tsuki

Sins, wrongs, goods and miracles - these are all expressions of "morality" as a mental framework through which one understands the occurring circumstances. What this mode of being tries to achieve is to impose an order for all possible situations that a person may end up finding himself in. When a given situation is known to be worse than another situation, it is easy to tell what the course of action should be. In short - morality is an attempt to create rules that would allow for automatic solving of life. A direction through which one would elevate his existence. The problem with morality is that it is impossible to create an absolute system that would not break itself in trying to maintain its operation. For example: It is bad to kill, unless there is a war. It is bad to rape, unless inmates in prison rape each other. Then it is called justice. It is bad to imprison an unwilling person, unless the person broke the laws. etc. The other problem is that morality is relative and mostly unconscious. Once a person tries to take responsibility for his own morality, a question arises: Which morality is correct? In other words: What are the rules for establishing rules? There are none, as this is a problem of infinite regress. Each moral statement is a double-edged sword. It tries to fix a problem by introducing another problem. If a person enters a relationship and expects it to last for his whole life, he may establish the rule that "one shall never cheat on a partner". But then of course this is the very condition that ends a relationship! How do you expect to stop a relationship from falling apart by introducing a stopping condition? Wouldn't it make more sense to say I'm going to stick to this person no matter what? No! That's another moral statement that is dependent on the other person not leaving you. There is no possibility to produce a moral statement that does not introduce possibility for suffering! The very reason to produce one is to prevent it, and yet - by creating it you prime yourself for it! The other example is touching a child, or more generally - problem of suffering. Morality tries to prevent suffering by introducing rules, and yet - suffering is the main driving force of change. To molest a child in order for it to grow is a disgusting idea, and yet - not as long as few hundred years ago, we did it. We made little girls marry grown men and we were absolutely sure that we did it for their own good! How are we sure that the current state of affairs is absolutely correct, when we were proven wrong so many times before? Is it simply because we believe that there is progress through time? That we've learned from our mistakes? Don't even get me started on that idea. The third problem is a psychological one. By claiming full responsibility for an outcome, you belittle involvement of independent factors. By saying that you caused an event, you try to elevate yourself by saying that you were in control over what happened. This is Ego talking, trying to keep the driver's seat. How many children raised by alcoholics sweared not to EVER drink only to cave in and beat their wife during an alcohol-induced rage? By claiming responsibility they uphold the illusion that they have control over their life - the control that made them drink in the first place. Morality is no escape from the cycle. It is not its cause either. Morality is just a funny idea that you tell yourself so that you can sleep better.

@Scarecrow What I would suggest is to recognize the importance of both. I see them as periods of doing the work and appreciating the work already done. There is no point in working if you don't enjoy its fruits. You won't have the fruits if you don't do the work. What difference does the length of the cycle make? To achieve harmony you need both, regardless of whether it takes a minute, a day, a week or a month.

@Shin Responsibility is a double-edged sword. When you take responsibility for your actions you belittle involvement of other people and claim that you run things. You don't. Any suffering can be traced back to Ego that tried to fix things by responsibly managing the world. As for my own struggle - I will think about the wording and post it soon.

@Leo Gura Isn't it the perspective that "all perspectives are partial"?

Yes, this game of communication is relative and agreement on meaning can be achieved in many dimensions. When one states that two objects A and B are in relation R, the other may try to understand how objects A and B are such that relation R occurs, or may understand how relation R is such that it links A and B. You can change the game by moving the pieces according to rules, but you can also change the rules so that the game is different without moving the pieces. What I claim is that the two are identical, or equivalent, in the game of communication. By the mere act of seeing your coherence in my words that were previously "unknown" you expand your notion of truth. It is not the same truth as mine, but they overlap in a sense. We are playing two separate games, but the rules and positions of pieces are "understood". This first-hand experience of "understanding" of things is nothing else than "lack of surprise" so that Ego is calm. There is no tension between us. In this sense there is one ego that encompasses both of us and we may defend our understanding once a third party challenges it. This is nothing else than culture, or society. Once you say that truth is absolutely relative, you are simultaneously saying that relativity is the absolute truth.

I don't think that there is ever a misunderstanding of concepts. My understanding of concepts is no better or worse than yours as long as we use logic to validate them. What logic is is simply a feeling of coherence between thoughts. My thoughts are coherent and your thoughts are coherent in our separate contexts. When we talk and "misunderstand" each other, all we do is build a shared coherence of thoughts. In a certain sense we become a single person and blend our physical worlds together. See, there is no deception! Even if my mode of being is different than yours - I AM what I AM. There is no lie in that! What concepts I take to be true is what shapes the world around me. Any concepts may be true as long as they are coherent and they will be the answer to a question "what does it mean to be?". Ego is simply the thing that prevents the shift of true concepts one holds, but it is false in the sense that any concepts may become true as long as you build the bridge of consistency between your current self and what is "misunderstood".

@Joseph Maynor It is very similar to asking what is truth. In both cases you ask what is X of X? What is truth about truth? What is the concept of concept? @NikitaW The funny thing is that once you start to answer questions about concepts, you use concepts. Once you start asking "What is X?" you need assume that every concept you bring to table while explaining is understood. This of course brings us to experiences that are inexpressible, like: "what it means to be?". You ARE, as you ask this question. It's like the part to @Joseph Maynor : What is X of X? There are no linguistical answers to that question.

@electroBeam I will tackle your statement in three steps: You always have one thought at a time and each thought is a continuation of the former thought with relation to the rest of the senses. You think thoughts in response to what happens around you, specifically as you are reading this text right now. You are now being primed to show me that you can randomly think things unrelated to what is happening. What I do right now is not argue that there is no free will, but I am showing you a perspective that can be acquired which can coherently explain what is happening. This is important. We can. Whatever coherent explanation of reality you have physically shapes the possibility space of your actions. You will not even attempt to do things that you think that are impossible. Will you try to walk through the closed door to prove me wrong? What is the difference between physical impossibility of walking through walls and your unwillingness to even try? Science tells us that in fact it is possible to go through a wall using principles of QM! Have you ever tried to dream up an ice cream? Did it work? I guess that you didn't succeed, as you wouldn't have asked this question. What is the difference between physical impossibility of dreaming up an ice cream and you not trying hard enough? If you did try: what is the difference between physical impossibility and you not knowing the way to do it? You don't have an ice cream in both cases! There is no difference! The point is that it is both that thoughts shape reality and reality shapes thought. They are a single process that has no causality. It is not that reality -> thoughts, or thoughts->reality. It is not even thoughts <-> reality. It's thoughtsreality. Or tRhEoAuLgIhTtYs.

I never knew that this person meant so much to me. I can see now how I always had him for the singularity he tried to understand. It is unbelievable how this small, troubled shell could at the same time be the embodiment of impenetrable mystery to me. With his passing, the mystery returned to itself leaving me with confusion.

If you still accept ideas, here's my vision: seamless blending of the internal and external world. Whatever I want to achieve in life is caused by whatever happened to me in the past. I may achieve my desires by action upon the world, or by action upon myself by seeing the sense in which I already achieved them. My soul is not present somewhere outside of the external world, but in the possibility of action I may take upon everyday objects. It is not something else other than the objects themselves. Without the soul, there would be no objects, but indistinguishable mass of senseless sensations. I am the consciousness of acts upon things that are unconscious part of myself.

And how do you know that your memory of it is correct and you simply don't fit your memories to what is currently happening? You need reference to claim consistency and your memories are indistinguishable from fantasies. Are you going to claim that your memories are consistent? Consistent with what? Memories?

There is no reason to go through chemotherapy if there is no reason to live. Holding your loved one's hand and cleaning his/her vomit for a five years is as much of a commitment as sitting through med school. Committing to seeing through chemotherapy is not a decision that is made in the past, but a one that has to be made each morning when you look in the mirror, unsure, whether you are saving your wife's life or wasting your own.

The paradox of valuing enlightenment vs materialism comes from the fact that you see it as a binary choice (or non-choice in your formulation). Your life is both materialistic and spiritual and growth occurres from your recognition of the latter and incorporation in the former (or vice versa).

Dabbling and jumping around for your whole life is a world-class performance in itself. By introducing stability via the LP course, you are effectively admitting that you can't even do that! Commitment is not determined by the amount of time you do something it in a streak, but how much are you willing to gamble on it. Commitment is intensity, not duration. You are committed to saving a person if you are willing to sacrifice your life for that person. It doesn't matter how long it took you. You can be committed to saving a child in a burning building, or to saving a person having cancer.

Inner conflict is the creative force of growth. You transcend yourself by seeing how conflicting perspectives are actually one. By committing to recognizing enlightenment of ordinary, everyday, people you effectively surround yourself with enlightened people. There is no difference between them being enlightened and you seeing them as such. There is nothing stopping you from pursuing entrepreneurship and enlightening others at the same time if you accept this. I'm not too familiar with life purpose course, but here is my second advice: Why does "life purpose" have to be something constant throughout your life? If it doesn't have to be constant, then what is the correct constness period? Does it have to be a year, or can it be a day? Or a minute? If you would commit 100% to what you are doing every minute of your life, you would become an outstanding person even if your LP would change every minute. It's called multitasking

I wasn't serious. Thanks for sharing.

In other words: it works only if you don't need it. Brilliant!

To maintain the cycle. The lower is the receptive one. The one that follows. It thrives in order. The "unconscious" one. The higher is the leading one. The one that creates. It thrives in chaos. The "conscious" one. The lower one needs a discipline to become the higher. The higher needs expression to become the lower. When the lower resists discipline, it stays low. When higher resists expression, it stays high. Being high is not the ultimate goal. When you stay high too long, chaos becomes the order of things and your life falls apart. Being low is not the ultimate goal. Death is the ultimate stability. Seeking of the higher self is an expression of the lower self. If you mistake the cycle (or simply change) for progress, you always seek the higher self as the other always seems better than the current. Progress in this sense is simply observing the cycle and letting it run. Once you let go and let the lower and higher do their things, the cycle speeds up and life "smooths" out.

Dark souls!

@egoless hahaha, no! Our abstract thinking is so bad, that we don't even see it as thinking sometimes. It's like speculative storytelling. You just tell yourself a story that this thing is going to play out exactly like this and there is no helping it! This is a very specific form of overthinking that I catch myself wrapped up all the time. I used to have imaginary arguments with people and was angry all the time hahaha. Try winning an argument with yourself by telling yourself how stupid you are - that's how bad it can get! What I imagine in INTPs is overthinking in form of carefully exploring all options with equal considerations. INTJs just steamroll into one option and produce a story that is so convincing that we don't even see it as a story. Having a script like that can be powerful sometimes, but usually, we just keep getting frustrated that things don't go the way they are supposed to go! Letting this story go is an important skill that I needed to learn. What I learned over time is that all I can do is to simply let go. If you gotta overthink, you just gotta overthink. Just make sure that you put that thinking into good use and actually pick the best fucking juice in the god damned shop! Mind has its strange ways and this juice may actually be very important, but you don't realize it until later on. If you stop fighting yourself amazing things may happen. As for some more confessions, there are two stories with a common theme of swings + unsupervised children = injuries to the head. They both happened when I was around 7-10 years old: I was playing on my own in the playground near my home, swinging a swing while standing on the ground. I tried to swing it as hard as I could and saw a little kid (2-3 years old) approaching, interested. So the genius little me started to swing the swing even harder because I saw that the little guy was interested in it. Lo and behold, this little creature waltzes right into the moving swing, getting hit in its little head. As I ran away I saw its mom running in terror to help him. The other story happened a few years later during holidays near our summer house. I had a female childhood friend that I used to meet each summer. One time she had a younger girl to take care for and the three of us went to a playground. The little girl sat on a rotary swing, so of course I would push her very fast and try to impress my childhood friend! Inevitably, the girl fell off and the swing hit her in the head. Impressive little me ran away, leaving two girls behind. Actually, the second story has a follow-up. When we met after a few years I learned that she suffered a mild concussion resulting from hit and that she didn't tell anybody who did it. She threatened to tell my parents that I was the culprit unless I did favors for her. I saw right through that blackmail and told her to go ahead. My mother was very scared/sad, but nothing bad for me came out of it. Ever since then my policy would be to not negotiate with terrorists. Looking back, I think that the girl might have thought that she saved me from big trouble back then and demanded something in return. It didn't occur to me back then what could have happened, but still - I was a scared stupid little shit that didn't know any better. I don't even remember if I apologized to her or not. So yeah, don't try impress ladies with swings. It won't work .

@Joseph Maynor I know that feeling. The hard part is to let go of letting go and going back to sleep. That always gets me. @egoless @molosku INTJ reporting in! I can relate to your feelings - connecting with others has always been my biggest struggle. What I learned over the years is that It's not even enough to say what you think. You have to literally think out loud to connect with people. Total authenticity is what what did the trick for me. Even the dirties corners of your mind - this is what started to attract people towards me. It only started to happen when I finally let go of what I thought I was and let myself be who I am. As for confessions - here it goes: I bite my fingernails. I'm ashamed of the state of my hands and I try to fix them by biting them, haha! When nobody is looking, I pick my nose. And I eat it! Fuck me, that felt good to say out loud! I pick my scabs. An I god fucking eat them! Oh god, that may very well be my last post on this forum. Future me - sorry for ruining it for you! Future stalkers, here is your gold mine to ruin my life. Start picking it, but don't fucking eat it! hahahaha

@starsofclay Your encouragement is scripted as well. The real mindfuck is that cause and effect is also an idea to explain reality, just like free will. Reality has no clue about it other than through your concepts. It all just happens.

@Nahm I think that you used up your ❤. Here, have some~~~~ @Stoica Doru There is no free will. Any conscious action is rooted in unconscious movement. Any thought is rooted in unconscious bias. Any bodily movement is rooted in movement of muscles that move by themselves. Any use of language is rooted in belief that you share understanding of words that are used. Any "action" is impossible.

To think is to perform an action. You do not think to think, do you? If you do not think to think, then why do you do thinking in order to do doing? When you move your arm, muscles move by themselves. Meaning relies on symbols. Symbols like words are things that are something that they are not. The word-symbol "bird" is not a bird, but a set of letters, and yet - it moves your mind and produces a bird. There is no "unempowering" meaning, as meaning is not present in symbols. Meaning is you/"I".