• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About RichardY

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

731 profile views
  1. Apparently Jung considered his "answer to Job" his best Work. You might want to read it, Many self help authors reference Jung. I haven't read it, but his conclusion is something like God is not Moral, if he were he wouldn't be all knowing. In that sense man maybe, superior to God. Whether you want to say the self is equivalent to a spiritual entity(God), or a meat bag collection of cells. The self you perhaps could say is not moral. It is the ego that is moral. Got the flu myself, so not going to expend much brainpower for now, No God yet!!! or period, like to see how different things contrast.
  2. 5- Thinker & 4 - Individualist lean towards 6 (loyalist) though. Need to work on being more 4. I guess it depends on how you perceive the World. In my perception Tony Blair, Obama, Bush, are not peacemakers, based on death tolls, some very horrific, like continued use of phosphorous weapons, maybe flamethrowers would be more humane, but the perception does not look as good. Add to that destruction of infrastructure. However it's entirely possible, they see themselves as Peacemakers. And are widely seen as peacemakers. Perhaps a correction mechanism. I guess if you were genuinely enlightened it wouldn't apply, you wouldn't care and invest ego in it. Even everyday, things Nursery school teacher is probably a nine, eight or seven, but if she goes around phoning up parents, social services, unless she's in a nice area, might not last long. If the parents have any number of potential problem. Who knows? Like Drug dealing on the street, you see it, but you don't see it...… I guess like the pink gorilla thing or something like that. Numerous diagrams online obviously, pinch of salt stuff. Be interesting to watch the video on perception. The unconscious is powerful.
  3. @Shiva If there's is the necessity, sure. To endure. I would be careful using garbage as an emotive judgement, go back a few thousand years and people were still cannibals, still are sometimes in 2nd world countries. I believe bride burning ceremonies, both Viking concubines and Indian wives. Would sometimes eat some of the departed. From calorific point of view generally not. Nutrients and other things you have your fill right? I don't know my blood work so might be deficient. @bejapuskas I can't choose to hurt a person, an animal for food, would depend on the person and to choose is not to be a person. Perhaps like dental work without anaesthetic, if you resist you'll eventually pass out, perhaps, not entirely sure...…., or go ballistic with adrenalin. YOU BLEW MY COVER!!!!! A deficiency in some sort of fish oil protein, not sure what, can send you partially crazy, no less than alcohol, so if you know about botany as a smart vegan go ahead. Earlier American settlers died from a meat rich diet sometimes, Heard about it from a rafting instructor, trained I think in Kamloops, his wife was a vegan, she owned the business. Also from some other people near Jasper. I have no problem eating vegan or meat, for months if necessary, maybe a bit with the meat, nitrites aren't good. Liver too high in calories, and possible contaminants. This may sound funny, but I'd much prefer a good book, to a 32Oz Slab of Medium Rare Prime Rib. Upping the numbers doesn't make it more filling. What moral justification can I still use to eat meat? Buy a Happy Meal!
  4. Prefreewill - The ultimate autosave, well I fucked that up badly, shit my hard drive is corrupted!!!!!!
  5. Why bother with justification? If you're starving to death, you really going to chew on a bamboo leaf, when there's a nice steak. (Bit like the movie Golden Child) Diet makes sense, the rest is sentimentality. Interesting diet has religious connotations.
  6. Yes I was thinking the same thing, Instead of posting why not read OSHO's book's or something. Queued responses. Nothing that can be trusted in experience. Enlightened or not. If not experience however then what? Inductive, problem of reasoning. Intellectual energy. There is no one on this forum that I really trust, so tend to keep with knowledge, state of confusion or consumption. "As for a quest for fire", enlightenment, wasting time here. How many people here actively attend spirituality seminars or activities with other people? Maybe quite a few, I don't know.
  7. @Shin Are you getting at the concept of "shin-den?" Read about the concept literally yesterday, probably some collective unconscious influence. The idea that if someone is enlightened one with God, and that the apprentice is willing to learn or work, the master should have no problem sharing his insights and experiences. Ninja or some crap.
  8. Well I guess that's the thing with Nietszche, there is no metaphysic. So from an animalistic perspective(if there is such a thing), it is non dual. The key being leaving out the conception of God however illusionary, Is that possible, I'm not sure that it is, given humans are flawed. Though how some people can justify things like Freewill, without it being a universal. Nietzche definition is, the man who dares to promise.
  9. Not that anyone cares, but WinterKnight, is based on David Copperfield an illusionist. Litterally a few seconds google search shows, it to be the case. A least according to google...... All fun I guess, till it's not.
  10. You could listen to "The Ethics" on Audible. I didn't pay much attention to the beginning section, on modal logic. The emotion section might be useful, but he flips the "ought and is". So as he says he, can conceive of absolute infinity, as the highest human faculty, he then goes on to say how you ought to act with emotions and how they play a role in human decisions. There's a video somewhere on YouTube by Rebecca Goldstein about Spinoza. So perhaps he is enlightened, although equally he could be broken, down through Ego Death, possibly soul death. Although probably highly productive unit/ant, the reasoning I'm not so sure on given the offshoot of Hegel, contributing to mass Imperialism around the globe, Manifest Destiny, and millions dead. The last chapter, has him arguing for a welfare state, that must be maintained with terror. Kind of a "Blood and Iron" view. In terms of raw power and dangerous books, wondering if anyone knows any. In terms of concentrated reasoning, Government is madness. Collectivism is not necessarily so, I think Aristotle would agree. Given Individualism means idiocy in ancient Greek.
  11. To impose on Becoming(Teleological) the act of Being(Ontological), that is the supreme Will to Power. (Nietzsche) A Spinozian or Leibnizian, view would be there is only being. Spinoza, everything is God or Nature. There is no fundamental distinction between God or Nature. Deus, sive Natura: “That eternal and infinite being we call God, or Nature, acts from the same necessity from which he exists”. Equally Spinoza is both a Pantheist & Atheist. If the title of his Main Work "The Ethics" doesn't say unconscious dualist, I'm not sure what will. He is a Hard Determinist, as he say something like, we can't be sure from where are impulses come. "The Book of Not Knowing" seemed to be a partial refinement of his work, or at least heavily influenced. Potentially I think various offshoots of Spinoza are potentially very dangerous. If the purity isn't right, you're screwed. Half-baked enlightenment, I prefer Maya. With Spinoza a lot of what he says is based around emotions towards the middle of his book. He is also very keen on the avoidance of pain, and the pursuit of pleasure. Leibniz; everything is consciousness, a perfect being(monad) is , God. God is perfect, so therefore can't be contaminated. Best of all possible Worlds. Everything that happens is necessarily good, but although necessarily good. He draws a distinction between what is certain, and what is necessarily good. And just because something is certain, does not make it necessarily good. Science is certain in so far as it refers to the cultural macro level, on the quantum level I think things are uncertain. Leibniz was an immaterialist. I think even with computer chips, not sure how true it is, but heard that the quantum level is beginning to take affect. Kant comes from a position of freewill, Deontology(Duty Ethics) is dependent on Freewill. Jordan Peterson From listening to Jordan Peterson 12 Rules for Life, he takes the pure teleological, position. Atheism. So would seem to be in accordant with Nietzsche & Heraclitus(The weeping, Philosopher). I agree that there is an unconscious, whether that is a result of a build up of energy in Flux or a more ordered Maya. Not sure. Tend to go with Maya. As far as progressivism is concerned, pretty sure Jordan Peterson is an ally, for now. From what I've heard about his "Maps of Meaning" is pretty incestuous at one point. I thought that Jordan Peterson saying on Twitter Kavanaugh should resign if he was cleared, was silly, and then backtracking on it. On a reasonable level(leaving out the "Greater Good"), what I noticed was, leaving accusation to last possible moment, lack of range of emotion other than, subtle smirking, lying, not getting her story straight or corroborated or even helping out a friend that was supposedly at the party, assuming her story was true. On a base animalistic level I thought it was a very poor hitjob or even if the story were true. Why not get things straight and then go for it. I think it is worth reading some of Jordan Peterson, books on his booklist, also I think Jung is worth reading direct to a point, and not the multiple interpretations. ----------------------------------------------- Instead being in favour of Freewill or Determinism. Incompatibilism makes the most sense to me, possibly an illusionist.(Maya or Skrýmir). Not everyone is necessarily fully conscious, so freewill can not have an absolute meaning, except to God. To pursue consciousness, Archetypally unsure. Christ the main one in the west. I don't know Krishna or the Buddha in the East. I think Being allows for a multiplicity of meanings, Teleology(Becoming) does not, in so far as things have a purpose.