I will try to prioritise Plotinus, because I have been thinking he is important for a while. But, I am reading several books, writing and looking for work. Some times, there are just not enough hours in a day for thinking about it, and metaphysical thinking is not always easy, and I do find that my thoughts shift. It almost feels as if reality itself, beyond my own stream of consciousness, is changing.

involved in too many conversations to pursue it far. — FrancisRay

Understood.

A negation is always required for a thought or concept. — FrancisRay

Yep, seems that way.

But there would be a way out. — FrancisRay

If negation is always required for thought, but there is a way out, such that negations are not always required, then some system must be possible that is not a (human) system of thought.

I’m beginning to find that out. Amazing to me, how many people don’t know what it is to think, or, knowing that, choose to re-name it and thereby justify their insistence that that’s not really what they’re actually doing.

You've admitted you have no experience, thereby no understanding, of "meditation" which is performative and not cognitive. I understand well enough from my own meditative experience to judge aptly the irrelevance of your questions on that topic. So, in effect, we agree.

for the sake of discussion, this question derived from them definitely works for me. — 180 Proof

Great, then we can discuss / speculate on what causes self organization?

The only concern on my part is that we try to avoid attributing self organization to the world, when it could be the case that we are the one's doing the organizing e.g. "starmaking", "ways of talking", etc. — Manuel

Certainly we are the ones integrating the information at our disposal ( which is always limited ) and drawing a picture / conclusion from it. This is how self organization ( consciousness ) works. For the moment lets just agree that all living creatures self organize this way, though ultimately we need to consider whether it is a self organizing universe that we live in.

It's not so clear to me how to distinguish these two when speaking about the world. The phenomena that arise fleeting in my consciousness seem to be fragmented, incomplete, sometimes random and repetitive. But it could be that when we write or speak to others, we are organizing whatever goes on in the head, in a more structured manner.

I assume something like this happens to other people. — Manuel

I can verify that it is the same for me, but I find conceptual models that agree with observation can be created and over time augmented and improved. Self organization is the primary role of consciousness.
Consciousness performs an immensely complicated task of integrating the information effecting it, and then formulating a response that maintains the self. Over time as novel information becomes available, the self has to adjust as the integrated world view changes - the world view being information about the self.

This again assumes the there's nothing that transcends the logic associated with the mind, or Being. In other words, if we say the essence of consciousness is self-organization then we can easily refer to say Heisenberg uncertainty principle and see that it is something beyond pure reason. — 3017amen

In recent years Heisenberg's uncertainty has been challenged by decoherence - this story is yet to pan out, imo.
By transcendent I assume you mean subconscious. Self organization is largely subconscious, but this doesn't mean its totally beyond understanding.

(why do we have this need to wonder about things like causation, etc.), the Will, and other fixed,/innate/intrinsic abstract features of consciousness and self-awareness. — 3017amen

We need to self organize, If we are to survive, and that is what we are hard wired to do. We are born with a certain set of DNA instructions, but as we live our lives epigenetics turns certain genes on and others off, so our lifestyle contributes to our DNA makeup, which in turn contributes to our consciousness - it is all an integrated process of self organization.
What is epigenetics? - we don't know precisely. It is something that interacts with DNA, seemingly it can interact between consciousness and DNA creating an integrated loop. This, as well as many other similar such insights, leads me to think of consciousness as a whole body integrated loop. That brain structure changes in response to new ideas is another similar example.

If negation is always required for thought, but there is a way out, such that negations are not always required, then some system must be possible that is not a (human) system of thought.

I’m beginning to find that out. Amazing to me, how many people don’t know what it is to think, or, knowing that, choose to re-name it and thereby justify their insistence that that’s not really what they’re actually doing. — Mww

Consciousness is a convoluted thing indeed. This is why I prefer to call it self organization. We are not entirely free to self organize according to the perceived truth but must continue the consciousness we are given at birth, which then slowly evolves over the course of a life time, but must remain to some extent faithful to the established self. The next thought is dependent on all the previous ones. The domino like consciousness must fall and random information can sway its direction, but at the same time we need to be able to cope with, and this may mean exclude, the information that has a significant disintegrative effect on self. And we have this ability in abundance, and it makes for some interesting psychology.

Thus while the rejection of mind-body dualism opens the door to various other ideas, the rejection of all dualism leads ineluctably to mysticism and the single, unique metaphysical doctrine that is non-dualism. — FrancisRay

Materialism rejects dualism, but I don't think it could be called mystical?

Consciousness can be anything we define it as, because we don’t understand it. — Xtrix

Actually consciousness is extremely difficult to define, because its manifestations are endlessly variable and open ended. We can not define it in terms of its end result, as that will continue to evolve, but I think, we can characterize it to some extent via a model that agrees with observation
That consciousness is an evolving process of self organization seems difficult to dispute. so this may be pathway to understand it. - to some extent. There will be those whose self organization will demand it not be understood under any circumstances, and this needs to be respected as this too is a valid form of consciousness if it aids survival.

If a dualist believes in the necessary phenomenon of subjective and objective truth, does that in itself imply a dichotomous cognition?

In constructivist psychology, holding two contradictory concepts as being equally true is the model for mental illness.

That wouldn't meet the definition standards of incoherence. To ask why do things happen vis-a-vis consciousness one of many answers would be the Will. — 3017amen

So consciousness, which we don't understand, happens because of the "will," which we also don't understand.

Maybe ectoplasm happens because of a zflectov? Or whatever else you like. Regardless, it gets us exactly nowhere.

No. You said logic isn’t abstract. Logic most certainly is abstract, as is mathematics.

Consciousness can be anything we define it as, because we don’t understand it.
— Xtrix

How do you reconcile the fact that a simple a priori syllogism is not abstract yet the nature of such is abstract (formal logic equals mathematics)? — 3017amen

They're both abstract. Whatever an "a prior syllogism" is, I don't know. But if it's a syllogism, it's abstract.

You're using terms like "abstract" and "logical" in a very strange way. Either define your terms or stop wasting everyone's time.

No. I’m referring to what you and I do every day, almost every second of every day in fact. We talk to ourselves all day long. Introspect for a while and you’ll see what I mean.
— Xtrix

I'm not exactly following that can you provide an example? — 3017amen

This is meant as a joke, right? If not -- I'm done with this conversation.

Consciousness can be anything we define it as, because we don’t understand it.
— Xtrix

Actually consciousness is extremely difficult to define, because its manifestations are endlessly variable and open ended. — Pop

No, we can define it any way we'd like precisely because we don't understand it. Something we don't understand isn't "hard to define" -- it's just unknown. So the "its" in your sentence refers to essentially nothing.

If we're talking in ordinary conversation, fine -- then everyone knows what consciousness is. But that doesn't mean we have any understanding in a philosophical or scientific sense. Just like using "energy" or "work" -- we can use those words in everyday life and most of us know exactly what it is. But that's not how the physicists use the terms.

That consciousness is an evolving process of self organization seems difficult to dispute. — Pop

In a way, yes. Because most incoherent sentences are difficult to dispute. You've been going on and on about "self-organization" for a while now, yet have no idea what it means. So now we have two terms we don't understand. So saying "x is y" doesn't tell us anything whatsoever.

consciousness, which we don't understand, happens because of the "will," which we also don't understand. — Xtrix

No. The Will, using pure reason, is one unexplained feature of consciousness.

They're both abstract. Whatever an "a prior syllogism" is, I don't know. But if it's a syllogism, it's abstract. — Xtrix

You may want to take a refresher on the basics of logic. As mentioned earlier a basic syllogism/propositions of all men are mortals, Socrates is a man, bachelor's are unmarried, ad nauseum, is a priori.

Either define your terms or stop wasting everyone's time. — Xtrix

Backatcha ☺ you may want to take the time and watch the OP video.

Be well

recent years Heisenberg's uncertainty has been challenged by decoherence - this story is yet to pan out, imo.
By transcendent I assume you mean subconscious. Self organization is largely subconscious, but this doesn't mean its totally beyond understanding. — Pop

Pop! Just two clarifications on that point:



1. The point I'm making is that if we consider consciousness a self-organized being, then it implies Kantian pure reason. In our discussion, pure reason has its limitations viz. Heisenberg, Godel, etc..

2. And so if we were to use this logic, our own sense of logic, it would not be able to explain the nature of, in this case [your] self-organization. For that reason it transcends our sense of logic. (The conscious and subconscious mind all working together of course is a whole nother discussion/distinction.)

If a dualist believes in the necessary phenomenon of subjective and objective truth, does that in itself imply a dichotomous cognition?

In constructivist psychology, holding two contradictory concepts as being equally true is the model for mental illness. — Pop

Interesting. What is constructivist psychology?

In the alternative, using logic, that could basically be interpreted as violating the law of excluded middle/bivalence. However in that case, it has more to do with the conscious and subconscious mind working together during the cognitive process, not necessarily subjective-objective truths, unless of course you wanted to parse the differences ( had an interest in that particular area of apperception.

In any event I was wondering if you were going to try to link subjectivity and objectivity (in every sense) to some sort of dualism mind-body problem. You know, making a connection between the physical world which is inanimate, purposeless yet determined, whereas the mental world involves consciousness, self-awareness, planning, willing, desiring, etc..

No, we can define it any way we'd like precisely because we don't understand it. Something we don't understand isn't "hard to define" -- it's just nonsense. So the "its" in your sentence refers to nothing. — Xtrix

I'm not sure I understand you. As a living organism you need to self organize. You need to create a self, If you are to avoid fragmentation. Internally you are self organized, down to the smallest particle , and externally you organize the whole in relation to the information effecting you, so you are self organizing.
Metaphysically something can only exist in relation to something else, and a living organism exists in relation to much external information. The externalities are cognized by way of energy waves reaching the senses to be interpreted as information. The state of integrated information is consciousness and it facilitates self organization. Now possessing a state of integrated information you can act on it. Thus achieving self organization.
Where is the nonsense?

If we're talking in ordinary conversation, fine -- then everyone knows what consciousness is — Xtrix

This is the interesting thing, If consciousness is endlessly variable and open ended then each manifestation of consciousness is unique, hence at least slightly different. So when we refer to consciousness, and assume it is the same thing for everyone, we are wrong. We only have full access to one consciousness - our own, and what we really do is project that consciousness onto another. This is why self organization is a more fitting term, it acknowledges that each consciousness is unique, but at the same time, regardless of uniqueness, it acknowledges that what is being facilitated is self organization.

You've been going on and on about "self-organization" for a while now, yet have no idea what it means. So now we have two terms we don't understand — Xtrix

My understanding has evolved - consciousness is an evolving process of self organization. :smile:

You may want to take a refresher on the basics of logic. — 3017amen

:lol: This coming from a guy who says a symbolism isn’t abstract? Give me a break.

As a living organism you need to self organize. You need to create a self, If you are to avoid fragmentation. — Pop

We have no idea what “self” is either. But even if we did, to say it needs to be “organized” is meaningless to me. Is the self a collection of puzzle pieces, or parts that need to be put together to create the “self”? Who knows... and who cares.

Internally you are self organized, down to the smallest particle , and externally you organize the whole in relation to the information effecting you, so you are self organizing. — Pop

This is simply rambling to me.

:yawn:

Interesting. What is constructivist psychology? — 3017amen

Psychology originated by Piaget and Kelly. Very popular outside the US.

1. The point I'm making is that if we consider consciousness a self-organized being, then it implies Kantian pure reason. Graph with all the change and in our discussion pure reason has its limitations viz. Heisenberg, Godel, etc..

2. And so if we were to use this logic, our own sense of logic, it would not be able to explain the nature in this case of [your] self-organization. For that reason it transcends our sense of logic. (The conscious and subconscious mind all working together of course is a whole nother discussion/distinction.) — 3017amen

The conscious and the subconscious are not necessarily in conflict. Recent research shows brain structure changes in response to new ideas. Gene profiles change in response to lifestyle. At the same time our consciousness changes in response to this knowledge, as well as these physical changes. There is relational evolution occurring even at this level. There will be a lot that we cannot answer for sure, but inroads are always made, albeit small ones.

We risk going off topic with Heisenberg and Gödel. There are good arguments now that dispute the traditional interpretation of both of these.

In any event I was wondering if you we're going to try to link subjectivity and objectivity (in every sense) to some sort of dualism mind-body problem. You know, making a connection between the physical world which is inanimate, purposeless yet determined, whereas the mental world involves consciousness, self-awareness, planning, willing, desiring, etc. — 3017amen

Self organization is now well established in abiogenesis, systems and complexity theory, biology, ecology, sociology, etc. There is the question of is the universe self organizing? If so, then how could we possibly be any different , given we are an element of it?
Issues such as self awareness, planning, willing, etc are all aspects of self organization, so I'm wondering what is its underlying logic? How do others understand it? What can they tell me?

Complexity theory would have it that self organization arises fundamentally from fluctuating patterns of energy. Is this all there is to it? Is it arbitrary?

Self organization creates a self - from elements entirely external to self. It is ubiquitous, and If everything in the universe is self organizing, it is this concept that is responsible for everything's existence.

Great, then we can discuss / speculate on what causes self organization? — Pop

You must have missed this link I provided in my previous post – Autopoiesis. It's a physical topic and not metaphysical except, maybe, analogously. Thoughts?

Yes, but only when "metaphysical analysis" is inadequate (i.e. Woo-of-the-Gaps via the principle of explosion). From the incoherent to the unintelligible is the shortest "leap of faith" imaginable. — 180 Proof

I don't know what this means. I'm endorsing logical analysis, avoiding any explosions. But people just don't want to do the sums. Nor is there any need for faith. Indeed, this is what I'm trying to say. .

But hey ho. It's tough fighting against entrenched views.

I'm happy to leave it here.

If negation is always required for thought, but there is a way out, such that negations are not always required, then some system must be possible that is not a (human) system of thought.

I’m beginning to find that out. Amazing to me, how many people don’t know what it is to think, or, knowing that, choose to re-name it and thereby justify their insistence that that’s not really what they’re actually doing. — Mww

There are no excepions to the rule. negation are always required. The point is not that there is a way around this limit, but that we can know more than we can think. Nobody is re-naming anything. We're only agreeing with Kant. . .



. . ./

Consciousness is a convoluted thing indeed..... — Pop

Perhaps consciousness is only as convoluted as the myriad of metaphysical systems under which it is viewed. Favor a system, find consciousness in it, define its parameters or its logical relations......done deal.

.......This is why I prefer to call it self organization. — Pop

That’s fine, we all have our preferences. Self-organization carries the implication that consciousness is some sort of cognitive faculty susceptible to reason, but I rather think consciousness is the quality of the manifold of that which is reasoned about, which makes consciousness passive rather than the active self-organization implies.

Much as red-ness is the quality of the state of being red, fit-ness is the quality of the state of being fit, so too consciousness is the quality of the state of being conscious.

“....Consequently, only because I can connect a variety of given representations in one consciousness, is it possible that I can represent to myself the identity of consciousness in these representations; in other words, the thought, "These representations given in intuition belong all of them to me," is accordingly just the same as, "I unite them in one consciousness, or can at least so unite them"; and although this thought is not itself the consciousness of the synthesis of representations, it presupposes the possibility of it; that is to say, for the reason alone that I can comprehend the variety of my representations in one consciousness, do I call them my representations, for otherwise I must have as many-coloured and various a self as are the representations of which I am conscious....”

Given this (favored) rendition of what consciousness is, the rest of your comment can be seen as otherwise, re: we have no consciousness at birth, consciousness has nothing whatsoever to do with perceived truth, consciousness doesn’t evolve over the course of a life time (although the aggregate of its contents certainly does), it does, on the other hand, remain faithful to the established self, because it is the established self.
—————

makes for some interesting psychology. — Pop

Ehhhh.....psychology: the pure metaphysician’s arch-enemy.

Metaphysician: I’ll tell you how I think.
Psychologist: I’ll tell you how you think.

In the immortal words of Darryl Hall.....I can’t go for that, oohhhhnooooo. (Grin)

Okay.

There are no excepions to the rule. negation are always required. — FrancisRay

YEA!!!! Glad you see things my way. Now....lets you and me knock some sense into the rest of the world.......
—————

The point is not that there is some way around this limit, but that we can know more than we can think. — FrancisRay

Annnnnddd......that shot our wonderful agreement all to hell. Dammit!!!

We can know more than we can think, but “...I can think whatever I want (provided only that I do not contradict myself)....”. If there’s no limit to what I can think, but I can know more than I can think......how in the HELL does that work????

Must be aggravating, talkin’ to folks who can’t see the other side, huh?

I think you should at least do some reading. The entire message of mysticism is that Knowledge outruns thought. This is explained at vast length in ten thousand texts. .

But yes, it is aggravating.

I think you should at least do some reading. — FrancisRay

Yeah, but that presupposes an interest, and at my age....and my seriously ingrained predispositions....is solely lacking. But, on the other hand, I wouldn’t dare deny others their own interests.

There is a possible tension between mere explanatory metaphysics and ones which are bound up with making life meaningful. I think that some more reductionist philosophies fall into that category whereas many of the mystic philosophies went beyond that in providing knowledge in a way which offered meaning or mythic structure. I am sure that many of our time view the mystics as being mere romantics. On the other hand, some of philosophies of our time, especially those interconnected with the physical sciences are so reductive that they do provide any deeper sense of meaning for many.

I am not sure that there is any easy resolution for this problem because we wish to find answers which work on both levels. It is possible that some may be able to find meaning within reductionist philosophies and some can find causal explanations within the mystical. However finding the balance, from my point of view, is part of the art of metaphysics, because it is about explanations, but concepts are interconnected with our way of seeing reality.

And so if we were to use this logic, our own sense of logic, it would not be able to explain the nature in this case of [your] self-organization. For that reason it transcends our sense of logic. (The conscious and subconscious mind all working together of course is a whole nother discussion/distinction.) — 3017amen
The conscious and the subconscious are not necessarily in conflict. Recent research shows brain structure changes in response to new ideas. — Pop

Unfortunately, using logic, the subconscious and conscious mind would transcend common logic. Like the law of bivalence, one cannot clearly delineate the object perceived as being unitary, or describe it in a unitary fashion without contradiction. For instance, driving while daydreaming, then crashing and dying, provides for the phenomenon of the mind performing two functions simultaneously. In that case, either the conscious or subconscious mind was driving, not dreaming of a beach in the Med.. And so in that strict sense neither the conscious nor the subconscious was driving, there was some combination of both at work.

And that suggests, although a great description (yours!) in its own right, a self-organized mind or entity is nonetheless incomplete, in a strict logical sense. And accordingly, we know Heisenberg and /Gödel demonstrated the flaws in logic's completeness and resulting randomness, which perhaps leads us to this... .

Complexity theory would have it that self organization arises fundamentally from fluctuating patterns of energy. Is this all there is to it? Is it arbitrary? — Pop

QM (and to some degree double slits and PAP-see John Wheeler) has also taught us that there is such a thing as an open system in the universe. An element of determinism and randomness. In our discussion I analogize randomness to a Maslonian stream of consciousness that allows for random thoughts to present themselves. But what do these thoughts represent? Are they images, and intellectual concepts (among other things) from sense experience only coming back to 'haunt us'? Or are they innate features of consciousness (novel synthetic a priori knowledge), where in this case, they may simply be both. Does the hard drive represent Kantian intuition?

For example, I used the computer metaphor of the software consisting of sense experience, and the hardware consisting of a fixed, innate operating system of self-awareness, or as you may refer to it as, self-organization. The hardware operating system is a type of Kantian blank canvass, that has the logically necessary functions to be able to receive and compute sense data.

I think you raise some wonderfully intriguing questions about the self-organized mind. I will continue to ponder your other questions, thank you Pop!

Hmmm. I have an idea of what it means to have a self. Granted, it's not much, but I make use of such a concept with relative frequency. Organization is a little tricky. Is the universe organized or disorganized?

One idea is that the universe is going towards disorder (entropy...) , in between the state that was the singularity and now, we've moved from "organized"(?) to disorganization, but since there's billions of years in between, we have some pockets where this "order" appears. That's Sean Carroll's view on the matter. Others disagree, such as Arieh Ben-Naim, who has studied entropy his whole life.

I'm not sure speaking of objects or creatures organizing is clear. Maybe they do, but what does organize mean in this situation?

As far as consciousness goes, it seems to me that there's an element of relevance that on occasion pops up, such as crossing a street and seeing a car about to hit you. In these moments one becomes very aware of things.

But a lot of it also seems to be kind of automatic. Sure, awareness is on all the time, but what becomes central to it is not subject to one's volition.

Maybe they do, but what does organize mean in this situation? — Manuel

It doesn’t mean anything. It’s just a word used to explain another word, and this is supposed to be interesting. It’s really the incoherent ramblings of someone on the Internet. Even if it were true— who cares? Maybe everything is organization. Yes. Maybe everything is God, nature, energy, will, reason, objectivity, etc etc. Just add it to the list and then we can feel like we’ve accomplished something.

It doesn’t mean anything. It’s just a word used to explain another word, and this is supposed to be interesting. It’s really the incoherent ramblings of someone on the Internet. Even if it were true— who cares? Maybe everything is organization. Yes. Maybe everything is God, nature, energy, will, reason, objectivity, etc etc. Just add it to the list and then we can feel like we’ve accomplished something. — Xtrix

Sure, but isn't that true of all words? That is at bottom, when we continue explaining what a word means, we can only go to other words, until we reach the point of gesturing like a crazy person to an object saying "this is what I mean"! (Minus mathematics, I think.)

I think I understand what it means to have an organized room, or an organized schedule. Does that apply to the world? Not as we use the word ordinarily.

But if your approach is on the right track, why speak of "will" or "being"? It's not as if these questions need to have a theoretical answer applicable to the mind-independent world. As is the case with Locke and psychic continuity, for example. Or Goodman's idea of Starmaking.

It doesn’t mean anything. It’s just a word used to explain another word, and this is supposed to be interesting. It’s really the incoherent ramblings of someone on the Internet. Even if it were true— who cares? Maybe everything is organization. Yes. Maybe everything is God, nature, energy, will, reason, objectivity, etc etc. Just add it to the list and then we can feel like we’ve accomplished something. — Xtrix

You're in a Metaphysic's thread, not a uninformed political one. Not sure why you're even participating in this one because in either case, you're certainly not doing philosophy. You seem to have an axe to grind...

What you say makes some sense. But for me metaphysics is a matter of logic and reason and it makes no difference who's doing it or what we want from it. It's just cold, hard logic.The facts of metaphysics are demonstrable. It makes no difference whether we're a physicist, a mystic or a plumber.

I would agree that many people see metaphysics as an excuse for a lot of woolly nonsense and speculative opinions, but in an academic context it is a science of logic with no room for opinion or speculation. The speculation only has to begin when it comes to interpretation of results. The results are not speculative and leave no room for dispute.

This is clear if you review the literature. Approximately all philosophers everywhere agree that metaphysics does not produce a positive result, which is to say it does not endorse a positive theory. The only alternative is a neutral theory which is mysticism. No speculation or opinion is required, just the calculations.

Of course, the subject becomes almost impossibly complex if one denies the facts and rejects mysticism, as we see from the literature. It is very much simpler if one is free of ideology and treat it like mathematics. This is a point made by Merrill-Wolff, a famous writer on philosophy and consciousness who trained as a pure mathematician. In metaphysics it is always best to shut up and calculate. . . . . .

. . . . . . .

You're in a Metaphysic's thread, not a uninformed political one. — 3017amen

This response is as coherent as anything else you’ve said.

What does politics have to do with ANYTHING I said?

Also, “metaphysics” is not an excuse for rambling incoherently. Perhaps try a new age thread.

My only axe to grind is with your mantra about “self organization,” which is devoid of meaning.

What you say makes some sense. But for me metaphysics is a matter of logic and reason and it makes no difference who's doing it or what we want from it. It's just cold, hard logic.The facts of metaphysiis are demonstrable. It makes no difference whether we're a physicist, a mystic or a plumber. — FrancisRay

Point well taken. As the video suggested, the part of metaphysics that's intriguing is that it uses logic to arrive at illogical conclusions which in turn, comprise consciousness and Being (itself), which is another reason why I posited the analogy to the concept of a God. In other words, using logic, we can't even explain our own conscious existence, so how are to explain a cosmological God's(?).

But perhaps more importantly, that may return us back to causation ex nihilo (turtle power), which seems to be analogous to Kant's synthetic a priori judgements/propositions that have pragmatic, quality of life implications. So we indeed can't overlook this innate sense of wonderment that has enhanced our quality of life in so many ways ( our ability to ask questions/critique and make improvements)...thanks for your continued contribution FR!

which is devoid of meaning. — Xtrix

In the spirit of Metaphysics, explain for us what it means to you to apperceive meaning?

This response is as coherent as anything else you’ve said. — Xtrix

“The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim