Doesn't look anything like the Buddha bro. I was going to hilariously remark that you must be a racist for saying "that's not a Chinese god, I'd know, I'm Chinese, and being Chinese have a complete knowledge of all things Chinese".

"Probation" eh? You sound like a bad influence... What did you do?

Maybe there is just an amount of time that must transpire between posts or something, though I dunno, ought to inquire about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budai

"Budai, Hotei or Pu-Tai[1][2] (Chinese and Japanese: 布袋; pinyin: Bùdài; rōmaji: Hotei[3]; Vietnamese: Bố Đại) is a Chinese folkloric deity. "

You're trapped in a hot-air balloon, headin'er for space.

That's a Chinese God, and not Buddha. There are times to be serious, and things to be serious about. Not everything is a joke, or identity politics, where we're just trying to overpower one and other, and our words can become unrestricted by truth, and become aimed at persuasion and dominance above all else.

We exert ourselves in the world through language by seducing otehrs to see the world in our own terms. Our sentences are viruses. Moreover we (including myself) like to spit out our favorite ideas. — n0 0ne

You just don't get it. The above contradicts itself to the extent that it claims to be true in any objective sense, otherwise it violates the limits it itself proposes, which you keep doing. You don't get that you're accurately describing your own inner workings, but nothing more.

"Seriousness is the province of immortality; frivolity, the province of death. They that are serious do not die; they that are frivolous are always dead. Therefore would the wise be serious. The wise attain the supreme blessing, nirvana. He sees his glory increase who is energetic and can remember, who thinks honestly and acts deliberately, who is continent, who lives within the law, and who is serious. It is frivolity the fools and the weak-minded pursue; the wise treasure seriousness as a miser his gold. The monk who would be serious, who sees the danger of frivolity, shakes the evil law like the wind does the leaves; he tears asunder the bonds that bind him to the world; he is close to nirvana. Standing on the terrace of wisdom, released from all suffering, the serious man who has conquered frivolity looks out over the unhappy multitude, as, from the summit of a mountain, one might gaze upon the crowd in the plains below." - Buddha.

I personally am not just amusing myself, nor just playing games. I think we're done.

Now, just be consistent, and drop that "we" stuff, and you'll have arrived.

Why are you even talking to me then, if we're both just irrational anyway? Why reason with me? What's the point of that? There couldn't be a reason I guess, just irrationally doing so, for no reason.

Also, is everyone irrational? That's a transpersonal claim...

You've receded into contradictory irrationality and inactionable nonsense, sir, not I.

You also say that it isn't a feel good position, but then say that it's like heroic, and authentic basically... which is it? Don't you see how much nonsense someone starts talking once they start talking about things they have never, nor can they ever actually do?

Who care's if they're servile, or inauthentic? You're just speaking from some alien position, it isn't as if it's true. It wouldn't matter if it was or it wasn't either, as that would require a value for the truth.

What's the difference?

So you were saying that my opinions were value laden, and therefore equally valid to everyone else's? I didn't get that... that's a silly thing to think, and you can't actually think it. You literally can't actually behave as if that is true. You will behave as if some values are superior to others, and some are wrong. Saying that on some meta-level analysis you think they're all valid, but we can't help but act otherwise doesn't actually change anything then, if we all act like they're true anyway, then there is no difference besides some kind of back-handed dismissal, or enlightened self-awareness that you can't in any sense actually enact.

You ought to consider that I never posited a god, or said that I was a theist, but was speaking within a hypothetical scenario. that in no way required me to. That this was just supposed to be so, and then reacted to so strongely should give you pause.

Hegel is a good example, as he does reject the metaphysical limits Kant set out, as he thought that you could only delineate such limits, define them and their scoop from beyond them. He also is famous for dialectics, and the notion of progressing through conversation. So, think that if I interpret, and construct my interlocutor's position as flimsily, and stupidly as possible, and mine as strongly as possible, what am I doing? What is the goal there other than to protect something that I identify as myself, and part of myself from damage?

I don't want to argue about what God is or isn't, or whether or not it is or is, but just that there are things beyond you. If you go to learn a discipline, you subject yourself to their mastery. You listen intently, take them seriously, study what they tell you to, practice what they tell you to, and eventually things start falling together.

Now imagine two disciples, one doesn't pay attention, believes that the professor is an idiot, doesn't engage in the practices, doesn't study the material, and the other does the opposite. Which student do you figure will master the discipline, and which will not? Which will become an authority on the subject, and which will not?

No masters, or teachers are Gods or infallible, but you need to move through them, and beyond them in order to truly figure that one, it is far more difficult to reinvent the wheel, from scratch, thinking every other wheel maker a fool from the beginning, and a far better wheel than has ever been made before.

You of course do need to be on someone's level before you can understand them, and their are certain behaviors and attitudes which are not very conducive to getting there, and there are other behaviors and attitudes which are.

No man... people were speaking in hypotheticals, saying that if they went to hell, then that wouldn't be fair, and only an unjust being would decide that. I was saying how that didn't follow, as one wouldn't be in a position to judge something like that. I don't think that's all that wild of an assertion, unless you don't know fuck all about much...

Socrates argued for instance that in the meno dialogue that there isn't a problem of will. Everyone wills the good, we just disagree about what is, and isn't good. What works, and what does not work. The only evil ignorance, and the only good knowledge. People act in accordance with what they think is right and true, and against what they think is wrong and false. Is this controversial? We are not all equally right, or equally wise... is that controversial?

I should also mention that "virtue signaling" isn't even an insult, and signal theorists denounce it as an insult. It just means signaling, and can only be construed as an insult in the sense of dishonest signaling, what values you're signaling you do not actually hold, or enact, or preaching to the choir. The pejorative thing though, is a politicized, rather than scientific notion of virtue signaling.

Consider this, Wosret. Any "creator of the fucking universe" is for me a mere hypothesis, an image or concept in my mind. — n0 0ne

As you are to me, and I am to you. I don't know you, and you don't know me, so when I conceive of you, I construct what kind of person you are. A flimsy one made of straw, or something constituted of more sturdy material.

The inscription at the temple of Delphi, "know thyself" meant to know your place, while in the presence of Apollo, while in the temple.

I only speculate on your competence, on your aptitudes, I don't know them easily, and may not have a comparative aptitude to evaluate. Someone has to be pretty well close to me, and not too far from me to see them well.

This cannot be true for someone that says that they're in a position to judge the highest, maximal point, to judge infinity. They are either judging what they see as a human being, and their conception in a weak form, or are mightily awesome themselves. I did in fact assume the former, but still found it arrogant to write off just other people like that.

You can freely poorly assume my motives, as just trying to look or feel awesome or whatever.

Well, I just did some unconditional love yoga... so...

50/50...

What's missing, and why they're at odds is the absence of the hero. The true triad as sameness, and difference, with their impossible fusion, which is the individual thing, which is the hero. Whether talking of society, or biology, or physics as influential, or formative, something becomes the interplay of general forces, not them, and out of their control. On every step of that sort of story, the hero is depersonalized, and stripped of potency.

The question keeps arising about when the personal comes in, where the potency and significance of the individual goes, because it genuinely is entirely evaporated in simplistic general, external, objective accounts of history.

Autistics are great at math. They use the part of their brain normally used for facial recognition, to amp up their skills. Math is also neurologically opposed to linguistics, as the former is digital, and the latter analogue. Math is pure, in that definitions are exact, and precise. Which is why digital computers can't recognize objects, as they can only see precise definitions, and not "kind of", and "close enough".

To truly learn something new, the structure of the brain must change, which requires some certain conditions to maximize the ability for new connections to form, and in any case, we lose plasticity as we age.

Math is simplification, the highest end abstraction, into bits, or quanta to maximize the amount of information one can deal with, as normally conclusions and systems are better representative, or more predictive, the more information they're based in.

I imagine that somethings are above me, or beyond my judgement. That I'm inept to evaluate them. That I personally am not the measure of all things, at the very least. That there are heights to which I have not climbed, and may be incapable of climbing.

To imagine that everyone is just really fucking dumb, and juvenile, and you're so smart by saying the same thing as every other edgy teenager... nothing beyond you, besides not being taken in by fads and rhetoric like "reason" "evidence" and "science" without substantive content... yeah I'm all butthurt. I just can't take the damage.

Pleasure seeking is masking agony.

I think that it's astonishing that anyone thinks that they're in a position to judge the creator of the fucking universe. The immeasurable arrogance of people... always the smartest, beatest most righteous ones that ever lived... nothing worthy of subordinating themselves to, they're just that awesome.

Weakness is strength, ignorance knowledge, and self-indulgent self pity mirrored off of anything seen in similar states are the highest good, as everything worked for, hard, difficult, or not freely given and unearned is wicked...

If he's paying attention, then maybe he will! Are his dreams of the coming revolution prophet? We'll have to wait and see.

Just don't bug me. eh. You're no where near seeing through me.

Pretty sure that he's the one copying me. I didn't even know he existed until someone else that was copying me (which I'm positive of, because I figured out who they were on here, and confronted them and they admitted that it was them.) brought them to my attention. Also, his motivation seems to be (now that I've absorbed him), is that he had recurrent nightmares of nuclear Armageddon since he was a teen, the terror of those dreams has led him to attempt to figure out what could make something like that occur, and is attempting to prevent it. He also was on antidepressants for like a decade or longer until recently. My fears and motivations greatly differ.

Though, stop attempting to trigger me bro.

Don't confuse weakness for strength, ignorance for knowledge, nor I/me for us/we.

Gots sources for the horses? Or is it more just you saying it? That's fine and all. Just asking.

As for whether I'm having a first or third person experience of someone's phenomena states by looking at their brain, I'm having neither (that's the whole damn point). Looking at someone's brain cannot be construed in any sense that I can fathom of a third person account of what happened to them that day. A third person account of that is rendered hermeneutically, symbolically, archetypally, generically, utilizing the categories, which I then interpret, and distill down to my own first personal qualitative experiences, in order to attain the essence of what is being conveyed.

It seems to me to be the complete opposite - that qualia are meant to show that all information is third-person. It is the attribution of the first-person to information that is faulty. Information is always about some thing that isn't the information itself. — Harry Hindu

No. From the horse's mouth: "There are many aspects to the first-person mystery. The first-person view of the mental encompasses phenomena which seem to resist any explanation from the third person." - http://consc.net/notes/first-third.html

You can say that he's wrong, or whatever, but not dispute what it is "meant" to convey.

24 years old and I feel like I’m living for the sake of it, I feel stripped of any aspiration/motivation and only have unanswered questions. — Reece

No one seems to tell you this, but everything turns to shit in your twenties. Playtime ends, and we begin to crave meaning, and significance. We can't just waste our time doing things that don't "matter" anymore, as it all becomes empty. Time to go insane, and believe, and move towards things that you feel matter.

Nothing can be proven abstractly that isn't tautologous, nor proven to always remain true, but eventually the rubber must meet the road.

To the extent that beliefs and opinions are affecting, or about reality, then they must either work towards the aims, or results they claim to, or describe, and represent in the ways they purport to.

That's why observation, study, trial and error are all so powerful. Sure, everything is tentative, and provisional, but far from equally valid.

The thing is that we're just creatures, and morality and ethics involves oughts. If this is something that is good to do, then it is good for everyone to do, and bad not to. A person that does this is of higher moral virtue, and this in itself defeats the principle. As you ought to do it too, and if my love doesn't mean that I take you seriously, and consider your opinions and values valid, but rather hold them in contempt, then what could it possibly mean?

If it is just a taste, and it's perfectly okay to not hold it, then it is a taste for sulfuric acid.

Real relationships are equal, and I expect from others what I expect from myself, and expect from myself what I expect from others. Even when it comes to children, isn't it your job to render them as equals as quickly as possible? Not to continually, and forever treat them in ways that do not require from them what one requires from themselves, and thus holds in high regard, and expects as a respectable human being?

If I wish to feel superior to everyone, and resent everyone, then this is certainly a vehicle to that.

I can only imagine someone wanting that, rather than wanting to do it. Relationships require negotiation, and it isn't virtuous to give everything and be repeatedly abused for it. That can only breed unhealthy relationships, and resentment.

In the case of unconditional love as regardless of external circumstances, that isn't possible, as everybody dies. People get degenerative brain diseases.

If you think that you can maintain love of anyone, besides merely abstractly as saving your own feelings as a good person while you allow them to behave in ways, or hold views that are contemptuous, then you're simply a coward, and don't really practically, actually, really care for them more than wish to maintain a good opinion of yourself in your and their eyes, far more than you actually care for them.

I'm so kind, that I'll never tell you the truth, and despite having contempt for all your thoughts and actions, I still totally love you! I just hate everything about you, and don't trust you.

Both those values would be fickle, and based in mood, which is never consistent, and unchanging, so their values would be inconsistently in flux. Not denying that people can be inconsistent and fickle, but I don't think that it's ideal, or always true.