrust, aggression, and instability between the sexes, at the expense of children, family, and society, and culture, and ultimately the economy and human progress. This ideology created a new division - gendered and hostile - in society between two groups, just as nationalism created national wars, and divided society into hostile nations, or religion created religious wars - every division creates new incitement, just as the economic division created communism. Nurturing hostility and distrust between groups is not easily reversible, like between us and the Palestinians, but rather feeds itself, because I am forced to be an enemy of someone who perceives themselves as my enemy. The damage will be broader than any previous ideology because everyone is on the front line in the most intimate and vulnerable place (sexuality and love, etc.), which has never happened before. The war is inside the home - and civil wars are the deadliest of all. A bad culture within a person's home is harder than the war of Gog and Magog.

Another division that will grow is the technological people and geeks against whom those lacking technological skills will rebel, and so on. Even young against old is a division that hasn't yet reached its historical peak of hostility, and has already destroyed parental relationships in adult ages after childhood, and created adolescence as a cultural catastrophe, and therefore created widespread destruction in cultural continuity, especially against high culture. Every social rift that is united into conflicting interests, and creates oppositional identities, and becomes political, increases the risk of confrontation. And even a quiet confrontation of our people versus those against us always has a corrupting and broad effect.

A confrontation that is processed through political means and not aesthetic-literary-cultural means immediately becomes superficial, and is cast on one vector with two directions, like right-left, which corrupts thought and makes the conflict almost unsolvable and makes any movement difficult. This is exactly the difference between communication between couples and an argument. If there will be a confrontation between humans and computers or intelligent technology, it will be the end of humanity, precisely because it will force the other side to be against us. This is also how the Holocaust was created from an imaginary confrontation between Jews and Germans that was mainly in Hitler's mind, where the war was perceived as a defensive war against the Jews.

Therefore, divisive ideologies should not be taken lightly, and the ideology of confrontation between the sexes should be replaced with deep theoretical thinking about love and against passion. Such an ideology will be more rewarding than the sexual ideology, and will also be able to mark a revival of the religion of love - Christianity - and lead to the revival of Christian theologians. Another direction, a Jewish one, for defining the new love, is love as shared learning. And so gender relations and human-machine relations and other relations in society can be understood as different types of love, but in a way that is not emotional and therefore not manipulative, because of the theoretical basis of learning and shared development. If relationships today, in modern thought, are based on a theoretical basis of distrust (for example, give and take or control or negotiation or power struggles and so on), new thinking can be built of trust relationships, and of action towards a shared goal that is not well defined at the beginning of the process and does not serve one side specifically - through the idea of learning.