Cred

(I think you meant ND above is that correct?) I agree with you and I'm aware of the risk. When I think the truth is true and important, then I speak it. That's what autism is. But this is also what autism is: If you have a truth that I don't know, YOU NEED TO TELL ME I NEED TO KNOW WHAT I DON'T KNOW. That's why I have faith that it's going to work out. Fun fact: The purpose of the book of not knowing is to balance out this autistic obsession of wanting to know. It helps to induce stability in the space that is spanned by the duality wanting to know, letting go of wanting to know. What he is trying to describe with "the state of not knowing" is precisely that balance of the duality.

Why are you talking to people on the internet right now then? Why aren't you outside and talking to people? Aren't you being a bad bad individual right now by your own standarts?

Bro, you could literally not be more wrong. I'm actually impressed. I want you to describe to me how you think someone can develop resentment without culture.

Did you consider that I might have arrived at this conclusion by observing humans and contemplating about human nature? The question that I'm asking you is this: Why is Leo so uncorrupt? Why does he not run ads on this forum? Why does his "store" only contain two products? Is there something unique about Leo that makes him value truth above corruption? The answer is yes but actually no. Leo is unique, however, there are plenty of people like him. It's just called autism. The idea of getting autistic people into power is not a lofty idea at all. In fact, autistic people are already in power currently. The reason why there's so much suffering is simply because of their self-hatred and because ot the fact that they genuinely believe that liberalism is true. If you structure society in such a way that autistic marxists have all the hard power, then there will be a lot less corruption, and inequality and injustice will slowly be eroded.

CHALLENGE wait for it ACCEPTED

What the HELLY???

i'm actually with Leo on his take about the danger of mentally ill people, especially narcissists. They do so much damage to society, especially to the people who are closest to them, and they are not aware of it at all. If I was in charge of a country, I think I would actually try to identify narcissists and put them in psychiatric clinics involuntarily in order to help them. You might now scream that this would be anti-freedom. But the problem that I would be addressing is that a shit ton, if not most of the people who are currently in psychiatric clinics, arrived there as a result of the abuse from narcissists or other cluster B disorders. I would honestly prefer to live in a less free world where this unfair imbalance does not exist. also, since the root of the problem would be addressed, the problem would actually become less severe in the long-term. The problem with the current system is that it just allows for narcissist to run free and ruin everybody's lives.

HAHAHAHAHA I'm dying! Take my money! AHAHA

How did you come to that conclusion?

My model is way more powerful than both the MBTI, the Big Five and even the DSM-5. The problem with these models is that they just blindly categorize while they don't explain shit and have no root in ontology. They all can be completely explained with my model. I might make a post about that in the future.

@Basman I'm not saying to get rid of Neurotypical people. Also I'm not saying their existence is less justified just because it's more simple. In some way, the Zen existence is the most simple yet it is ridiculous to use this as reason to get rid of them or something. In that way, I am not making the same mistake as Ayn Rand who believes that the genius of the world can somehow just survive without the normies. If you truly understand my argument, you will realize that I'm saying that the geniuses might be able to create the finest gourmet meals, which suck at keeping you alive like simple, warmed up meals do. This is what Marxism is. It is precisely the notion that the state should mainly care about its working class since all of existence and economics is rooted in it and not in the lofty ideas of the few geniuses. This is why in in Leninism, it is required for a small group of the elite to commit "class suicide" and dedicate themselves to the needs of the simple people. This is why Marxism is literally the opposite of fascism. Fascist are very open about that fact. There is no fascism without communism. It is a direct response to communism.

I'm actually with you. The more I'm learning about human nature the more I realize that corruption is just a mix of people who are corrupt out of self-hatred and people who are corrupt out of conformity, which makes your scenario actually not that unrealistic if the issue of safe hatred would be solved by some radical idea. This is why I'm not just pursuing Marxist-Leninist activism but am also trying to build something that might just make ML so powerful that it does not require a lot of violence for a revolution. My take right now on the revolution is however to try to make it as likely as possible, even if it requires violence. The reason being that I believe it is unreasonable to say that sparing the lives of a hand full of billionaires for the price of upholding the capitalist system with its thousands of victims unnecessarily is justified.

How are you planning to deal with the ones who profit from polarization in the current system. They will not just allow you to go along and install your system that promises unity, because that would mean them loosing power and prestige.

This is what Marxism-Leninism is at its core.

@Butters I want you to explain to me why you think a social person is somehow good and a person who is socializing through the internet is somehow "not doing harm but also not good" Because there are no grandmas to save on the internet? That's a shallow argument.

@Butters I agree with Leo here (if I understand this point correctly). You have a very simplistic view of the concept "good person". What you are saying is discriminating against the autistic mode of existence.

This is what I meant with fighting your own shadow

Is your point different from the point that I am making? If yes, I'm not seeing the difference.

You probably expect me to dismiss your observation. The opposite is true. There's a lot of truth in this statement. There is a very subtle distinction between the myth that I am talking about and the myth of the Arian. There's a reason why the fascist mythos which is now manifesting again in the form of the ideology of the pseudo-philosopher Ayn Rand was and is able to gain such momentum. The distinction that I'm talking about is that fascism is enacting and celebrating the myth of Prometheus while I am trying to point to the enactment of the myth of Heracles. The reason why my narrative is so intertwined with the fascist narrative is simply because the Heracles narrative is so intertwined with the Prometheus narrative. I have written about my current interpretation of the Greek Mythos here:

The attack was an authentic reflection of my emotion. Also, since I'm a Marxist Leninist, I am strictly pro propaganda and pro censorship. The culture war is not an authentic reflection of freedom of speech. It is an abomination that is created by Evil billionaires like the Murdochs. For me, it is illogical to play nice with these demons. If these people are allowed to exist in this world, then relentless conflict will never end, since they profit from it. This is why I want to see red. It is simply ridiculous to me to claim that everyone is entitled to their harmful opinions.

I think I also see a point about non-fragmentation. The first image can be interpreted as roads leading outward to different destinations with the second image showing there's actually just one that lies back at the center after a full hero's journey which is at the absolute.

Either make a nuanced argument or stfu about judging other peoples lifes.

@Carl-Richard I must say you're a very inspiring force for me. The way you (a bit dismissively) described my approach by saying that I interpret the DSM-5 concepts as metaphysical principles inspired me to double down on that idea. The way I tried to describe narcissism today was to postulate that the self is the space that is created by the relationship between the true self and the self image, with that space being unstable in a personality disorder. When I had this thought, it made sense in my head, but it was in someway unsatisfying for me to just pull this concept of the self image out of my ass to be able to explain personality disorder. It seems to me now that the default mode network seems to be the mechanism behind the self image, while the tasking network might relate to set true self. Of course, this is just a rough connection that I saw in your description of the pair which is itself rough as you said. However, I think it is an interesting thought to think about and share.

@YIDIRYIDIR the reason you don't understand what I mean by duality is because I explained neither the crystal nor the fragment. The problem is that in my model, duality is defined through these symbols and their relationship to direct being. I have written about the crystal and the fragment here but I have since polished the concept and managed to reduce the eight principles in the post down to three plus two. These three are sequentiality, simultaneity and interactivity (sensitivity). The other two are unity and duality, with the physical three dimensional space being some kind of "pure" form of duality. I think. It's a work in progress. You see, there's still a lot of polishing to do. Unfortunately neither the fragment nor the crystal is explained in the post "An ontology of hell [...]"

I thought this would fit here: