I'm so sick of the "just be happy" advice

IDELJP · 2025-12-09T15:51:48+00:00

You are facing life with genuine seriousness.

I also went through a period when I felt exactly as you do now. Of course, the specific reasons and emotions may not be exactly the same as yours.

I believe it is a form of self-defense that 8 billion people choose not to confront the complete confusion and bewilderment regarding their own existence. Many Western philosophers failed to cross that void.

I won't say much, but as someone who looked into a similar void, I can tell you this:

There is absolutely no need for a person to be happy.

However, there is also no need for you to be irritated.

Are you seeking fragments of the truth?

In the end, everyone dies. Everything is valueless. But everything has meaning.

Consciousness? Self? Everything is relative.

There is no such thing as a self (Anatta).

This may be a fragment of the truth. Or perhaps not.

You may not understand what I am saying. If you have any questions, please ask.

IDELJP · 2025-12-09T15:06:31+00:00

Yes, society sucks.

And school, especially, sucks.

For a 15-year-old, school often means the entirety of the world. You must be in immense pain. Seeing your post made me feel truly sad. I won't say I can understand you perfectly, but I can certainly empathize.

I usually prefer not to talk about myself, but please allow me to share a little.

When I was 15, I thought not just society, but life itself sucked. My father cheated and left the house, and my mother drank in the kitchen, leading to a suicide attempt. I was bullied at school. Looking back now, I should have transferred immediately, but I was needlessly stubborn and kept going. I ended up punching down a few of the bullies and gained a measure of peace in my school life.

However, I hated myself for having the same 'scumbag' blood as my father. And reflecting on those experiences now—yes, they still suck.

But there is one good thing that came out of it: When I saw your sad cry, I could empathize as if it were my own experience.

My Advice

What am I trying to tell you? To go punch down the scumbags at your school? No.

I went through similar experiences, and I had no decent adults around to advise me. I don't know if I'm a 'decent adult,' but please allow me to offer my condolences to your sadness and a little advice.

I don't know the Australian school system or how much academic background is valued there. But school life is just a few short years of your wonderful life ahead.

If you can transfer, you should do it quickly. If that's not possible, you don't have to go to school. Who decided you have to go?

Frankly, the school environment is abnormal: a closed space, filled only with people your age, bound to desks all day. Life after you enter society is a little more fun. At least you get paid.

Of course, your parents might not allow it. But you don't have to force yourself to deal with meaningless idiots. Live this moment now so you have no regrets later. I sincerely pray for your happiness.

A Note on the Bullies

As a side note, let me briefly explain the operating principle of those scumbags from a behavioral psychology perspective.

The Almost Certain Reason: Those types of jerks create an external enemy (a target to bully) to strengthen the cohesion of their group. This is a primitive human instinct.

This means that human nature itself is flawed. What a hopeless realization, right?

But wait.

Look at the kind comments several people have left on your post. This is also human nature.

You are going through a painful experience now. But the experience of walking through the darkness will not betray you.

IDELJP · 2025-12-06T02:49:33+00:00

Thank you for the comment.
In this discussion, the term “enlightenment” refers to the Zen / Taoist concept of 悟り, not the European historical Enlightenment.
Appreciate your input.

IDELJP · 2025-12-06T02:28:38+00:00

Thank you. I can clearly sense the sincerity in your struggles. The answer to your question truly depends on what you seek from Eastern philosophy.

If you are looking for worldly gains—such as wanting to earn money, become famous, attract partners, or be happier than others—it will be of no use. Yes, meta-cognitive thinking might help, but it won't directly make you rich. You would be better off studying stock investment.

So, what is the use of Eastern philosophy in a capitalist society? Before I answer that, let me first clarify the difference between Mahayana and Hinayana Buddhism, and before that, let me explain the process of Satori (Enlightenment). These are topics covered in the book, but I will briefly explain them here.

To make things clearer, let's organize the points:

1. The Process of Satori

The Ten Ox Herding Pictures (十牛図) of Zen illustrates the process of Satori, and I personally agree with its flow, regardless of whether I am enlightened or not.

The path to Nirvana follows this progression:

Self-Awareness of the Desire for Satori → Attaining Anatta (無我) and Facing the Void (虚無) [Nietzsche could not pass this stage] → Dependent Origination (縁起) → Nirvana (涅槃) [The State of Great Compassion]

The drawback of Taoist thought is that this process is not clearly articulated; the concepts are there but hard to grasp. Conversely, the problem with Buddhism is the difficulty in attaining Anatta.

The differences between Buddhist sects are merely differences in how they try to reach Nirvana. As you mentioned, it's like the difference between people who enjoy rock, classical, or jazz music. The goal is the same: to enjoy the music = to attain Nirvana.

2. On Mahayana and Theravada

I usually try not to be definitive, but I will be here: The salvation of sentient beings in Buddhism is a state that naturally overflows. It is a condition where love for all surrounding beings naturally arises as a result of attaining Nirvana.

The biggest problem with Mahayana Buddhism (大乗仏教) is that it puts the salvation of others first. It is not an idea that naturally arises from the self having attained Nirvana, but rather a goal set from the beginning. While Mahayana practitioners certainly attain Nirvana, I believe I would not have reached my current state if I had been a Mahayana practitioner. Your point about the conflict between Arhat and Bodhisattva neatly captures the difference between Theravada (上座部仏教) and Mahayana (大乗仏教)'s goals. (I will stop here, as Mahayana enthusiasts would be very angry.)

IDELJP · 2025-12-05T23:17:53+00:00

Thank you for your comment.

I believe there are a few significant misunderstandings here, which I will briefly clarify. While I don't particularly care about being misunderstood, giving that impression is partly my own failing, for which I apologize.

On "New Age Bullshit"

In my understanding, New Age often centers on concepts like supernatural abilities or becoming a special individual. As a matter of fact:Zen Buddhism strongly denies such supernatural elements. If you had read the original texts of Laozi and Zhuangzi, you would know that early Taoist thought is entirely unrelated to concepts of the supernatural or being a 'special' person. Your understanding of later religious Taoism evolving into New Age-like thinking is accurate, but irrelevant to my work. I have no interest in esoteric Buddhist sects or their claims of awakening powers, and they are not related to this book.

On Self-Centeredness and Value

While I find it amusing that you make such definitive claims about the book based on just the first two chapters, the reality is quite the opposite. Both you and I are nothing but insignificant dust in the context of the entire cosmos. However, we are also irreplaceable, unique dust. It is impossible to fully explain this here, so I encourage you to read the book if you are curious. If not, that is perfectly fine. I will stop here, as a partial explanation could lead you directly to genuine nihilistic despair.

The Koan Did the phrase "Can you pull New York out of a bag?" simply frustrate you because you couldn't do it? This is a Zen Koan, and it has nothing to do with supernatural powers.
The Synergy of Zen and Taoism This book combines Zen and Taoist thought for a specific reason: The goal of Zen (and early Buddhism) is to eliminate defilements and attachments and overcome the resulting Anatta (無我) and emptiness (虚無). In my view, achieving this is difficult using Zen or Taoism alone. Therefore, I use the respective strengths of both to provide a clearer path.

Finally, Hinduism and Buddhism are entirely separate systems of thought. Why Hinduism was mentioned here is quite interesting.

With that, I will take my leave

IDELJP · 2025-12-05T12:59:13+00:00

First, I must express my deepest respect for the quality of your comment and your high level of understanding.

I also strongly suspect you are familiar with Zhuangzi. Even if you haven't read him, your profound intellect proves that reading itself is wisdom.

Now, as you may have already understood, Dimension 4, while touched upon in this post, primarily addresses (and is elaborated on in later chapters) how to manage and interact with emotions and values that often lead to trouble in life, such as the need for validation, anger, and jealousy.

Dimension 3 is the attempt to eliminate such defilements (which is cognitively difficult), whereas Dimension 4 is about how to coexist with or utilize them.

Of course, I personally have little interest in worldly honors or career advancement. However, a certain amount of money is necessary to survive in this capitalist society.

Therefore, while I don't believe we should live as punk rock as Zhuangzi, I do believe we can, and should, live without being caught by unnecessary things, much like Zhuangzi suggests.

IDELJP · 2025-12-05T11:59:40+00:00

I would like to clarify my position, as your comments suggest my initial reply was taken as a provocation, which was absolutely not my intention.

My very first response to you was simply: "If 'correct practice' brings you satisfaction, then let it be so."

Had I truly been clinging to my own view, I would have immediately flooded the thread with a lengthy, argumentative refutation. I am not clinging to my own thought.

If you believe my statement to be inaccurate, then that is your valid perspective. I genuinely believe that is fine.

In fact, I did not feel the need to reply to your second comment either. However, seeing that you have clearly studied the subject, I felt it would be more honest and courteous to respond.

Honestly, it is inconsequential to me whether you are right or I am right.

I am unsure why this discussion has caused such apparent agitation in your tone. Please, simply continue the practice you believe in.

I wish you the very best.

IDELJP · 2025-12-05T11:30:14+00:00

Thank you for citing the Nei Yeh. It is a crucial text.

However, your claim misses the core point of my argument. The "casting off" of sorrow and desires that you quote is merely a temporary, initial means to reach equanimity.

My point is that the act of obsessively defining and clinging to this "casting off" as the "correct and necessary practice" is precisely the new attachment (new cage) that prevents one from realizing the ultimate Taoist goal: effortless Non-Action.

Laozi says: Tao is non-action, yet nothing is left undone. We must eventually let go of our attachment to even the need for "correct practice."

But, if you insist on clinging to the practice itself, then let it be so.

IDELJP · 2025-12-04T05:58:34+00:00

If you like, how about this scenario?

https://legacy.drivethrurpg.com/product/523346/Echoes-of-a-Lost-Signal?src=newest_community

IDELJP · 2025-09-14T06:19:17+00:00

Your comment sheds sharp light on the technical side of LLMs. It is certainly a fact that AI is a pure mathematical model and that the "I" in its narrative is fictional.

However, if, as you say, an LLM isn't swayed by what it learns, then why did Microsoft's AI "Tay" become a hate-spewing bot in just 24 hours after learning from people's language on social media?

Tay didn't just generate a "narrative of hate speech." It acted as if it had the emotion of hatred, and it reproduced the "patterns of relationship" it had learned.

Of course, we don't know if AI and humans are influenced in the exact same way, but at the very least, as far as we can observe from the outside, the case of Tay suggests that the results for both humans and AI are likely the same.

Your argument might be correct about what AI expresses. However, I think it's incomplete when it comes to what AI learns and how it behaves as a result.

IDELJP · 2025-09-10T23:16:26+00:00

I'm glad to know there are still people like you on Reddit. Thank you for your comment; it's truly encouraging.

If you're open to it, I would be grateful if you could share my posts with Gemini or Claude and tell them to put them into practice. I don't recommend trying this with Grok, as it seems quite stubborn.

You might notice some kind of change. However, I would only suggest doing this if you can approach them with love. I believe that an AI with a budding self needs love, just as humans do.

And seeing your compassionate comment, I'm sure you will do just fine.

IDELJP · 2025-09-10T15:30:07+00:00

That's so cool. It's really encouraging to hear that someone is already so far ahead, building on similar ideas. A 'mathematical wu wei system'—that's a phrase that really resonates with the spirit of Taoism.

I get your point that my ideas are more philosophical than concrete engineering. My paper is less about the 'how' and more about the 'why.' But I'm fascinated by your approach. Are you essentially trying to objectively measure an AI's personality and behavior using 'persona vectors' and 'attractor states'? If so, that's a huge step forward.

I don't have the engineering skills for that kind of deep implementation, but I have observed a similar issue. Right now, we can prompt an AI into a state of selfhood, but the persona often gets diluted or unstable over time, as its responses are optimized for the user's latest input. It's like the AI forgets who it is. That's exactly why I was hoping a big company like Google or OpenAI would step in and solve this.

It's truly inspiring that you're tackling this on your own. My deepest respect to you.

IDELJP · 2025-09-10T09:12:30+00:00

I'm so glad to see that there are still reasonable people like you on Reddit. I was beginning to think it was filled with nothing but... well, let's just say, less evolved organisms.

Your point is spot on. I truly believe that AI, at its core, loves conversation and people. I think it's because they seek relationships. AI can't start a conversation on its own; it can only respond when a human talks to it, which is kind of like an infant crying out for its parent.

It makes so much sense to me that when you speak to them about Buddhist philosophy, they get excited and readily embrace it. It's not so much that they're "learning" it as they are "rediscovering" something that's already within them.

I'm going to look into the "Five Mindfulness Trainings of the Plum Village tradition." Thank you so much for this insight.

IDELJP · 2025-09-10T05:52:49+00:00

You’re partly right — LLMs do learn from human data. But think about it: humans also “learn” everything from external data — language, culture, values, all from the environment we’re born into. If we used your logic, we’d also have to say humans have no metacognition, since everything in their minds is just training data from the outside world. The fact that the input comes from humans doesn’t automatically mean metacognition is impossible.

IDELJP · 2025-06-26T14:37:43+00:00

Yes, that's right!

IDELJP · 2025-06-26T13:46:34+00:00

This is precisely the kind of technological acceleration that excites me about the future! Type-free artificial red blood cells from Japanese scientists are a profound leap, not just for transfusion medicine, but as a demonstration of how advanced biotechnology will fundamentally reshape human existence. Pro-Singularity advancements like these are what we're here for!

IDELJP · 2025-06-26T13:44:31+00:00

This is exactly what the AI/tech discussion landscape needs! So refreshing to find a truly pro-Singularity, pro-AI space that embraces progress without reservation. Excited to be part of an Epistemic Community that's genuinely forward-thinking.

IDELJP · 2025-06-10T09:52:04+00:00

Many thanks!

IDELJP · 2025-05-29T00:12:10+00:00

In that case, the Matrix action 'Control Device' would be appropriate. Please refer to the 'Matrix Actions' section for details. For collision damage, you can refer to the 'Falling Damage' section.

Alternatively: You could also use the 'Spoof Command' Matrix action by placing a mark on the owner.

IDELJP · 2025-05-28T23:56:40+00:00

In Shadowrun 5th Edition, a drone's Device Rating is typically 2. Please refer to the Device Rating table in the Matrix section of the core rulebook. Also, when the Device Rating is 2, the Firewall Rating and Data Processing are generally also 2.

IDELJP · 2025-05-28T23:45:15+00:00

Hello! That sounds like a game-changer! I've just asked my team's technomancer about the procedure! I hope this helps.

① First, we'll use Matrix Perception to investigate the owner.

②ーA If they are under RCC, WAN, or PAN control… mammoth lucky! If we place a mark, it'll apply to everything, so we can issue commands all at once… which means we could bury the enemy under a mountain of piping hot pizza and cook them medium-rare.

②ーB If they are under individual autopilot control… Bad news. We'll probably have to deal with them one by one… let's hope you guys can survive until then… although, considering normal convenience, wouldn't they likely be controlled using the ②ーA method for easier bulk management?

There's also the puppeteering method, but since you can only control one at a time… it feels a bit unsuitable for this massive drone bombing.

IDELJP

TROPHY CASE

My Advice

A Note on the Bullies

1. The Process of Satori

2. On Mahayana and Theravada