Livin Your Best Life

First topic message reminder :

“Nature’s first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf’s a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.”

—Robert Frost - “Nothing Gold Can Stay”

I have heard many voices.

But not spent enough time with the ones I have been birthed from.

Been spending some time with Emerson, I have reached this point in life I can hear him.

This is a powerful essay on self-reliance and this is the gift America has given me, if I be worthy.

“Self-Reliance” Key Points:

- Urges his readers to follow their individual will instead of conforming to social expectations.

- Emphasizes following one’s own voice rather than an intermediary's, such as the church.

- Encourages his readers to be honest in their relationships with others.

- Posits the effects of self-reliance: altering religious practices, encouraging Americans to stay at home and develop their own culture, and focusing on individual rather than societal progress.

https://emersoncentral.com/texts/essays-first-series/self-reliance/

In order to become the best minister, Emerson had to leave the ministry.

That’s the way.

You have to face this willing to be found wrong and destitute.

The forced smile, not interested.



My sacred law is my nature.

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”

—Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance

Hyperreal, More Real Than Real

This is not theoretical, it's happening. For Baudrillard, people live in the era of the reign of the object. We are ruled by objects. We are ruled by the appearances. The self under siege. If the self is lost already, then all the strategies to live a good life are lost too. If it is the end of the world, we want to know, so we can all enjoy the Apocalypse together.

"Baudrillard thus concludes that the “catastrophe has happened,” that the destruction of modernity and modern theory which he noted in the mid-1970s, has been completed by the development of capitalist society itself, that modernity has disappeared and a new social situation has taken its place. Against traditional strategies of rebellion and revolution, Baudrillard begins to champion what he calls “fatal strategies” that push the values of the system to the extreme in the hopes of collapse or reversal, and eventually adopts a style of highly ironic metaphysical discourse that renounces emancipation and the discourse and hopes of progressive social transformation."

Why do we persist with the old world? It's gone. In the 60s they predicted electronic communities would become tribal. Duh.



These poor UFO muppets just can't follow the bouncing ball. The object has overcome the subject. they are so confused lost in the hyperreal politics.

Disclosure is part of this of course.

"For Adorno and Horkheimer, within the transformations of organized and hi-tech capitalism, modes of Enlightenment become domination, culture becomes culture industry, democracy becomes a form of mass manipulation, and science and technology form a crucial part of an apparatus of social domination."

"In a similar fashion, Baudrillard, a “strong simulacrist,” claims that in the media and consumer society, people are caught up in the play of images, spectacles, and simulacra, that have less and less relationship to an outside, to an external “reality,” to such an extent that the very concepts of the social, political, or even “reality” no longer seem to have any meaning. And the narcoticized and mesmerized (some of Baudrillard’s metaphors) media-saturated consciousness is in such a state of fascination with image and spectacle that the concept of meaning itself (which depends on stable boundaries, fixed structures, shared consensus) dissolves. In this alarming and novel postmodern situation, the referent, the behind and the outside, along with depth, essence, and reality all disappear, and with their disappearance, the possibility of all potential opposition vanishes as well. As simulations proliferate, they come to refer only to themselves: a carnival of mirrors reflecting images projected from other mirrors onto the omnipresent television and computer screen and the screen of consciousness, which in turn refers the image to its previous storehouse of images also produced by simulatory mirrors. Caught up in the universe of simulations, the “masses” are “bathed in a media massage” without messages or meaning, a mass age where classes disappear, and politics is dead, as are the grand dreams of disalienation, liberation, and revolution."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/baudrillard/

Some good lectures - get some - http://rickroderick.org/

We have to live with this. Be weary of over reduction. We want the more real than real today.

The road is an endless set of "fatal strategies."

Because human nature is principally oriented toward symbolic meaning, people have been left without any real meaning. This void is filled with mass media and electronic stimulations, which need to be produced in ever more spectacular and plasticine fashion. The person himself or herself is left without any solid, social identities and must cobble together an image-based self.

Humans are symbolic creatures oriented toward meaning rather than production.

Have we gone too far from reality, is there any difference between the image and real in our age?

“Humans ‘by nature’ gain pleasure from such things as expenditure, waste, festivities, sacrifices and so on, in which they are sovereign and free to expend the excesses of their energy. Baudrillard argues that these human characteristics were given license and support in precapitalist societies. However, the modernist demands of rationality and restraint in the beginning years of capitalism are the antithesis of symbolic exchange and excess."

"The fetish, then, is the human infatuation with consuming sign-vehicles that are devoid of all meaning and reality. Thus, ideology “appears as a sort of cultural surf frothing on the beachhead of the economy”. Signs keep proliferating without producing substance."

"Baudrillard posits that the postmodern sign has “no relation to any reality whatsoever: it is its own pure simulacrum”. These kinds of signs are set free from any constraint of representation and become a “play of signifiers ... in which the code no longer refers back to any subjective or objective ‘reality,’ but to its own logic”. Thus, in postmodernity, a fundamental break has occurred between signs and reality. Signs reference nothing other than themselves; they are their own reality and the only reality to which humans refer."

"Baudrillard argues that there is something intrinsic in transferring information that breaks it down. This is an important point: Anytime we relate or convey information to another, there is a breakdown. So fundamental is this fact that Baudrillard makes it an equation: information = entropy. Baudrillard argues that information destroys its base. The reason for this is twofold. First, information is always about something; it isn’t that thing or experience itself. Information by definition, then, is always something other than the thing itself. Second, anytime we convey information, we must use a medium, and it is impossible to put something through a
medium without changing it in some way. Even talking to your friend about an event you experienced changes it. Some of the meaning will be lost because language can’t convey your actual emotions, and some meaning will be added because of the way your friend individually understands the words you are using."

"Hyperreality is a way of understanding and talking about the mass of disconnected culture. It comes to substitute for reality. In hyperreality, people are drawn to cultural images and signs for artificial stimulation. In other words, rather than being involved in social reality, people involve themselves with fake stimulations. Examples of such simulacra include artificial Christmas trees, breast implants, airbrushed Playboy Bunnies, food and drink flavors that don’t exist naturally, and so on."

"The interesting thing about reality programming is that there is no reality. However, it presents itself as a representation of reality. The significance of the idea of hyperreality is that it lets us see that people in postmodernity seek stimulation and nothing more. Hyperreality itself is void of any significance, meaning, or emotion. But, within that hyperreality, people create unreal worlds of spectacle and seduction. Hyperreality is a postmodern condition, a virtual world that provides experiences more involving and spectacular than everyday life and reality."

This is why the power of silence and focus, disconnected from the hyperreal, can really be an amazing help to clear your head and reorient yourself.

"The remaining postmodern practice is a kind of resistance through passivity—refusing to play. There’s an old American slogan from the Vietnam era that says, “Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?” This is similar to what Baudrillard has in mind with resistance through passivity. Rather than attempting to engage postmodern culture, or responding in frustration, or trying to change things, Baudrillard advocates refusal or passive resistance. And perhaps like the war that no one shows up for, postmodernity will simply cease."

"Opposition is impossible because postmodern culture has no boundaries to push against; it is tantamount to pushing against smoke. Further, the acting subject is equally as amorphous. Thus, according to Baudrillard, there’s little place in postmodernity to grab ahold of and make a difference. Most things turn out to be innuendo, smoke, spam, mistakes ... a smooth surface of meaninglessness and seduction. Baudrillard (1993a) leaves us with a few responses: play, spectacle, and passivity."

I have slowly been filtering out, and sometimes suddenly, these unreal representations of reality. Passive resistance has been effective.

You can't fight the fog.

“To the eyes of the man of imagination, nature is imagination itself. As a man is, so he sees."

—William Blake

At 4 he saw magnificent winged beings in a tree.

He said he wrote and drew and painted what he saw.

I think he could see the daimons.

I can feel this.

I can talk to being through a tin cup.

We are in between in many aspects.

Hey, if Socrates spoke about it, must be something to it.

Deva in Hindu.

I cannot tell a lie, I talk to voices inside.

They communicate back.

Turns out talking to yourself is the best way to know thyself.

There is a dark passenger too.

Most times I feel scripted but more and more I am letting myself be, otherwise I only fuck things up.

So life is almost in autopilot at this point.

I have indulged in what I love and am most curious about.

That is the key.

Love what you are and what you do.

Love the ones beside you and behind you and in front of you.

To love yourself is to love all the rest.

I have a drive in me I just can’t satisfy, it’s like a blazing 🥵 blue star.

It is getting more intense.

I feel and see its gravity.

Sometimes I let myself slip away into aspects of it.

I am quickly taken to task when I go too far by this inner sense.

But when I watch and listen and act, I am not disappointed, things work out just in time.

I have a just in time compiler now.

It isn’t like I am commanding a performing ape.

That’s me!

An ape that can see not see itself in the mirror of consciousness is my only trick.

That alone is enough for my curiosity.

“There is only life, but there is nobody who lives a life.”

“When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom.
When I see I am everything, that is love.
My life is a movement between these two.”

—Nisargadatta Maharaj

Nis called out the black hole.

He said if the hole is your beginning and end, why not use your consciousness to truly know what you are while you can?

You ain’t coming back.

Your waking sleeping and knowledge will cease to be.

Then you will know nothing.

“Love all or none of it, and stop complaining. When you have seen the dream as a dream, you have done all that needs to be done”.

To be oneself is the only true religion.

We can be pierced by reality.

I never stood a chance.

Life is sacrifice, get used to it, get over it.

I’m going to build this life the rest of my life and then I will burn this beautiful ship I built to ashes.

It is fun to try to wrestle meaning out of this.

As absurd as this may seem to us, we and all of this is the meaning.

It would be a mistake for unreality to just drop it all.

Our lives are so very very very short.

“Everything we do is a charade. Even our modesty is false and, when with apparent humility you declare how little you know, you were only trying to conceal the fact that you really are claiming the opposite. For your lives as you live them are like a torn bed sheet; a little mound of earth left by a mole; the corner of a children’s playground where the bullies beat you up; the furthest end of a dead end street.”

There are pre-conditions to enter into genuine reality.

Mortal chaos achieves nothing.

So many men of teaching miss the ancients intent and sincerity in my estimation.

Human minds can be marvelously efficient, but have a limit.

The preconditions contain more than all the wisdom in the world ever spoken or written.

I point to the unperceived perceivers.

We ourselves are presented to ourselves.

Some words are much more than ordinary words.

We do not know how to search for real knowledge of reality, and as for finding it, we wouldn’t even recognize it if we did.

Fire is a clue.

In the flow of culture, one can’t even begin to perceive this.

According to Parmenides, the entire human condition can be described as a lack of métis.

All of our mortal will and abilities serve one purpose.

To get us to the moment where we listen to the mysteries.

How can one ride out so far ahead without the help of reality?

“According to Empedocles, in this contest of life we are not even the losing charioteers. In fact, we are not even driving a chariot and horses. On the contrary, we are the horses and chariots that are being driven, all over the place. For we are not even the team of horses that loses. We are the horses that are totally lost and this loss is the most our human metis can manage.”

The métis of humans is no real métis at all. The most it can manage is to accomplish nothing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metis_(mythology)

There is nothing that we ourselves can do, which is not completely true

There is one thing we can do.

We are helpless.

We must step aside to be helped.

We step out of our chaotic life.

We can muster just enough energy for that last push to get out of the mainstream and begin to reach ourselves and learn.

We have to reach all the way back first.

Perhaps the source of this wisdom is divine, I don’t know.

Supposedly a goddess helped Empedocles, but did he not first help himself?

It takes a will.

When our mortal resourcefulness can manage no more, there you begin

“Mortal metis can manage no more.”

To find the teacher, one must go “far away from the beaten track of humans.” And then go all the way.

This is what Bukowski wrote about and meant.

When you reach the end of this world’s wisdom and your own ability, only then can you use your last bit of strength to break out into the wilderness.

It is terrifying.

I could feel when I passed the boundary into this wilderness.

I will not call it the divine world, I will simply say, the real.

Where the trees and ground and wind and water speak.

Wisdom came to Empedocles as a goddess.

I got a

To encounter the Teacher, just come “aside” here.

Where you already stand, in silence and stillness.

There, is really, here.

That, is really, this.

You are the teacher and you can incarnate the teaching in yourself.

No more paths or riddles.

The wisdom is born here and each has to come aside and cultivate it until it grows and then one can assume complete authority as the more than human teacher.

This is how the line progresses.

I extend the line.

I burn, where before I was only warm.

I dare to say the truth is not a matter of entering another level of reality, of traveling Beyond Time and Space or tuning into another dimension.

What matters most is a human being coming face to face with oneself and realizing this and embodying this power.

Nisargadatta called this your deva, the immortal at the heart of the mortal, this is his guru who he worshiped and prayed to.

The thread to eternity within.

They can’t say this, but this is what it is.

Can this be?

Surely it is this.

I have loved it and I hold a hand now I cannot see.

But I feel it, it is burning  me.

My words are like songs now that flow from my heart, a heart love has pierced.

A love I do not feel worthy of.

One I cannot name, but feel duty bound to express.

I do not know where this will springs form but it is sure and swift where once it was doubtful and wobbly.

Who can follow?

We all have our boat on the unconscious.

You will need to jump out and swim to the bottom.

U wrote:

One does what one can.

I’m spinning the tunes of Apocalypse.

Uncovering.

“In fact, every serious antinomy signifies psychologically: “the light that I possess is polarised at two poles; between these two luminous poles there is only darkness”. Now, it is from this darkness that the solution to the antinomy, the synthesis, must be drawn, It is necessary to create light from darkness. One could say that it is a matter of an act analogous to the Fiat lux (“Let there be light”, Genesis i, 3) of the first day of creation.“

“Eliphas Lévi certainly sensed the universal historical meaning of the Hermit. This is why he stated the admirable formula: The initiate is he who possesses the lamp of Trismegistus, the mantle of Apollonius, and the staff of the patriarchs. (Eliphas Lévi, Dogme et rituel de la haute magie; trsl. A. E. Waite, Transcendental Magic. Its Doctrine and Ritual, London, 1968, p. 92) In fact, the Hermit who haunts the imagination of “young” youth, the Hermit of legend and the Hermit of history was, is, and always will be the solitary man with the lamp, mantle and staff. For he possesses the gift of letting light shine in the darkness—this is his “lamp”; he has the faculty of separating himself from the collective moods, prejudices and desires of race, nation, class and family—the faculty of reducing to silence the cacophony of collectivism vociferating around him, in order to listen to and understand the hierarchical harmony of the spheres—this is his “mantle”; at the same time he possesses a sense of realism which is so developed that he stands in the domain of reality not on two feet, but rather on three, i.e. he advances only after having touched the ground through immediate experience and at first-hand contact without intermediaries—this is his “staff”. He creates light, he creates silence and he creates certainty—conforming to the criterion of the Emerald Table, namely the triple concordance of that which is clear, of that which is in harmony with the totality of revealed truths and of that which is the object of immediate experience: Verum, sine mendacio, certum et verissimum (Tabula Smaragdina, 1). Verum, sine mendacio—this is clarity (the lamp); Certum—this is the concordance of that which is clear and the totality of other truths (the “lamp” and the “mantle”); Verissimum—this is the concordance of that which is clear, the totality of other truths, and authentic and immediate experience (the “lamp”, the “mantle” and the “staff”). The Hermit therefore represents not only a wise and good father who is a reflection of the Father in heaven, but also the method and essence of Hermeticism. For Hermeticism is founded on the concordance of three methods of knowledge: the a priori knowledge of intelligence (the “lamp”); the harmony of all by analogy (the “mantle”); and authentic immediate experience (the “staff”). Hermeticism is thus a threefold synthesis of three antinomies: 1. the synthesis of the antinomy “idealism—realism”; 2. the synthesis of the antinomy “realism—nominalism”; 3. the synthesis of the antinomy “faith—empirical science”. In so far as it is a synthesis—a personal one, of course, in the inner forum of the consciousness of each—in which the three antinomies above supply each time a third term, its number is nine, and it is the ninth Arcanum of the Tarot which teaches us about the three syntheses of the three antinomies. Let us now look at how Hermeticism is the synthesis of the above three antitheses or antinomies. 1. The antinomy “idealism—realism” This reduces to two opposite formulae, namely: “Consciousness or the idea is prior to everything”—this is the formula of idealism; and “The thing (res) is prior to all consciousness or ideas”—this is the basic formula of realism. The idealist (e.g. Hegel) considers everything as so many forms of thought, whilst the realist (e.g. Spencer) affirms that objects of knowledge have an existence which is independent of thought or consciousness on the part of the subject of the knowledge. The realist says that notions, laws and ideas are derived—by way of abstraction—from objects of knowledge. The idealist says, on the contrary, that notions, laws and ideas are projected—by way of “concredsation”—from the subject of knowledge into objects. The realist advances the so-called “correspondence” theory of truth, i.e. that “truth is the correspondence between object and intellect”. The idealist relies on the so-called “coherence” theory of truth, i.e. that “truth is coherence—or absence of contradictions—in the handling of ideas, notions and objects (objects being only notions) by the intellect”. Truth is, according to realism, that which in the intellect corresponds with the object. According to idealism, truth is that which constitutes a coherent system in the intellect. The entire world exactly reflected in the intellect—this is the ideal of knowledge for realism. The entire world exactly reflecting the postulates and categories of the intellect as a unique coherent system—this is the ideal of knowledge for idealism. It is the world which bears the word and it is the human intellect which listens, says realism. It is the intellect which bears the word and it is the world which is its reflection, says idealism. “Nihil in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu” (“nothing is in the intellect which has not had prior existence in the sense world”) is the millennial-old formula of realism. “Nihil in sensu quod non prius fuerit in intellectu” (“nothing is in the sense world which has not had prior existence in the intellect”) is the counter-formula of idealism. Which is right? Realism with its idol, i.e. the “thing” (res) prior to thought, and its Mazdean dualism, i.e. darkness (the thing) and light (thought), which latter proceeds from or is born from the former? Or idealism with its idol of the human intellect which it sets on the throne of God, and its pan-intellectual monism where there is room neither for the “gift of Perfect Night”, i.e. the superhuman wisdom mentioned in the sacred book of Hermes Trismegistus entitled Kore Kosmu, nor for the shadows of evil, ugliness and illusion that we experience every day? No, let us not prostrate outselves either before the world or before the intellect, but let us prostrate ourselves in adoration of the common source of both the world and the intellect—God: God whose Word is at one and the same time the “true light that enlightens every man coming into the world” (John i, 9) and the creator of the world—“all things were made through him, and nothing that was made was made without him” (John i, 3). The thing, the world—it is the Word which is its source. The intellect, the light of thought—it is again the Word which is its source. This is why Christian Hermeticism of the present as well as the pagan Hermeticism of the past is neither merely realistic nor simply idealistic. It is “logoistic” (“of the Logos”), being founded neither on the thing nor on the human intellect, but rather on the Logos, the Word of God, whose objective manifestation is the world of prototypes underlying the phenomenal world, and whose subjective manifestation is the light or prototype of human intelligence. “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness receives it not” (John i, 5), which means to say that there is darkness both in the world and within consciousness which has not received—i.e. is not penetrated by—the light, and that consequently evil, ugliness and illusion certainly exist in the world and in consciousness. But the darkness of the world that is not penetrated by the Word is not the source of consciousness, and the human intellect that is not illumined by the Word is not the principle of the world. In the phenomenal world there are “objective illusions”, i.e. “things which are not real” which have not been made by the Word, but which have arisen for an ephemeral existence from the sub-strata of darkness. In the domain of subjective consciousness there are illusions, i.e. notions, ideas and ideals which are not real, which have not been engendered by the light of the Word, but which have arisen for an ephemeral existence from the depths of darkness in the subconscious. Now, the correspondence between an illusory object and a notion of it in the intellect would not be truth, but rather a double illusion. Realism should be aware of this when it advances its so-called “correspondence” theory of truth. And the inner coherence of an intellectual system based on illusions would not be a criterion of its truth, but rather an indication of an obsession that is so much the deeper the more the coherence is complete. Idealism should be aware of this when it advances its so-called “coherence” theory of truth. Objects are only real, in the sense of realism, when they are real in the Word. And intellectual constructions are only true, in the sense of idealism, when they are true in the Word. The human intellect, as such, is not the producer of truth after the fashion of a spider producing its web. A fact of the outer or inner world, in so far as it is a fact, need not instate truth when it can just as well point to an illusion or the history of an illusion, be it in Nature (e.g. antediluvian monsters) or be it human (e.g. many idols of the past or present). Now, the “world” of our experience is the phenomenal manifestation of both the world created by the Word and the evolutionary world of the serpent. The “intellect” of our experience, also, is the manifestation both of the light of the Word and of the “ruse” (to take the Biblical term for the method where darkness imitates light without receiving it) of the serpent. This is why it is still necessary to distinguish, before one professes to realism, between the World and the world. Similarly, before one embraces idealism, one has to distinguish between cosmic Intelligence and the human intellect. But once this distinction is made, one can without hesitation embrace idealism and realism at one and the same time—which would be the “idealism—realism” or the logoism of ancient and contemporary Hermeticism. Then the method of correspondence becomes the staff in the hand of the Hermit and the method of coherence becomes the mantle which covers him. This is thanks to the light of the Hermit’s lamp, which is the holy instrument where the light of the Word is united with the oil of human intellectual endeavour.”

God huh?

Love?

Nature?

Aleph.

Word.

Letter as word.

The Word and the Serpent. Idealism and realism both at once.

Fiat Lux!

Disenchantment



Dover Beach

BY MATTHEW ARNOLD

The sea is calm tonight.
The tide is full, the moon lies fair
Upon the straits; on the French coast the light
Gleams and is gone; the cliffs of England stand,
Glimmering and vast, out in the tranquil bay.
Come to the window, sweet is the night-air!
Only, from the long line of spray
Where the sea meets the moon-blanched land,
Listen! you hear the grating roar
Of pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling,
At their return, up the high strand,
Begin, and cease, and then again begin,
With tremulous cadence slow, and bring
The eternal note of sadness in.

Sophocles long ago
Heard it on the Ægean, and it brought
Into his mind the turbid ebb and flow
Of human misery; we
Find also in the sound a thought,
Hearing it by this distant northern sea.

The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth’s shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.

Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

--

Beware relativism.

You are not made of atoms, but bits, a turing machine made of a quantum computer.

Welcome to the zero universe, a high quality simulation, where mind creates reality, there is no out there.

Measurement is entanglement he theorizes.

Even more reason to be at ease.

What is death in a quantum universe?

Hell, I already gave up on soul.

I’ll take quantum immortality.

Maybe we uploaded ourselves long ago.

And we just play one life out after another.

Shrug.

Two men were arguing about a flag flapping in the wind. "It's the wind that is really moving," stated the first one. "No, it is the flag that is moving," contended the second. A Zen master, who happened to be walking by, overheard the debate and interrupted them. "Neither the flag nor the wind is moving," he said, "It is MIND that moves."

(In other versions of this story,
the master says it is the HEART
that flaps)

Quite incredible I find this series of talks.

I so more listen to others now than read them.

I am lucky to be a fast reader and have quick comprehension, but these things I read now have to be read over and over and listened to again and again and meditated upon, until it all somehow becomes a cloud and then I ask the cloud questions and it answers.

Hey, I asked for help and it came in a cloud.

It is all connecting up or I see them rather.

This is the territory of poets and imagination.

But the cloud says CAUTION, I cannot tell you what to do, but I can give you a shock when you may be veering off course.

Veering of course, to where, I ask.

Indeed, it thunders.

This is it!

This is the shit and you are knee deep in it.



I have been suspecting relativism to be a danger of individualism and that authenticity and sincerity are checks against the dangers of individualism.

The fucking cloud showed me that.

This is the whole gist of these lectures I am blabbing about.

How did I figure this out on my own?

Step by step I was shown this path by myself.

How can one do this if they don’t go into the wilderness?

So much of his lecture I have been writing about in a series on philosophy I have been writing on LinkedIn before I came across him.

I am sitting at his feet going, yes yes, blown away how the cloud showed me this before I sensed it.

One could let that sink in and really let one self go into that.

It’s not bliss, it’s somehow, true knowing.

This is really something to me.

It is an affirmation that my steps are not just my own.

I have something here.

Another 🧵 🪡  I’ve been on, I have been studying and writing about realism and idealism and holism.

Somehow all this stuff just started to click.

I had followed my intuition across philosophy ancient to post structural and had filled in a rough picture.

I started asking my own questions based on my processing of the information.

I started to see gold in the picture and I followed it.

And it led me to ask the same questions as Taylor answers.

It is so easy to slide into total relativism or idolotry.

But but but, there is a way.

There is a path of no path between light and darkness.

It just materializes out of thin air when you go through the motions.

You begin to teach yourself to settle down.

You show yourself you are your own way and you have to stand with yourself first.

Then we you see the illusion of the world and realize the reality of being.

Then you have to find a way to still live here.

The old ways where others defined you don’t work.

You have to ignite as a sun.

You have to let yourself become.

A dangerous time and one of genesis.

What a fantastic trip.

Seriously. I see the notes of music  hanging in my mind.

Like a Chopin Nocturne.

This is really only meaningful to me.

Who is not a me really.

An interface to the quantum universe.

You resist conformity and authority off onto the unbeaten track into the wilderness into the underworld.

This brings the heroic back to your life, a required ingredient.

One let’s all their beliefs go and questions every thought.

One finds a way.

Get up, find it.

This is what Jordan Peterson ha failed to say, he hasn’t found this.

There are required parts of individualism, go back to Rousseau.

There are dangers.

Oh my.

Let’s keep moving.

Out of the foxhole!

Get up!

Find it!

Keep it simple.

Take only what you need for the next step, which is only your own bare naked ass.

To deny others the right to exist is the basis of evil.



Come back from atomism.

The perennial beacon.

Come back from amorality.

Engage.

If one is being authentic they must engage others.

We can articulate to help illuminate.

Best song to listen to when the world is about to end or you are about to die.

Let go, goodbye.

What did it all mean?

The living of this.

I know what my Dharma is in the coming flames

To stand within them.