Whats your solution to the hard problem of consciousness?

[Carl-Richard]

32 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

In our little metaphor you said you’d want to be with your loved one all the time and that it’s the same with the realization we’ve been talking about. I said I wouldn’t want to be with my one all the time.

And then I said we've started taking the metaphors too literally.

 

32 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

So in my mind there is no static hierarchy of values, but you seem to imply one. That’s what I want to get at.

This conversation started with the assumption that you already value awakening, and we went from there. If you don't value awakening, sure: neither awakening nor enlightenment is something you value. However, if you do value awakening, it's virtually tautological that you also value enlightenment, because that is consistent with virtually all of your other behavior (as a human). "Why is that?" Well, it's as simple as you preferring having an orgasm two times in your lifetime compared to just having it once. It's as simple as the number 2 being larger than the number 1. You prefer awakening to not awakening (we granted that), and you prefer awakening twice to awakening once, and by logical extension, you prefer staying awake perpetually, particularly because there are no downsides to it worth mentioning. The reason why the relationship analogies (or other analogies) don't apply is because there are definitely downsides to being with your loved one for all of time. Not for enlightenment.

 

32 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

A difference in degree not in kind.

That was kinda my point with awakening vs. enlightenment, temporary state vs. baseline.

Edited December 22, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Nilsi]

10 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

This conversation started with the assumption that you already value awakening, and we went from there. If you don't value awakening, sure: neither awakening nor enlightenment is something you value. However, if you do value awakening, it's virtually tautological that you also value enlightenment, because that is consistent with virtually all of your other behavior (as a human). "Why is that?" Well, it's as simple as you preferring having an orgasm two times in your lifetime compared to just having it once. It's as simple as the number 2 being larger than the number 1. You prefer awakening to not awakening (we granted that), and you prefer awakening twice to awakening once, and by logical extension, you prefer staying awake perpetually, particularly because there are no downsides to it worth mentioning. The reason why the relationship analogies (or other analogies) don't apply is because there are definitely downsides to being with your loved one for all of time. Not for enlightenment.

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. 

[Carl-Richard]

25 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I do value consciousness, but I do not value enlightenment, because the idea of it doesn’t even make sense to me. 

If by consciousness you mean the type of awakening we've been talking about so far (specifically awakening to formlessness as described earlier, a description you didn't seem to object to), I don't see how that is possible from a rational perspective. If by consciousness you mean something else, then maybe.

[UnbornTao]

3 hours ago, Nilsi said:

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. 

Enlightenment is becoming directly conscious of the absolute nature of something, such as you, another, space, or now. So I heard your assertion as contradictory.

Whatever we come up with about what enlightenment is, means or implies is ultimately worthless.

The best stance is admitting that we don't know what we're talking about, that is, being sincere with ourselves. And from that consider the matter.

Edited December 23, 2023 by UnbornTao

[Nilsi]

14 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

If by consciousness you mean the type of awakening we've been talking about so far (specifically awakening to formlessness as described earlier, a description you didn't seem to object to), I don't see how that is possible from a rational perspective. If by consciousness you mean something else, then maybe.

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.

[Carl-Richard]

8 hours ago, Nilsi said:

I‘m still trying to figure out whether you view enlightenment as some absolute good, which all other drives are subordinate to.

I don't see the utility of framing it in such a way (it seems a bit too reductionistic). What I will do for sake of illustration is use the framing of neuroscience and evolution: 

Enlightenment has been shown to correlate with a sustained deactivation of the default mode network (DMN), which is responsible for self-referential processing, particularly self in relationship to others and self in relationship to time. The network is usually active when you're not engaging in a task that requires attention or general engagement (and is associated with daydreaming, rumination, etc.). When it's deactivated, not coincidentally it produces an experience of timelessness and oneness.

But that is not what is most interesting here. The DMN can be contrasted to the task-positive network, which is usually activated when you're actively engaging in a task. For enlightened people, this network becomes the new "default mode", and it's activated irrespective of whether you're actively involved in a task or not. Now, we know that being engaged in a task is a source of pleasure and meaning, and arguably it's the main reflection of living up to the core evolutionary impetus, which is to utilize your innate capabilities to secure survival (which is the task).

So as you can see, the enlightened individual is fulfilling their main evolutionary impetus by merely existing, and that is of course highly pleasureable, meaningful and functional, because when they're supposed to actively engage in a task, they will be maximally capable of doing that, because they're already in the tasking mode by default. Now, I say "main evolutionary impetus", because the DMN is of course not completely useless or disposable, even in the enlightened person, as it works in an opponent-processing relationship with the tasking network (disrupting current processing and producing insights). It's just given a less central role than what is now the cultural norm in particularly Western society where neurosis and mental unhealth/dysfunction is the norm.

Edited December 23, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Nilsi]

34 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I don't see the utility of framing it in such a way (it seems a bit too reductionistic). What I will do for sake of illustration is use the framing of neuroscience and evolution: 

Enlightenment has been shown to correlate with a sustained deactivation of the default mode network (DMN), which is responsible for self-referential processing, particularly self in relationship to others and self in relationship to time. When this network is deactivated, not coincidentally it produces an experience of timelessness and oneness. But that is not what is interesting here. The DMN can be contrasted to the task-positive network, which is usually activated when you're actively engaging in a task that requires some attention or general engagement. For enlightened people, this network becomes the new "default mode", and it's activated irrespective of whether you're actively involved in a task or not. Now, we know that being engaged in a task is a source of pleasure and meaning, and arguably it's the main reflection of living up to the core evolutionary impetus, which is to utilize your innate capabilities to secure survival (which is the task).

So as you can see, the enlightened individual is fullfilling their main evolutionary impetus by merely existing, and that is of course highly pleasureable, meaningful and functional, because when they're supposed to actively engage in a task, they will be maximally capable of doing that, because they're already in the tasking mode by default. Now, I say "main evolutionary impetus", because the DMN is of course not completely useless or fully disposable, even in the enlightened person, as it works in an opponent-processing relationship with the tasking network (disrupting current processing and producing insights). It's just given a less central role than what is now the cultural norm in particularly Western society where neurosis and mental unhealth is the norm.

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?

Edited December 23, 2023 by Nilsi

[Carl-Richard]

8 hours ago, Nilsi said:

So you’re talking about some kind of flow state?

It's a similar concept, yes. If flow is optimal functioning while engaging in a highly demanding task (which indeed correlates with activity of the task-positive network), then enlightenment is optimal functioning irrespective of task demand. In other words, flow is optimal functioning in highly challenging activities (like a virtuosic music performance or an expert-level sports feat), while enlightenment is optimal functioning in all activities (with a caveat, which I'll go into later).

 

8 hours ago, Nilsi said:

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.

What if we re-framed anxiety as excess self-talk, and that enlightenment doesn't make self-talk disappear, but that it arises merely when it's relevant to the task at hand? And because "tasking" is the enlightened person's default state, they will do exactly what the self-talk has mandated without hesitation, without unnecessary repetition. "But is hesitation not sometimes a good thing?". It's generally a good thing if it entails identifying a lack of sufficient information for making a careful decision and assertively putting off making a decision until more information is available, but it's generally not when simply ruminating on the same information over and over without seeing a resolve and not taking action (and it's the latter that is removed with enlightenment, not the former). (I partially challenge this point later).

The thing that happens in the enlightened state (or if you're simply close to it) and thus drenched in the tasking mode is that (almost) all of the task-relevant information becomes available at lightening speed. When you're in the normal Western neurotic state of mind (overactive DMN), the task-relevant information is sometimes not readily gathered, or at least slower and in smaller segments, all the while it's being clouded by a constant barrage of task-irrelevant information (essentially ADHD symptoms). There are neuroscience studies showing how over the course of several trials of performing the same cognitive task (particularly a boring one) and where there is a possibility for making errors, the period of time leading up to an error is predicted by an increase in DMN activity, which reflects a lack of attention to the task at hand and immersion in task-irrelevant information (for example thinking about what's for dinner).

All in all, your clarity of mind and your ability to make decisions is undoubtedly increased by making the tasking mode your default state, which will supercharge your development and achievements in major ways. We know that enlightened people who have worldly ambitions are capable of undertaking enormous things (look at Sadhguru for example). There are thus definite upsides to this mode of being.

But are there downsides? Maybe. If your goals are for example highly aesthetic in nature and rely on some sort of authentic anxious vibe (for example a certain type of musician or poet), then maybe enlightenment is not for you. As for more "functional" goals, could obsessive rumination for example be a good thing in certain academic professions? You could make that argument. But then again, the likelihood for these people to for example engage in unclear thinking, defend logical dead ends or engage in relatively meaningless pursuits, may cause bigger problems than it solves on average. Maybe once in a while, you get a lucky guy who strikes gold and that could not have done it in any other way, but again, if you want to go for the safest option for increasing functionality, enlightenment is definitely the answer.

 

8 hours ago, Nilsi said:

I also highly doubt that this is sufficient to explain enlightenment in a satisfactory manner to anyone with some serious spiritual experience.

Any explanation of enlightenment is insufficient  

 

8 hours ago, Nilsi said:

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?

It's simply because of how central it is to how humans work, how biological organisms work, that you can place it in such a high place relative to other things. That said, if you're not a human, not a biological organism, don't value survival, don't value functionality, or if you value some highly niche aesthetic goal (or otherwise), then sure, maybe enlightenment is not your best bet. But if the opposite is the case, then most likely, statistically, it is your best bet. That is why it's at the core of religion (and why religion is ubiquitous in human culture, almost synonymous with it). It's largely considered an universal good.

Edited December 24, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Nilsi]

12 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's a similar concept, yes. If flow is optimal functioning while engaging in a highly demanding task (which indeed correlates with activity of the task-positive network), then enlightenment is optimal functioning irrespective of task demand. In other words, flow is optimal functioning in highly challenging activities (like a virtuosic music performance or an expert-level sports feat), while enlightenment is optimal functioning in all activities (with a caveat, which I'll go into later).

 

What if we re-framed anxiety as excess self-talk, and that enlightenment doesn't make self-talk disappear, but that it arises merely when it's relevant to the task at hand? And because "tasking" is the enlightened person's default state, they will do exactly what the self-talk has mandated without hesitation, without unnecessary repetition. "But is hesitation not sometimes a good thing?". It's generally a good thing if it entails identifying a lack of sufficient information for making a careful decision and assertively putting off making a decision until more information is available, but it's generally not when simply ruminating on the same information over and over without seeing a resolve and not taking action (and it's the latter that is removed with enlightenment, not the former). (I partially challenge this point later).

The thing that happens in the enlightened state (or if you're simply close to it) and thus drenched in the tasking mode is that (almost) all of the task-relevant information becomes available at lightening speed. When you're in the normal Western neurotic state of mind (overactive DMN), the task-relevant information is sometimes not readily gathered, or at least slower and in smaller segments, all the while it's being clouded by a constant barrage of task-irrelevant information (essentially ADHD symptoms). There are neuroscience studies showing how over the course of several trials of performing the same cognitive task (particularly a boring one) and where there is a possibility for making errors, the period of time leading up to an error is predicted by an increase in DMN activity, which reflects a lack of attention to the task at hand and immersion in task-irrelevant information (for example thinking about what's for dinner).

All in all, your clarity of mind and your ability to make decisions is undoubtedly increased by making the tasking mode your default state, which will supercharge your development and achievements in major ways. We know that enlightened people who have worldly ambitions are capable of undertaking enormous things (look at Sadhguru for example). There are thus definite upsides to this mode of being.

But are there downsides? Maybe. If your goals are for example highly aesthetic in nature and rely on some sort of authentic anxious vibe (for example a certain type of musician or poet), then maybe enlightenment is not for you. As for more "functional" goals, could obsessive rumination for example be a good thing in certain academic professions? You could make that argument. But then again, the likelihood for these people to for example engage in unclear thinking, defend logical dead ends or engage in relatively meaningless pursuits, may cause bigger problems than it solves on average. Maybe once in a while, you get a lucky guy who strikes gold and that could not have done it in any other way, but again, if you want to go for the safest option for increasing functionality, enlightenment is definitely the answer.

 

Any explanation of enlightenment is insufficient  

 

It's simply because of how central it is to how humans work, how biological organisms work, that you can place it in such a high place relative to other things. That said, if you're not a human, not a biological organism, don't value survival, don't value functionality, or if you value some highly niche aesthetic goal (or otherwise), then sure, maybe enlightenment is not your best bet. But if the opposite is the case, then most likely, statistically, it is your best bet. That is why it's at the core of religion (and why religion is ubiquitous in human culture, almost synonymous with it). It's largely considered an universal good.

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).

Edited December 24, 2023 by Nilsi

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Nilsi said:

 This being at the center of all religions would imply some kind of teleology to it though, no?

Statistically, yes, but again, I reject the reductive framing. That is why I wrote all this. If it was as simple as "it's an absolute good", I wouldn't have made all these caveats.

[Nilsi]

4 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Statistically, yes, but again, I reject the reductive framing. That is why I wrote all this. If it was as simple as "it's an absolute good", I wouldn't have made all these caveats.

Fair, that’s what I was getting at. 

[Carl-Richard]

12 hours ago, Nilsi said:

 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).

That could be possible to a certain extent. It would also explain how far lost we've gotten from functionality, painting ourself into a corner with dense conceptual schemes and metaphysical materialism. It got us modern science, but it also got us the modern mental health crisis.

That said, while the culture around enlightenment prevalent in the East is probably less conducive to creativity, the enlightened state itself is still an immense source of creativity (indicated by what we know about flow states). There have always been relatively few actual enlightened people, so this probably skews the numbers in favor of the West. I wonder what a society where e.g. 50% of the population is enlightened would look like in terms of creativity. Nevertheless, again, you can't underestimate the possible impact of the few obsessed lucky neurotics that strike creative gold and do so soelly due to their neurotic nature.

Edited December 25, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

Jerking off.

[Nilsi]

10 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Nevertheless, again, you can't underestimate the possible impact of the few obsessed lucky neurotics that strike creative gold and do so soelly due to their neurotic nature.

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.

[Rafael Thundercat]

Is not a hard problem. Consciouness is all there is and is you. 

[Carl-Richard]

On 25.12.2023 at 11:54 AM, Nilsi said:

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.

DMN activation is definitionally neurotic (neurosis = mental conflict). It disrupts current processing with emotionally salient and sometimes completely task-irrelevant information; it creates conflict between the task at hand and some new information. I've simply been claiming it could be the case that an overactive DMN could lead to certain creative outcomes that would not be possible otherwise. After all, the DMN is also definitionally a provider of insights (a radical new way of looking at things). It's just that when the DMN is overactive, your ability to perform on tasks and thus have particularly brilliant insights might be severely diminished, hence enlightened people might be more creative (or brilliantly creative) on average. But again, that doesn't mean that an overactive DMN couldn't produce different types of insights which could be brilliant (because it's indeed a different state), but arguably at a lesser rate (because general task perfomance is lower), hence there is some luck involved for the person who does strike gold.

 

On 25.12.2023 at 11:54 AM, Nilsi said:

If anything, being so obsessed with functionality and simplicity indicates neuroticism and fear of the unknown to me.

An enlightened person cannot be in such a state.

Funny side note but relevant: I just watched a video where Jan Esmann (a really interesting mystic) talks about how enlightenment impacts things like IQ, and he personally reported seeing a 30 point IQ increase from when he was in his 20s and "unenlightened" compared to his 50s where he was deeply established in enlighenment, which is particularly fascinating as your IQ generally decreases with age. This is by the way consistent with the fact that neural networks related to working memory and executive functioning (which are closely related to IQ) are essentially synonymous with the task-positive network. That tells you the scope of the increase in functioning that we're talking about. That said, Jan is specifically talking about energetic phenomena that becomes available at various stages of enlightenment (increased Shakti, kundalini awakenings), which is of course less easily captured by the DMN/tasking dichotomy. Nevertheless, it provides a strong suggestion that functioning can be highly increased by practicing the "enlightenment" type of spirituality.

Additional interesting side note showing overactivation of the DMN in relation to psychopathology:

Quote

Such findings converge on the notion that unusually high activity and connectivity in the DMN in schizophrenia may underlie both cognitive (poor working memory) and social (excessive self-relevance and self-focus) aspects of the disorder.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/task-positive-network

No wonder why we have a mental health crisis when not only the more "common" mood-related disorders like depression and anxiety are implicated, but also psychotic disorders like schizophrenia. This also hearkens back to the point about overactive DMN leading to unclear thinking.

Edited December 27, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Nilsi]

23 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

DMN activation is definitionally neurotic (neurosis = mental conflict).

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.

Edited December 26, 2023 by Nilsi

[Carl-Richard]

On 26.12.2023 at 2:09 PM, Nilsi said:

That’s precisely my point. Conflict is absolutely necessary for any kind of creative breakthrough.

But it doesn't have to be repetitive unresolved conflict, i.e. classical neurosis, or being constantly distracted by irrelevant information, i.e. psychosis. Again, in enlightenment, the DMN is not discarded, only re-prioritized.

As you said, it's a trade-off between functionality and novelty, but you could make the case that there exists an optimal trade-off, judged by how "useful" it is. For example, how low IQ can you have before the gain in novelty is not useful for anything? I would claim enlightenment is generally closer to the optimal trade-off, while the Western normal exists on the lower end of the trade-off optimum. When you deviate from the optimal trade-off, any gain in novelty that is useful becomes exceedingly rare, but again, the novelty that is gained might be specific to that level (not possible through any other means), which might be useful for society at large.

I think it helps to emphasize that functionality includes to a large extent the concept of intelligence in the strict cognitive sense (information processing capacity; working memory, executive control) and not just "softer" psycho-emotional aspects that impact well-being. These of course overlap, but to emphasize the distinction is prudent in this case, because you're indeed trading off intelligence (in the sense stated) for novelty, which is a tricky trade-off.

 

On 26.12.2023 at 2:09 PM, Nilsi said:

„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.

Nietzsche might've been one of those rare cases where an otherwise sub-optimal trade-off did produce some exceptionally useful insights. That said, Buddha surely had a creative output: his teachings (the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold path, etc.) were quite brilliant in capturing the intricacies of the spiritual path and providing a framework for advancing on the path in a balanced way (one that discourages so-called "spiritual bypassing"). Creativity doesn't necessarily have to involve a complete and utter novelty of the kind that has never been seen before, but often simply a refinement or integration of existing insights (I would actually argue that most forms of creativity are of the latter form, but you can of course have gradations on that).

Edited December 27, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Hojo]

The solution is problems are imaginary.

[Nilsi]

10 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

When you deviate from the optimal trade-off, any gain in novelty that is useful becomes exceedingly rare, but again, the novelty that is gained might be specific to that level (not possible through any other means), which might be useful for society at large.

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.

Edited December 27, 2023 by Nilsi