Carl-Richard

So again, if you're authentically a geek and want to not be a geek, you would then be driven by external forces, which is a higher likelihood of failure, and then nobody would appreciate you. Andrew Tate was never a geek. He is authentically a "chad". He played Chess when he was 5, sure, but I remember he had some non-geek reasoning for why he started kickboxing. Will to power? I just see two happy guys who like podcasting ?

You were sort of inching yourself towards this point yourself, but I don't see how geeks and nerds are necessarily anti-action, or people who are doing nothing in the world. That would rather be stoners, gamers and losers. Like you say with Hegel, reaching the top even in an intellectual field necessarily involves taking some real world actions to further your own interests. And if you are a geek or a nerd, you're better off being authentic to that if you want to be a man of action in any fashion, rather than letting outside forces dictate you (which is inherently less motivating and a high predictor of failure and misery, and thus no action, i.e. you become a loser).

Just wait until you die while sitting in an university lecture trying to listen to what the teacher is saying ?

I literally cannot understand what you're saying.

It's my Meshuggah fixation again, but damn, the tempo at which they played this song was absolutely perfect.

I've had that thought. But do you ever get sad that you'll miss the experience of the Sun devouring the Earth 5 billion years from now? FOMO isn't always a negative It would be interesting, but then you would get used to the new world very fast and it would all seem like normal to you.

You're saying this at the cusp of the AI revolution

The type of solipsism I'm talking about is an abhorration of idealism. It's quite literally like confusing a single atom with the entirity of the universe. Of a tormented mind, maybe; of a confused mind looking for answers, maybe; of a curious mind trying to make sense of itself, certainly.

Solipsist*

You didn't miss anything here

Yes... just like direct experience is a concept. This is another case of "other people don't exist lol, yet I'm choosing to act a certain way towards them". You gotta work on becoming consistent in your communication.

@Razard86 "Direct experience" can be misleading. Consider the concept of "pure knowing": pure knowing is beyond any thing that is known. Being identified with pure knowing, beyond any thing, any ego, any limited identity, any thought or perception, is what it's about.

Very based.

I was going to write "Wim Hoffing it" but it slipped my mind (and fell into yours apparently)

This is what I meant by my dorky distinction between "newly awake" and "more awake". The newly awake gets their feet wet and screams "OH IT'S COOOLD!", "Guys-guys-guys, I just got my feet wet, and its fucking COLD, guys!", "FUCK!". The more awake person is ice bathing silently

There are no others, yet you choose to be arrogant towards them. Because you're interacting with humans while alleging that you're acting in their best interest by being their teacher, a person who is supposed to help them, yet you're being excessively arrogant and hostile, which comes off as repulsive and hurtful to most people, which is not in their best interest, which does not help them. Yes, I know you like to wiggle yourself out from having to answer a simple question by watering down the concept. You did it with rape, you did it with gaslighting. There are truly no limits to your genius Let me remind you that you did make a thread saying you would work on becoming more kind (unless I interpreted it completely wrong). What do you think about actually going through with that? It seems like Leo of all people managed to do it to some degree, so maybe there is hope for you too.

Ah, the pure distillate of Nietzscheanism and Satanism. @Nilsi is this you?

At the expense of others? Why choose arrogance?

I don't think of human conditioning as merely cultural. Every experience you have as an organism conditions you. It shapes how you experience the world onwards. Every experience you have as a human is therefore human conditioning. You can condition yourself to get stronger physically, to eat less food, to sleep less; none of these are necessarily cultural things. But you have a choice. So you want to act like an animal, ok. Why limit yourself to that? What is wrong with just acting civil? I don't see you taking a shit on the floor just because it's uncivil. It doesn't make you more or less awake. Taking shits, talking shit, not taking shits, not talking shit; it's all just human conditioning. Prefering one over the other says something about you as a person, not the Truth.

If you're acting uncivilized, that is still a human acting on its conditioning. If civility is to not harass people by calling them names, then you doing the opposite is still human conditioning.

@Razard86 In the future, if you're going to make a new thread and you're going to talk about solipsism in it, instead of making a new thread, make a post in this thread. This is your solipsism thread now (it's all yours ).

In that case, everything.

PEARBONDING

Are you seriously unironically posting JustPearlyThings content?

You're justifying being uncivil with calling civility a human bias, but uncivility is just as much a human bias. It's just a more pathological form of human bias. If you've fully unshackled yourself from your human bias and are able to choose how to behave when interacting with fellow humans, why choose the pathological option?