Thoughts and insights

[Jannes]

The beauty of a bodybuilding body:

Just like a flower is beautiful because of its short duration I thought that metaphysically there has to be something about a bodybuilding body to be beautiful.

A bodybuilding body is both extremely muscular and with extremely little bodyfat.

The muscle can represent strength/force/power while the low bodyfat can represent endurance/resistance/invalidate.

Strength is only really visible when there is a big enough resistance. 

So a bodybuilding body metaphysically is/represents fighting through difficulties. 

Thats a certain kind of beauty.

[Jannes]

There is this theory that connecting to the absolute like truth, love, oneness, ... makes that you can't experience the relative. 

I have problems with love. I want to love everything equally but that makes so that I actually can't love relatively as well. I actually don't really know how to be loving in a relative sense. And I think if I managed to learn that then I would loose the ability to love unconditionally. 

[Jannes]

8 hours ago, Sidra khan said:

Wow 

thanks

[Jannes]

Big picture vs small picture 

Nature seems mushy and dirty from distance but on closer inspection it's made out of concrete and clean ideas. 
Mud is made out of very concrete and clean sand corns.
A fallen tree trunk covered with moss, holes, sprouts, mushrooms, insects, moisture, ... is very mushy from the distance but once you zoom into all the aspects of the tree you see very clean concrete ideas. The layers of bark of the tree trunk are very cleanly separated, all the small plants are very clean and concrete, the water drops on the plants have an intelligent roundish shape to them...

There is this idea that once you experience the absolute you can't experience the relative. If you experience absolute love you can't experience relative love. So I think this is a good analogy. If you zoom out of nature everything seems kind of mushy and you can't really see all the details, if you zoom in you can appreciate all the details but miss the big picture. 

I still need to verify this idea though. 

[Jannes]

Hypothetically free will exists. Yet out of all the potential options to choose it's clear that I will only make one choice. For example I would never choose something that I dont think is the best. I would never consciously make a bad decision. I would never consciously choose suffering over love unless I think that a deeper love is gained through suffering which means I still choose love. So in that way there is order. Not because reality is deterministic but because everybody loves to play the game.

Edited June 4, 2023 by Jannes

[Jannes]

The human: A rope stretched between the animal and the overhuman:

I haven't read Nietzsche to any significant degree but this saying of him really struck me. We want to be good (god) but we are limited by our limited form/ fears. An egoistic person can't live with themself (with few exceptions) because they are disconnected from a higher love, while a selfless person that can't stand up for themself will easily get exploited.

For me the first video really captures our urge to survive/ our animalistic side as we want spongebob to stand up for himself. I remembered that video from back in the day and then it really freaked me out haha.

The second video is about capturing the overhuman/ god. As I get a "I just wanna do good" vibe from it. 

 

[Jannes]

Sneaky-Subtle-Short Direct Observation During a Nap:

The flow of the mind always looks to distract itself. With sufficient awareness this flow can be stopped. My intuition tells me that if that happened something terrifying but also great would happen.

[Jannes]

Infinite Intelligence:

Thomas Nagel describes in his book What it is like to be a bat a quality of consciousness perfectly which is that you can only experience a state of consciousness if you are a certain kind of being. If you are a human you will only experience how its like to be a human, if you are a bat you will only experience how its like to be a bat. Because if the human for example tries to figure out what it's like to be a bat by imagining how its like to be a bat he will imagine how its like to be a bat which is not the same as a bat imagining how its like to be a bat. Because there are certain things only a bat can experience. For example eco locating, flying, ... As a human we can try to imagine what that is like by making analogies with other sense organs but that doesn't really work. Just like a blind person can't really know what red is through touch, smell, ...
Lets take this to the absolute though.
My ordinary experience as a human goes through highs and lows all the time. If I am currently happy can I know how it will be like if I am sad in the future. Or when we talk about this absolutely how could I even know how it would feel like to be 5% more happy? Because current happy and 5% more happy than current happy are very unique states of consciousness. (related issue in next post) If no moment is exactly the same how can I think about anything other than my exact moment at the time whatsoever?

Here I take a comment from Leo that I catched. "Reality is connected through Infinite Intelligence" .. something of that sort. 

What if Intelligence isnt something that sufficiently developed beings have but rather the net of reality which beings are imbedded in to varying degrees? We think of Intelligence as something certain things have and we dont think of Intelligence as something non personal because we think our actions and doings are personal/ disconnected things from the outside.

We sometimes refer to Intelligence by "connecting the dots". If dots are parts of reality then to become Infinitely Intelligence would be to be all of Reality.  

[Jannes]

Ethics Problem:

To put a value on an animal we need to rank its sentience but we can't put a number on sentience because sentience is a mysterious thing. If we want to compare the sentience of a fish with a pig by including their weight in meat we need to give sentience some kind of number. Let's say the fish is 5kg and the pig is 100kg. Is the sentience of the pig 20 times more valuable than the sentience of the fish. And how could we argue for that. Is 20 times the sentience worth of "1" the same as one sentience worth "20"? I think you can only crunch the numbers like that in mathematics. "20" is a unique sentience and 20 times "1" is 20 times a unique sentience. You can't multiply them because you dont get the same quality "20". You have "20x 1" but not "20".

[Jannes]

I directly look at a great romance, I feel it in my fingers and in all of my being but I can't figure it out directly. I am stopped from getting more then a toe into it.

[Jannes]

Can you separate sex from gender?

Some people say that sex and gender are completely different things that are only connected because of societal conditioning but dont have any reason to be connected otherwise. I dont think that is true. It is of course true that through culture we got role models of what a male and female are supposed to be which reaches deep into our psyche and bones and this is certainly something worth questioning. But there is some natural behavior which comes with a male or a female body. If I as a male would be put in a female body with my "male psyche" I would instantly act differently because I would have a more fragile body and I would need to adapt my behavior to stay safe. I couldn't be as macho, ballsy, frankly, confident because I couldn't defend myself as well if I would piss somebody off. Even just knowing that I couldn't defend myself when worse comes to worse would make me less relaxed. I would also have less testosterone which would change my behavior a lot. And I believe in the opposite case that a "female psyche" would be placed into a male body like that there would also be a big behavior change in the opposite direction. 

Our behavior is intelligent. Our behavior is a survival strategy. So our social behavior of course must include our body because our body is a survival tool.

What brave means for example depends on the context. Is a clone trooper less brave when he is more scared to fight Darth Vader than Darth Sidious being afraid of fighting Darth Vader? No! The clone trooper just knows that he will get rekt while Palpi knows that he will probably rek Darth Vader. So the Clone Trooper is naturally more afraid. You could even make a case for a formula to calculate which level of braveness on either side would equate which level of braveness on the other side. So for example if the emperor is really really brave then that would equate moderate afraidness for the clone trooper. If the clone trooper is scared to death that would equate mild afraidness for the emperor. 

So what it means to be brave and strong is highly different for each gender. If a girl says "I identify as male now" and then acts as ballsy as a male that's just stupid because she way overshoots her potential and might put herself in danger. 

 

With that being said I still believe that we should strongly question old role models and integrate behavior of the opposite sex but by doing that dont become to idealistic. Role models aren't completely stupid. The reason why you are alive is because these role models functioned well enough as a survival strategy that you were born. 

 

[Jannes]

This is something very intriguing. We feel bad for doing "bad things", we feel bad for "lying", we feel good for doing "good things, for being "truthful". At least on a deep level. On an ego level we might feel the opposite way. But on this deep way, why do we feel that way? What does it mean that we feel that way? Does this feeling connect us to the truth? If we can directly deeply feel good or bad about certain things and feeling good about certain things means being connected to truth we have a compass to goodness, love and truth on our side at all times! Thats actually mind-blowing. 

It also begs the question that if we deeply feel good or bad about good and bad doings on a deep level how are we connected to that feeling? It doesn't seem intuitive that we can feel that way about things that dont regard us. How could I feel good or bad about something I am totally disconnected from? Which source am I connected to to feel good or bad on a deep level?? 

[Jannes]

Adding to this:

Is every person deeply connected to this source in the same way?

It doesn't seem like it because psychopaths for example seem to be happier in their doing then if a non psychopath did what they did. It could be that they are equally deeply connected but just get a lot more pleasure from their ego to counter balance that, or they are less deeply connected or both. 

 

[Jannes]

A thought regarding the menon paradox:

In short the menon paradox is this:

Virtue can either be known or unknown. If Virtue is known there is no reason to look for it because it is already there. If virtue is not known we wouldn't look for it because we wouldn't know what to look for. 

I feel like that paradox can be solved with lsd. 

Yet another thought regarding this is that Virtue is just one possible placeholder. The paradox is applicable to love, passion, fun, everything... because how can we seek these things if we dont have them? We wouldn't seek them because we wouldn't have the idea to look for them. And if we already had them we wouldn't look for them either because we would already be satisfied. Isnt that insanely interesting?!? 

Maybe this all boils down to a mind game/ imagination. Maybe we already do have it but we convince ourselves that we dont have it and it's just the thought that we got it and that that is the thing that satisfies us because we stop seeking and not "the actual thing" never mind if something like that actually exists. 

 

"You need to already know it to understand it." remembered that one somewhere from this forum ?

Edited July 6, 2023 by Jannes

[Jannes]

Everything I imagine exists

Everything that I imagine exists. A devil god exists of course when I imagine it. I can see all the egoism in the world for example. But once I dig deeper into it this devilry will be recontextualized into goodness. It's not that the devil god doesn't exist it's just that it only exists from a certain point of view. Once I see the goodness god I dont see the devil god in his old form. But once I see the good god I am unaware of the devil god. But if I want to I can of course see the old devil god and loose the ability to see the good god. It's not that anything doesn't exist. Everything exists but only once at a time. Well at can also exist parallel theoretically. But that is different from the good god and evil god existing by themselves. 

 

Edited July 6, 2023 by Jannes

[Jannes]

We split the world in experience and conception. We experience certain things and then put them into words. But putting it into words is also an experience. The mistake is to try to find the experienceable part of words. Stop it! It's already an experience! Words are already an experience. You dont need to explore how they feel because then you are not actually observing words. When you dont try to observe words but just use them that's when you experience words. 

[Jannes]

People say free will doesn't exist because of Determinism. Determinism is the philosophical belief that all events and actions are determined by preexisting causes. So if what I am is a human and Determinism is true then yes I dont have free will. But I can't be circled, I am the universe. And the universe needed a first free will for determinism to occur. So I am actually free will it's just my limited perception which can't recognize that because it can't see the root. 

[Jannes]

Closing the duality between natural and artificial. 

Plastic is a product from nature, Industries are a product from nature, Chemicals are a product from nature, Math is a product from nature... absolutely speaking. Of course we can make the practical distinction between artificial and natural. But it should be recognized that it isnt truth. 

If there is a way in there is a way out, if there is a way to make something artificial there is a way to make it seem natural again, probably... ?

 

[Jannes]

From Leos Blog:

Quote

 

3) "But what made GOD?"

GOD is self-creation. GOD made itself since nothing outside itself exists to prevent it from doing so

 

A stone which is thrown in the air has to fight against gravity. 

A sound becomes more quiet when it is detected from a distance because of the spread. 

A warm object fights against coldness to stay warm. 

All of these limits are part of reality though. So if God is all of reality then all limits on God are imposed by God. 

[Jannes]

I dont know what love is!

It's funny I have a specific idea, an object in my mind of what love is. I can get my mind into a lovely dream if I let it. 

But that's not what love is or at least not what real love is. 

Love is not to be found it has to be accessed right here! Effortless. Nothing that comes by force is real. 

Not an object which arises in the universe like a secondary but something already in there as a primary quality of the universe, not to be grasped or to be hold but to be realized. 

So when I try to find love in this way love seems to become mysterious, thin-empty. It's not an object to be grasped. Its mysterious. I lived for so long and never knew what love actually is.

Although that seems to be the most simple and basic thing to know.  

I dont know what love is, I actually dont know what love is!

The moment of confusion ends.