Snippets of thoughts / ideas over time.
He got his first degree 15 years ago in Anthropology, got a Biochemistry one, and is working on a Medicine related degree now. In order to do this, he works part-time, but recently he's actually picked up a bit of debt because of rising rent prices. He noted how when he first went to college around the Bay area, he had a place for $500/mo, but after all the big tech companies came into dominance, the place he previously had is at $2000/mo now.
Interestingly enough, when he was in college, he'd been homeless briefly and also did a study on homeless women during his antropology degree: how they survive on a day to day basis, keep safe, etc. He would hang out with homeless women all day, take his sleeping bag and sleep outside with them, etc. I asked him how women kept safe, and he told me how these homeless women would usually keep a platonic guy friend around them, so other "icky" men would keep off her because on the surface it would look like he was her boyfriend. He also mentioned how some homeless would rent a public storage unit to store their belongings, but also use it during daytime hours just as a space to hangout and keep off the streets until nighttime.
I told him my story on being homeless, and we exchanged names, then he went off to class because the location of his class got switched from the one we were in to a different one.
A dream is a wish wanting to be fulfilled.
A movie is the conceptualization of a person's dream on a screen.
Movies appeal to a lot of people, therefore movies must share in that they are recognizable dreams that a lot of people have.
Dreams are not real, therefore movies are the recognizable delusions that a lot of people have.
For the female: The desire to know what the guy that she likes is doing when he's not with her. Biologically speaking, a girl is predisposed to look for cheating behaviors from the male, and this behavior is so acute and causes a lot of stress and anxiety (consciously-speaking); the normal hollywood movie shows that when the male is away from her, he's fighting dragons and demons and saving the world (as of 21st century). He's a hero. Eventually, he is reunited to her after he's done saving the world —therefore the biological imperative is fulfilled: the girl can rest assured, he's not cheating on her, he's just busy, then he'll come home.
For the male: The desire to have a reliable way to have sex. Biologically speaking, a male is predisposed to seek out mates with whom he has a higher chance of getting laid with. Males cut out girls that they believe are significantly more attractive than them and don't often try because (biologically-speaking) it really would be a waste of time. Still, there's still no such thing as guaranteed sex, and this drives a man nuts. The movie narrative shows him the way to get the girl, provides reassurance that though the path is difficult, as long as he keeps going, he'll get the girl, and it'll all work out. The lover's kiss at the end of the traditional hollywood narrative seals this promise, and the movie cuts to credits.
Both narratives (from again, the traditional hollywood story) showcase that at the end of the day, there is a subliminal sexual message in the movie itself. This correlates well with the fact that couples watching movies together have sex afterwards generally (a.k.a Netflix and chill?). Regardless, the message is simple: you will be sexually fulfilled, don't worry, with the female being shown what she wants to see and the male being shown what he wants to see: again, that when the male is away from the female, he's not with another female, and for the male, that there is a more or less guaranteed route to having sex. Both cases see a mitigation in the uncertainty that comes with sexual selection —and that is the primary anxiety of our society: mental problems guised as sexual problems —that is, coping with one's own mate value and trying to find and have sex and make a family successfully, which, according to evolution and sexual choice, will always be dynamic and uncertain. It has to be in order to see who can survive and who can't.
But in the 21st century, ideas of love, unity, and peace skirt away the sexual issue in favor of idealism. If everyone deserves love (sexual affirmation), then every gene in the gene pool of a generation passes to the next generation. What you get is exponential population growth since the average life span of a person per birth will exceed the rate at which people are dying. We're kind of short-changing evolution and how it's supposed to work. Society tries to play God (creator) and asks its disciples to throw away individual sexual fulfillment in favor of granting everyone sexual fulfillment. Monogamy and courtship are held in high esteem as they help spread the love (think: if people pair off in 1:1 instead of say... 1:10, that means in a 50:50% male, female heterosexual society everyone gets their share). The opposing side forms (open relationships being pursued by the younger generation), and the morally virtuous (those playing by societal rules) are short-changed and left feeling jaded, but nonetheless, they've contributed their impact and helped society propagate itself into its future, with or without the individual.
Why do we call "bad" girls "bad" and "good" girls "good" and for boys as well?
Easy, we have sex with bad girls and bad boys. In other words, society's "value system", is primarily based off the repression of sexuality. This is more evident in Christianity, but even outside of Christianity we still use good / bad
This means that there's not necessarily anything "bad" about "bad" girls and nothing necessarily "bad" about "bad" boys, but that we specifically seek out "bad" people in order to remain morally pure in contrast.
Previously, sex was only sanctioned after marriage. Now, sex is only sanctioned after a prolonged courtship. What's the difference? It's the same. "Good" people can only have sex after a persistently long courtship.
The reason why girls (and even guys now) feel "empty" after having sex too quickly or with someone they don't know too well is because they feel guilty and ashamed. Philosophically, pride is the opposite of shame, and the root of pride and shame is societal: i.e. there is no pride (positive external recognition) without shame (negative external recognition). They both derive from external recognition of something.
Case in point, there's nothing wrong with having sex quickly; society just says it's wrong, and there's a class of girls and guys who want to be good, and they will feel like they are bad if they don't follow the societal rules, so they end up putting the opposite sex in rather disagreeable situations. By following the "societal virtue", quality of life amongst people decreases.
Conversely, the "bad" girls and "bad" boys are labeled and put into disagreeable boxes for being normal essentially: that is, following their wants, but if there's anything to be clear about, it's that society never wants you to follow your wants (even if it gives the facade of choice and allowing you your desires); society wants compromise and seeks to level (leveling is a concept Søren Kierkegaard talks about) the individual into a homogenous clump. Homogeny is the most peaceful and harmonious state, which all societies try to instate; thus, all the spiritual motifs with "love and peace", "unity and connection", etc. Maybe we can be convinced of it mentality, but in practical reality, it's not true: we are not a homogenous clump, we're separate individuals living in a shared space with the idea of "private" spaces, i.e. property.
The world is backwards x20.
Consider that the way that I'm typing seems highly spiritual, but if you were to examine my behavior and ways of living, they have an essential practicality to it that isn't seen from just my writing.
This is a problem because it will have people construe me as spiritual, when I am actually practical. This is the problem with language; it deceives.
Trump builds "luxury buildings" with normal plywood and cheap materials, people are deceived and pay outlandish prices for what was manufactured with little quality; people end up paying for the appearance of quality instead of actual quality and the capitalist benefits, this is only possible with language.
In conversation people will preface the exact sentiment they will evoke in the other person with a contradictory clause: "Not to insult you, but..." and what comes out of the person's mouth is an insult. "It's not that I'm..., but..." and it is that they are ... and that ...
Even affirmations and encouragements take this sort of untruth. We tell people what they are not in hopes they will become what they are not while simultaneously discouraging who they are in hopes that they will become who they are not.
This is revealing because language is society —we can tell because language evolves as generations change, with each generation having its own unique set of nomenclature that would be hard to understand for another generation. A generation of people... that defines a society. Society cannot exist without language, language cannot exist without society; they are of the same coin, and society is hypocritical.
What does true nihilism look like?
That which you oppress (or repress) you strengthen. That which you act out (or engage), you strengthen. Strange.
Insanity is doing different things and getting the same result (sorry Einstein, your words only apply well to physics, not living).
It's very important to realize that opposites point to the same derivative. Take hot and cold for example: to understand what they are, we have to know that they derive from a singular word: temperature.
We can use this technique on all words to reveal its form and then diagnose the actually problem instead of a symptom.
Take fear for example: let's say you're afraid of lots, why is that? Well, it's very possible that you're also very hopeful then. Why? Because hope is positive expectation and fear is negative expectation. In other words, the root is expectation, a person that is fearful or hopeful is simply to expectant. So lessen your expectations to get rid of your fears... (at least mental ones), but by doing so you also have to lessen your hopes.
More opposites... good and evil —derives from morality. Morality and amorality derive from a complete entity, since one is to have and the other is in its absence, therefore no word can describe it. Just like how expectation and nonexpectation derive from a complete entity, since one is to have and the other is in its absence, etc.
Birth and death derive from life, thus life we reveal is not the opposite of death, but a movement (on a spectrum) towards death. Birth is the opposite of death. Joy and sadness derive from stimulation, so any technique which numbs stimulation decreases both joy and sadness. etc. etc.
Advice is great —except it's generally always generic, and the problem with generalities is that it's like teaching someone to ride a bike by telling them they need to get on the bike then pedal; you may think you know how to ride a bike and that it's simple because there's only two steps, but when you try it for the first time you'll fail and complain that the advice was wrong and look for someone else to give you "better" advice. Since there's lots of people on the internet, someone will supply it. Maybe they'll tell you you ought to place you hands on the handlebars and your feet on the pedals (not your hands silly), and you'll still be no closer to riding a bike because to understand how to ride a bike is to experience it for yourself.
Life is a movement towards death. Therefore "how to live?" means how would you like to move (walk) towards your death? ...that is the only essential question.
Death should always be considered an option since it is the natural ending point anyways —a soldier in combat may choose death, indeed must if they are not to go against their calling. A scientist may "give their whole life" to discovering the cure to an illness or advance the field. A person risks their "alive status" in order to make something of their birth —and upon death are judged by themselves whether to have "won" or "lost" in their own cause.
Only your conscience can decide on the matter of your life —let it decide.
By this definition, most people are not really living. They exist —are physically living, but if they are not in movement, in pursuit of, there is no "life essence" within them. Life moves.
Even the Buddhist monk that tries to rid himself of all desires has that desire to rid himself of all desires —in pursuit of non-pursuit. Ironic.
Emotion is finite —the crying over a person relieves tension, it drains emotion… all the crying was emotion that was internal, in movement, usable, and by crying, but being unable to bear it (the internal emotions), we release it, so that simultaneously while realizing the extent of our love for another, we lose it.
I am much too credulous.
The root of all love is sexuality —but we've abstracted sexuality so much, we've almost forgot entirely what sexuality actually entails, and it is perhaps much different than "love" as we know it.
Socrates, Christ, Nietzsche —these people exemplify life in death; since their whole lives move towards their inevitable death, and it is their death that crowns their glory in eternity.
Then there are the native americans... whom none of us remember individually, but only as a group that once existed... that existed peacefully and happily. They spent time with one another, roamed the land, and were at rest. They truly lived —and when they died, they died, forever gone, never remembered.
Is this truly a one or the other sort of pathway? Or is there a reconciliation? A merger essentially of living and dying?
Every new thing is a monopoly —therefore I was wrong about the movement of evolution towards dynamicism since that is on the opposite pole of a monopoly which I had previously concluded to be "bad".
Both are necessary... the dynamicism / infinity belief only mirrored myself because I'm not singular (a monopoly).
The question remains —if evolution (biological, ideological, etc.) simply moves towards what's Good, why?
Kierkegaard... the great Christian... overthrew Christianity in favor of Existentialism... by God’s own will, he overthrew Christianity...
Socrates... the greatest Sophist overthrew Sophistry in favor of dialectic... using the Sophist’s techniques, he destroyed Sophistry.
Today I met the same student that I saw at the shower previously, and I decided to ask him if he was homeless or not since I saw him walk into a graduate lounge.
He is not homeless, but he's a building manager for a church and in exchange for his work he has a room in the church which has everything (bed, stove, furniture) except a shower. He's been taking showers at UCLA for about a year and half because he's had this arrangement for that long.
Previously he was living in a single bedroom apartment with 5 other guys in order to save rent.
He's a grad student —just looking to finish college.
These permutations happen likely as a result of being unable to accurately perceive the other in relation to Self.
Hit a man, and you will make him resentful.
Hit yourself, and you will move his soul to tears.
—two people I remember:
...more on this later perhaps.
I think the point is we can't pity people. Everyone is due to live their lives. I don't think Christ pitied people, and he was very humane. He came down with a sword.
Today I was in a lounge, and I asked a janitor that was passing by when the door would be opening in the morning, so I could figure out when I was suppose to wake up before anyone came and saw me asleep on the floor.
We fell to talking for a bit, and I learned that she's been a janitor for over 24 years. She'd been primarily with one company for about 20 years, but it later went bankrupt, and she ended up at UCLA. She's been here for 2 years, is planning to stay for one more, then retiring...
She says she loves her job, and I believe it —I'm not sure I could change trash-bags for 24 years and be satisfied, but then this is because I don't understand the alternatives. They are likely worse for her —youth sets the relative standards, and I was coddled and privileged, thus my standards are impossible.
Our generation sets such "high" standards for happiness, but I think what we really mean is that we are bored to tears with happiness —we want excitement.
Children imitate others all the time, yet it is when we are children when we are closest to ourselves.
If we follow this logic, then we shouldn't be afraid to be copy others, we'll still be unique, but instead we find people in this era trying to be unique by isolating ourselves —we become less unique.
Children copy from the heart —not from rationale however. They copy behaviors, not ideas.
It is clear and simple that the essence of a human is not in having a house or a job or a gf/bf, yet is not most of humanity in a struggle for bigger and better houses (luxuries), better jobs, and better spouses? We have defined ourselves through our possessions, but there is no possession that can define a person (essence).
Still, I possess nothing but myself (being without all the above) —but does that mean I have arrived at my essence? I question how much control over myself I truly have, so that it is almost fair to say that I still possess nothing, but a fragment of myself —the flipside of materialism (spirituality) is still not the essence of being a person.
"Just live," —that is the closest approximation to a person who has essence. It is not a matter of why, what, nor how... it is Self being Self.
While it is always preferred to strive for win-win, sometimes doing the right thing really requires a willingness to proceed to win-lose situations.
Actually, all great ideological historical shifts seem to be decisive —they have a winner and a loser.
Take Jesus Christ, Christianity which sought to instill in people to follow the Kingdom of God over traditional family values.
Take Socrates, whom brought dialectic, his form of reasoning to Athens over the study of rhetoric.
Take Nietzsche, whom brought the Dionysus spirit over Christianity, the Crucified.
... these are examples of individuals whom uproot the status quo, but what does it mean to uproot? It means to destroy and replace with something new... thus, the necessity for win-lose.
If you love something you already have, it is vanity, since you already have it, thus you can only love what you don’t have? Because you are in pursuit of it.
A philosopher loves wisdom because he pursues wisdom, because he does not have it in totality, an idiot does not pursue any wisdom... thus he does not love wisdom.
A lover pursues his beloved since he does not have her, to love her when he has her is vanity —unless he means that he would like to keep her and does those things that are necessary to keep what he loves... there is a difference in those two loves.
You can be grateful and care for what you have, but loving what you have doesn't seem to be right... this love I'm talking about is almost synonymous with pride, therein lies the difference, since pride is not love.
In times of need
that all I need
is to hold true to my philosophy
and if I can do this
everything is given to me
The greatest good attempts to be dynamic —does not consider anything out of the question because all situations and all good/evil is in continual redefinition.
A common vice: doing whatever you like, has its virtue in that this person is unrestrained, and if anyone is attempting to accomplish a good, restraint, caution is very detrimental to performing that act of good. Christ and Socrates were not restrained.
A common virtue: wanting to be a good person (considerateness), has its vice in that this want will compel a person towards avoiding the bad since when you consider others you also wish to prevent their suffering, so much to the point that no good can be done, since attempting a good has its risks in that it could turn out bad, but since this person is reluctant to be bad, they will turn out more neutral than either good or bad therefore invalidating their own virtue.
Therefore true virtue attempts to understand the conditions in which any particular element can be virtuous, it is dynamic.
Morals can be considered on the basis of the position you place another person in; this is important. Virtue is not internal any longer, but now has a measurable end point.
Think: once in a trolley car problem situation, there's no good solution —better to not be placed in it.
Judge people —> then how do you judge? Well, you'd want to understand them completely before forming a verdict; and it just so happens that when one truly understands another person, they can only judge favorably in all cases.
Addendum (09/22/18): One problem however is that I may then judge everyone favorably based on what I would like to judge people as instead of as how they seem themselves or in actuality; by doing this, I cannot say I understand a person then, as to understand them is partially dependent on understanding how they see themselves... and allowing that to be. A favorable judgment should not be a pretense for actual understanding... that's all.
I feel that my philosophy matters so little in these regards, but I only wish to do justice to this man that I may find the right way to speak these words so that others will understand what must be done, and we will change this world to be one that does not have people pursue one's happiness at the expense of another and does not isolate others by making idols and monsters of men and women.
Today, I was sitting at the benches outside SAC near Bruin Walk, and I fell asleep on my blankets as I had been homeless for the last several weeks and had slept unwell. UCLA employees in blue uniform were raking leaves off the grass, but there was one peculiar ~late 20s/ early 30s white man in the group with long blond hair tied in a ponytail wearing a white t-shirt with his sleeves rolled up and grayish jeans. He also had one of those leaf pickers in his hand and was picking up leaves, so he came near my table so that I lifted my head to see who was approaching, and he said to me, "Most other people would leave the area around you alone, but I woke you up to get the leaves, and I'll say hi to you. Hi," and I said "Hi," back and idled around for a little longer.
My main intent for being here was to go to SAC in order to get food from the closet, but it was closed, but having woken up, I decided to go back in and it was open this time so I took a few items then went back to the bench area to figure out a way to put the stuff in my bag.
The same white man was still picking up leaves, and he saw me trying to figure out how to put various items into my backpack, but there wasn't enough space so I struggled. He said, "Having trouble?" and I said "Yah," and he said, "Next time I'll bring a duffel bag, you know they refill it [the closet] every hour, sometimes they even have sodas," and in all honesty I really wanted a soda so I said, "Yah, that's what I was looking for."
He came over and we fell to talking, and since I had my jacket and blanket and was carrying it with my hands, he showed me how I could place the jacket and blanket sideways along the back of the loops of my backpack to free up my hands. I thanked him for this, and I asked him about his story about being homeless, as it was obvious he recognized within me that same situation.
He recounted to me had how had been homeless for 5 years, and that he had been going from area to area, but was mainly in LA. He had started a construction company about a year ago that was going well, but one day he was shot in the chest and foot in a random shooting and ended up in the hospital. He had to close down his company because the injuries prevented him from working, and he was back to being homeless. I listened to him, and I asked him what he was going to do now. He was trying to make his way back to Louisiana where he had a house that was paid off with his family, but he had to save up money in order to make his way down there. The leaf raking was just a temporary job, he would need to find a more stable one, and I wished him luck which he thanked me for. He lamented slightly of how being homeless sucked, how he didn't have a girlfriend and "all their bullshit" because he had no time and was homeless, and how life went on. I was ready to leave and get some soda, so I stood up and shook his hand and wished him luck once more, "God bless," he said, and I felt that he had found a little peace while he spoke to me.
As I was walking away, a female UCLA student or some other faculty that was in charge of the group of leaf rakers began walking alongside me and talked. She thanked me for being patient and talking to the man, and continued on about how he was talkative and how "they" never interrupted conversations when they began, but she had to warn me that he also liked to ask for things, and if he did, that I was not supposed to give him anything. She told me that he was one of their fastest workers, but he also got distracted and because "some" of the workers had mental disabilities that it was important to help them keep focused on their tasks. Sometimes he got aggressive she said, and I looked at her and tried to understand what she was trying to say, but I began to feel sad because I felt she (and perhaps the other employees) had jumped to conclusions about this peculiar man. I thanked her and she thanked me, and I walked away quicker to conceal the tears that were coming.
A man is homeless for 5 years and is robbed of his job by chance —then when he finds work after he has an eviction from his apartment from being unable to pay, does not receive aid from the VA despite being a Veteran, and now wants to talk people while raking leaves, he is considered mentally ill. My god, can we not see that a human who suffers wishes to talk to his fellow humans? That in loneliness and suffering we at once wish to cast aside all that separates us and simply be heard and communicate our worlds to each other and share in human camaraderie? Do we not all suffer immensely as humans and are therefore brought together by it? and this human instead of receiving consolation is told he is different, a threat to people, necessary to stay away from, and equally should receive no help from his fellow people. And should a man who is judged in this fashion without so much as another thought not be outraged? Daily people walk on eggshells around him, and is it not this behavior that causes the exact outrage that people seek to avoid in him? He is judged to be different by no merit other than by his condition, but the circumstances his life has placed him through have led him to his condition, and if we understood those circumstances, would we not have pity on his condition rather than fear? Regardless, he is ousted from society and community, left alone to live his endless days and find his way, and still he makes no real complaint, but works —and the best our society can think of is that he is distracted from his work because he wishes to talk! Is there not a single person who would not be angry if he was told to focus on picking up leaves when he has suffered through what he has suffered through and not given the freedom to simply converse to other people? He looks sufficiently different, weary, beat, and so when he talks, the first feeling our society instills in people is the question, "Why is he talking to me? What does he want?" Why, he wants to feel like a human being! so of course he will be outraged when he is denied the smallest pleasantry he can afford himself which is to converse with other people. Would anyone not feel outraged at the injustice he is put through? To be talked to as if he were a 12 year old in school who couldn't focus on picking up leaves while talking… and wouldn't we consider another grown man who has been homeless and shot, but content in his position to be more mentally ill than him? Who would not be outraged if they could not explain why they were being denied the smallest of consolations for an infinitely deprived life? but we call his anger a symptom of mental illness because it does not fit into a societal politeness when it is the most normal and human thing to feel in his situation. So is what is not polite always considered a mental illness? Psychiatry defines the socially acceptable person to be at perfect peace, a paragon of nicety, but who would want to feel at peace in a world that reeks of spiritual decay, misunderstanding, and decadence? Does the heart not cry out a thousand times over whatever paltry peace the mind has gained? Have I understood correctly?
In pursuit of an idol (WISDOM, GOD, etc.), the one forgets that the only true measure of progress is through people —the idol becomes a way to avoid people. But then, if one makes the idol itself people —then this is a silly as chasing happiness; "my purpose is to help people" —this is a statement devoid of meaning; all purposes are measured in the way that it helps people, without which there can be no purpose made understandable; the purpose there must be something "like" a pursuit of an idol; —Ideological change in xyz, Going to Mars, Helping traffic; but at once understood to benefit oneself and therefore others externally (as opposed to solely internally). If I create a bridge, it is useful to myself and others. What is not beneficial to oneself cannot be beneficial to others —but then isolation towards wisdom and God seldom benefits the individual in totality and usually leaves a metallic after-taste at best.
Most of the times when we say people are different, it means little about actual difference and is more a statement of: I do not want to get closer —when we say people are similar to us, it means little about actual similarities and is more a statement of: I want to get closer to that person… (because actual differences and similarities are always on the surface, generally aren't indicative of much… as I've seen in all cases of comparison that they always fail to grasp at the essence of a person —the core.)
Sometimes the smallest differences are the hardest to overcome.
—therefore not worth trying to prevent; take for example that today you can regret something then come to see it as being a good thing later —this happens often; Nietzsche's suffering, my Dad regretting not being there when I was younger, but if he was there that doesn't suppose a better result than what has happened. In some ways, him not being there was better —my self-will would not have likely developed if he was around to cajole me with his authority.
Regret is a reflection on past events —which is important, but not for the absolution of regret but for the remembrance of recurrent events / themes. Sticking points. Maybe...
A regret feels certain, but we shouldn't feel it as certain; it's always up for constant grounds of re-understanding. This does not mean to be content and drift towards acceptance of all things —that becomes nihilism; it means understanding the inherent dynamicism of morals (as fluid), of really understanding what is right or wrong rather than taking our first impressions of "what is wrong" as true (as static).
Doing the right thing takes precedence over faith —faith is for your own internal peace. When you're really thinking about right and wrong in relation to an action you're going to take that affects someone else (and almost every action always affects someone else), there is no peace; that is the way it is —to attempt to escape this pain and suffering is to deny the valuation of right and wrong which is the supreme good; that what is right and wrong can be continually reevaluated and must be reevaluated is essential.
Faith comes after continually doing right; it's earned.
~6 min read, the difference between experiential and conceptual learning.
Main Idea: World is placing too much emphasis on conceptual learning, when sometimes the concepts themselves aren't really hard, it's just practicing / applying that's difficult —happiness as an example: the concepts aren't hard, but applying them to your own life and making it work requires a bit of thought, but only you can put in that thought.
Home is where you feel you can be yourself… and if you always feel that way, you'll always be at home.
What we currently believe is just there to help us accomplish the progression we need to accomplish… we need to abide by it, and when we have accomplished what we need to accomplish, the belief will change. In this way, we give rise to the idea that humans are dynamic in belief systems fundamentally in order to progress and move towards that which they need to move towards… it is only when people stagnate that they begin to recursively speak the same ideas, the same motifs, the same beliefs… OR in contrast to stagnation, that they haven't accomplished whichever goal their beliefs point them towards. —That's why the beliefs are usually extreme, they help pull the person in opposition to where they currently lay… in other words, the beliefs are not indicative, they are a balancing factor. In short, the self knows how to heal the self, but you have to let it. You have to trust yourself to heal yourself… because the self is showing a movement towards, and it's in that movement towards that all change occurs, change as a necessary for any "healing"; altered state.
It is not that I cannot conceive of a different life than mine… but it is because I have experienced what I have experienced that I must live in the way I do —otherwise I slip into dis-ingenuity: if I had lived as if I had been to Africa and experienced the oppression and squalid conditions there, when I had actually not, it would be a great disservice to the world —but this does not mean I cannot conceive of the difficulty in 3rd world countries… I can pay my respects without pretending to give my life to a cause that I am not concerned with, and I had better concern myself with what I truly care about, and only by doing this can I arrive at doing what is actually good and not merely a pretense for what could be good…
We experience what we experience and believe as we do based on these experiences, but it's usually incorrect —if we moved past our experience and considered on a global scale, we'd realize all the errors we're making because we're relying on only our own experiences to inform our world… it's like believing the Earth doesn't move because our experience of it is that it doesn't move, but that experience doesn't justify the global phenomena that the Earth does revolve, rotationally and locationally —and we experience neither of these because we don't feel it —therefore 2 understandings: 1. that our beliefs are formed on our experiences and likely wrong, 2. our experiences are based on feelings, obvious enough but if we chase these implications, we find that there's a whole bunch of feelings we cannot explain, but are obviously real —and we tend to run from these because we cannot explain them in thought terms…
It is non-ruled based and therefore requires observance of freedom of both speakers —which most often occurs in reciprocal monologues. Ergo: you can't understand someone well through Q&A, you need candor which means no frame.
"teaching morals" —valuations of "right", "wrong", "good", "bad' ; must happen at a meta-level since morals are dynamic.
—The idea of romance and poetry in our porn age is almost ridiculous… if a sexual desire is satisfied by porn when the lover should have waited and longed for the embrace of the woman he loves, isn't that a true sign of a loss of poetry? We ourselves are not so wise… we "get what we want", but stifle any real sentiments from arising… sentiments that, yes, cause ample frustration, but also, in the end, bring about the greatest joy in wait. As Simone de Beauvoir said, "Lewis, I can come back every year. If we're sure of seeing each other every year, there won't be any separation, only waits. And when you love strongly enough, you can wait in happiness." emphasis mine.
We are at birth born to avoid the bad, therefore our eyes instantly go towards the bad to avoid it… that is why love has not taken root in this world; for love sees good —no longer seeks to avoid the bad, but only looks to go towards one another. By nature we are not good or bad; we are by nature avoidant of the bad; therefore we shelter ourselves and make enemies of people. Our avoidance of the bad is most certainly linked to what feels bad over what is actually bad… and what feels good over what is actually good; this is the normal human default —the question is if it can change or be made to work in an environment…
A psychiatrist's job is to help you establish peace of mind —it's not to help you do the right thing, however, the only way to obtain peace of mind is to feel you've done the right thing —that's literally a definition of the opposition of regret; to minimize regret is to continually do the right thing —in other words, psychiatry, since it can't give true peace of mind, settles for sedation —neutrality, nothingness, nihilism, acceptance of all things so everything becomes right, but that's not true: not everything is right. True peace of mind is weighing in on your own conscious, it's a moral dilemma, it requires some baseline level of strife until you become more comfortable making moral decisions.
To test for self-honesty —put yourself in hypotheticals; "would I still believe in God if God asked me to kill my son? (Abraham)" —Just like when you enter the army as a reserve, you don't expect to go to war, but if you're called for duty, you're obligated by contract. Just as when you follow God, you are not actively asked to kill your son at every moment, but if you were, you are obligated to by the will of God to do so. So? Do you believe or not? —we can move to relationships, if you took out sex, would you still be with this person? And the sad answer for most people is probably not —that probably explains for the majority of relationship break-ups; it was never about the person, just biological emotions —affirmation of attractiveness through sex, procreation, not that these are bad things, but in the absence of everything else, these things don't make for lasting relationships —they are by nature fickle.
For the christians —the absolution of evil, pain, and suffering is impossible and/or not a good thing. For rationalists —the necessity of "irrational" decision-making and the pursuit of what exists outside yourself cannot be understated. Religion + Reason are not at odds with each other; what reason lacks faith clearly solves for, what faith lacks reason clearly knows better. Neither reason nor religion can account for the will and autonomy of an individual being that "rolls like a wheel" —in it of itself, seeing it's own will as divine, and projecting itself as holy creator —wherein neither faith nor reason have its place, and instead what we have is pure essence.
By trying to be more creative, you become less creative since creativity is essentially without process, non-rule based and dynamic —reading advice on creativity is essentially adding advice; routine; rules to attempt to coddle and force creativity… which is the antithesis of creativity. Creativity also needs to be directed at an activity, it cannot happen in a vacuum.
Are rationale and feeling at odds? Does unveiling how emotions work destroy it? Let's say I understood the whole mating process; would it therefore be destroyed and devoid of meaning? —The answer is no, but why?
Why do I feel so strongly that "expanding consciousness" won't destroy emotion? But I only mean to say that I understand what I don't understand —but am capable of acting despite my non-understanding with "understanding" ; …. an embodied movement, that's all —full will rather than just consciousness. Which encapsulates. It's a non-issue this question.
The day we can exist completely alone will be the day the world is perfect —the difficulty is that you can't help a person be alone; being alone precludes help from anyone. … you can only point and help people come to understand.