RichardY

@darind There you go.

Yes sounds that way. I think 'no self' makes the most sense to me, not sure whether that is out of vanity/envy. Not a place for disagreement unless 'ye' can mutually call each other friend. Critique would be one better. Although I keep a relative scoreboard. Self: The unrealised parts of the personality (Jung). His god being Pantheistic; Abraxas. Ego: Mediating(Freud) and Regulating(Jung). Memory which memes. I: Relation to God. "The ever present I am". Soul: That which transcends flesh (maybe.... Buddhism rejects the idea of soul or gods. Jainism and Christianity supports the idea) Instead of the red and yellow, and pink and green..... I like to weight people relatively. Genghis Khan: Red, Blue, Orange whatever. Badass +20. Genius I.Q +10. Open to Discussion +5. Honest +10. Born to Kill +10. The Young Turks(Green): Named after Genocidal Group -20. Popular -5. OSHO(Turquise): Terrorist Cult Leader -15. Dishonest -15. Very Good Presentation +5. Sadhguru(Turquoise): Ontological +5. Religion of Balance -5. Jordan Peterson(Orange/Green): Teleological -5. Dishonest - 15. Good I.Q +5. Different Ideas +5.

Reminded of the story of that guy who got his arm stuck in a canyon wall, who then had to break it, and then cut it off with his pen knife. Absolute Truth To a pantheist - Absolute Infinity. To a Christian - Jesus Christ. To an Objectivist - Freewill. To a Buddhist - Nirvana. To Nietzsche - A fiction. To a Muslim - The Koran. To me - Being, for lack of a better word. For some reason the archetypal Behemoth(The Ox) does not resonate with me, Leviathan(The Serpent) however does.

Purpose is a teleological(Becoming) principle. Ultimately I think it's wrong and choose Ontology(Being). Your purpose could be something as plain as, to start a family. Not "The Family" unless you're aiming for cult leader.

@lmfao More of a process of elimination. And Geiger counter. I had listened to the early Socratic dialogues on Audible, but disliked the later ones done by Plato, the language was a lot more flowery. I started reading "The Republic" but stopped after a few pages, as his logic totally contradicted the idea of having a state. As for the ideal forms, I think the idea was not developed sufficiently, having form but no substance to it, there's no means for any interaction, it would be like sticking clipart drawing into a document. It's not something I know a lot about, Leibniz seems to have used some of Plato's idea but given form substance and explained things as part of a larger being. I consider utilitarianism to be Evil. It subordinates everything to man and makes him a facsimile. ------------ John Stuart Mill on Liberty He who lets the world, or his own portion of it, choose his plan of life for him, has no need of any other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation. He who chooses his plan for himself, employs all his faculties. He must use observation to see, reasoning and judgment to foresee, activity to gather materials for decision, discrimination to decide, and when he has decided, firmness and self-control to hold to his deliberate decision. And these qualities he requires and exercises exactly in proportion as the part of his conduct which he determines according to his own judgment and feelings is a large one. It is possible that he might be guided in some good path, and kept out of harm's way, without any of these things. But what will be his comparative worth as a human being? It really is of importance, not only what men do, but also what manner of men they are that do it. Among the works of man, which human life is rightly employed in perfecting and beautifying, the first in importance surely is man himself. ----------- Pragmatism also Evil. If 5 people agree to rob from 1 person for the greater good, I still consider it wrong. As a offshoot of pragmatism I consider democracy evil. Pragmatism though can be a seductive excuse or expedient, still evil. Ultimately though I'm willing to entertain the possibility there is no evil, I've only found that theism supports the idea of evil. Kant's Categorical imperative falls short.

From Psyhcological Types C.G Jung. The introvert is skewed heavily towards subjectivism. (Cogito ergo cogito) "I think therefore I think". The Extrovert to Objectivism (Est ergo Est) It is therefore it is, (A is A) --------------------------- Unconscious vanity; some equate vanity to pride, but the authors I agree with, in part; Thomas Aquinas and Nietzsche equate it to a lack of pride and to envy.

Virtually all mainstream news is propaganda; it's how they make their money. I remember a story on the local news maybe about 10 years a go, how license fees for herbal remedy stores had basically destroyed independent retailers, £30,000 is nothing to large chain UK retailers like Boots or Holland & Barret.

@Hardkill Reminded of the Daoist 3 treasures. Kindness, Simplicity and Humility. Correspond to "The Knightly virtues". Of course if you are projecting out, and not dealing with pure abstractions, the root is humility. Kindness Courage. - Comparison of matters of fact. Justice. - An artificial virtue based on scarcity. (David Hume) Mercy. - The quality of mercy is not strained. It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven. (Shakespeare) Simplicity Generosity. Nobility. Humility Faith. Hope.

@Hardkill Then it's not an issue of obligation or simplicity; but one of kindness and connection.

Sounds like some Yoda shit. Beer is the path to the darkside(habit).

Because you're a sane, put together human being. "Noblesse oblige".

@theking00 Spinoza has some interesting information on emotion in his work "The Ethics"; it's similar to "The Book of Not Knowing" by Peter Ralston which I think is the better book. (I think Spinoza is very wrong btw, so be careful how you read) There's also a book on the Pali canon on Audible, "In the Words of the Buddha". A better question might be why master your emotions? As for techniques, a lot of people say meditation but I haven't really seen any positive difference in people, perhaps suppression, a kind of front.

@theking00 Whats wrong with it?

I think the Big 5 are more empirical. Where as MBTI is more how someone is fractured. In theory an enlightened person shouldn't be subject to MBTI, some people of faith seem hard to classify in the MBTI. INFJ - Introverted Intuition - Preference for established formulas Extroverted Feeling - Tend to be more agreeable, in tune emotively. Int Thinking - Calm and collected? Ext Sensing - Preference for new experience or information, but not excessively. INTP Int Thinking - Tendency to dialectic thinking. Unconscious inferno for lack of better words. Ext Intuition - What is going on. Int Sensing - Preference for older facts and information. Ext Feeling - Not very agreeable. Some notice of others. My Big5 Openness to Experience: High Conscientiousness. Orderliness: Low, Industriousness: Low Extroversion: Low Agreeableness: Very Low Neuroticism: High. Conscientiousness; interests me the most. I don't like the dichotomy between order & chaos. As even in chaos there is order. Perhaps there is no chaos only order.

By increasing consciousness. How to go about that, I'm not sure, maybe psychedelics help, although interested in alternatives. To consciously force meditation occurs within a frame. Aiming to try to be better, at least cognitively. Would be helpful I think, if I knew quality people to refer to. Still kind of wary, having grown an additional set of teeth after blaspheming God(didn't realise it), although probably plenty of scientific explanations, could have been over indulgence. I think consciousness maybe bought at a very high price. Of course a Buddhist conception of consciousness might be the most accurate, although in that case the wider conceptions of things seem independent of consciousness, so something causing things. Pretty sure truth is not a concept, it's more than that.

Within frames. The first two a bit apprehensive about.

Automatic writing, Ouija board, touch typing, changing gears on a car, riding a bike, interpreting dreams, ghosts, understanding archetypal stories. Figure I should at least strip mine available resources. Then collate anecdotes and empirical observation of psychedelic affects.

More interested in the metaphysical aspects, and how they may apply to cults. For personal gain I could see the attraction, but they don't really seem to work like that. Pantheism; I just find the notion really boring, no stakes. : "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" and "Love is the law, love under will." The architecture does not mean much if the keystone is flawed.

Haven't read that one. Started to read some of Kant's "Metaphysics of Morals"(Or "Groundwork of" not sure which one) and had a laugh. Couldn't really follow his critique of pure reason. There is a good audio book on audible of Leibniz's "Discourse on Metaphysics."

Yes. But, truth is not easy. I think it may also be killing the Golden goose type of thing. The little I have observed of psychedelics use on the Internet seems to make people worse. Otherwise sure I would be totally game, human experimentation I wouldn't care, there's even those movies endorsing psychedelics right, Lucy and Limitless. Except having read Leibniz's explanation of reality and for lack of something better, much more wary. I'm uncertain whether the effects of psychedelics may result in an inability to control the unconscious. Or something really messed up and much more profound, actual crossover of dimensions. If so, what comes back with you, it's isn't some really messed up Dragon Age Origins shit is it? Like actual demonic possession exorcist style, but a bit more subtle. I'm kind of 50/50 between extra dimensions or the unconscious mind. @Maya_0 When you say Infinity how do you feel exactly? Is it like a dream? Actually being somewhere else? A Kaleidoscope? TRON? How did it change how you think about the World? Does is feel good, if so how? Do feelings persist after the experience?

Satiation does not motivate.

@Giulio Bevilacqua What have you read of Kant and Leibniz?

More of an Old Boys' club; not a member. But they often recruit from business leaders involved with councils. Had 2nd Uncle that was a Masonic member who worked for the Bank of England, my dad remarked on the fact he had a Steinway Piano, but would be wearing an old vest with holes in it. Cult would be something like taking a religion and perverting it. Jehovah Witness or Mormon, for example. All cults are satanic in nature. Originally had thought of kind of a dark cloak thing, something like the movie the DaVinci code or Ninth Gate.

Lot of projection. Even in Buddhism a person has relative freewill, if logically thought through. There is "no self"(Noble disciple) which I agree with. There is soul(could be wrong), the I pertains to God, Buddhism has no souls. Middle way no longer applies. Law of excluded middle. Buddhists aim for Moksha(Liberation), they are aiming to be as God/Perfect. (Absolute Freewill), the Bodhisattva. But then only for a limited time and then that "there can be only one" (perfect). Jainism asserts multiple Gods. In Buddhism a conscious effort is made to extend the distance between input and response, a state of detachment. To recognise projection, and things asserted, like a self-referential nature of consciousness, a kind of meta-data, like registry entries on a computer. Once recognised to break down the chain of habit.