JosephKnecht

The analysis was good. I have just two points. 1. Jordan Peterson has a deep love for his wife. He will be willing to let go of science, religion, metaphysics, but as long as his wife is alive, he will never give up his love for her. She will lead him to God. 2. JP has a deep attachment to his body of work. The body of work is preventing him to do the work. @Leo Gura Although in the past you have made ad-hominem attacks at people (Trump, Haris, Peterson, etc), you have never made them the focus of your critique. You have always aimed the critique at their values rather than the person. Why make things personal now? "Attacking" the "highest" intellectual will give you more notoriety, but in the long run, it corrupts you.

On the other hand, holding two different Realizations fractures your sense of identity. Eventually, it becomes unhealthy(not integrous) and you must choose One. You choose the one that is the most "Real".

You are attracted to people with a massive ego because you have tried hard to repress your own ego. Your deepest desire is to be authentic, and the Ego people are authentically selfish. You are attracted to their authenticity, not the Ego. You have disowned your ego, and have created a shadow out of it. Instead of disowning, you have to integrate, then transcend. Nice guys(opposite of Jerks ) are not attractive because they have also disowned their Ego, and they use their "niceness" in an attempt to fulfill their desires. Since niceness is just a coping mechanism, it is unauthentic and thus unattractive. If you find an authentic nice guy, it is probably the Buddha, so you must kill him.

You are trying to intellectualize his ideas. Don't do that. What Leo talks about is not a concept or a model. Every concept/model is not true. If you need money/survival before you actualize, you should do that. Follow your intuition on what you need. If some solipsistic philosophy is not your cup of tea, find the cup of tea you would enjoy.

Read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. She describes an idealized objective version of man from all aspects.

Giuseppe Tornatore is one of my favorite directors. You have to see Cinema Paradiso and The Legend of 1900. His movies touch the transcendent. Bonus: Watch Malena if you want to understand the drawbacks of beauty. (Features Monica Bellucci in her prime )

My name is not Joseph. It's a pseudonym. There is a difference between a personal name and a name of a business. A business name is supposed to provide a symbolic reference under which a company can differentiate itself. Its acts as a collective Ego, and the collective ego serves as an umbrella under which all small egos are united. When you are born, you didn't choose your name. A name was given to you, and you claimed it as yours. The Ego claims things that it didn't create. The ego knows that it will disappear, so it clings to its name. The family name is an extension of this survival agenda that aims to propagate itself onto the next generation. It was not MLK, nor Pittagoras that improved humanity. It was their spirit. Whether you call it MLK or MILK, it makes little difference.

It's a trap of the Ego. It wants to leave a legacy.

A wise man was once talking about integrity. I wonder what happened? @Leo Gura

The text below is an excerpt from the same chapter... ...we Athenians are concerned above all with improvement; the Spartans seek only – stasis. Two opposite objectives. If you think about it, I believe you’ll soon agree that this is the single source of all the myriad differences between the two cities. PLATO: I never thought of it that way before, but I think I do agree. Let me try out the theory. Here’s one difference between the cities: Sparta has no philosophers. That’s because the job of a philosopher is to understand things better, which is a form of change, so they don’t want it. Another difference: they don’t honour living poets, only dead ones. Why? Because dead poets don’t write anything new, but live ones do. A third difference: their education system is insanely harsh; ours is famously lax. Why? Because they don’t want their kids to dare to question anything, so that they won’t ever think of changing anything...

In Chapter 10 of the book, there is a dialogue between Socrates (the wisest man) and Hermes(messenger of God). The dialogue is one of the best takes on Epistemology that I have seen yet. I highly recommend reading this chapter: https://publicism.info/science/infinity/11.html The rest of the book is also insightful.

You introduce them to each other and pray to the Gods that they find each other attractive.

Self Vs. Not Self.

@machiavelli Machiavellianism in psychology refers to a personality trait which sees a person so focused on their own interests they will manipulate, deceive, and exploit others to achieve their goals. Imagine all your needs are met. Everything you ever wanted, you got. What do you do then? Wouldn't you imagine a new game and start over? A game is only fun to play when it is constrained. Reality is a fun game exactly because it is constrained.

You have to think out of the box. There are more options than those two. You can rape the rapist. This frees the victim and gives the rapist exactly what he needs.