- First thought — Immediacy
- Courage — Fear
- Loneliness — the relationship between love and idealism
- The purpose of the concept of reincarnation
- Hidden in white
- Science's relation to philosophy
- On guilt, anxiety, anger, blame
- To will
- How to be sexy, successful at work, and well-liked by most
- Completion and Perfection — Doing nothing from apathy
- Interactions in the Woman's World
First thought — Immediacy
In Buddhism, there is a concept called "Bardo". It is a transition state, between two deluded states of mind. Almost every single one of us experience hundreds of bardo states every single day.
When we wake from sleep, most of us are experiencing a bardo state, where a dream is continuing but rapidly crowded out with sensations and reactions of the new day. When the memories of the dream have mostly faded, the new state is well under way and the bardo has ended.
To wake up to the nature of Reality is like entering a bardo state, but one where a new state does not get underway. The false thoughts and emotional compulsions that generate new states of mind are rapidly crowded out by true thoughts that liberate one from attachment.
But how does one generate that liberation? Is it not a gradual process?
Yes, it is basically a matter of critical mass. It's the effect of prioritising wisdom over absolutely all else. Gradually, the mindstates have an ever-smaller amount of attachment.
The process may seem infinite, and perfection only theoretical, but should this stop us from seeking to be more rational and enlightened at this very second? Even as one thinks over the validity of the concept of cause and effect, it is already in operation. So the proof of perfection, and the ultimate ending of delusion, is immediately at hand.
In a deluded mind, there are countless bardo states. so waking up in a new way, into the dream of liberation, is just one of the many possibilities. Wake, now! A first thought can occur this second. Don't waste time arguing over the future.
Courage — Fear
Why is it that human beings everywhere, over the entire history of their evolution, have lacked uniqueness in their thoughts and expressions? Why is it that, each culture is homogeneous, and the members squish themselves into a common mould, whether on a large national or racial level, or on a small level within a family or a workplace?
I am not praising uniqueness per se, but I am certainly criticising the tendency to suppress individuality and copy the others.
This is no minor nag. It is massive obstacle because it is so deeply entrenched. People copy each other, for no reason at all except to hide in the crowd. And it is perhaps this, alone, this single reason, that stops virtually everyone from attaining wisdom.
People dress the same, talk the same, act the same, and think the same. If they choose a different path from others, they immediate seek to join or form a new group. It is not to convert others to their viewpoint, but again to hide in the safety of numbers.
This copying tendency is so widespread: it goes deeply. I am not criticising the need for a shared set of specific symbols and gestures for communication. I am criticising the fear of being alone, with only your own thoughts as authority.
Why are people so afraid to rely on their own thinking? Why is the argumentum ad populam, or the argument of authority, so widely assumed to be logical arguments? It is because, if the truth were known, and people's own quality of thought were on display like houses in the street, it would be blatantly evident that, intellectually speaking, most contemporary brains are in a state worthy only of demolition and not fit to be inhabited.
Loneliness — the relationship between love and idealism
When you come to have faith in your rational mind, knowing your own reasoning to be valid — despite the mindless and irrational attempts of others to convince you that reason is dubious (those being, of course, the ignore-worthy and laughable attempts to prove reasoning is dubious) — you are alone, more than ever.
The would-be thinker, the budding sage, is well-adapted to solitude. It is his natural psychological and 'social' environment. Thinking comes easiest and clearest when alone; for that matter, it only happens by one's own thought, so by necessity it comes alone. But the consequences of expressing one's thoughts — that is another matter.
Let me distinguish what is meant by loneliness for clarity's sake, so to overcome this obstacle. The point of discussing loneliness in a work on the will to consciousness and being courageous, is to destroy obstacles to wisdom. As this loneliness is a subtle delusion, in that sense, it is an obstacle. But there is more to it than that, because it is a major psychological obstacle that, if allowed to continue, will surely develop validity in the thinker's mind, whence it will fester into an ugly and deep-rooted cancer which works against directly and virulently against self-overcoming. It is so important to address this, that there will be several more exercises on the nature of demoralisation and spiritual apathy.
1. Animal loneliness. The first basic clarification is that it is not animal immediacy's loneliness.
Desiring to socialise; to have friends to while away a seemingly endless period of boredom; to find an interesting distraction in what the 'others' are doing; to distance oneself from one's uncomfortable emotions or twinges of a bad conscience by finding others who are worse off (and then one can return to one's own discomfort, feeling that it is quite bearable, and therefore, one can gloatingly remain apathetic about the issue); to find a like-minded companion to thrash out an interesting idea, or find alternative solutions, or seek their approval and authorisation; or pursue sexually gratifying feelings with a tempting fling, or other forms of emotional games of domination and submission to boost your self-esteem and ego: these are some of the dalliances of the loneliness of animal immediacy. These form a genuine type of loneliness, but it is not the loneliness one experiences on having a self, on being an individual, on valuing thought. This is not the kind of loneliness that the thinker must overcome, since he has already overcome it.
2. Natural loneliness. The second basic clarification is that it is not the simple desire for solitude typical of the thinker.
The solitary thinker doesn't by nature desire to be alone, but rather values the experience of good thinking and clear understanding, which just happens to require solitude. Being alone happens to be typical, but the thinker doesn't seek to be alone: the loneliness of seeking an absence of company. He seeks, instead, reason: good thinking and clear understanding.
If he experiences too much unreason in himself, he experiences that loneliness, so one can easily see that it is not a loneliness of being isolated from others. It is a loneliness of missing the company of good thinking.
In the company of people behaving and speaking thoughtlessly and foolishly, this loneliness makes itself strongly felt, because it is harder to remedy. But again, it is the absence of these persons' folly and not the absence of the persons themselves, that the thinker desires. One is not so much seeking to be alone, as for these wretched, impoverished, derelict folk to know the good company, the good friendship, of reason. One misses the company of reason for their sake (which is, for the sake of reason.)
3. Involuntary loneliness.
But now, the possibility arises for the kind of loneliness I'm attempting to clarify. It is in only in their company, the company of the ignorant, and only once they learn his desire for their good, and only once they attack him for such a noble wish, that the loneliness arises, that is the topic of this discussion.This loneliness first arises on learning how laborious and long-winded is the process of dragging others up to a level where candid, genuine communication can occur. This loneliness is ironically about desiring the total absence of the company of people. For clarity's sake, I will call it the preference not to have an involuntary lack of wise companions. It's the wish that all the people one met weren't so unwise, that their existence as such wasn't. The involuntariness is both on the part of the solitary thinker, and the part of all others. Neither he nor they can fill the absence; he, because he has done all he can, to no avail; they, because they are not capable. Again, this loneliness of the thinker is not the loneliness of immediacy (the animal type of loneliness, that desires company); and, it is not the loneliness of natural solitude (the human type of loneliness, that desires not to have company), but a reluctant but resigned acknowledgment that there are very few people who can understand the thinker, no matter how hard he tries to edify and instruct.
This is a major psychological obstacle, not only because it is a subtle delusion (clinging to an emotional distortion of reality in which enlightened behaviour is cast as something inherently existing, with a concrete and permanently distinctness from folly and unconsciousness that goes far beyond true intellectual discrimination into egotistical clinging), but because of the potential danger of egotistical rootedness that it promises to develop into.
The higher you go, the more you will be misunderstood
There are many times along the spiritual path, after say five or maybe ten years of making steady and willful progress through making one's whole life (24/7/365, super-full-time, no withdrawal or renegging or worldly pauses, like taking up with a girlfriend or finding a guru for guidance) an uncompromising immersion in wisdom, when one encounters reminders that the higher one climbs, the further from the 'others' one moves. It is not so much a matter of crossed-wires, or a mistaken interpretation, but rather a series of intellectual and experiential steps that others have never taken, do not know about, will never take. The further one goes, the greater is the probability of irremediable misunderstanding. At a certain point, one is so deeply and thoroughly misunderstood, that the only chance for making oneself understood, is to dumb oneself down tenfold, a hundredfold, and to put oneself in the shoes of a total beginner. This is the only chance of success: to remember that a beginner must start at the beginning, despite the urgency of the situation, and a great passion for purity and perfect wisdom. Unfortunately, 99 times out of 100, the interaction is not a success. Or rather, given time, the figure shows itself to be 99,999 times out of 100,000, since the apparent successes and signs of understanding are like germinating seeds that soon shrivel up.
The typical response to expressing the wish for reason, by actualising and applying, is a repeated rehashing of irrational cherished beliefs, too prized for its personal advantages to be relinquished, but ironically proven to be so low in value that only the basest weapons and character traits are chosen as the weapons of defense. For instance, trivial niggling over irrelevant side issues, subterfuge and equivocation, attempts at character assassination and childish name-calling, illogical appeals to the popularity or longstanding or academic establishments of their beliefs, and self-important acts of deliberate politeness. Thus, on expressing that noble wish for the gaining of reason and clear understanding, one is met with mocking incapacity, and, further, retribution and hatred. Hence, the desire for the absence of such poor company is born: this loneliness.
Silence can easily become apathy
The solution is not silence. Silence speaks: it is also an active step.
It was said that the Buddha was silent with the thought of teaching others about the emptiness of all things, knowing how difficult it would be. Yet this silence speaks. Silence is not the cessation of speaking, because it still communicates. For irremediable fools, it is recognised that they will misconstrue everything one says and doesn't say, so silence is the least energy-wasting of options. But silence is still a communication.
This leads me to the danger embedded in this loneliness (the involuntary lack of genuine - wise - companions): the ugly egotistical cancers of demoralistion and spiritual apathy. Choosing silence, because the drought of fruitless interactions appears endless, can tend towards demoralisation. The conclusion: if so few can understand, then why speak? is dangerous because one must still speak. To choose to stop communicating means one has sunk into apathy, believing that wisdom is too difficult to be taught. It is a premature conclusion.
Becoming wise doesn't make one omniscient about all the forms of egotistical defences that may exist. These challenges require the sage to learn how to audit the false concepts of others, and to keep exposing himself, consistently, to the gauntlet of ignorance and the cunnning of the ego. One has done it for one's own cause, now one must keep on doing it, keep on relying unceasingly on the Infinite for the sake of others (or, for the sake of the Infinite, whom they are). To will otherwise is to seek unconsciousness, and, it is cowardly. The Infinite provides the conditions for all the ongoing newly-invented escape-clauses of ego-preservation under the sun, and also for all the ongoing newly-invented but fundamentally alike spiritual corrections. The concept-auditing that the wisdom-immersed thinker is skilled enough for, comes from his reliance on the Infinite, or rather, on emptiness.
The higher you go, the more absolutely you must rely on the Infinite
Yes, to communicate emptiness is the most difficult task possible. All spiritual teaching is without exception laborious, because probabilities are strongly on the side of one more fruitless interaction. The student will almost certainly become emotionally defensive, dishonest, aggressive, and snaky. This is simply the inevitable reaction of the ego built by their habitual delusional mindstates, reasserting and reinforcing. It's the ego that the teaching is trying to dismantle, but it is the ego that makes all people behave meanly, rudely, self-importantly, narcissistically, and impatiently. So being attacked, and again in a new, more cunning, or more coarse guise, with all the variations of self-defensiveness that can be found in the vast storehouses of human cunning, is par for the course.
Nevertheless, one values wisdom, and helping others to grow towards wisdom; no one else is qualified. So the solitary thinker seeking perfect wisdom must pit himself into the battle without a backward glance, relying on the Infinite, and actively and patiently learning new skills with the endurance of impersonal causality.
The relationship between love and idealism
To inspire by one's example, in a psychological sense, is probably the greatest influence one can have: to inspire confidence and courage, and a will to truth. I say it is probably the greatest influence because it counters the most difficult challenge for those with potential for wisdom, which is: to have courage in intellectualising in order to become enlightened. This is bodhicitta. Basically: to reason about and in Reality, to have an uncompromising passion to know and apply the truth to all parts of oneself. So inspiring such confidence brings the love of wise thinking, and makes reason and truth the beloved, the ideal.
It is easy to see that what one loves, is also what one idealises. People fall in love with people they imagine share the same values and ideals: they love their own ideals.
For instance, a young man catches sight of a young woman he has never seen before: his eye is captured by the nonchalant and bold styling of her hair, the witty and sharp ring of her sarcastic laughter, an ironic and cutting quip, an overweening confidence. He is subdued and intimidated, but fired with admiration for her psychological qualities, and his mind seeks to find a way to gain more of what she has, to even (gasp!) conquer her. But it is not she whom he has fallen in awe with, but rather qualities that he imagines she has. He was already in awe or in love with wittiness, confidence, nonchalance, a magical savoir faire; she just happened along sometime later, and presented a temporary and casual match with his mental images and conceptions. Another girl, or even better, a fictitious character painted by a knowing and insightful author, could capture his imagination in exactly the same way.
People who aren't terribly self-aware, who lack introspection and individuality, who lack a concrete, centralised mind, and have unoriginal, rather cartoonish, unimaginative ideals, tend not to realise how they project their own wishes onto others. This is why so many television dramas are filled with lookalike actors: the stereotypes of blond, blue-eyed, clear-complexioned lover, fills the fancies (they don't deserve the lofty word 'ideal') of many people. Square-jawed, recently-broken-up, emotionally lost men; sexually aggressive, long-haired, red-and-full-lipped women with strange-looking (heavily made-up) eyes. These common types encompass the ideals of many unimaginative persons, and they easily fall in love with one after the other of them.
Gods and goddesses were the invention of a poetic imagination; so were the muses, the anthropomorphic ideals of beauty, music, tragedy, love, and so forth. It is the imagination which considers far-off horizons, high ambitions, impossible achievements. It is also the imagination which clouds reason with emotional speculations of what is not possible or practical. So it is first and foremost the imagination one must address, with regard to what reason is capable of doing. This done, the journeyer will confidently dare to go alone and explore the wilderness of his own private reason-realm, withdrawing into, and for himself. He will no longer be afraid of the possibility of insanity, because he has found his feet in the seas of reason. He no longer respects the puerile notions of sanity bandied about by the humdrum and unimaginative mental machinery of the herd. Now he ventures. That is what one has to inspire in young people.
Young men love intellectualising, even about the nature of Reality and aspects of the path, but they do this happily and irrationally from the position of egotism. They won't cross over. They want to speculate on how it is, but not put faith in reason. So a grand staircase is built to heaven, even a detailed map of what it looks like, yet they have no personal experience. The student thinks it is possible to 'cheat God': to claim enlightenment without sacrificing their delusions. In reality, young would-be sages chatter on online fora, about all they know and have experienced, and when they go off-line, they sink immediately back into worldly habits and the next distraction with no cramps of conscience. This can seem appalling to one with bodhicitta, who applies and acts immediately in fear and trembling on becoming aware of one's faults or oversights. It seems amazing that these young blokes can utter great hopes and show some genuine insight into the nature of the path, even to declare that applying oneself with passion and integrity is vital for enlightenment --- and then go offline and forget all about it. But such ingrained hypocrisy is, unfortunately again, par for the course. One must try again, to inspire personal integrity and the will to consciousness, helping others to leaving the world and the desire for personal advantage and social support behind. Only reliance on the Infinite will have effect. One must persevere, and value truth highest, meaning, for its own sake.
No matter who one meets and interacts with, egotism and hypocrisy must, by the very nature of the problem of egotism, be par for the course. This is not pessimism or self-pity. It is the actuality of the human nature for virtually every single person you meet. You think the rare excepton, the person who truly values reason and application, does not have monsters in their soul to fight? They too are only won to wisdom by a long, hard, arduous, tedious fight. One must keep trying, not giving into the subtle delusions of considering oneself unique and set apart.
As Kierkegaard said, having a mission doesn't give a man more abilities, and make him more suitable for the mission. He simply has a mission. So that one knows the requirement to teach doesn't mean it is made any easier. It doesn't make one's karma vanish. It doesn't mean life suddenly gets easier. In fact, if life is going well for you in purely human terms, then you aren't a true teacher.
The Buddha said the true miracle is to become aware of one's true self, and to make this known to others. The loneliness, the desire for the crap to stop, is a real reaction, but nevertheless it is another false thought. Such loneliness is a subtle rebirth, being a desire for a better state. It has to be sacrificed. One has to accept the crap will come, unceasingly, and yet one must all the more willingly immerse oneself in wisdom. Thou wouldst be a star, and a star is always dripping with filth, remember? Yet this is the Infinite.
The purpose of the concept of reincarnation
Reincarnation does not mean the transmigration of a soul or consciousness after the death of a bodily organism, into a new and different bodily organism. For instance, take that false and stupid idea represented by the Dalai Lama: he is touted as having the exact same stream consciousness as the last Dalai Lama, by virtue of the magical somersault of this gaseous invertebrate out of the past Dalai Lama's dying brain, into the current one's newborn brain. Or, take another instance: a tapeworm dies, and its murky consciousness wings its wingless ethereal way into a newborn piglet's neural mass, or into the chloroplasts (or perhaps vacuoles?) of a new-germinating grass seed, or into the brain of a human newborn baby. All that is complete and utter bullshit for the gullible.
Reincarnation is a concept devised by someone who wanted to get his head around the fact he was still suffering emotionally, even though he knew the empty nature of all things. He was getting a bit fed-up with his lack of spiritual progress. He knew he was prone to emotional attachments, and continuing to hold onto false thoughts. So, he decided to make himself a sturdy branch to hold onto, to pull himself up further into a better position, closer to the summit of wisdom.
Reincarnation simply means cause and effect is happening (as it always is), and the past wrong ideas one has habitually entertained, have an effect. They were strong in the past, so they keep dominating in the present. And it's not just on oneself they're impacting: perhaps it was your father or mother or a school teacher who mentioned them at home or at school; so not only you, but also your siblings, and your school-friends, were also impacted on. And your siblings and school-friends told other people, who told others, and so forth. Memes are always henids, ill-thought and oft-repeated. The memes took hold, became "alive", and kept reproducing themselves. This is reincarnation: cause and effect of wrong ideas.
In oneself, the same old false ideas keep resurfacing, because one hasn't really challenged them, individually, even though one knows - in another part of the mind - that they're false in principle. So in a less wakeful moment, there they pop up again. If one doesn't wake up, and give them the boot, then they're still alive and kicking for another day. Even if one does correct the falseness, they will still return until one has definitely given them such overpowering death blows (using the discriminating sword of rational judgment), that they are truly dead. The idea that is dead, does not get reborn. Ideas are the only thing that reincarnates.
Delusions are like blackberry vines, or gorse vines, that propagate themselves without reseeding but merely by laying on the earth and sending down new roots. If you let them hang around, they'll root in again. One cannot relent, or relax, one's guard at any instant. Every single 'holiday' is a chance for these old habits to gain ground again like invasive species, rebirthing themselves and taking over the mind.
A wise enough mind has the strong habit of seeing things as causes, as fluid and unbounded 'accumulations' of interactions. When things take shape and form, they become 'alive'. So past lives simply means, the formation and shape-taking of past false ideas. These "lives" don't end, even if they fade from consciousness when another false idea crops up, until sentenced to death by reason.
But the execution, the sentence of death to a false idea, is a very particular thing. It is hidden. It is when the fundamentally false idea, the self, is made so transparent that it disappears into the infinite, that false ideas die. They lose their lives because 'life' and 'death' no longer exist.
Hidden in white
Hakuin made a painting, "If you are not there for even an instant, then you are just like a dead man."
His name, also, reminds me of that saying. It means, "Hidden in white."
Science's relation to philosophy
Science is on the relationship of finite things to other finite things, and is a knowledge firmly based within the Infinite. However, if the scientist does not know the nature of the Infinite, and only perceives reality as a mathematical infinite (vastness, or numerically unending series), then they tend to become believers in scientific materialism. This is where the self is conceptualised in relation to that mathematical series, and is perceived as an infinitely miniscule, but still objectively existing, object; consequently they feel pleasure in submitting to the grand scale of the world that is perceived and in the existence of a countless series of phenomena (empirical objects), all of which are supposed to exist inherently with strict boundaries and identities. This is the psychological insanity of the scientist, founded in ignorance, and is evidenced by the way scientific materialists approach research. They are obsessed with finding "the clue" that explains the interrelationship of causes, and go chasing it with helpless naivete, expecting to find some stable and unchanging, fixed and indivisible ground at the basis of a phenomenon. When they cannot find it, they assert the importance of further research; they are both delighted that there is more work to do (this is the psychology of 'the interesting' which enthralls and enslaves them), and appalled at the uncertainty, controversy, and lack of closure in all their conclusions.
The insanity of scientific materialists is also evident in their great pride and attachment to their knowledge. Because it seems to them, that they have obtained rare and complex information, which is privileged (universities are exclusive by nature; higher levels of academia require funding, so research is exclusive economically; specialisation is exclusive because few people can specialise), their egos become inflammed and inordinately attached to their understanding and research. The problem is, science is about finites, and is founded in the Infinite; finitudes exist only in relation to other finitudes, and necessarily must change because the Infinite is not static. So science must by its very essence be a fluid and changing field. This results in the terribly comic ego-cataclysms when scientific laws and theories are overturned, and prides wounded. If scientific materialists were first of all philosophers, there would be no such pride and egotism.
The problem with studying science without first prioritising philosophy, and being wise about how things actually exist fluidly (that is to say, non-inherently), is that these thoughts reassert the ego. The ego, again, is the concept that things exist inherently, instead of absolutely dependently and interdependently, and thereon creates a false notion of the self. So doing science without wisdom only aggravates egotism. The psychology of the scientist is always chasing resolution and explanation; it aggravates anxiety and muddles the mind by mixing inherent uncertainties with the egotistical desire for certainty. The scientific materialist is born out of this existential tail-chasing; the psychology is one of making rigidly emphatic assertions about the uncertainty of everything. Being amongst such persons, who are utterly unaware of the flood of internal contradictions in their thinking, can be deeply spiritual and intellectually sickening. It is no wonder that there is such a culture of arguments on authority, or arguments on popularity, and very little individual rationality and originality.
Science works. But scientific materialists use it like a fool hitting nails into a wall with a high-power drill. They are inefficient because they don't understand the Infinite, and the nature of things.
On guilt, anxiety, anger, blame
Guilt is desiring something still, knowing it to have genuinely harmful consequences.
The feeling of guilt ought to lead sharply to a decision. If one knows something to be harmful, then one should not do it. Thus, if guilt lingers, it means one wishes to choose to continue to be harmful, or one's will is so weak one cannot choose.
Kierkegaard related anxiety to the fear of something one desires. It comes with prolonged guilt. One sees oneself as untrustworthy.
Weininger noted that lack of will is the lack of a genuine self, of individuality, personhood, ideality. So to experience oneself as unable to make right decisions is to see oneself as lacking agency: not existing, or existing as a negation of self.
Lacking self, lacking will, lacking reliability, one is forced to perceive others or the environment as the agents responsible for one's dreadful state. Here arises anger, which is the powerful desire to attack and destroy a threat.
Anger turned against oneself means one believes oneself to have agency and will. Guilt followed by anger at oneself means the guilt lingers, but one's fear of harmful consequences is slightly greater than one's desire for the thing that generates those consequences.
Prolonged guilt is typically followed by anger turned outwards. The self-mutilated person cannot trust themselves, and they believe others or the environment is responsible, and ought to have actively avoided creating the situation that the angry person is experiencing. But because the others or environment has not acted in time, the person crazed by their situation doesn't trust their agency. So they do not trust themselves or others to find a remedy, and become deeply demoralised and eaten up with rage: the blame state.
Blame is a very bad mental and physiological state. It is generally created out of habit. The "agent" of blame is now addicted to what they desire, and uses the excuse that they cannot stop themselves, and that only others can, to remove a sense of personal culpability.
Addiction to blame is a terrible thing. To say one's cause is lost, is the worst situation. It is truly pitiable, truly hell.
To be angry and to blame are very childish. Only a childish personality could possibly engage in them, because only a child would imagine themselves powerless and incapable of thought.
One who witnesses that thoughts strongly influence experiences, values being conscious. They are interested in exploring how thoughts do this, and how powerful thought is. They wish to understand the nature of their own agency.
To will is to exist, not to will is to be suicidal. The suicidal instinct is strongly displayed by escapism: to desire to be passive, to have others choose, not to choose for oneself. To not wish to experience the relationship between thought and experience, means one desires not to be conscious, and therefore, not to exist.
To choose to be conscious is a fundamental principle in selfhood: to will is to know.
To value consciousness and therefore self-existence is not egotism, but the valuing of understanding.
So the natural fulfilment of valuing consciousness is wisdom: to know what is ultimately true. Rational enlightenment is the inevitable frontier for every agent.
How to be sexy, successful at work, and well-liked by most
Be a post-modernist!
A. Your basic principle in life is that there is no ultimate truth, only personal beliefs, 'stories', and opinions.
B. Be cynical and skeptical towards all views (except this post-modernist view).
C. Flout the validity of reason and logic at all opportunities, using arguments and proofs.
D. Since actual irrationality is impractical (you'd starve to death, and this is a bore), opt for scientific materialism. A.k.a. Monkey's best friend. Scientific knowledge is awesome, because it gets you food, health, sexual intercourse, and a job.
E. Sprinkle your speech with the precepts of S.M.:
(i) Quantum theory says everything is uncertain (except this statement)
(ii) Goedel's incompleteness says no system is complete (except this system)
(iii) Entropy is increasing and we're all going to die in the heat-death of the universe (so get drunk)
(iv) The WHOLE UNIVERSE is expanding and largely made of nothing, therefore, a human is a meaningless dot
F. Having proved reason to be invalid, and life to be meaningless, show that sex, fun, drugs, escapism, reckless spending, and empty-mindedness are essential for a fulfilling life — so long as it doesn't impinge on your ability to sustain a long healthy life.
G. When the excitement of suicidal recklessness starts to become stale, or you have a near-fatal car accident, start a family to keep you 'grounded in what really matters': love, family, health, and religion too if you want. Teach your children to be mediocrities.
H. Don't forget to make outlandish and irrational declarations as often as possible, to reaffirm your distrust in reason.
Completion and Perfection — Doing nothing from apathy
All is perfect! Nature is complete. Ultimately there is no change from one moment to the next; all is the Infinite.
But it doesn't therefore follow that nothing one does makes an iota of difference: the ego says, completion is boredom, and falls into apathy.
Striving for wisdom comes from believing that wisdom is a state of understanding or awareness, but wisdom is actually not such a thing. It is the natural consequence of leaving all false thoughts behind. It is not possible to attain wisdom by not striving, but it is also not possible to attain it by striving. It is a consequence, not an end in itself.
Wise thoughts have different consequences to foolish ones: therefore what one does alters the flow of events. Some events bring awareness of Nature, and others do not.
Interactions in the Woman's World
Healthy human relationships, say psychologists, are about having healthy emotional boundaries. This is supposed to mean: you are clearly individuated from others, and you are a resilient person who is comfortable with your own separate views and also with aloneness. But it also means that you set boundaries between yourself and others, which you alter in order to 'get close' to the healthy persons, and 'get further away' from the unhealthy, manipulative types.
But given the fact of the ego, the belief that a self exists inherently, which psychologists typically regard as a sign of sanity, and given the fact that the ego cannot function without emotional attachments (it gets close to what it likes, and pushes away what it doesn't like), the line between 'healthy persons' and 'unhealthy' is very fine indeed.
Women typically believe that healthy human interactions involve being loving, kind, and compassionate. But given the above situation, this means anyone who doesn't drench their interactions with apologies, self-effacements, qualifications, and all the nuances needed to avoid provoking any kind of negative emotion, is regarded as an unhealthy, manipulative type. The laughable consequence of interactions with a great many women is that they will become extremely offended if you do not behave in that cringing, apologetic, emotional way, and react spitefully, as if you have deliberately tried to hurt them.
Truly healthy persons do individuate, and aren't swayed by what others do or say. They remain resilient and unaffected, because they take responsibility for their own reactions and interpretations. This is the 'centralised' individual. They love thinking, in which they find themselves. They take responsibility for their own states of mind, and don't depend on others. They tend not to find any point to revenge or malice, or attacking others who criticise them.
But typically, women blame and attack others who criticise them. They don't like thinking, and laugh it off, saying they are "not inclined to it", or "haven't time". And then, when another person engages them in thought, which really tests them, the consequences are clear. But instead of taking responsibility for their laziness, they blame others, saying, it isn't their own fault. Women tend to need others to be the same as them, to reaffirm them and substantiate them. They find it very hard to individuate. In woman-dominated groups, there is often a lack of diversity, and the members have the same views, psychological habits (nervous giggles), sayings, and fashion sense. We all know how married couples dress the same: it is because she wants him to dress to her taste.
The healthy individual in a Woman's World, completely outnumbered like a husband in a family of women, may believe there is something wrong with himself. He may doubt himself and believe he is just 'too rational' and 'unfeeling'. But his submission to Woman brings great suffering to him. He becomes as insane and irresponsible as they are. Chasing after acceptance by women is a big mistake.
Yes, society is highly feminised, and emotionalism is the modern foundation for socialising. So it is important for those who value reason and intellectual understanding, to know how to deal with this. One cannot argue rationally with those who have no respect for reason, and one can never be understood by them either (not even emotionally). Does this mean isolation and reclusion? No: you are the same as always, just as your essential self and identity would not change if you were walking on a sunny day or in a foggy mist.
Just go about your business: Infinite business, unconcerned by the whims, policies, and fashions of the era.
• • • • • • • • • •