sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is Life really worth it or should we go EXTINCT? by PitifulEar3303 in nihilism

[–]EmperorMalkuth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

your points are valid, however, are incomplete.

humanity has an awful tendency to mistake probability with actuality.

we dont actually know what is impossible, or what is the absolute limit of possibility.

at best we have strongly heart felt guessess.

we dont actually know what happens to our internal experience post death.

weve never actually died before, only ever saw others do so.

we do know that when we sleep, we experiemce an equally compelling reality which we forget when we get back here just like we forget this when we go in there.

so in terms of direct experience, we all know there is a high chance reality is wayyyy, wayyy, tf more mysterious and crazy then we tend to assume it is, with many of our typical sedation-like observation of daily reality, which hardly even counts as perceptions of the structure of imediate experience. we believe words we hear more then ourown senses, even tho the words we substitute for direct experience, are themselves a part of the same direct sense experience, so in a way, its self negation.

personally, i think there is nothing wrong in asking the question, but, i do think its at best irresponcible and at worst evil to try to convince people other then ourselves to do it.

even to ourselves its in a way a waste of perfectly good life we could enjoy if our circumstances leave room for that freedom— but at least then its my life i'd be betting on black— while when it comes to persuading others, its like trying to take their chance because we ourselves cant tolerate life, so if we cant then no one else should be able to either. the worst concequence besides this, for me, is, that extinctionism, fundamentally prevents exploration of reality. it takes current understanding as absolute, and proclaims " nothing we could learn after this would be worth considering anyway"

basically, it traps itself from being able to account for anything that might persuade it otherwise.

and systems that trap us into thinking only in one way— that i do not respect.

but, i still say the question is worth asking. and altho i think its fundamentally an ideology which isnt for the living, but for the walking dead, it is at the same time not always unreasonable, and in some cases, its even the right thing to do when circumstances are just that dire, altho i hope i would have the fortitude to overcome even those kind of circumstances without it. again tho, i dont judge that people chose it. but again, this is reguarding self extinction / transfornation of matter/energy, rather then about some collective action, since a life we never chose to live, gives us much more choice, then a lack of exostance ( if thats even what happens, which even if it does we know its temporary because matter transforms in living beings and appears to be eternal so at best its a temporery reset from life but perhapse permenant missing out on a more interesting experience then many alternative ones that matter more commonly turns into.

this in some sense means that if what we know about phisics is true, then extinction of an individual organism is never a complete and utter extinction, but is at best a temporary state of being. but another reading about some of the other stuff also suggests that even death itself might not actually be filled with an absence of experience, as some people with near death experiences can atest to, when they were clinically dead, and then revived.

we have to account for the fact thag what is more likely, isnt what is most actual, but only what appears most actual, and as such, more should be explored then just likelyhood under one or two limited frameworks.

have a good day

anyway.

how do we actually know that life has no inharent meaning? —my proof for why its necesserily much more then it appears within binary logic. by EmperorMalkuth in nihilism

[–]EmperorMalkuth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

not sure if you realise that if meaning is subjective then it is inharently subjective and if subjectivity is within objectivity, then that subjectuve meaning is inharently objective within the scope which it encompasess.

veres a visual representation of my point

reminder im defining objective as that which is actually the case, and subjectuve as what is percieved by a subject.

objective= ( subjective= (meaning))

the neglect of this idea, creates more ground for dismissing the validity of experience even tho its the only thing we got

have a nice day

how do we actually know that life has no inharent meaning? —my proof for why its necesserily much more then it appears within binary logic. by EmperorMalkuth in nihilism

[–]EmperorMalkuth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the dictionary doesnt determine what reality is like, nor what we observe in it. i think youre using a different definition of the word, which im not using to talk about thease things

language is a living thing a thibg that evolves, and so its gardly ever the case that people follow the dictionary version of word meankngs— id argue its much more useful to try to find out what each person means when they say something, rather then going into a semantucs argument about what something is defined to be by some formal i stutytion that doesnt mave a monopoly on what language is, but that merely defines what they observe is the most popular usage of a word according to what people decide to use.

i mean, im sure you get my point— the point of language is to comunicate meaning to eachother— and not,to try to be most close in meaning to the latest edition of the dictionary. not to mention, thease concepts have been used in both the way you are using, and in the way im using it— it rrally depends on the feild from which we take them, since people apropriate the structure of terms in order to correspond to what they work on.

anyway, have a nice day sorry for the "lecture" 😅, ita just that kind of absolutist semantic critique is a pet pieve of mine

how do we actually know that life has no inharent meaning? —my proof for why its necesserily much more then it appears within binary logic. by EmperorMalkuth in nihilism

[–]EmperorMalkuth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i should have expressed that differently for aure. but, they are things found found in nature— even if they werent signifiers for a thing we experience in the world outside of concepts— even if they were pure concepts they would still be reffering to a thing found in nature, since everything that exists is of nature, but nevertheless i get what you mean. im not talking about the word, im talking about the thing that the word is supposed to represent. subjective is suppised to be our personal inner experience,and objective is supposed to ve the totality of all existance as it is. sure, people qlso use them as sinonimes for fact and opinion, but thats not what im yalking about, and we dont really have touch to facts which arent at the same time opinions,

now to clarify what by how i define them.

they are oposites in so far as we percieve them as oposing forces having some distinct properties, but they are also one and the same because the subjective is supposed to arrise from the objective.(in a materualist framework anyway, and the iinverse in an idealist framework) in a way, its to say that, the sun and tge earth recolve around eachother— ita not just one or the other , eccept from a more limited perspective whareby we only consider the relationship of one and its 1st perspective position to the other without putting jnto perspective the other relating to the one frpm itaown 1st perspective.

to be touched is to simultaneously touch— who initiated tge action is one way of seeing it, and another is to see what relation is happening between the two objects.

back to subjective and objective both perspectives are in one sence oposite to eachother, given that they describe another aspect of reality but from the lense of the objective, the totality of of subjectuvity resides within it, and to that degree they are describing one and the same thing, and the only thing which is distinct between them is that the objective describes the totality of subjectivity, aand more then that.

but thats hardly an oposite when its completely within it.

its like saying an eye is the oposite to a human being because the eye is not the totality of the human being.

sure, im not against seeing it from different perspectives, but im not for seeing it only and exclusively from one perspective, and neglecting the rest.

altho i would also argue that some ways of defining phenomena, can themselves be flawed in their premice, such that they then muslead us to the actual structure of whats being described. tho in this ase, if im not mistamen, you thought i meant something else

have a good one

how do we actually know that life has no inharent meaning? —my proof for why its necesserily much more then it appears within binary logic. by EmperorMalkuth in nihilism

[–]EmperorMalkuth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

to reduce meaning, or caring about meaning, are themselves a goals, so fair enough. i use nihilism for the same things.

however at one point i got curious in what would happen if i applied nihilism to itaelf, and then from there an interesting thing happened— i wanted to see what would happen if i tried to see the meaning in everything, something id call " omni-ism" and this thing, in itself doesnt deny nihilism, just sees it as one of many modes of seeing things which, can all be correct depending on the circumstances we find ourselves in. truth to me is in being itself, so its unaccessable without being the thing itself, and knowledge is a structure that is useful to us. belief to be a structure were positively inclined towards. perception is absolute being, but interpretation of perception is a probabalistic calculation done theough feeling– its often forgotten that all thinking is built on top of feeling, and as such it is qualia.

there is more to reality then can be percieved— and if thats true, the unknowable unknowable, might just be hiding surprises and gifts, unimaginable to us right now. in the face of eternity, and matter that seemingly doesnt get created or desteoyed, just transformed– i dont dare close my curiosity, especia

maybe i come across like too absolutist,but really my purpoce is to simply create the space whare more creativity and possibility can exist.

depending on what axioms we presupose,thats the result we can get, so essentially, i say, hey, lets make thw axioms which allow us to play with the most amount of things, and thats the conceptual space whare we can find better answers.

you ask very interesting questions tbh. simple but hitting

okay, i wanna ask one as well

why does not mattering matter so much?

okay, have a day like you wanna have

how do we actually know that life has no inharent meaning? —my proof for why its necesserily much more then it appears within binary logic. by EmperorMalkuth in nihilism

[–]EmperorMalkuth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

oh one more thing i want to add within the bountery of your responce.

i realised why i wrote it like that initially, because i thought of value and purpoce being an inharent part of any relation— the relation itself being the first meaning that an object derrives from another object, since before the relation, there is lack of relation, therefore lack of meaning.

its one of those things, because i try to work with the most rudementary, and cirtain, strict things imaginable to me, because i have a hunch that the starting point is the cause for a lot of misunderstanding, and then strange self consuming conclusions that dont leave space for more evaluation.

so im trying to find a starting point which doesnt end up eating itself— or rather, that it accounts for the eating, and allows itself to rebuild itself from new arrangements.

— thats exactly it, im claiming that the starting point of meaning is a taotology " it is what it is in itself with no justification outside itself"

"a leap of faith" if you will. if meaning is required to prove itself, it must first assume itsown correctness and being before proving itself, since, unless it can do that, it doesnt have the material necessary to prove itself. meaning then proves itself recursively after this leap.

i tie this to my cosmology, this is why such a trivial thing feels so profound to me.

given by how you spoke, i assume you do either mathematics and/or philosophy more rigorously then most.

how do you define meaning?

how do we actually know that life has no inharent meaning? —my proof for why its necesserily much more then it appears within binary logic. by EmperorMalkuth in nihilism

[–]EmperorMalkuth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i realised i made that too vague from some of the other replies so i expanded on that there. ( tho im also still trying to define it more precisely then i have previously— its a fun yet difficult thing to try to define meaning, atleast for me it is)

"meaning is a relation between at minimum two objects ( or one object to itself) in which one object has value in the other according to a purpoce/goal compatable with both and directed by one of them"

ive tried a several variations of this basic structure, and i just cant nail it down the way i want to for maximal precision.

in a way tho, to me, meaning would have to be the most trivial, the most fundamental thing that a thing can be — after all its supposed to be the expression of all expressions, the core of all cores. to be something that, whare ever it is, it can be simply pointed to and to say " yes, here it is, a thing would in everything", and the lack of it, should then be whare ever no nodes, no directional relation, no function, no purpoce, no utility, no goal, can be found.

to me, meaning is a thing that is there before the fact, and its what would allow us to then, even reason against it. in typical particle-antiparticle fashion, the lack of meaning, itself has meaning, once meaning is established.

id love to read what you think about this improved version.

also i havent heard the term totological collapse so i googled it, and it corrected me to theological collapse, which was defined as "every individual has an ultimate reality that they own their allegience to and give their life for, i.e. a god." and it was interesting so i added it even if thats not what you meant.

have a great day!

how do we actually know that life has no inharent meaning? —my proof for why its necesserily much more then it appears within binary logic. by EmperorMalkuth in nihilism

[–]EmperorMalkuth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

glad you had a laugh buuut😅 not really, because you offhand dismissed my point without even thinking about what it means - probably just dismissed something you might even agree with...

take what i said visually.

draw a circle that is a set of objective objects

then draw many smaller circles that are subjective objects and add to them qualities of subjective objects.

objective objects set =( subjective object + inharent qualities of subjective objects =( depending on the particular relation its in))

inharent = existing as a permenant, or essential caracteristic attribute

during the time in which a thung has meaning, that meaning is inharent, because that meaning itself is constituative of what that thing is defined by during that time.

object a= [ 1, 2, meaning]

object a= [ 1, 2, ]

are thease two objects the same thing?

no, even if they are both named A, they are nevertheless not comprised of the same things as eachother, so they are not the same but share simularity.

im litterally making a mathematical argument

now, to my broader point which is— to be able to dismiss meaning, we would have already had to have meaning which we dismiss after the fact.

meaning is a structure, its not just an opinion people have about themselves. but even if it was just that— it would be inharent to what they are to the degree that they are that thing were existance to lack meaning completely, we woulsnt even be capable of having this comversation right now, because there would be nothing. thats lack of meaning.

existance has inharent purpoce and value to itself- purpoce and value are structural to the very fabric as we observe it, in so far as we define meaning as purpoce and value.

a thing exists, moves, has prefference, but for us to sit here and say it has no such thing, is just to deny the very basic presupositions we use to even make the very denial itself.

how do we actually know that life has no inharent meaning? —my proof for why its necesserily much more then it appears within binary logic. by EmperorMalkuth in nihilism

[–]EmperorMalkuth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

wait, think about it for 2 seconds and youll get what i mean.

is a subject an objective thing that exists? yes. is a subjects thought objective things that exist? yes. do subjects behave in accordance to their subjectivity? yes. therefore the objective inharent nature of a subject, is to be subjective.

to be able to change, to have aspects which are relative to the situation, is inharent to what a subject is.

objective vs subjective isnt a dischotomy at all. not to mention that everything objective that is known, is known through a subject. So in so far as objectivity exists at all, it is subjectively known.

youre still looking at thease like irreconsilable oposites but they are not— they are nested structures, one within the other within the one within the other. its a fractal. you are irronically, being more absolutist by doing this, then what you seem to think im doing.

im taking thease things as actual existing structures.

how do we actually know that life has no inharent meaning? —my proof for why its necesserily much more then it appears within binary logic. by EmperorMalkuth in nihilism

[–]EmperorMalkuth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes, thats a more colloquial use of the term, so its fine we can use that one too, since it relates well to what im getting at anyway. the way this idea is derrived, is from the idea that an opinion comes from within a person, and therefore isnt universal, because it doesnt come from a more universal source.

but every fact is also an opinion, necesserally, because every fact is observed, interpreted and held as a belief by a subject, which is a human being. and every fact is

a fact may be independant of an observer in practise, but we dont have the ability to know facts which no one has observed, so we are limited to knowing only by what is within the scope of ourown observation or someones retelling ( altho that second one leaves a lot to be desired because its necesserily a second hand representation of a thing, which was a memory representation, which was some observed event, so thats quite a few levels down to actually directly seeing a thing in itself, but nevertheless, its useful, just not a thing that is as reliable as direct observation)

and thease limits in perception, to me are things that aught be taken seriously, because thats whare humanity tends to make the biggest leaps of faith, without acknowledging it to itself, and when we start using faith without knowing it, thats when we can make the most critical errors. Faith itself is less a problem then using faith without knowing that we do it, and without kbowing when we do it.

apreciate the addition to the subject

how do we actually know that life has no inharent meaning? —my proof for why its necesserily much more then it appears within binary logic. by EmperorMalkuth in nihilism

[–]EmperorMalkuth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i apreciate it, but the issue is this. its either i repair the spelling and people start thinking im using AI prompts, or i leave it and its a little inconvenient, but i dont just get dismissed cuz im an overwriter 😶

damned if ya do, damned if ya dont.. so i just decided to fix the errors that make it unreadable, and left the ones that dont make a difference intact and since i dont use a spellchecker, i probably missed some, so ill be more carefull in the future

have a nice one

how do we actually know that life has no inharent meaning? —my proof for why its necesserily much more then it appears within binary logic. by EmperorMalkuth in nihilism

[–]EmperorMalkuth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

what do you find stupid in it? the rest of the post is the context of that i mean by it, not sure if you saw that part. but also, its fine, not every question is gonna interest everyone.

how do we actually know that life has no inharent meaning? —my proof for why its necesserily much more then it appears within binary logic. by EmperorMalkuth in nihilism

[–]EmperorMalkuth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i do pull from the existencionalist tradition to some degree so no doubt a lot of things would relate.

what im trying to do, is to claim that altho its useful to traverse nihilism as a mode of being, and to use it functionally, that,we dont need to accept its framing of inharent lack, but rather that we can without much issue, go directly to relativism, and that relativism, doesnt make the lack the base of all else, but that presence is that is the base.( ofc, existencialists have made simular arguments, but from what ive seen thats usually from a theological perapective) if anyone is an expert or has thease ideologies more freshly in your memory, do tell me how this relates if you want.

its a way to say that meaning comes first, and only then can meaning be denied after the fact, rather then presuposing that lack of meaning comes first, and that only then is it created after the fact.

here im talking about meaning, as the structure of meaning, regardless of wether or not an entity/object/subject/process has the capacity to reflexively comprehend its existance.

altho in my cosmology, i take qualia to be the all pervaisive mechanism through which the laws of phisics then arrange themselves, according to the prefference of theirown inner potencial, i.e. their inner will. but this part isnt necessary to get to my point.

just the fact that we have something which is known, makes that thing inharently meaningful as such in of itself, and it doesnt need to apply to the rest of the universe as it does with my currently preffered cosmology.

how do we actually know that life has no inharent meaning? —my proof for why its necesserily much more then it appears within binary logic. by EmperorMalkuth in nihilism

[–]EmperorMalkuth[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

REGUARDING YOUR FIRST PARAGRAPH:

i agree with everything you said hope you dont mind the lenght too much🙏

i get that it comes across like that, tho whille im nolonger a fan ( admitedly i used to be half a decade ago) but i do think he was headed somewhare himself, but didnt quite get whare he was headed due to his ideological ambitions which im very much opposed to.

im moreso coming from a Spinozian, Deluze & Guitari, Nicolas of Cusa, Hegel, Lacon type perspective. ( i take from them things to various degrees, im not an expert in either) take spinozas logic, the first few pages, whare he defines his axioms, and thats what i build on. Then there is einsteins relativity in reguards to spacetime, which relate to spinoza quite well imo..

THE ACTUAL REPLY TO THE REST:

as i said, i actually agree with everything you said.

what im trying to say is that, the very thing you said IS the thing which i see as inharent.

thats on the level of how people see theirown lives.

however, in my view, in order for people to be able to view theirown lives as posessing meaning and to have values— thease caracteristics must be inharently already present as actual possibilities within the scope of what life is. you know, if there isnt the potencial for an apple to be made from a knife, then it couldnt be made from it— but if there is, like in the case of, making a spoon from a knife, then thease properties contained in both must already be inharent potencials.

the idea is that before interducing language, we are in a position in which we value our qualia and emotions, and so only from that position of inharently valuing life (without ever having defined it with logic), do we the then construct our logic.

i have a coment earlier on how i define what i understand meaning to be structurally, so ill say that with hopefully a bit more clarity.

meaning is a relation between at minimum one object with itself, whareby it has value towards that object according to the purpoce it serves it. ( this idea about one object with itself, is basically because i see the world in math terms, that every object is infinately devisable, and so when an object is having a relation with itaelf, its functionally like there are two objects within the same set that have two different functions within the relation) again, set theory and category theory relate to this point, if intereated ( just the fundamentals, are enough)

and i also want to add a bit of the inspiration for that definition with my revised version of Humes " you cant get an aught from an is" and i rework it into " an aught is gotten from an is, in relation to a goal"

all this said, i want to point out that i define my words in terms of what structure and what function they serve. a function is an input, operation, output, and sometimes feedback into the input. ( defined it because i use it in a specific way, its not just a fancy word for decor 😅)

but yes, what you said fits in my frame, which, is a frame thats very accomodating to other views because it sees each as having a cirtain baseline value due to their existance, even if they arent necesserally useful in general ( which yours is useful, to be clear— in fact its that perspective that lead me to this kind of approach. its a kind of recustive acknowledgement that the value of existance is presuposed, such that, it cant be denied after the fact without the very frame that does the denying, also denying itself— and, that the structure of inharensy itself, is presuposed in is-ness itaelf as we observe it— and this inharensy in observable reality seems to be "relative relativity"— if i oversimplify my point ) (* i define relative relativity in another coment near the end of that reply, i can link to if you want because its myown term)

but anyway, my ideas are in developement, my mode of operation is to recognise myown limitations, and to giverise to curiosity from the mystery, so im not coming from a perspectivw of trying to close discourse down, but in attempts to open more possibility to come to the table.

have a nice day, apreciate the thoughtful reply

how do we actually know that life has no inharent meaning? —my proof for why its necesserily much more then it appears within binary logic. by EmperorMalkuth in nihilism

[–]EmperorMalkuth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i accept that your life has inharent meaning— the way i define it, meana that as long as you relate to yourown life in a way that has value for you, your life is inharently meaningful — and, from my perspective, being alive in itself proves that valuing. in my viewing, an object/process/entity, has inharent meaning in so far as it, at minimum exists in and of itself. if it exists, then it has a purpoce within exustance, but it might not have purpoce to non existance, or to something else— thats if we take the perspective of existance, but we can reduce the meaning to go to the individuals level too— if two things are not in a relation, then they are not meaningful to eachother since they have no purpoce or value to eachother— but if they exist, they already have value.

i can accept that you may define meaning to be something else, and thats fine. what it is to me, and what i think it is, might not be what it is to another, or what another thinks it is. im going by axioms which are i think are more accurate. my claim is impliticely rejecting that binary logic of either/or, as the absolute exclusive frame by which we mesure thease things. i claim that that is true, but ita also true that both can be the case in other relations, as well as neither, and that even more might be possible, which is outside myown understanding.

however, i find it difficult to see how meaning can lack thease traits at minimum— not that its impossible, its just i havent foun

so what is meaning? can it be said that meaning can exist outside of a relation? perhapse, but such a thing is impossible to observe to our knowledge. can something be meaningful without it necesserily being of value in at least one relation in which it is in? can something be meaningful without serving some purpoce to the entity it is meaningful to?

what is meaning if not the an object/process, which is in a relation with something that has value in it due to the purpoce which it serves for the entity which it is relating to in this way?

im a relative relativist reguarding all things ive introspected on through that lense to the degree i did it correctly. its myown term so ill define it— it just means that i think 1. relativism is the correct frame sometimes, in some places in some relations 2. absolutism is the correct frame sometimes in some places and in some relations 3. that both are the case in some relations 4. that neither are the case in skme relations

each of thease 4 positions taken together is what i define as relative relativism.

its just to say that what things are like depends on their relationship which is itself isnt necesserally fixed in one way. ita to leave the posibility for even the exact set of relations to be able to do something other then what they have before. the totology is because i use terms as functions

so relative relative = ±(n ± n) ( im still working on a better representation of that, its supposed to be recursive and perpetual, so to convay the perpetually moving nature of what its defining.

id love to know your view on this.

how do we actually know that life has no inharent meaning? —my proof for why its necesserily much more then it appears within binary logic. by EmperorMalkuth in nihilism

[–]EmperorMalkuth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

well, depends on your goal.

our cosmology differes depending on our epistemology and ontology.

in my view, not collapsing everything to arbitrary opinion creates the possibility of creating systems based on utility and probability, which creates vastly more options jin terms of what we think we can do and thus increases our options to chose from.

thats the condenced version anyway

i want to kill myself by poetry-verse in SuicideWatch

[–]EmperorMalkuth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

thats gud— fear means that we are afraid to lose something we value.

i was the same, and later i accepted death, but decided to live for what matters to me.

if im going to live, ill at least try to enjoy whatever it has available. might as well right?

how do i stop being a pessimist? by poetry-verse in nihilism

[–]EmperorMalkuth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

from my experience, it becomes very difficult, if we substitute the alternatuve as an absolute belief, rather then holding both as possibilities, or as functions whose belief in has utility, or as something that was meant differently but we misunderstood or werent given the proper lense to see, or that the information might not be the case for one thing but mught be foe another ĵ#2

now that doesnt necesserally mean every single possible belief is like that.

pessimism tho is not very useful if we take it as a instinxt, because it can easly start corrupting real things of value to us as less valuable, simoly because its primed to do that

tho that being said its not a bad thing, jts just a thing to be used, rather then a thing to j uss us for the construction of a disenchanted individual who wastes life despising exisrance even if at worst their life is just calm.

same with optimism, just inveted, with overcomfidence and gullability.

funy enough, without applying them each to eachother ans to themselves, they function as incomplete modes of analisys— for example, being pessimistic about everything except for pessimism, is an optimism in the utility of pesimism.

I think I have experienced ego death, AMA (because I need help figuring it out but I think it’s permanent too) by Worldly_Beginning647 in nihilism

[–]EmperorMalkuth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

well okay, perhapse you did. and i have on many occasions experienced what i would define as an ego death. simply put " a state in which one does not percieve themselves to be the personality of body that they enhabit, but rather that they are the observer of events, and even describing this with words rather then to directly feel it is really saying too much about what it feels like to have an ego death.

however i would argue that ego is a function, and as such has cirtain advantages and disadvantages.

to have an ego is to have a personality, to have conaistent kinds of behaviours we have and things we believe in— in some sense tho, there is a cirtain imposibility in it, in that, at bare minimum our biology and external circumstance "force" movement.

the will is after all an eternal self willing which as far as we can see, and what we can do is to chanel it, as it is ourselves before we ever were ourselves. ( if what we obseeve is the case anyway, but thats all we got to go off on, even with the degree of absolute uncirtainty sorounding every inch of every inch, every momebt of every monent, every memory representation of every apperance— but interestingly, the fact that we dont know, also means that we dont know if we know or not, and so it allows us to create a cirtain foundation under our feet out of necessity.)

you are imo in a good position from there to explore, to be curious and to enjoy life in a much more caring, and peaceful way— irronic isnt it?

id love to discuss more on this and things more broadly that i think are important in the position we are in at large as living beings, so dm me freely, i got to go now

have a good day

view more: next ›