Nilsi

Class.

Socrates

Beauty. Competition (multiple forces struggling against each other for prevalence) is the driving force of evolution and any creative pursuit; it’s a movement towards higher refinement/complexity i.e. beauty.

https://rateyourmusic.com/ https://artsandculture.google.com/ https://mubi.com/ https://www.architecturaldigest.com/ https://runwaymagazines.com/

https://www.olbg.com/news/will-we-finally-see-alien-lifeforms-somewhere-world-year-bookies-go-200-1-nasa-announces-discovery-aliens-2024 Betting odds are 200/1 currently

I’ve actually been asked to give a speech about this at our company’s new year kickoff next week — I’ll share it with you, once I’ve figured out what I want to say.

Expanding your mind? I think there is a profound sublimity in really transgressive stuff (as gore tends to be) that is just intrinsically rewarding.

Individually one can rise above this, but maybe game theory will always be the rule of the herd. Maybe that’s necessary for society to be stable; maybe not, I’m just saying. We will for example never rise above the bell curve.

Which shows that given a large enough sample size, game theory is the dominant paradigm.

The reason is game theory and selfish genes. Take any 2 random human beings and their genetic similarity will be 99,9%. If the organism was the unit of selection in evolution, of course it wouldn’t be a good strategy to kill something that’s 99,9% like you for a small gain in fitness for you and your closest relatives. From the perspective of the gene, 100.000€ will increase it’s and it‘s closest relatives fitness substantially (siblings have 50% likelihood to share that gene, aunts/uncles 25% and so on) and thus it’s likelihood of being passed on, while the likelihood of any given gene being shared by any random human is way low.

Following are some questions that Nietzsche posed to inquire into ones deepest motivations and values. What I find so valuable in this set of questions is, that they get to the heart of many of the seldom questioned assumptions of contemporary psychology and psychiatry, such as: good/healthy = being happy, being content, living a balanced life, being well adapted to society, etc. These questions also nicely complement some of Leos inquiries into life purpose/values/happiness etc. which presuppose many of the answers that shall be questioned here: Do you desire to be more multifaceted or simpler in nature? Do you aspire to greater happiness or greater indifference to joy and sorrow? Do you wish to be more self-satisfied or more ambitious and relentless? Do you prefer to be gentler, more agreeable, and humane, or more „inhumane“? Do you aim to be more considerate or more ruthless? Do you seek to achieve a specific goal or avoid all goals (- as a philosopher might, perceiving in every goal a limitation, a corner, a prison, or folly)? Do you want to be more respected, or feared? Or perhaps even despised! Do you choose to be a tyrant, a seducer, a shepherd, or a sheep?

Exactly! This is precisely the role of the philosopher though: “acting in a non-present fashion, therefore against time and even on time, in favour (I hope) of a time to come;“ “The places of thought are the tropical zones, frequented by the tropical man, not temperate zones or the moral, methodical or moderate man;“ “[T]rue philosophy, as a philosophy of the future, is no more historical than it is eternal: it must be untimely, always untimely” - Gilles Deleuze This is THE biggest blindspot in any contemporary discussion about „wisdom.“ All these „tier 2 philosophers“ (Wilber, Vervaeke, McGillchrist — I certainly don’t buy the „Master and his Emissary“ cop-out, etc.) ever rave about is the enlightenment (Eastern) conception of wisdom, while completely ignoring the entire Western (Faustian/Promethean) project that (rightfully) conceptualizes wisdom as inherently dangerous and transgressive. These people are bastardizing philosophy, if you ask me.

My favorite Christmas song

That’s precisely my point. Conflict is absolutely necessary for any kind of creative breakthrough. „One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.“ - Friedrich Nietzsche Generally, systems far from equilibrium have more potential for complex behavior, while systems in equilibrium are more stable and less susceptible to significant changes (positive or negative). “I assess the power of a will by how much resistance, pain, torture it endures and knows how to turn to its advantage.” - Friedrich Nietzsche Of course too much conflict leads to chaos (perhaps something like schizophrenia), but no conflict leads to sterility. The more conflict you can manage, the higher the reward you will reap — and enlightenment obviously leans towards peace and harmony, not conflict and self-overcoming. “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger“ - Friedrich Nietzsche This is why the Buddha lived a long and simple life without any significant creative output, while Nietzsche arguably had the greatest creative output in the history of philosophy (dishing out the core works of his oeuvre in only 10 years time), but ended up in a insane asylum.

The perfect TL;DR just hit me: Hegels Absolute Spirit is a double negation, while Nietzsches Übermensch is a double affirmation. — think about it.

I don’t understand what this has to do with neuroticism (or luck for that matter). These creative „outliers“ are most often characterized by very low neuroticism, which is what allows them to be comfortable so far away from the herd. If anything, being so obsessed with functionality and simplicity indicates neuroticism and fear of the unknown to me.

Fair, that’s what I was getting at.

I know what you’re talking about now. This being at the center of all religions would imply some kind of teleology to it though, no? Religion is largely based on rigid categories (e.g. good, bad, mother, church, god, etc.) — so enlightenment is basically an archaic mode of existence, in which the mind optimally orients towards those deep archetypal structures. That would mean that the main tradeoff is one between functionality and novelty. Which would also explain why eastern philosophy has essentially remained the same for millennia, while western philosophy is constantly pushing forward into radically novel categories and forms of thought (you would never get highly original and creative thinkers like Deleuze, Badiou, DeLanda in a culture oriented towards enlightenment).

As we approach the final stretch of the year, the advertising realm ignites with fervor as companies set their sights on mapping out their marketing budgets for the impending year. Being a sales guy in said industry, I’m not just a bystander; I’m an active participant, embracing the exhilaration that’s akin to the frenzy of a horde of hyperactive children on Christmas Eve. This year is nothing short of pivotal for me, marking my debut in this domain. Consequently, I’ve resolved to seize this tumultuous period by the horns. Starting Monday, I embark on an intense three-month meditation journey. During this time, I will ruthlessly disconnect from the internet, stripping away social media, news, and music, while relentlessly eliminating all non-work-related chatter and thought from my life. My approach won’t be rooted in overworking myself (which I’m sure most of my colleagues will inevitably do), as I firmly reject that notion. Instead, Monday through Saturday will be a symphony of fitness, work, and rest, with Sunday dedicated to fasting, deep meditation, and unwavering contemplation, all focused resolutely on work-related objectives. In addition to these stringent lifestyle adjustments, I’m undertaking a 90-day practice of semen retention, harnessing my sexual energy for one singular purpose: PROFIT. Ensuring a robust 9 hours of sleep each night and adhering unwaveringly to an animal-based keto diet will fortify my physical and mental vigor, sustaining a perpetual state of ketosis throughout the entire three-month period. Although I’ve flirted with similar challenges in the past, this audacious endeavor promises to transcend all previous attempts. It’s a relentless, high-stakes experiment, driven by the singular desire for substantial profitability $$$

Agreed. Most people can not appreciate how toxic parents and family can be. I’m not saying it’s done in bad faith and it’s most likely trauma that’s been passed forward over generations, but if you reliably behave in toxic immature ways towards me, we’re gonna have a problem — I don’t give a fuck, if it’s your vagina I crawled out some 20 years ago.

So you’re talking about some kind of flow state? I would agree that this is a pleasurable state of existence — the big problem here is that you’ll be more satisfied with your current situation than may be warranted. I wouldn’t want to give up anxiety and self-talk in a million years, because I know how crucial they have been for my development and achievements. I also highly doubt that this is sufficient to explain enlightenment in a satisfactory manner to anyone with some serious spiritual experience. What I’m saying is: why would you treat this drive any differently from any other drive and pretend there is no downside? Why would it be imperative to optimize for some arbitrary state of existence?

By valuing consciousness I mean the process of becoming more „enlightened.“ The awakening to formlessness is a dead end for me, and your conception of enlightenment seems to be a dead end also (although you did say there is a possibility for refinement after becoming enlightened, so maybe not). I‘m still trying to figure out whether you view enlightenment as some absolute good, which all other drives are subordinate to.

I do value consciousness, but I do not value enlightenment, because the idea of it doesn’t even make sense to me. If you assume that there is something like enlightenment and it’s some absolute good with no downside whatsoever, of course it makes sense to pursue it with no restraint.