Joshe

Related, from Claude: # Existential Courage: The Capacity to Face Reality ## Core Concepts The capacity to face existential realities isn't primarily about intellectual understanding, but about the ability to remain emotionally present with difficult truths without resorting to psychological defenses. This involves several key ideas: ### Negative Capability Coined by poet John Keats in 1817, this describes the capacity to remain in uncertainty and doubt without anxiously grasping for immediate answers or resolution. It's the ability to sit with mystery and ambiguity rather than forcing premature conclusions. This quality is particularly relevant to existential courage, as it describes the exact capacity needed to face life's fundamental uncertainties without retreating into false certainties or comforting illusions. ### Being With A term that emerged from contemplative traditions, particularly Buddhism and later adopted in Western psychology, referring to the capacity to experience reality directly without immediately trying to change, fix, or escape from it. This differs from intellectual understanding in that it's about direct experiential contact rather than conceptual knowledge. The practice of "being with" requires a fundamental courage to face whatever arises in consciousness without immediately activating defense mechanisms. ### The Gap Between Understanding and Experience The distinction between these capacities and mere intellectual understanding is crucial. Many people can grasp difficult concepts mentally while still unconsciously avoiding their emotional impact. True existential courage involves the ability to maintain presence with uncomfortable truths without activating psychological defense mechanisms. This suggests that the development of consciousness isn't primarily about acquiring new knowledge, but about developing the capacity to remain present with what we already know at a deeper level. ## Reading List ### On Negative Capability - **"The Letters of John Keats"** - Particularly his December 1817 letter to his brothers where he first introduces the concept - Provides the original context and thinking behind this influential idea - **"Negative Capability: The Intuitive Approach in Keats" by Walter Jackson Bate** - Comprehensive exploration of the concept and its implications - Examines how this capacity relates to broader human development - **"The Wisdom of Insecurity" by Alan Watts** - While not explicitly about negative capability, it explores similar themes - Examines the relationship between uncertainty and psychological freedom ### On Being With - **"Start Where You Are" by Pema Chödrön** - Excellent exploration of staying present with difficulty - Practical guidance for developing this capacity - **"Radical Acceptance" by Tara Brach** - Deep dive into the practice of being with experience - Explores the relationship between acceptance and transformation - **"The Courage to Be" by Paul Tillich** - Philosophical exploration of existential courage - Examines the relationship between anxiety and authentic existence ### On Existential Psychology - **"The Denial of Death" by Ernest Becker** - Examines how humans psychologically defend against existential awareness - Explores the roots of human avoidance behaviors - **"Existential Psychotherapy" by Irvin Yalom** - Comprehensive look at how humans face (or avoid) existential realities - Practical applications of existential understanding in psychological work - **"Faith, Hope and Carnage" by Nick Cave and Seán O'Hagan** - Recent work exploring these themes through personal experience - Contemporary perspective on facing existential realities ### On Defense Mechanisms - **"The Mechanism of Defence" by Anna Freud** - Foundational work on psychological defenses - Essential understanding of how we avoid difficult truths - **"Neurosis and Human Growth" by Karen Horney** - Explores how people develop elaborate systems to avoid facing reality - Examines the relationship between authenticity and psychological development ## Key Insights The core insight running through all these works is that genuine psychological and spiritual development requires developing the capacity to remain present with uncertainty and difficulty rather than seeking premature resolution or escape. This isn't about achieving any particular state or gaining new knowledge, but rather about removing the barriers that prevent us from facing reality as it is. This suggests that the development of existential courage might be more about unlearning our habitual avoidance patterns than about acquiring new capabilities. The capacity to face reality might be innate, but becomes covered over by psychological defenses developed in response to existential anxiety. The relationship between courage and integrity appears to be fundamental: without the courage to face our inner experience directly, we cannot develop genuine integrity, as we'll always be prone to various forms of self-deception and avoidance. This suggests that the development of existential courage might be a prerequisite for genuine psychological and spiritual development. Note: Citations should be verified as this list was compiled without access to a current database.

You should think of Americans as they are in reality, not who/what you'd like them to be. If they are collectively mostly ignorant, apathetic, gullible, prone to manipulation, and lacking common sense and basic discernment, that's just the reality. The implications of this truth prevent many from accepting reality. Emotion or personal feelings should not be placed above objectivity. It's okay that Americans are like this. I mean, it sucks, but it's the reality.

What do you think their success would look like? Of course, they would arrive at the top via falsehood, schemes, manipulation, deception, etc., and this would only work because of how polarized people are. Polarization is the name of their game. Without that, conmen like this would be rejected by the vast majority. Do you think polarization would be sufficient enough to keep them at the top? Once they win, and say they rule for a while, if there are no more political contests, polarization would decrease, along with their support. I don't think it's sustainable to rule the world by force. Anyone who tries it will eventually fail, even if they have initial success. Also, I get the sense our politicians wouldn't allow it. I agree with you on their motives but I just don't see an easy way for them to reach their goals. I see them crashing and burning long before they succeed. Of course, they'll cause a lot of damage in their attempt, but I don't see how they'll make it to the top and remain there. I haven't put much thought into it though.

Yep. He's a good salesman. He's good at making people have confidence in him. Mix that with toxic stage orange and you have a con man.

And Complacency. Things have been too cushy for too long.

@Consept Yep. It was largely psychological warfare. The people wanted what they were manipulated to want. That’s what happened, and it’s clearly the largest factor. To mostly speak of inherently bad Dems, groceries or inflation, which might account for 30% causation, is absurd when the manipulation was probably more like 70% causal, and 70 feels conservative. People get lost in a multitude of factors but it’s clear that without the manipulation, 99.999% of the US population would never have considered Trans a problem… it just wouldn’t have crossed their minds. That’s just one issue they were manipulated on. There are dozens, if not hundreds. For example, Trump might have lost this election without the Springfield Haitian lie… and that’s a fact I've yet to see anyone else recognize. That one lie got millions to side with the Rs. Where's all the analysis for that? Interesting that the poster boy for memetics, Peter Thiel, who has taken a keen interest in manipulating human behavior, is high up the chain on the right. You have these billionaires who fancy themselves APEX predators who've made deals with Trump. Trump gets Fox and the right wing propaganda arm for free, but now he access to seriously powerful intelligence. Thiel and Musk likely have entire teams of consultants, data scientists, and strategists working around the clock, running simulations, crunching numbers, and plotting their next moves to shape public opinion and political outcomes, and they are behind Donald Trump.

Analysis of Tulsi's hearing:

I know one issue is how y'all pronounce "ou". lol

He's making it up because that's what he does. Americans are mostly entitled assholes. They're addicted to their complacent mediocrity and choose that over taking life seriously, so Trump can do and say another 36,000 lies and they'd vote him in again if given the chance. I envy you Canadians for they are not your compatriots.

lol, that's fucking hilarious. Should have guessed it was yet another con.

hmm. interesting. Did Trump threaten tariffs as a negotiating tactic for making Mexico and Canada increase border security? If so, this is a win, not only for him, but maybe America, and his base and many more will love him for it. They'll start back thinking he's Mr. 4D Chess again.

I wouldn’t dismiss this outright. I’d simply hold it as a possibility until more information came to light. There’s a knee-jerk response to avoid accusations of election rigging because of How Trump and the right behaved, but it seems like an error to prematurely dismiss potential possibilities. No one would be surprised if Trump or Elon cheated/rigged it. It’s consistent with their characters, but I agree that one shouldn’t put any stock in this until it gets more traction, which doesn’t seem likely.

Idk much about it but Kyle, who follows all this stuff for a living, says it’s false.

@Myagooshki What about the ones that ain't garbage? If someone was an early fan of RFK, before all the evidence against his character came out, they'd be much more likely to disregard or whitewash the clearly damning evidence against him. Similar phenomenon with Trump. They think they are logical and are making sense, but they're totally blinded by unconscious biases they've inadvertently created by investing positive emotion in a character. Then, every argument just serves to strengthen their biases and commitment to what they want to be true. They thirst for plausible deniability because it's the only shred of hope they have to not be wrong. Personally, I don't understand why people put so much stock or faith in public figures. If I thought someone was great but they turned out to be an asshole, I'd just accept it... but hey, that's just me!

I too suspect he's being groomed for leadership. The propaganda is already swirling. I've seen a few fluff pieces in my feeds about how Baron is awesome, is funny, gets a lot of pussy, is alpha, etc.

Vaccine-related claims: In his 2021 book "The Real Anthony Fauci" and multiple interviews, claimed that vaccines are linked to autism, despite this being conclusively disproven by numerous large-scale studies Stated that thimerosal in vaccines was responsible for an "autism epidemic" - this preservative was removed from childhood vaccines in 2001 and multiple studies showed no link Claimed that vaccine mandates violated the Nuremberg Code, misrepresenting both the code and vaccine requirements Asserted that vaccines can weaken the immune system, contrary to immunological evidence COVID-19 claims: Claimed COVID-19 was "ethnically targeted" to spare Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people Stated that COVID-19 was "targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people" and that "the people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese" Suggested that COVID-19 was likely engineered to spare certain ethnic groups, a claim without scientific basis Promoted hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as COVID-19 treatments despite lack of evidence for efficacy Historical/Political claims: Stated that the 2020 election was stolen through manipulation of voting machines Claimed that electronic voting machines can be and were hacked to change votes Suggested that the CIA was involved in his uncle JFK's assassination Claimed that Sirhan Sirhan did not kill his father RFK Sr., despite eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence Digital technology claims: Stated that 5G technology was developed as a surveillance and population control tool Claimed that WiFi causes cancer and various health problems Asserted that digital currencies are primarily tools for government surveillance and control Environmental claims: Suggested that certain chemicals in water supplies are causing gender changes in frogs and affecting human sexuality Claimed without evidence that certain pesticides are responsible for specific chronic diseases These are just the few that Claude knows about.

@Myagooshki I only have my reads to go on and from what I’ve seen regarding his pseudoscientific medical claims, his switching parties, him suing NC to take his name off the ballot and suing blue states to keep his name on them, his cuckoldry to Trump, family reports that he’s a predator, his enjoyment of killing animals, his elitism, and the little history I’ve heard, I’m fairly certain this isn’t a character a wise person would put much stock in, if any. To assume his motive is to MAHA and that he has the know-how to accomplish that seems naive based on the available data and the overall vibe. It would be a nice reality where America was about to enter into a phase where the leaders were going to start prioritizing health and getting rid of all the toxic stuff that makes us sick, which is why many people cling to hope regarding RFK.

The main goal was to affect your opinion of RFK. Did your opinion of him lower at all? His total flip on abortion is about the strongest indicator you can get that he’s just a grifter who will say whatever he has to to benefit himself. He was laughed at several times when he refused to own up to his flip flop. Did that lower your view of him?

That was the beauty of those hearings. A normie watching would intuit those Democrats were decent, well-meaning people who want to do good things, simultaneously walking away with a lower view of the obviously corrupt RFK. They are more effective at getting their points across like that than they are at selling ideas the people are too selfish to care about.

I think they actually did a good job. They kept the focus on the lack of integrity and kept their own theatrics and virtue signaling to a minimum. Over time, that can move people over. If they just stop all virtue signaling, avoid anything that resembles woke, and only shine the light on the devilry, that’s the strategy I think is best for them. Imagine if every time you heard from a Dem they were speaking of ironclad proof of corruption, deception, and all manner of devilry. The people have rejected their idealism, so they should stop trying to sell them their ideas and start blackpilling them instead. We need brute force. It would get tired and old, but it would work as long as they don’t cry wolf and attack on bullshit. Those RFK attacks were solid.

I believe it’s possible for a truly benevolent and integrous person to rise to the top, but they would need great communication skills and strategy. They’d need to be well-funded and inspire people with vision. I think it’s possible, just not likely.

Surely the people were less developed in ancient times and the law of the jungle reigned supreme, so how did benevolent leaders rise to power the few times it occurred throughout history? What conditions made it possible? Was it just luck and monarchy?

he’s trying to buy out all the positions. @Inliytened1. What do you make of this? Does this seem normal to you? They’re first going to axe as many people as possible and then build back with only loyalist.

FYI, your forum looks a lot nicer in dark mode. Not only is dark mode expected these days, It aligns better with your brand: