Creepy Uncle Joe?

“Is it so pretty, is it so quiet, is it so pristine?”

Michael Collins, an American astronaut looking on the fragile Earth from the space orbit.

Since my previous article was concerned with the issues of predatory men in power, and the US of A is gearing towards the election… here is another one: Joe Biden.

You come to your own conclusions, but from my SE Asia experiences I can tell you this: what is done in broad daylight in Cambodia – takes place in the so called ‘civilized developed’ countries behind closed curtains. In Cambodia creepy old men openly stalk the streets and pick up raven haired young Cambodian women. There are long discussions about the size of the bazookas, the treatment/preferences for the pubes, the shape of a girl’s arse, the tightness of a Cambodian pussy. They are unabashedly misogynistic, and women are thought to belong in two places – the kitchen for cooking his meals and the bedroom for massaging his cock.

In the West men are groomed to be compliant with modern ‘civilized’ expectations, and the above sentiments are not allowed to be openly expressed. They are pushed underground, into the scams of pickup artist communities and the incel movements. But look what happens when they move to a place where no such expectations exist. We revert to form.

And why would I speak about it on this website? Because it is, as stated, about Reality, and in Reality after thirst and hunger sex is the third most urgent force that prompts a man to make a move. Urging men not to lust after young female (and male) bodies is a waste of breath.

Here is Joe, unafraid and sure of himself and his power to be protected from any questioning. Joe is potentially a candidate for the presidency.

Just don’t, people. I know nothing about Joe’s policies and the worldview, but I keep asking myself what kind of men these guys are. Who and what any man is – MATTERS. Who and what any man IS – shapes the human history and the lives of billions. And it may not matter in the Absolute, but no one lives in the Absolute even if they ultimately understand it.

The Relative is here and rules the world.

I am not a feminist, because I don’t think sexes are equal or CAN BE made equal. I just think it is not possible in the grand scheme of things. However, I do believe that female femininity is a gift to the world. It stops humans from destroying everything in sight. It tempers male aggression. It grants forgiveness. It gives men temporary refuge from the hammering effects of testosterone. It creates other humans and so has a need to protect them into adulthood.

I also like old men because they have lived and they have seen. But as a bottom line a man only needs to be these two things:

STRONG AND KIND.

In Reality, however, it often plays out as:

  1. ‘Strong’ becomes  ——–>> cruel
  2. ‘Kind’ becomes  ———–>> weak

Rarely do they converge in the form that makes a human male self-actualized rather than self-serving and self-surviving.

The girls are clearly uncomfortable in ALL those encounters.

Blue Header

 

142 thoughts on “Creepy Uncle Joe?

  1. Thinking in terms of problems and solutions, I think you present an insoluble conundrum or dilemma – once again.

    “….the government is an institution whereby the people who have the greatest drive to get power over their fellow men, get in a position of controlling them. Look at the record of government. Where are these philosopher kings that Plato supposedly was trying to develop?” (Milton Friedman).

    Considering Friedman’s statement and the tendencies of individuals like you, what’s the alternative way to power, in the relative world – for ‘the wise’ (the so-called (not) enlightened Human) individuals who on their ways to insight and wisdom, have lost the hunger for power, money and perhaps even for being alive?

    “Religious totalitarianism in America” predicts Leonard Peikoff. To me, it seems that that religion (in the long run) is unlikely to be Buddhism, Hinduism, Zen or even Christianity.

    Do you see it going any other way?

    1. There must be another way.

      Politicians are scrambling up an obsolete tower. We are no longer the same humans, society, or system we were 20 years ago because of technology. The old systems are not going to be able to compete with the new. The solution must come from outside of the box or it isn’t really a solution but just a rearrangement of the same issues.

      While humanity is exposing and looking at these festering issues we’re also learning and evolving in ways and at speeds never before possible. Like Elon brought rocket/transportation/energy technology up to date in a practical way, the same will need to happen with the political/education/health/psychological systems in place. Of course there will be extreme opposition from those who have investments in the older systems, but when the new methods become ridiculously cheaper and more efficient than the old and that is demonstrated, many more will quickly switch over their investments. In politics this may look like transparency and less intermediaries between voting and issues. Of course those who want power will continue to manipulation any available media in whatever ways possible, which is why awareness of how ideas influence to create a paradigm and seeming reality is important.

      Humanity has not had the dimension of this level of technology in the mix before. A double (or more) edged sword, but the potentials are quite amazing. Hopefully we can add some useful systems before too many are driven into an unconscious reactive/denial state. Those who want power will continue to attempt to manipulate and use these systems of course, but I think the next generations will be more savvy… maybe… let’s see. Based on the past it looks like an awakening of a broader nature and a reaction to that with the extremes. I hope we don’t fishtail, flip over and explode into flames with this wobble. I think a lot of good and bad will come out of it. Growing pains.

      1. You have a very optimistic view of humanity.

        Humans can’t become more than human so the world will probably always stay the same amount of messed up. Maybe we’ll have completely different problems then, but the underlying cause will be the same, just human fucking each other over and acting only in their best interest.
        Of course there will also be people around who do act like adults, but that won’t undo the actions of others.

        1. I have more than one view of humanity, not all optimistic, but there is great potential and an ongoing evolution of humanity/technology. I see potential because I witness it and know there are people among us who use this potential in ways that do help others ascend Maslow’s hierarchy of basic needs. Trauma and poverty can be obstacles to realizing higher and more cooperative human potentials. We are quickly seeing new ways to cheaply connect, educate, feed, house people with new automated and exponentially more efficient technologies. I don’t think human’s are better off traumatized, uneducated and left needing to find ways to survive in that state. Humans and technology can help solve basic issues now in ways never before possible. This could mean less trauma, fear, denial, abuse, addiction, crime, and overall better education, understanding, clarity, connectivity, and communication. Just because the news doesn’t show this aspect much, doesn’t mean things like this are not happening. Perhaps it seems more realistic to assume a view where humans will never rise above fear and denial? Maybe habit, insatiable greed, or lack of vision will cause humanity to go to absolute shit forever? I kind of doubt it. Humanity evolves with a wobble, maybe some bad reactions and it learns…or some do. The view we hold affects our behavior so why not hold an optimistic open ended view? I know it works for me and it works on larger scale systems too. Even if we do have to learn some fucked up hard lessons in the process, simultaneously, at the very least, aspects humanity will be loving, living, learning, sharing, and creating brilliant new solutions helpful, kind and generous to many, because that’s just another one of the things humans do (In addition to perpetuating chains of abuse). Not all of humanity is a reactive shit storm. Of course consistent focus on pessimism and a belief that nothing can ever getting better is just as powerful as the alternative view. Minds are very powerful. Why not have a balanced focus and be realistically optimistic about human potential without ignoring the very real psychological environmental threats humans face?

          1. “Why not have a balanced focus and be realistically optimistic about human potential”

            Because it would be a lie and an act of fooling yourself.

            btw, this is the kind of stuff Jed McKenna can only talk about on his deathbed.

          2. Re: Enlightenment Myth says:
            “Because it would be a lie and an act of fooling yourself.”

            And pessimism isn’t? Do you know how perception works?

            If you’re sure you can’t, you won’t. If you think you can, you might have a chance. This is just how psychology and evolution of life itself works. One perspective is not more true than another in regards to optimism vs. pessimism.

            I don’t think it’s reasonable to make an assumption for all of humanity for the rest of time. You see a circle from your perspective, I see an infinitely expansive spiral as far as what we are capable of. I’m not talking about an end to duality, I’m talking about basic improvements to standard of living. People having enough food, education, clothing, shelter and healthcare for example. Using the abundance and ease of technology can potentially take care of more people with less time and resources.

            When humans have enough time and resources to do things other than just survive from a place of insecurity, sometimes they make major improvements that span much more than a single lifetime. That’s happened over and over in history, so why isn’t it just as reasonable to believe in that phenomena too?

            Of course, one is free to stay in a box of imagining one is certain about everything that’s possible and impossible, but that is a pretty limited idea of one’s own assumed omniscience. I know I have quite a lot of power to limit potential with assumptions of what’s impossible. I’ve experienced the opposite too. Perception doesn’t tell us everything about reality and sometimes it takes a leap to see beyond our own mental constructs.

            Taking a leap of faith has lead to a better experience for me time and again. Why not humanity over time? Not saying it won’t cycle and spiral, but humans are evolving quickly with technology. It’s a unique time in history and the possibilities are practically limitless.

            As I acknowledged before, there is also the potential that humans will destroy themselves with that double edged sword. I’m routing for something a bit less dramatic. Why? Because I can and yes it makes me feel good, which makes my biology feel relaxed which enables me to be more productive and helpful to myself and others.

            There’s definitely an aspect of humanity that is dramatically or subtly suicidal, but I think in part that is because of coping mechanisms that cause a lack of perspective from being a bit traumatized and disconnected. There is potential and room for improvement on a basic level. Humans might do shitty things, but there are also those who work hard to help ease suffering and solve problems.

            I personally see more value and opportunity in optimism than pessimism, but maybe I’m a fool. In that case I still choose optimism because I enjoy a mindset that includes potential for infinite expansion, learning, growth and improvement. It’s served me well as far as my experience and opportunities.

          3. @EternalDawn

            This exchange very much reminds me of the one I had quite a few years back in which I was you. The same blind faith in humanity with disregard for what is and has always been.

            “I see an infinitely expansive spiral as far as what we are capable of. ”

            Oh we are capable alright. Not gonna happen for the human race, but individually – you can nurse and nurture your potential to become the best version of yourself.

            Now.. the question is… Is that what you are doing? Becoming the best version of yourself? Every day? Physically, mentally, psychologically, physiologically and any other ‘….. logically’?

            If YOU individually cannot ‘unleash your potential’ (and you can’t).. what chance does the humanity have, the humanity that consists of the countless ‘you’?

            Stop fooling yourself.

            As for improving the basics… you don’t understand the basic law of Life: for something to thrive – something else has to perish. It applies to absolutely everything you see around you.

            Ponder that one for a while.

          4. The pessimistic perspective you assume tells me I cannot unleash my potential, but why would I not be able to unleash it when by your definition it is MY potential and so I must be able to reach it, potentially.

            I don’t mind fooling myself this way. You’re fooling yourself too, just with a limiting statement. I’m fooling myself with a perspective that offers encouragement and allows openness to experience more. I like this. It feels good to me and I’m not hurting anybody so I choose it. Why do you ask me to stop it?

            Maintaining optimism has helped me leap past self-limiting mindsets and has lead me to experiences I would have not even attempted if I assumed the pessimistic potential was inevitable. What if being optimistic is the gateway to a less limited experience…. hmmmm. Maybe?

          5. “it is MY potential and so I must be able to reach it, potentially.”

            Sure. Potentially. But you aren’t doing that (reaching your potential). And that – I am sure of.

            But a nice thought to entertain one with. Unlimited daydreaming.

            I want to make it clear here, since you keep mixing the collective and the individual… if one sets themselves clear goals and follows them with focus and determination – one may achieve those goals and more. Look at Ken McMordie, who indeed proved anything is possible he-he.

            That does not apply to humanity as a whole. If you want to nurse the belief otherwise – by all means, do. The things you write sound like the West Coast utopia that’s been sending young freshy students on hippie trails to India, to TM movement and the Human Potential Movement. Can you see just HOW what you perceive to be gloriously enthusiastic and optimustic – has been shaped by the external influences?

            The optimism is not even yours. And what are you doing on this ‘pessimistic’ website anyway?

          6. You’re sure I’m not reaching my potential? My potential to what? Would a pessimistic attitude help me reach the potential you see? What would help me? What am I doing here? Reading, thinking about these things and sharing a perspective.

          7. I am sure. Not because you are failing, but because no one can reach their potential. But they can surely spend their life trying, no dispute there.

            Your question is valid: a potential to what? The logical answer would be: a potential to be the best version of oneself, right? But this begs another question: what makes the best version of oneself? What does that mean?

            There are two possible approaches here:

            1. One can dig for the answer to ‘What does it mean to be the best version of myself?’ They will discover the answer does not exist.

            2. One can set arbitrary attributes for themselves, such as ‘I help as many people as I can’. or ‘I kill as many people as I can’, or ‘I become as physically strong as O can’, or ‘I learn as many languages as I can’ or… an infinite list with many attributes, decided and then followed by each individual.

            3. Leave yourself alone and be as you already are.

            No 2 and No 3 approaches are where people clash. Some want to exert control over themselves. Some let themselves be. The vast majority, however, thinks they CAN exert control over themselves, TRY to do so and keep failing. Misery abound.

            You asked ‘What would help me?’….. help you with what?

          8. So I’ll never reach my potential (no matter what that is) and nobody else will reach their’s either? Why call it a potential then if it’s impossible to achieve?

            The question at the end was, what would help me achieve the potential you were referring to, but you answered that already that you believe potentials as far as humans go are unreachable. I think what you are referring to, I would call an ideal rather than a potential, because the word potential implies the power to potentially reach it.

            My initial point was believing I can do something (optimism), like start a business or build a moonbase for example, increases my potential to succeed at that because if I really believed it to be impossible, I would‘t make the attempt.

          9. Of course you can start a business or build a moonbase (in cooperation with others). The possibilities are endless. If that’s the potential you have been discussing – then I have no problem with that.

          10. Well that’s a relief, yes I was talking about potential to make tangible improvements and go beyond preconceived limitations which is supported by an attitude of optimism vs. pessimism.

          11. You can – on an individual level. Not on the level of the entire species.

            As long as you understand the distinction of ‘the individual versus the collective’ – you are free to create your personal reality in the way you see fit.

          12. Because of individuals optimism, systems have been created to support the evolution of the human species to go beyond prior limitations. Just like not every thought in one’s head needs to be optimistic to have this positive probability effect, nothing needs to be accomplished or accepted by every single free willed individual, for humanity to succeed in solving some basic common issues and to make improvements. Humanity is evolving and expanding because of certain individual’s optimism.

            Here’s a specific example of individual optimism affecting humanities expansion on a whole: If not for Elon Musk’s out of the box thinking and tenacity, humanity would not be expanding to Mars. That doesn’t mean every single person is going to have to believe it’s possible or go to Mars to be part of a species that took such a leap. Just means it was optimism within the collective, that lead to this expansion.

          13. Well I wasn’t referring to progress that can’t progress and I specified that very early on. Just like before when I wasn’t talking about reaching some peak potential, but increasing potential to achieve something through optimism, it seems like you are trying to not understand. What is the point you want to make EM?

          14. You know the point. It was stated from the very beginning. Here, to reiterate:

            “I personally see more value and opportunity in optimism”.

            “I see an infinitely expansive spiral as far as what we are capable of”…….

            You keep saying tbe above, and I keep saying ‘no’ to that. Here is your first post to me in this particular exchange:

            You – “Why not have a balanced focus and be realistically optimistic about human potential”

            Me – “Because it would be a lie and an act of fooling yourself.”

            I would like to hear what REALLY bothers you about this website, instead of the meaningless “I said – You said”, and what compels you to try again and again to convince me of your optimistic view.

            Do not say that you are not trying. This exchange is witness to the contrary.

            In short… who is that girl without a centre?

          15. Ok so we disagree on a point. I don’t need to convince you. It’s a public forum of ideas. Sometimes I click on an email and it takes me here. I read, I try to express some ideas, I answer questions and ask some. What is the problem? Do you think I am so bothered by this website? It’s just a collection of ideas. Am I bothering you?

            Who is that girl without a center? Hmmmm good question. Who? Who I see depends on a point of view. The one I know I am I don’t need to prove. Who do you see? Do I remind you of somebody?

            What runs deep and right through the center, splits the earth in two and leaves nothing uncovered?

            Or is that too general, did you mean, like what’s my name, history and shoe size and am I qualified?

          16. I was naive.

            Trusting.

            I believed that when people say something – they mean it.

            I was reactive.

            I played the unconscious word games in my interactions, just like I see others doing it now.

            I could not understand the true meaning of the written expression, be it a real person in online exchanges or a published material.

            I took things personally.

            I never expressed my true thoughts.

            I was a firm believer in the intrinsic goodness of every human being.

            I believed in progress and thought we as species are evolving somewhere, moving forward.

            Much rainbow in complete disregard of reality.

            I wrote about the rose-coloured glasses in one of my first posts on this website in 2013. It was a shock just how much I was suddenly disabused of all that nonsense above.

          17. Well I do hope you come full circle with that some day. It’s not all shit either. And if you think I haven’t had my share, well shine on naive one. Your attitude suggests you haven’t forgiven that one. There’s more to life than what you make of it and your reflection doesn’t tell you everything about anyone or anything.

          18. It is the collective cultural attitude of whatever place you were brought up in that you may have picked up without consciously examing its assumptions.

            “I enjoy a mindset that includes potential for infinite expansion, learning, growth and improvement.”

            Unpack that statement above for me, if you please. Specifically, infinite expansion, learning, growth and improvement.

          19. “Maybe habit, insatiable greed, or lack of vision will cause humanity to go to absolute shit forever?”

            No, of course not. Humanity will simply keep wobbling and limping on, as it has done in the past 12 thousand years of known civilisations. The changes that you speak of are superficial in nature and do not alter the fundamental tenets of who and what we are: our origins, our genetic wiring, our vulnerabilities, our limitations.

            You also forget that approximately 4 humans are born every second. It will take a lifetime for them to gain a degree of existential wisdom, if any.

            In the meantime.. they will act in unconscious ways and will keep creating numerous problems, as humans have always done.

            The Great Wheel Of Life turning on its axis. I wrote about it before, but people do not grasp it.

          20. @eternal dawn

            I enjoyed your take on perception, something I’ve been experimenting with for a few years now. I think the real point that you’re making gets lost with the statement “One perspective is not more true than another in regards to optimism vs. pessimism.” Not only do we not experience without perspective (no observation without an observer), our entire individual reality is shaped by it. Like you said, belief in something opens you up to its potential where as scepticism severely limits it.

            You also hit on the biological aspect of it in regards to affecting the feeling state as a real and practical approach to shaping reality by carrying with you a certain mindset and feeling state. The person who is calm, confident and poised will experience a day differently than a person who is agitated, fearful or cynical, ect. The key to me is to stay focused on the things that are actually under my control, be it my own mindset, state, or reactions. We all have the freedom to choose the way in which we view the world. The way we focus attention and what we focus attention on. There will always be either those who dont know or value this information and those who simply disregard it. Some people actually enjoy having cynical outlooks for whatever reason. But that needn’t concern the rest of us. It’s not others realities we need to worry about. We need only to guide and handle your own thought process. Redirecting attention to the preferred thereby further cultivating our own focus and willpower.

            No it’s not a guarantee that you will experience something based on your perspective but its setting yourself up for a greater potentiality of it and that’s all you can do is is your part. The chips will fall where they may.

          21. @ j(

            You are beginning to sound more and more like a control freak.

            Just a note. If you REALLY walk through life with a mindset of ‘conquering it all’, ‘being on top of things’, ‘guiding own thought processes’, ‘cultivating focus and willpower’ (what comes across from your writings) – you are setting yourself up for a massive ‘crash and burn’ at a later stage.

          22. Thank you for sharing that but I dont see the crash and burn happening because I understand the limits of what’s in and out of my control. So are there let downs? Yes. But when you understand what’s actually within your sphere of influence you can do your due diligence in those areas while not feeling responsible for the things that are not.

          23. I dont really know. I suppose “capable” yes but that’s not something I consider often, if ever. I’m more about maximizing my efforts than taking advantage of weaknesses.

          24. ‘”I’m more about maximizing my efforts than taking advantage of weaknesses.”

            The above makes no sense. ‘Maximizing one’s efforts’ in order to achieve something – may well include taking advantage of others’ weaknesses.

            Therefore, you haven’t really answered the question.

          25. It makes perfect sense to me. My daily focus is on putting my best foot forward. Not trying to trip up others. They are two distinctly different ways of focusing attention. Not to mention that when you’re focus is on “exposing others weakness” you are exposing yourself to weakness. You’re not on top of your game because your focused elsewhere.

            I actually just beat out another gentlemen for a promotion for exactly this reason. He was way more qualified for the position and about 5 years my senior at the company but he was more worried about what I was doing than his own productivity. Weaknesses have a way of exposing themselves.

          26. I did NOT say anything about ‘exposing others’ weaknesses’, please do not subtly replace one meaning with another.

            I asked about ‘taking advantage of others’ weaknesses’.

            You are trying to avoid answering the question directly. The question remains, however you don’t have to answer. I already know the answer.

            Thanks.

          27. Okay, well, I guess I didn’t answer the question in that way because the question would make no sense.

            I wouldn’t need to “take advantage” of “weakness” as it gives way in accordance with its nature.

          28. …In the same way that the rivers of the world didn’t set out to take advantage of the weaknesses of the earth while flowing to their perspective destinations. I guess I just dont understand the point behind your line of questioning.

          29. Honestly the question still doesn’t even register to me because taking advantage of weaknesses isnt where my focus is. Again, my focus is on being the best version of myself day in and day out. An example would be that I sensed an issue with me being here yesterday and promptly dealt with it. The issue being that the things I talk about have worked very well for me and I try and relay that the best I can. Taking ownership is empowering. It’s not for everyone. That’s fine I have nothing to prove and it’s not for me to jamb down anyone’s throat. In dissolving my need for approval in my methods, I really cant figure out why I need to be here sharing anything. Make of that what you want I guess. It’s just dealing with your own bullshit so that you can move forward and hopefully become better each step of the way. Take care.

          30. j( , I understand your position. Just in the process of taking ownership, as you say…. don’t forget that you were born a human.

            I’ve seen too many young men ‘taking ownership’, marching up the life ladder and…. becoming mini Idi Amins.

          31. Just curious EM, What is the point in your line of questioning J here trying to get him to answer the question, about being capable of taking advantage of other’s weaknesses. He answered it to begin with and his answer is understandable and complete. What point are you trying to drill down to?

          32. It was not the kind of question that would benefit anyone in any way. You simply wanted a bit of a joust, and so did j(

            I don’t place a blame on you for not noticing that.

          1. @j( It’s very telling how you avoid trying to answer EM’s question directly. It’s a simple yes or no question, a third option would be to ask for clarification but it’s a simple enough question as is.

            I agree with EM that you already answered her question, even if not directly.

            “I wouldn’t need to “take advantage” of “weakness” as it gives way in accordance with its nature.” So, it’s easy to take advantage of weakness, so easy that you don’t need to exert any extra effort to take advantage. But of course you could not do so, which is what EM asked, would you take advantage if you know you could? Your answer is very insidious as you leave out the moral aspect as if it’s not there.

            “In the same way that the rivers of the world didn’t set out to take advantage of the weaknesses of the earth while flowing to their perspective destinations.” This comparison is not at all applicable. Rivers cannot exert any willpower or choose their actions, humans can.

          2. @@eternaldawn

            Meh, dont worry about it. I’d answered in as clear a way as possible as it pertains to me. Whatever cryptic meaning they’ve assigned to it is for them to sort out. It’s been my pleasure hearing your perspective.

      2. Ha-ha, you are certainly optimistic and a subject to the ‘feel good’ factor.

        Systems created by humans reflect their needs and mentality. You compare ‘old and new’ systems. What are those ‘new’ systems you have in mind?

        Have you ever read Ecclesiastes? It is perhaps THE MOST ACCURATE reflection of Wisdom. Ignore the God references; the chap lived in 500 BC and can be forgiven for his bullshit beliefs. But he grokked the rest with remarkable Clarity.

        Now.. that was 500 BC. Empires came and gone, borders rearranged, religions and cults born.. WHAT REMAINS THE SAME?

        Read it, compare to now, and perhaps some of your optimism as to our technological progress – will become aligned to a more realistic view .

        https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)/Ecclesiastes

  2. @Unchief

    If I understand correctly you are wondering how those philosopher kings can join the governance.

    They can’t. Every power structure, be it in business, politics or even your average college, is built on the submission of the many decent to a few unscrupulous.

    What is worse, the decent often loose their clean conduct when in group situations. Groups corrupt. Humans change behaviour in groups and start acting in ways unthinkable if they were alone.

    To be part of the scramble one has to become the scramble himself. I don’t see anyone in the right mind wanting to join the Game of Thrones.

    Again, observe how animals in the wild compete for dominance. It is in no way different from how humans do it, except we have the weapons. The mentality behind is the same.

    “To me, it seems that that religion (in the long run) is unlikely to be Buddhism, Hinduism, Zen or even Christianity.

    Do you see it going any other way?”

    I don’t know, but as a speculation:

    1. 18% of Americans have no religion, 25% of Brits have no religion. Despite our vastly improved understanding of the natural world – we still cling to beliefs. Some form of religion will ALWAYS exist.

    2. The world is
    divided not on religious lines, but economic ones. Economies start wars, not religions.

    3. These two divisions will ALWAYS exist because they accurately reflect the human nature.

    4. Education, no matter how good, cannot stop humans from indulging in belief systems. Britain has a good education system, yet 75% of people identify with a religion. The power of mental inertia is just mind boggling.

    There will never be ‘philosopher kings’. Very few philosophers are interested in combat.

  3. One of the quotes from Ecclesiastes has stuck with me for a long time: ‘All is vanity and a striving after wind.’ It’s a slightly different translation than the King James’, I probably came across it in a McKenna book.

    Reading through it really reinforces for me how important it is to look at the person themself, instead of just the message he spouts. Like you said above: “Who and what any man is – MATTERS.”
    So yes, Joe Biden is a creep, McMordie is a scammer and same goes for all the other big names in the spiritual industry.
    Actions speak much, much louder than words. So does their bank account.

    1. I’ve been piping about “Ignore the words, look at the actions’, but it mostly goes one ear and out the other, Jimmy. The ‘message’ is apparently more important.

      But if a creepy child lover Joe becomes the President – would that be OK with the masses? Perhaps, not.

      Why then do they not apply the same principle to book writing, company running, children teaching, programme coding, floor sweeping – is beyond me.

      The Ecclesiastes message was written by someone who was.. well, TR. Strange isn’t it, when 2.500 years passed, but Truth – remained unchanged? And we will never know his name.

      What one does – matters, and what one does – comes from who and what they are INSIDE. YET, people immediately ignore the inner essence of the person (THE INNER) and go on to admire their outer productions (books, political speeches, constructed buildings and works of art).

      If I had known Michael Jackson fucked young boys – I wouldn’t have bought the music, as a matter of principle.

      If I know that Joe Biden may have the tendency to grope young girls – I would not vote for his presidency (not that I can, ha-ha).

      If I know that Kenneth McMordie fraudulently uses another’s work to benefit from – I would not seek his advice on life. But people on his forum do. They also grass anyone who tells them about Ken’s story – to Kenneth, and then carry on the romance in total pretense the story does not exist.

      It is fascinating. That is the reason why the IGF is so restricted in access now.

      This is how the deceit is supported across the world. PEOPLE support it. And then they complain there is deceit.
      Not that complicated.

      1. The first thing that pops in my mind when thinking about MJ’s actions is ‘So what, you can still enjoy his music?’
        Now I obviously don’t agree with this anymore and it’s like an automatic response, that maybe a while ago I would’ve agreed with. Really, really messed up how people ignore something like that, and how I used to do that.
        There’s also plenty of other examples of music artists who’ve done some terrible things that are still as famous as ever. R. Kelly even had/has his own sex cult.

          1. Right. Like I said, nearly every product and service you use has dark origins. Worse than sex offending involving a FEW victims. But as long as the wealth is on ones side, one might bat an eye, one might even donate some money, but one will most likely not track down every single person responsible for the thing you are enjoying and abandon the things that have criminal or abusive origin. Then you have nothing left!

        1. I do agree with it, value-wise. But practically I don’t think it can work. If you by coincidence find out, you could indeed stop using the ‘service’ that the perpetrator provides. But you cannot stop using every service that is provided by someone who is fucked up. Most cases you’ll just never really know where it comes from and who was responsible for the production.

          We all know many companies that had big scandals, but I doubt anyone stops buying. The origins of most products and services are dark in one way or another. Produced in some kind of factory where they have to put up nets under the windows to prevent suicide. Who cares? Not the people responsible for the product of course. No one really cares, everyone keeps buying, buying, buying.

          1. I am glad you see this clearly.

            It is not possible to opt out completely from being part of the abuse chain, correct. But if one knows and chooses not to – it is one step in the right direction, at least for that individual.

            I value personal responsibility. For me it has always been much easier not to create a mess to begin with, rather than trying to clear it up after creation. It is such a simple principle to follow.

  4. Though I enjoyed reading the main focus of this post I’m actually interested in something you said

    “I am not a feminist, because I don’t think sexes are equal or CAN BE made equal. I just think it is not possible in the grand scheme of things. ”

    Do you mean that in terms of how society shapes us or in the true sense of the word? If so, what exactly separates men and women that much to the point of not being equals, mentally i mean

    1. @ TheBadBloodedOne

      What a user name… shall I be worried?

      Your question is worthy of a separate post, me thinks.

      Coming up. But I would like to clarify what you mean by

      “what exactly separates men and women that much to the point of not being equals, mentally i mean”……………

      ….. do you mean to say males and females are not equal mentally? That you see their separation specifically in their mental capacities?

      1. No need to be worried, it’s a harry potter reference, mudblood, bad blood. Wasn’t in a mood to create an account so I used an existing one.
        #HufflePuff

        As to your second question, i’m not asserting anything, i’m just trying to understand what you meant by

        ” I don’t think sexes are equal or CAN BE made equal”

        I apologize if I came out confusing, i’m not refering to intelect, what i meant was: is the difference between men and women (excluding genetalia) mental, as in emotional, instictual, real, or are we all pretty much the same but we are conditioned to behave a certain way based on the norm society has definied for our gender roles? Because I tend to see men and women as the same, if not misguided by concepts. But i’m not sure to what extent that’s true. In your cause you say they aren’t, i’m just interested in why so. But yeah would love to see a post just dedicated to that

        (Also i seem to be unable to post this a few minutes ago, is the site okay?)

        1. Had the same problem of not being able to post, nothing would happen when I clicked on ‘Post comment’. Before I post I now click on ‘Change’ and then click on the Twitter logo to relog. Works for me, might work for you as well.

  5. “One can dig for the answer to ‘What does it mean to be the best version of myself?’ They will discover the answer does not exist.”

    It means that you define who you truly are and what you want out of your life experience and you follow that through to your best ability.

    You’re welcome

    1. “It means that you define who you truly are”

      Goodness me… I guess then you defined who you are from the very first breath that you took? Or not? When did that definition happen?

      And before that definition of your true self… what was before instead of you? The untrue self?

      No one willfully defines who they are. It is given at birth.

      1. We are not born into and live inside a vacuum. We are a conscious living deliberating and evolving species. Your notion maybe applies to a rock.

        1. Where you are born has an incredible impact on how your life turns out, so does the family that raises you. Major character traits also seem to be given at birth and are not freely chosen. The context of your life is already set in stone, this leaves very little wiggle room to make conscious choices and define who you are.

          1. I was born to drug addicted teenagers in downtown Detroit. Needless to say, you’re wasting your breath making those assertions to me.

          2. “j( is special”

            Nah it just probaby appears that way to most people because I take no stock in what other people have to say about “reality” and apply myself to gain experiential understanding which has rewarded me with heightened awareness as to what’s possible and what’s not. Anyone could do it. Unless of course they cant. Carry on.

          3. That because we are born into certain parameters it “leaves very little wiggle room to make conscious choices and define who you are.”

            That statement is far from being true. I’d suggest you look take a look at just how stable an identity is before youd assume there to be little we can do to change it let alone citing an inability to make conscious choices. That absolutely does not apply to “all of humanity”

          4. I did not say there is an ability to make conscious choices, I said there is ‘very little wiggle room’, meaning that a lot of who someone is can’t be consciously chosen. Man/women, the family you’re born into, wether you like olives or not. I did not mean to say someone can’t change their personality, although I’m fairly certain that major character traits are because of nature, not nurture.

            Also, why bring up your past? To give an example of how people can change, because you did not end up like your parents?

            I’m not the most clear in my communication but I feel like you misinterpreted some things I wrote.

          5. “a lot of who someone is can’t be consciously chosen.”

            Really?

            Okay bud. I dont know what you meant which is why I’m left to quote what you said. I simply dont agree that the circumstances of birth have anything to do with conscious choices in the present. I’d just propose the question of what happens when one isnt identified with those things and focuses attention elsewhere. What then can be said about the “identity?” I dont need an answer. Just something to ponder.

      2. It happens in every waking moment, in every action, reaction and interaction. Some people are aware enough to notice it.

      3. You can’t change who you are. But with strong willpower you can create a new, “better” version of yourself on top of the present one. Key word: willpower.

        But Tano, when you’re advising people to “create meaning”, “stop dying and go live a little”, “realise this, realise that and you’ll be fine” etc.. all those “mind over matter” advices require it also. What you’re basically saying is: “If I have enough willpower to avoid death and meaninglessness then so do you”.

        Both of you take this power for granted. And both of you are missing the whole point of awakening which comes down to either surrendering it willingly or being forced to surrender it (“dark night of the soul” they call it: [I removed the link – Tano].

        Combination of both in most cases.

        Jed also believed that he conquered the fear of death. But there’s a lot of it in his latest book.

        I wouldn’t trust anybody who claims that he’s free of fear and at the same time finds meditation/sitting in silence boring and useless.

        1. Joanna.

          It seems to me you and I speak completely different languages. Most of the time I have no idea how you arrive at your assumptions about what I do or do not mean.

          Can you point out where exactly I stated to be free from fear? And what is more… do you fully understand what people mean when they say that?

          Everyone has some fears, but the QUALITY, the taste of it differs for those who stopped living an imaginary life in their heads.

          I do not live in fear of death. But that does NOt mean I welcome it or want to die. I would love to live forever, so much to see, do, experience, and such a short life.

          I find meditation/sitting in silence boring and useless, yes. Your entire life is meditation, the way one moves, speaks, brushes theur teeth, shops, swims, opens the copy machine cover, fucks, hugs, reads, peels vegetables, writes, makes the bed, boards the plane, packs the bags, codes a programme.. and so on.

          You do not understand/feel/perceive Zen.

          1. Zen needs an update. It’s one thing when the mind tells stories and the body reacts. Then you focus on the mind.
            It’s another when all this old stuff resurfaces from the underground and the mind creates stories on top of that. Then it’s time to forget the mind and focus on the body. Mind will calm down by itself.
            In order for healing to happen the Witness has to leave his safe place in the head and turn into the Penetrator.

        2. I removed the link after having read it. While the author gives a good overall examination of the so called ‘Dark Night Of The Soul’, it is effectively reaffirming the long standing belief or two about the inner life of a human as rooted solely in emotion. As someone with a considerable past emotiional nature, I would advise for anyone to have a closer look at emotion and its origins. Then… draw some conclusions.

          When I was lost in the emotional labirynth – I didn’t call it “The Dark Night’. Being an outsider to all things ‘spiritual’ I had no words for it and subsequently did not glorify whatever the torment was.

          Just seemed silly to get attached to own sense of torment, don’t you think? It was not important. But it was important to see clearly what was going on.

          1. Three phases:

            1. being lost in the feminine
            2. finding and using the masculine witness to control her
            3. becoming one with the feminine

            We are afraid to allow the third one because it feels like going back to the first one.
            The link was about the 3.

  6. Wow – was just lurking in the comments and was surprised to see you mention Ecclesiastes… In one of my classes we’re studying Ecclesiastes and it’s origins in Greek Cynicism. Scholars attempted to strip it back to it’s original version and reading it immediately reminded me of you, UG, and other “TR” people. When I read this this i nearly fell out of my chair lol. The Cynics, though some were deluded exhibitions, definitely understood the value of societal conventions.

    1. Ecclesiastes needs studying? 🤔 As in ‘writing essays about it’? 🤣

      I understand the value of societal conventions. What is wrong with a convention ‘Thou shall not kill’ for instance?

      The problem is many lack a common sense application, including the one I quoted.

      1. NEEDS studying? Don’t be silly. I didn’t say that. As someone curious about the text itself, of course I’m gonna study it – including it’s origins, interpretations, changes throughout time, etc. It feels like you’re trying to read between the lines I wrote and doing a very bad job at it. I just enjoy literature.

        I agree, though. Common sense application of those ideas is hard to come by. I don’t even have a common sense understanding/application of these ideas, but they resonate on the intellectual level. I believe more self-confrontation is needed to have that deeper kind of understanding – just a hunch.

        Oh, and of course I wasn’t referring to murder as a social convention that is “wrong”. Again, I’m baffled by your tendency to straight up ignore what I said. I said they “understood the value of social conventions”. A social convention that is in accord with nature, like “no killing”, is absolutely a valid convention, according to the Cynics and yours truly.

        1. P.S. @Doug
          “A social convention that is in accord with nature, like “no killing”, is absolutely a valid convention’

          Killing is absolutely IN ACCORD with nature. It is not in accord with human social conventions.

    2. Ecclesiastes knew his shit. I have a lot of respect for someone who lived waaay back, yet had the same mind as a modern man.

      Not much changed. But we do have an awful lot of technology. If we could only get some wisdom to go along with that.

  7. That because we are born into certain parameters it “leaves very little wiggle room to make conscious choices and define who you are.”

    That statement is far from being true. I’d suggest you look take a look at just how stable an identity is before youd assume there to be little we can do to change it let alone citing an inability to make conscious choices. That absolutely does not apply to “all of humanity”

    1. @j(

      “take a look at just how stable an identity is before youd assume there to be little we can do to change it”

      The real ‘you’ is very stable. The assumed (fake) identity can be manipulated, but even then only within the given parameters of who you really are.

      I mean.. can you imagine Donald Trump consistently conducting himself in the same manner as Richard Nixon, for example?

      1. I’d found the “real you” not to be an identity at all.

        I could see anyone conducting themselves in any fashion of their choosing. Acting any way. That’s all an identity is. An act, supported by a particular set of beliefs.

        1. You ascribe way to much power to yourself in regards to identity, in my opinion. I feel like you take a lot of pride in where your are in your life right now, it was hard-fought for probably, which is why you view indentity in this way I think.

          1. In regards to what you think, I dont ascribe myself any power beyond what anyone else is capable of. Anyone at any moment can evaluate their behaviors and beliefs and make changes if they desire to do so. It’s just that most people either aren’t aware that they can do this or they think that their beliefs are somehow justified or serve them in some way.

          2. Not that I care what you think but that I care how rude my first comment came across. You are how you are being. The “who” is just a story.

        2. @ j(

          It depends on what one understands as ‘identity’.

          One can conduct themselves in any fashion of their choosing, as you say. Yes, they can. However, that would not be ‘the real you’. That would be posturing and pretense.

          And if one CAN do that – that is their ‘real you’ – an ability to posture and pretend and feel comfortable with that.

          Lots of world famous crooks fall into that category. ‘Catch me if you can’.

          1. That’s interesting. I’m curious as to your perspective if my going to the gym, carrying a job, supporting a family is not “the real me” since my automatic program seems to be more geared towards the path of least resistance (sitting around, eating junk food, smoking pot having sex ect)

          2. The automatic programme of the least resistance is the default programme of ALL human beings. No exception.

            However. NECESSITY is what makes animals (including human animals) to get off their arse and engage.

            CURIOSITY is what keeps human animals moving when all the necessities are met.

            All people are driven by necessity. Without hardship (i.e. necessity to survive) there will be no insentive to stay alive.

            Paradox I know.

          3. The reason I ask is to put your statement into context. I dont believe roles, behaviors, beliefs ect to be the “real” any body. As I said, we all have the ability to behave in any way by mere decision. The “real you” is just the capacity for that.

          4. Roles and beliefs are not the real you, correct. But ability to behave in any way is not a mere decision. It is not a decision to become a criminal, for instance. One is moulded into that by life curcumstance OR enjoys the thrill of being a rule breaker. Either way, it is not a personal decision.

          5. Everything is a decision when you’re living deliberately and with conscious awareness. I suppose not other wise.

            😀

            This where we consistently stall out in our conversations. No problem. We’re both committed to our beliefs. It’s also not about which one is “right” or “true” at this point but fully understanding that you will find evidence for whatever your convictions are. I choose to believe that which opens up possibilities and opportunities rather than limits them. I’m not so naive as to believe that theres no benefits to not taking responsibility for your life. I could see that being beneficial to people who are living in shame and remorse for things that have “happened to them.” That’s not my situation nor will it be. I’m grateful for that.

          6. @ j(

            Just, there is something in you that refuses to look DEEPER into this paricular issue of will, self and choice.

            You have a specific set of genes. This set of genes DEFINES whether you are a narcissist or a hard worker or have a talent to draw or have strong will or tend towards solitude or are a crowd pleaser etc.etc.

            Even the very fact that you insist on having control and choice and will – comes from your specific genetic configuration.

            That is why I said before that Richard Nixon could never be Donal Trump, and Donald Trump will never be Barack Obama.

            So on so forth. I don’t know why you cannot see something so obvious, but hey.. I tried.

          7. “I dont know why you cant see something so obvious”

            Well, because to me it’s not only not obvious but its not even true.

            “You have a specific set of genes. This set of genes DEFINES whether you are a narcissist or a hard worker or have a talent to draw or have strong will or tend towards solitude or are a crowd pleaser etc.etc.”

            The gist of what you’re saying is that people cant change because their behaviors, talents and character traits are rooted in their genetic make up.

            I’d evaluated that belief long ago and challenged it personally to find that it’s not only not a true statement but harmful if accepted without scrutiny.

          8. No, people cannot change.
            What people CAN do however is to enhance their best traits. In simple language it is called ‘playing to one’s strengths’.

            You, however, have this firm belief that if you will yourself – you can be Michelangelo or Newton or Shakespeare.

            One day perhaps it will become obvious to you just how much this fairytale contributes to a state of human despair.

            At this time in your life your victorious mindset prevents you from looking at the basics.

          9. “At this time in your life your victorious mindset prevents you from looking at the basics”

            Thank you

          10. What you’re referring to as the “basics” is nothing more than an unquestioned belief that because of “your gentics” you “can’t change” and the change you’re referring to in character traits, tallents and behaviors absolutely CAN be interrupted, modified, dropped and developed.

            I dont know what the purpose is in denying this other than not having to accept the responsibility for it.

            When I see this “At this time in your life your victorious mindset prevents you from looking at the basics” it reads more like “at this time your victorious mindset doesn’t allow you to see any alternatives.” I sincerely appreciate that.

          11. I came to this understanding through questioning and observation, so no, it is not an unquestioned belief

            I came into this understanding exactly from your position, and that’s what is amuzing: it is as if I am talking to the former ‘me’.

            The arrogance of youth. If you remember I quoted Richard Rose where he said about himself something along the lines of ‘mistaking the health and vitality of his young body for the health and vitality of the mind.’ He thought (when young) that nothing was out of his reach.

            Ha-ha. Time showed him what is in charge.

  8. Hi Tano, I’d like to know a little more clearly what you meant with these two statements.

    “I played the unconscious word games in my interactions, just like I see others doing it now.”
    You mean when people spin their words in such a way that it is more likely they’ll get what they want from someone else?

    “I could not understand the true meaning of the written expression, be it a real person in online exchanges or a published material.”
    What do you mean by ‘the written expression’? You mean you had a hard time understanding what someone meant exactly, be it written or in conversation?

    I really liked that specific post because I recognize some points that used to apply to me, and others that still do for the most part. For example, I have a hard time expressing my true thoughts to people, specifically people I don’t know very well.

    1. @Jimmy Pesto

      “You mean when people spin their words in such a way that it is more likely they’ll get what they want from someone else?”

      This is quite a hard one to place in words, because there are many facets to human communication.

      Yes, some spin it in manipulative ways in order to gain something of value from the interaction. The majority of humans, however, unconsciously desire ONE THING ONLY: emotional reaction.

      If a human posits something and this is completely ignored – human beings will do much to make sure that their existence (in the case of communication – words, thoughts, ideas of theirs) are noticed by others. It doesn’t have to be some lofty philosophical thought. Try to ignore your wife’s wishes for a holiday, for instance.

      In the case of conversations… from a subconscious human default position ANY reaction is better than no reaction. The very language is designed to evoke such reactions. Often in case of disagreements the responses will contain emotional hooks in order to arouse another and thus gain their attention.

      For example… take your interaction with j( who is quite good at emotional hook placement. See this one:

      ““a lot of who someone is can’t be consciously chosen.”

      Really?
      Okay bud. I don’t know what you meant which is why I’m left to quote what you said. ”

      …….which is then followed by an explanation of why one does not agree with the statement.

      What is the purpose of ‘Okay bud’? Or even ‘Really’? It expresses a sense of superiority of own understanding over the understanding of someone else. The rest of the statement is neutral in its emotional charge.

      If a person avoided this kind of connotational language, the passage would have been:

      ““a lot of who someone is can’t be consciously chosen.”

      Do you think so? I don’t know what you meant which is why I’m left to quote what you said. ”

      I hope you can see the difference when compared, the difference of emotional charge versus neutrality.

      Most people do that, without being aware. I do that occasionally too, mostly I am very aware of it, but sometimes it is very tempting to blast anyway. For instance, if you notice my exchange with Doug in this same thread – I pricked him:

      “Ecclesiastes needs studying? As in ‘writing essays about it’? 😀
      I understand the value of societal conventions. What is wrong with a convention ‘Thou shall not kill’ for instance?”

      ==========================================

      In short… language has the best tools to evoke emotional response. People say things they do not mean, both to appease and to hurt one another. Most do not realise they’re doing it. It takes place on subconscious levels.

      Phew!! That came out very complicated. Perhaps, I need to think of a way to make it more accessible.

    2. @ Jimmy Pesto

      “What do you mean by ‘the written expression’? You mean you had a hard time understanding what someone meant exactly, be it written or in conversation?”

      Yes, I did. Most people do. I mean.. how many people really understand what Jed McKenna is on about, or even what I write about? I could take any ancient spiritual text now and understand very clearly what the author was trying to express. It has not always been the case. And I remember in the second Trilogy book (or third? with the police chase?) Jed expressed that same sentiment: he too was a fool once, unable to comprehend the meanings behind the words.

      It seems to me words always obscure the meanings. Funny, isn’t it?

      1. Lost access to my twitter account (Jimmy Pesto), it was just a throwaway but apparently you lose access to it if you don’t keep it up to date or something. Now on wordpress, hopefully they’re not as strict as twitter.

        Thank you for the replies, Tano, really appreciate it.

        The ‘Okay bud’ is a great example of an emotional hook, and it is really tempting to reply in an angry way. But I always try to stay calm and just get my point across. The difference between the two is clear as day. Also your reply to Doug seemed more deliberate when I read it and is not meant in a demeaning way (like ‘Okay bud’).

        ‘Phew!! That came out very complicated.’
        I think your explanation was very clear, and now that this idea of emotional hooks is in my head I will probably notice it a lot the next few days.

        Maybe people, me included, project their own thoughts and experiences onto what they’re reading instead of trying to understand the author’s point of view, and where he’s coming from. I remember Jed mentioning the book ‘How to read a book’ as being very influential to him when he was younger.

        Read your post ‘All is Facebook’, and your comment. This is honestly scary to read because I am probably in for a lot of pain sometime soon.

        ‘EVERYTHING YOU LOVE TOO!! Make no mistake about it, this one will be the hardest of all.’

        Reading the list of all the things humans hate, but especially about all the things humans love. What the fuck is left after all that is gone…

        1. @ kutkatt (Jimmy Pesto)

          Actually, there will be no pain when you realise one day that what you thought you ‘loved’ was also an illusion. People crave love, all forms of love, and so recreate this in the form of a belief that love is real.

          It is not. Once this is fully internalized – nothing that people perceive as a loss – feels like a loss anymore. Therefore – no pain. I felt relieved more than anything, as if a big heavy cross fell off my shoulders.

          1. Hi Tano,
            I’ve had a few experiences where I got extremely frustrated/angry/scared, but then suddenly felt really relieved, the cross analogy fits very well.

            Honestly I don’t know if this will happen ‘soon’. I feel like I still have a lot left to experience. I’m 25 now but for most of my time I’ve been holed up in my room, recently got diagnosed with avoidant personality disorder which is why I’ve had the brakes on in all aspects of my life.

            Remember you saying once that you need to have quite a bit of life experience before seeing through the illusions, I’m really starting to see this is true.

            I think the biggest one for me is relationships, specifically romantic relationships. Never having had one, it’s hard to have any clear idea of what it is exactly. Doesn’t help that it’s sooo blown out of proportion, often it’s presented as the best thing. For example, 95% of popular pop-songs are about love. Not having my own experiences to relay this, it just starts fucking with your head.
            Rationally I know it’s not all that great, but my feelings just aren’t there yet.

          2. @ Jimmy

            There is a theory that introverts are that way because their nervous system is associated with deeper cognitive processing of incoming stimuli. DEEPER. This results in instinctive avoidance of too much stimulus, so as not to go into a cognitive overload mode, while extroverts are seeking constant stimuli because their levels of processing are low.

            It makes complete sense to me. Is high sensitivity a drawback? Nope. The majority of humans are on the shallow end of the processing scale and will never see the other side (or many sides) of the coin. Consider it a gift. The sensitive ones get the full picture.

            The only way to conquer imaginary fears is to become desensitized to them. And the only way to become desensitized to imaginary fears is to go through the situations that cause those fears, i.e. experience them fully.

            I have my own little fears. I am afraid of cockroaches. Now, this kind of fear does not stop me from living my life otherwise, and roaches here are a number of inches long. If this particular fear was stopping me in my tracks and was preventing me from living I would train myself to cuddle a cockroach. So far was not necessary.

            Sex and romance.. as my seventeen year old (at the time) said after just having had his first sexual encounter with his first girlfriend… ‘Sex is highly overrated’. He shared the experience and said it was nothing to get excited about. But then… he had always been a wise man. That is probably also because he doesn’t seem to be filled to the brim with testosterone. But get in his way – and you will be toast.

            No human has ever loved anyone more than they love themselves. Yes, they gaze into each other’s eyes and lie to one another (unconsciously, they seriously believe all that nonsense), because let’s face it…. during the honeymoon phase people say the most pleasant things to each other, and who doesn’t want to hear how bloody fantastic they are?

            There comes a time when hearing how fantastic one is – makes absolutely no difference to one’s sense of self love and self respect. Supreme confidence is one of the side effects of knowing who and what you are, and knowing what the rest of the world is. It does not need external validation, external ‘love’ of another and otherwise any other confirmation of one’s worth.

            And what I also found… supreme confidence (not arrogance!!) is highly attractive. That does not mean I am prepared to stand on my head in the middle of the town square: that would just be silly. Nor does it mean that I consider myself more talented, cleverer, more imaginative and creative etc. etc than others. It simply means that others’ talents, abilities, looks and so on – do not have the slightest effect on how I feel about myself. They do not intimidate me in the least.

            I like and respect myself now, as I am.

            That is all.

          3. P.S. Consider the following.. cockroaches are real, my fear of cockroaches is real, but it is based on the imaginary feeling of disgust. I mean… whatever those poor little buggers did… they are entirely harmless!!! Therefore, the fear is entirely irrational. Sometimes I wonder if there are any evolutionary/genetic reasons for this particular fear.

            But as I said – it doesn’t interfere with my life, and so be it.

            In your case, the fear has you by the balls. Time to act on that one.

          4. Thanks for the long detailed reply. Everything you said makes a lot of sense.

            “In your case, the fear has you by the balls. Time to act on that one.”
            Yes, this is very true. Time for action.

          5. Having supreme confidence kind of defeats the purpose of relationships, for the most part. You don’t need anyone telling you how amazing you are and making you feel special. I guess I’d call that a dirty high, it’s much much better to just like and respect yourself, like you said.

            I don’t.. yet. So I feel shit a lot of the time, today is especially bad. I can imagine that if I had someone telling me how wonderful I am I’d feel a lot better, but still it would leave a bad aftertaste. Better to stump out the inner critic/bully. I’m getting really fucking sick of this shit, and feeling like shit.

            Actually challenging the ideas I have about myself instead of just accepting they’re there is a pretty good start. Thanks for that suggestion.

          6. I mistrust those who tell me how wonderful I am.

            1. It is simply not true, no one is wonderful/not wonderful. We all simply are, and can be all kinds at different times.

            2. They want something from me, in some way or form.

            Just get realistic about you, which also means accepting who you are, as you are now. From that space you can then decide to make improvements or just leave you alone. It differs for people.

        2. I made the mistake throughout my ‘spiritual’ journey to mistrust and feel like I had to abandon the things and people that I love.

          I realize now that that makes no sense and/or difference for your understanding of reality. All that is to be done is to face what your relationships are all about. The love I thought was real was really just a blur. When seen clearly any relationship is about an exchange of something. Practical and mental needs are being fulfilled by each other. When you become aware of them you might dislike what you find and with the newly found clarity break off the relationship. Or you don’t. Most likely something will change for when you have it clear. I find that it is still really difficult to see myself and own behavior clearly. I can observe others but I get lost in my own acts and thoughts easily and lose awareness of my underlying motives. It needs determination.

          P.S. You are from the Netherlands? Hello fellow Dutchie! 😉

          1. That was really one of the take-away lessons on my first reading of the JM books. Everything is pointless.. then I lost interest in a lot of things, including relationships.
            But I agree, it makes no difference whatsoever. If anything, I’m now able to enjoy things more deeply.

            I have the ingrained belief that I am a horrible person, not because of anything specific, but just because I am me. When getting to know someone better I get really scared of them finding this out.
            Now rationally this is all easy to explain away, and that is no problem for me. But the feeling is so overwhelming that I cannot control it at all. Like Tano said, I have to desensitize myself to this.

            I’ve tried a lot in the past, specifically talking to a lot of women. But looking back I wasn’t really facing my fears as it was more of an act than a genuine conversation.

            On a few rare occasions the fear disappeared and I felt really really free. Tano used the term supreme confidence, and I feel like that is a good name for what I felt.

            P.S. Yes I’m Dutch as well, a fellow kaaskop 😉

          2. @ Jimmy P

            Perhaps, you need to establish what makes a horrible person, and what makes a decent person. Then observe where you personally are on this continuum from the horrible to the decent. All humans fall somewhere in between, and the distribution is pretty wild.

            That should give you a more realistic picture, rather than nursing the ingrained idea of your ‘horrible-ness’.

            Challenge your assumptions about yourself and others instead of simply acknowledging their existence.

  9. You sometimes mention the ‘Grand scheme of things’, what do you mean by that?

    Scheme is defined as: ”a large-scale systematic plan or arrangement for attaining some particular object or putting a particular idea into effect.”

    Do you say that there is a grand systematic plan of things going on? For attaining what then actually? Doesn’t that imply this all is actually going somewhere?

    1. I think I already know what you meant!

      “[the] totality of the situation approached objectively; the big picture”

      I never heard of that phrase before.

      1. @ petorikoru

        ““[the] totality of the situation approached objectively; the big picture””

        Yes, you got it, and without my explanation.

        The big picture, rising above the everyday mundane events and looking at months, years, centuries, millennia, millions of years into the past and the future.

        Looking at the cell structure and then moving on to the galaxy structure. An all-encompassing view, from which the tiny events of a person’s life (including own) are really just that – tiny.

        1. It’s a nice phrase.

          Reminds me of those videos where they start with the smallest particle and zoom out all the way to the biggest known ‘object’ the known universe itself. Always gives this unsettling feeling.

          I do feel small then, but there is a quality about us that an extremely large star doesn’t have, awareness of being. They may exist for millions of years but they don’t know!

          Sometimes I get a bit freaked out while looking around the room. Being an aware being amidst a sea of mindless matter and forces. I try to imagine what it must be like to not know that one exists, but it makes no sense of course. The mere absence of that is hard to grasp.

          1. @petorikoru

            Ah yes, I quite enjoy those zoom-in/zoom out videos. They are a graphical representation (albeit a limited one) of what it feels like to have this all-encompassing perspective on Reality and existence.

            The film ‘Lucy’ comes to mind. Although with a somewhat disappointing and misleading ending – it attempted to depict the mind of someone who got disengaged from the emotional slavery. Lucy was that.

            Unfortunately, the clumsy black CGI-ed spills and the last phrase ‘I am everywhere’ completely ruined it for me.

          2. @EM

            I just found a really amazing video that is similar to the zooming-out videos but this one is about the future of the universe. Very well-made, if you don’t know it please take a look!

            You can also find it by name: ”TIMELAPSE OF THE FUTURE: A Journey to the End of Time (4K)”

        2. Tano

          Setting aside for a moment, the fact that a person’s life is very tiny, in the grand scheme of things, what’s your view on biography?

          By biography, I mean ‘the history’ (as in, the kind of history that a psychologist or psychiatrist would generally focus on, that the Wikipedia, the media or people who have written auto- or other biographical accounts tend to describe).

          My understanding from a number of your responses on this site is that you are not inclined to disclose – at least at present – much of the historical, biological and socio-cultural factors that shaped the life of Tano. Instead, your concern seems to be more about growth and development from an ‘inner’ perspective, with little to no emphasis on – at least concerning your own ‘personal history’ – the time-space, real-life events, the outward situations and circumstances during the 50-some years of your life on the planet. At other places, I have also noted the comments that there are some subjects or things that ‘Jed’ may only speak about on deathbed.

          I can’t help thinking that omitting a large part of one’s personal history – by any ordinary or extraordinary person – while that person is also presenting herself in the public eye, so to speak (at whatever level), gives only a kind of ‘half-truth’ or incomplete picture. And thereby, it is a kind of ‘injustice.’

          Not that I consider it your responsibility or duty to disclose yourself completely or as fully as possible. I do wonder, however, if your or any person’s biography does not have a particular value. That is, by describing the complexities fully, of an individual’s circumstances, can we not also dispel the myth of the personal self, and can frame those histories and lives within the broader cultural and historical legends and myths of our times.

          Does it make any sense? I think what I wish to convey to you is neither an insistence nor a personal desire to know about you – as a person – but rather the question/s.

          That is, 1) what will be or can be lost, for you, through providing a biographical account and 2) how else are you framing your life, if not within the bio-psycho-socio-cultural-mythical-poetic contexts? And perhaps 3) a question that Jed also asks in one of the books, i.e., ‘who benefits?’ from any of these choices or preferences?

          1. Anatta,

            The gist of your post is this:

            “Tano, why don’t you tell me the details of your personal history. I am curious and want to know who the heck you are and where you come from.”

            Well camouflaged as a disinterested and objective query for the ‘greater good’. It is contradictory in essence though. Such as:

            “by describing the complexities fully, of an individual’s circumstances, can we not also dispel the myth of the personal self”

            …….. no personal self, so what the heck do you want to know about my specific personal self? Haven’t you stated in that sentence that there is none?

            Well, the personal self may be a ‘myth’ to you, but my personal self is existing, doing well and not in a hurry to broadcast its existence to the world like thousands of YouTube wannabes. Like our Jed – I am allergic to personal attention. I’d like to be as unnoticeable as possible. Unfortunately, out there I stick out like a sore thumb.

            1. What will be lost? A sense of privacy.

            2. How am I framing my life? I am not framing anything. I am just living. Ya know… like a cat or a tree. Here today – gone tomorrow, and I revel in this tragicomedy of life. It is so enormous that most people cannot see its edges, but I can.

            3. Who benefits? Well, if Jed asked this question, then perhaps, he has found the answer. You should address this to him. The question is too general for me to consider.

            Is it fair? Incomplete? Of course, but then remember, I am not writing books by the dozen.

          2. I can taste the response without having read a single word of it.

            My advice to you, ‘Unchief Editor’, is to not get sucked into it. Your responses serve a single purpose here. I wouldn’t bother too long with riding the automated bull. You will see that this too is just another Ferriswheel albeit a faster spinning one tucked away in the corner of the same fairground. With patience, you’ll get your ‘well meaning’ answers from the mistress of the platform ..when you play nice.

            You can answer every question by yourself, for yourself. She’ll just beat you with experience eventually. Try and run logical circles around her written word here, and watch her blow. Like that is somehow absolutely ‘where you are coming from’. In a way it is not much different then what some other copycats out there are being accused of doing in the name of ‘Truth’ or the ‘Exposing of It’. It’s mixing one measure of bullshit with a measure of disdain for some non-existing ‘wise’ fool out there. I’ll ad half a measure of deep rooted male dominator culture issues from my own senses. Ofcourse you don’t get to see what a body really does while it is not jibber jabber mode online.

            Stimilus, response, jab/pat.. make no mistake everyone here is just perpetuating the daily urges of a fellow prison mate. This ‘thing’ will go up to a hundred chapters if you let it. ‘

            Truth’ is really not that hard to understand as she makes it out to be. The biggest problem here is not even the illusion of comprehension but the declarations of superior insight. At least that is my position after wading through this entertaining but heavy, heavy crown of hers. What I have learned after many years of grappling with what sometimes is referred to as Ego is that it will try and claim even the TR ‘experience’ for itself. After marinating in your own BS for too long you don’t smell your own shit anymore, or you get used to the smell. That’s about it. You can feed the intellectual muppet or kill it already and be done with it I say. Just my 2 cents. Don’t bother, don’t wait for ‘it’ .. just go away now by your own damn Self.

            Y’all have a nice day now! 😉

            PS. Read somexxxxx. Marvel at the similarities to JM content.

  10. Hi Tano (I am hoping I got your name right there),

    I have read everyone of your Myth articles and I really appreciate you and your perspective. Thanks for putting it out there despite the “slings and arrows.”

    I loved your pithy, “Men need to be strong and kind.” I am curious as to whether you have a similarly parsimonious summary for what women need to be?

    Despite your counsel to be “a light unto ourselves” and not seek wisdom from others, I will likely take a chance and send along some questions if I get brave and clear enough.

    Sincerely,

    Rudy

    1. @Rudy

      Well, believe it or not, women also need to be strong and kind.

      The basis of strength for either sex is different. Strong men are not aggressors. Strong women are not emotional vampires.

      The measure of strength lies in the ability of either sex to dispense with those automatic preprogrammed responses to life’s challenges.

Comments are closed.