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

 

107 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.

  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’.

  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…

  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.

Leave a Reply to Enlightenment Myth Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s