The Crisis of Meaning

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

What would there be to prove?

The Black Hebrew Israelite movement stuff-- like when he told Tucker Carlson in an edited portion of his interview that the term “Jew” refers to the “the 12 lost tribes of Judah . . . who the people known as the race Black really are”-- is a belief so categorical that it's not up for argument.

Then there seems to be a lot of the old tropes about Jews in control of the entertainment industry; I think he called it the “Jewish underground media mafia” who are perpetuating a system of "modern day slavery". Where does one start with that?


This isn't the era of Sam Cooke. The old Jewish element controlling the music business doesn't ring as true when jewish&italian mafioso aren't breaking legs to get records into stores, acts into clubs, and pop stars on to the radio.

Kayne goes on about jewish owned labels, and I look around and there are three conglomerates that own almost all popular music, including most of the indy and boutique labels out there-- if it has name recognition, it is at the very least partially owned by the big three. It's been that way since he came up, including in the rap world.

The mafia people make their money in the music business in totally different ways. Click farms, shaking down the arenas/ticketmaster/executives. Too much trouble to shake down artists now, even for their publishing rights. The real publishing rights money is now coming from the hedge funds buying up all the 60s to 90s acts, betting on older music being more lucrative going forward than newer stuff.

This is stuff way beyond Kayne West and the only template has to make sense of it is to pretend the Purple Gang



is still running around harassing Motown acts for their cut.

[Parodite]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ-tHaHfB8A

IZ-tHaHfB8A

A nice free-jazz diabolicologue at the edge between sanity-insanity, wisdom-wordsaladery, descriptive-delusional, fact-fiction. The good thing about philosophical dialogue as opposed to solo-action self-talk (and be immeditely sent to the mental ward) might just be that one can save the other when the word-avalange hits. These two I fear will go down together.

[Nonc Hilaire]

If you look at an old map of psychological metas the area around Jung is marked “Here there be dragons”. I respect Peterson as a wounded warrior, but he needs to stick closer to the shoreline.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

I sense a bias against what Vervaeke calls 'dialogos' which is a discourse between parties verbalising thought and their process of thinking, something that verbal thinkers innately understand........

I'm not so much into the picture vs. language distinction I'm more like: people of the current age tend to use speech to express already articulated ideations directed at a goal - to express an intent, a solution to a problem or in the process of effecting a change in opinion. Speech is to eject already formed thought bullets, not as sound effects accompanying neural brain process. In short, speech is for communication only, not for thinking...........

You're made aware of this when people call you out for 'talking to yourself' or breaking into your space by interjecting 'what?' all the time..... ;P..........

[Nonc Hilaire]

Peterson uses his eyes to telegraph his speech process. Looking eft is past; right is future. Up is projecting; down rationalizing.

[Parodite]

In our understanding of the world, especially in physics alias the nature of things, two concepts are usually contrasted, sometimes even as complementary ying-yang type opposites.

determnistic - indeterministic
causal - probabilistic
necessary - coincidental
exactly - almost

So I was looking for a new word that encapsulates both contrasted qualities and asked Chat GPT for help. Now it turns out there is a word for such a thing where two concepts are combined into one "blend word" or portmanteau.

I fed Chat GPT with exactly and almost to create a portmanteau:

Certainly! Here are ten different portmanteaus combining "exactly" and "almost":

Exalmostly
Almostactly
Exactalmost
Almostexactly
Exactmostly
Almostly
Exmostly
Almostact
Exactimost
Almostic

These portmanteaus blend the elements of "exactly" and "almost" to create unique words that convey a sense of close approximation and precision with varying emphasis and combinations of the two original terms.

Feeding it causal and probabilistic it responded with:

Certainly! Here are portmanteaus combining "causal" and "probabilistic":

Probacausal
Causalistic
Probabilcausal
Causabilistic
Probacausistic
Causalibabilistic
Probabilicausal
Causabilibistic
Probabilicistic


These portmanteaus blend the concepts of "causal" and "probabilistic" to create unique words that describe systems or processes that involve both causality and probability in different ways.

So maybe I'd describe The Nature of Things with Almostly Causabilistic. Where the past and the future keep in touch.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Brilliant tasking of the our mutual friend, Parodite.

[Parodite]

Practical wisdom has it that breaking down big problems into smaller ones helps solving them. Usually however we engage in the opposite; solutions are believed to be found higher up in the causal hierarchy. The higher the better! All the way up to government, even to reality "as a whole", to ultimately... God as the only source of lasting "meaningful meaning".

The crisis of meaning... what is the meaning of life. Crawling to the top, embracing the Universe while begging for a divine hug in return. But it is very lonely out there, especially at the top. Surrounded by a vast empty space completely void of meaning; dense indifference at best.

What mountain climbers feel, I imagine, when they reach the top is not so much a big hug from the universe, but rather the adrenaline rush of having escaped death, once again. I remember that rush when years ago I almost fell off a mountain in Spain, the relief when I was back in the safe zone after a few agonizing minutes. Singing, screaming not unlike the best orgasm of my life.

The great void has a strong magnetic pull with a romantic spiritual promise, but data suggest it never made anybody any happier. Probably because the Universe simply is a much too big fish to swallow. More like becoming aware of being inside the digestive system of a giant monster and that the fun will be over any time soon. Here, the meaning of your life certainly is that one day you will die and be food for others. And that all others too, will eventually be digested in the Belly of the Beast. With the advent of the idea of Multiverse, our own belly beastly monstrous universe might be food for other even bigger monsters as well. Where does the carnage stop?

Reaching for "the top" has a strong promise of death, with the only reward being an adrenaline rush when you survived; at least for now and once again. Smiling, humbly showing your surrendering teeth (as a prayer) just before you get eaten will not get you off death row either.

Given the above one could argue that the higher you reach, the more meaning is lost. Moving in the opposite direction naturally breaks down that one big question of meaning into smaller digestible ones. When I'm hungry, only my stomach has a crisis of meaning. When my job is too boring, I can look for other opportunities. Feeling disconnected from other people or from the natural environment when we wither away in sterile offices... something can be done about it. If still too big a problem to solve, breaking it down even further until you can make meaningful steps, one at a time.

[Doc]

Practical wisdom has it that breaking down big problems into smaller ones helps solving them. Usually however we engage in the opposite; solutions are believed to be found higher up in the causal hierarchy. The higher the better! All the way up to government, even to reality "as a whole", to ultimately... God as the only source of lasting "meaningful meaning".

The crisis of meaning... what is the meaning of life. Crawling to the top, embracing the Universe while begging for a divine hug in return. But it is very lonely out there, especially at the top. Surrounded by a vast empty space completely void of meaning; dense indifference at best.

What mountain climbers feel, I imagine, when they reach the top is not so much a big hug from the universe, but rather the adrenaline rush of having escaped death, once again. I remember that rush when years ago I almost fell off a mountain in Spain, the relief when I was back in the safe zone after a few agonizing minutes. Singing, screaming not unlike the best orgasm of my life.

The great void has a strong magnetic pull with a romantic spiritual promise, but data suggest it never made anybody any happier. Probably because the Universe simply is a much too big fish to swallow. More like becoming aware of being inside the digestive system of a giant monster and that the fun will be over any time soon. Here, the meaning of your life certainly is that one day you will die and be food for others. And that all others too, will eventually be digested in the Belly of the Beast. With the advent of the idea of Multiverse, our own belly beastly monstrous universe might be food for other even bigger monsters as well. Where does the carnage stop?

Reaching for "the top" has a strong promise of death, with the only reward being an adrenaline rush when you survived; at least for now and once again. Smiling, humbly showing your surrendering teeth (as a prayer) just before you get eaten will not get you off death row either.

Given the above one could argue that the higher you reach, the more meaning is lost. Moving in the opposite direction naturally breaks down that one big question of meaning into smaller digestible ones. When I'm hungry, only my stomach has a crisis of meaning. When my job is too boring, I can look for other opportunities. Feeling disconnected from other people or from the natural environment when we wither away in sterile offices... something can be done about it. If still too big a problem to solve, breaking it down even further until you can make meaningful steps, one at a time.

I think you put your finger right on the problem. I would add that people want guarantees in life that are far more than any promise given by their existence.

Remember right after 911 when the message came out from Muslim jihadis "You love life and we love death" ?

I grew up in a pretty stoic society in WV. Growing up the two things I heard the adults telling children is "Stop crying over spilled milk" and "Oh quit ker bawling before I give you something to bawl about."

The real lesson of life is "Try hard, but don't get your hopes up too much because in the end you are going to end"

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

Pay attention to the segment on the Substitution Hypothesis and you will see how the meaning crisis cuts both ways.......

[Parodite]

Dawkins gets depressed that statistically most people have opinions following their political/religious tribal loyalty. That's somewhat strange for somebody who has a keen understanding of biology where tribal-herd loyalty is the bedrock of natural organization in many mammalian species.

Scientism/rationalism becomes a religion when it starts to body-paint reality with imaginary colors. An extremist Dawkinsian would deeply regret individual organisms being loyal only to their own digestive systems. Selfishness the original sin. Why can't we all just behave rational eh. A quite irrational demand that would be.

I suspect rationalisms exists only in so far as they serve "irrational" needs.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

Dawkins gets depressed that statistically most people have opinions following their political/religious tribal loyalty. That's somewhat strange for somebody who has a keen understanding of biology where tribal-herd loyalty is the bedrock of natural organization in many mammalian species.

Scientism/rationalism becomes a religion when it starts to body-paint reality with imaginary colors. An extremist Dawkinsian would deeply regret individual organisms being loyal only to their own digestive systems. Selfishness the original sin. Why can't we all just behave rational eh. A quite irrational demand that would be.

I suspect rationalisms exists only in so far as they serve "irrational" needs.

Thank you. Well put.......

The insistence on objective truth which will be revealed through logic and reasoning supported by science is the intuition that the results of same will be more to my liking than what we have now.....'>....

[Parodite]

Maybe a bit far fetched, but it seems like reason is good at slicing the kill. Dissect and analyse. To slow down and trap that which moves. Catching it. Pinning it down.

Not only does a rational pair of teeth like the prospect of another tasty meal to bite, it is actually the only skill it has. A function nature has assigned to it. Dawkins maybe looks and sounds like a pair of grinding teeth for good reason. ;p

To slow down, catch, dissect and digest versus to move, let go, inspire. No doubt stories, movies, narratives.. put people into motion. Visionary dreams, expansion, drives not controlled by reason. Pull and push.

Reason and passion maybe need each other. Religious life where witches are burned at the stake, children brainwashed into believing they are born-bad sinners, holy wars to conquer-kill heretics... needs reason to give it a break and slow it down. Dawkins is useful there.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

Reason and passion maybe need each other. Religious life where witches are burned at the stake, children brainwashed into believing they are born-bad sinners, holy wars to conquer-kill heretics... needs reason to give it a break and slow it down. Dawkins is useful there.

He'd be more useful if wasn't so wrong about human nature and psychology, but maybe we can blame the enlightenment for that....'>.....

[Doc]

Maybe a bit far fetched, but it seems like reason is good at slicing the kill. Dissect and analyse. To slow down and trap that which moves. Catching it. Pinning it down.

Not only does a rational pair of teeth like the prospect of another tasty meal to bite, it is actually the only skill it has. A function nature has assigned to it. Dawkins maybe looks and sounds like a pair of grinding teeth for good reason. ;p

To slow down, catch, dissect and digest versus to move, let go, inspire. No doubt stories, movies, narratives.. put people into motion. Visionary dreams, expansion, drives not controlled by reason. Pull and push.

Reason and passion maybe need each other. Religious life where witches are burned at the stake, children brainwashed into believing they are born-bad sinners, holy wars to conquer-kill heretics... needs reason to give it a break and slow it down. Dawkins is useful there.

Years ago I took my young son and my niece onto a fishing wharf that had been hit by a hurricane. The deck was twisted out of the horizontal this way and that. Like a child's nightmare. Once we got about half way out my niece informed me "There is a lot of water out here"

Today there is a lot of unacknowledged religion and witch hunts out here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUPpP2khS9g

[Nonc Hilaire]

Today there is a lot of unacknowledged religion and witch hunts out here.

Lots of enthusiasm for religion as a means of social control.

None for religion as a means of social cohesion.

[noddy]

[Parodite]

Some meanigful interactions with chatgpt

Lurifaction: (noun) The process of transforming something ordinary into an alluring or captivating form using a lure.

Salivalure: (noun) An enticing element that triggers a heightened salivation response, often associated with anticipation or desire.

Flibbergnation: (noun) The act of employing a complex and technologically advanced device to solve an imaginary issue, resulting in an unnecessary and bewildering solution.
Usage: "John's invention of the 'Flibbergnator 3000' was a classic case of flibbergnation, as it tackled a problem that no one had ever encountered."

True or False: "The Meaning of Life is Language"
False. "The Meaning of Life is Language" is a philosophical statement that reflects a particular perspective but is not universally accepted as true. The meaning of life is a deeply philosophical and subjective topic, and it has been explored and debated by thinkers, philosophers, and religious scholars for centuries. While language is undoubtedly an essential tool for communication and expression, the meaning of life is a question that encompasses a wide range of beliefs, perspectives, and philosophical frameworks. Different cultures, religions, and philosophical traditions offer diverse interpretations of the meaning of life that go beyond the scope of language alone.

Is asking about the difference between pointless and meaningless pointless or meaningless?
The question about the difference between "pointless" and "meaningless" is neither pointless nor meaningless. It's a valid inquiry that seeks to clarify the nuances between two related terms. Understanding the distinctions between words and their meanings is an essential aspect of language and communication. Therefore, the question serves a purpose in seeking to enhance understanding.

So my old instinct is confirmed thanks to chatgpt; finding meaning outside of language is like hunting for fish in a desert.

[Parodite]

Let me try to unpack this ChatGPT induced morass a bit, while getting bogged down obviously.

False. "The Meaning of Life is Language" is a philosophical statement that reflects a particular perspective but is not universally accepted as true.

Why it is that universal acceptance would be necessary for something to be true? A statement can be true without anyone accepting it except for the person making the statement. All 9 billion people minus 1 could end up believing the earth is flat and not spherical. And of course, things can be true without anyone accepting it because no one knows about it. There must be bucket-loads of unknown truths out there.

Usually for something to rise to the status of being true, there has to be evidence beyond reasonable doubt for it. Empirical evidence and it has to be true at least more than once. The higher the frequency of sensory-experimental validation, the merrier and more solid such a truth becomes. Especially if all efforts to falsify it fail big time over and over again as well.

ChatGPT fell into my trap by forcing it to think of a question in terms of true or false where that distinction in fact doesn't apply. The question wasn't scientific because the answer cannot be validated nor falsified using empirical data. Which puts the question in the same ball park as asking; "True or false: The taste of coffee is delicious". Everybody immediately understands that taste is like a personal opinion: it occurs in the subjective domain and not in the public domain.

CAVEAT: both the subjective and objective domain are experiential; the difference is that we can experience a similar visual representation of the moon when we look at it simultaneously and shoulder-to-shoulder, but if at the same time I happen to have a head ache, you won't be able to experience my headache "empirically" because you have no sense organs that can detect and process my head ache simultaneously and directly.

"The good news": my head ache and your tooth ache are no less empirical facts than our visual experience of the moon. We can do empirical science on our own headache the same way we do on the moon; the distinction being that our sensory apparatuses are wired to the same external environment, but to different internal environments. There is nothing mysterious about this fact, and the reason why I can't observe your consciousness. It would be weird and a much harder problem to solve, if we all experience exactly the same anytime anywhere. A God-like One Heart and Mind some people still find an attractive proposition. Heaven of sorts. Finally "re-united" with The Whole of Being. Could be me, but that scares the sh*t out of me. ;p

The moon, head aches and tooth aches. All valid domains for empirical science with the "caveat" I mentioned. But what about these so called philosophical questions about the meaning of life? Can they not be empirically investigated, just like tooth aches and the moon? Are they "too subjective" to be open to empirical research, fundamentally hidden, separated from all other empirical domains? I beg to differ... at least somewhat.

The meaning of life is a deeply philosophical and subjective topic, and it has been explored and debated by thinkers, philosophers, and religious scholars for centuries.

Here ChatGPT reveals its statistical modus operandi; most people will consider "what is the meaning of life?" a philosophical question, not one that can have answers derived from empirical evidence. Just subjective opinion, perhaps including references to positive experience and the goal of maximizing them, in the pursuit of happiness and pleasure, avoiding pain as often as you can. Whatever you put in that basket labeled "the meaning of life", it is "doomed" to be a subjective whateverish concoction of dreams, wishful thinking, fear-induced fantasies and placebo fruits. No real science is possible there. Fogget about it. From there it is only a few steps to the science-vs-religion separation, their wars and efforts to mend the divorce and try again one more time to make the relationship work. Right? Me thinks nothing of this is true. As people with anorexia nervosa being extremely thin but seeing a very obese person in the mirror, likewise the fact-fiction distinction is much less fat than it appears to be.

There are no different realms, nor "different ways to know things". How would that work? There only exists the experiential-empirical process that builds on and extends our sensory apparatus; science with a sense-extender toolkit that investigates the world where our brains engage in boolean statistical processes that generate probability maps of our "most-likely reality" from moment to moment. This is our world, and it includes both "the subjective" and "the objective". The subjective and objective are not on two different planets, more like two different regions on a map whose separation is functional and relative; not fundamental in an absolute sense.

Philosophical questions can be "empirical guesswork", the foreplay of hardcore empirical action. Fingering reality. Imagination is considered by successful scientists like Albi Einstein crucial as well as a great joy. The best empirical guesswork is informed guesswork. So what about philosophical questions that seem to move away from anything empirically verifiable-falsifiable? Does it necessarily become Word salad gobbledygook immune to empirical research, moving into the realms of psychoses, delusions... dreams forever?

Woman: "Doctor, my husband thinks he is a dog!"
Doctor: "Oh my, for how long he believes this?"
Woman: "Since he was a puppy!"

Is there any empirical science possible on a man who says he is a dog and/or a wife who believes him? It is possible things are true and false at the same time, depending on who you ask: 1) the man's own thoughts and experiences empirically tell him he is a dog while people around him agree he is just a confused guy suffering from a psychotic-delusional episode, 2) he was just joking to his wife who then collapsed into a full psychotic storm believing she married a puppy, 3) doctor and bystanders who agree seeing a psychotic-delusional person but have in fact very little knowledge of a psychotic episode 1st hand. A doctor who never experienced a headache may believe he knows what a headache is, but that knowledge is second hand. Similarly, try to explain colors to a color blind person who never saw them. (Not to say that colorblind eye doctors can't fix retinas of course) How profound is your "knowledge" of things without 1st person experience of a particular beast? Not saying 2nd hand stuff is bad, just that it is cheap and often has hidden defects due to various wear and tear.

My contention is that any experience, also those considered delusional, deemed psychotic, mere philosophical word saladery... are all empirical facts nonetheless. Any conscious event, also recurring delusional ones are empirical data because they can be remembered and reported by somebody 1st hand. Those empirical-experiential facts/data points are then placed on your map to make causal sense; the dots must be connected. If there is no causal sense there is no map. The brain doesn't like disconnected datapoints aimlessly hovering over the surface not knowing where to land. Having a psychosis means your map changes, as well as the causal relationships you believe are there connecting all the dots. The ability to draw a causally coherent map of the world seems to me essential to mental health. I suspect no map is the same, how could they be? Similar yes..

Comfi-alert: whether or not this map is a very accurate representation (if at all it should be considered a representation) of the experience-independent orginal... is an academically interesting and valid question, but the answer is probably not very relevant to your survival. For as long as you get laid, find resources, food and shelter, a place to drop your poo et-al... who cares.

When others see a different map saying that you are psychotic, seeing things that are not there... they can become demonic voices, disrupters of your own map, the only one you know and that at least tries to make sense for you. Respect the map, please! It is the only territory we know...

Believing your own map is a good, trustworthy representation of the world you live in... but then come the hordes of wannabe high-tech priests who now claim to know that you live in a simulation, that the world as you know it "is not real"! In such a situation, when your own map is apparently different from the map of others who claim to know you are either psychotic or not aware that you are living through a simulation-hallucination called "reality".. it may be time to conclude that either everybody is crazy, or that I am the only sane exception. Depending on the mood of the day and the weather, both conclusions seem appropriate to me.

[Parodite]

There was some brain farting left do.

So my old instinct is confirmed thanks to chatgpt; finding meaning outside of language is like hunting for fish in a desert.

I didn’t mean this to be good or bad news; just that the meaning of life only means something in the arena where people talk, communicate, think about it. Where it is asserted to be or refer to something.

It seems to me that human language is the only language where the meaning of life is considered a serious topic. Dogs don’t think about it, cats are too busy being cats, plants… well, who knows, but they come-off as rather non-thinking stimulus-response automatons to me.

Stones and stuff… what can I say. They do fine without asking any questions at all. Is the life of a stone meaningless because it can’t think? It seems to me rocks don’t care what others think about them one bit! Maybe it makes them more durable, resilient.

To catch the meaning of life throwing a wide net, or perhaps using a specific hook because you expect it to be a special type of fish.

Language is the fishing gear used to capture the meaning of life. But is it a coincidence that the meaning of life has been discussed, debated, deeply considered… for many, many centuries without anyone ever showing any fish were caught? All they came up with is descriptions of what type of fish it might be, or ought to be, or supposedly is in the abstract...

No real fish to show, just words! In holy books and elsewhere.

Maybe the meaning of life is more like an imaginary fish? And what would be wrong with that. It just means that it is indeed… a product of language, existing nowhere else. Words among more words. The Land of LOGOS for beginners.

ChatGPT came in with this gem:

The Linguistic Landscape: Exploring the Country of Language

Language, like a vast and diverse country, stretches across the tapestry of human communication, connecting cultures, minds, and hearts. Just as a country is composed of regions with unique landscapes and customs, language is an intricate web of dialects, syntax, and idioms that form a rich cultural mosaic. Just as one explores the landscapes and cities of a country, the exploration of language unveils a world of endless possibilities, bridging gaps and fostering understanding.

Imagine each language as a distinct region within this linguistic country, each with its own topography and nuances. Just as the physical geography influences the culture and way of life in a particular region, linguistic nuances reflect the historical, social, and cultural backdrop of a community. The harsh consonants of German evoke the precision and industriousness of its people, while the melodic flow of Italian mirrors the artistic and passionate nature of its culture.

Just as travelers may learn phrases and customs when visiting a new country, language learners embark on a journey to comprehend the customs and traditions of a linguistic region. Language learners are like explorers, delving into the intricacies of grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation, guided by the locals (native speakers) who generously share the treasures of their land. Just as a seasoned traveler becomes attuned to the subtlest of cultural cues, a skilled language speaker understands the unsaid meanings, the idiomatic expressions that lie beneath the surface.

In this linguistic country, languages form connections and borders, much like diplomatic relations and alliances between nations. Bilingual and multilingual individuals act as diplomats, facilitating conversations and connections between linguistic regions. They traverse linguistic borders with ease, bringing people together, and fostering a sense of unity despite linguistic diversity. Just as trade and cultural exchanges strengthen relations between countries, the exchange of words and ideas fosters bonds between different linguistic communities.

As a country evolves over time due to historical events and societal changes, language too is dynamic and responsive to its environment. New words emerge, old ones fade away, and accents shift like the tides. Just as a country may adopt foreign practices and integrate them into its culture, languages borrow from one another, enriching themselves with new vocabulary and expressions. This constant evolution ensures that language remains a living entity, vibrant and adaptable.

However, just as misunderstandings and conflicts can arise between countries, language barriers can hinder effective communication. Misinterpretations and miscommunications, though unintentional, can lead to confusion and frustration. But just as diplomacy and cultural understanding can resolve international disputes, bridging language barriers requires patience, empathy, and a willingness to learn from one another.

In conclusion, the country of language is a tapestry woven with threads of history, culture, and human connection. Each linguistic region contributes its unique colors and patterns, creating a beautiful and intricate whole. Just as exploring a country broadens our horizons, delving into the world of language expands our perspectives and enriches our lives. So, let us embark on this linguistic journey, traversing the landscapes of words and ideas, and forging connections that transcend borders and bring us closer together.

If the meaning of life can't be found in the above text... we might as well all give up and go home.

[Parodite]

If I had to extract the two core values of the Judeo-Christian tradition, it would be:

1. Treat your neighbor the way you want to be treated
2. Forgive and you will be forgiven

In a world where every behavior has consequences, this is summarized in the proverbial ‘you reap what you sow’ mantra, which is good enough for me.

In our time there is an overload of judgement, blaming, shaming going on in all directions. If it is hard to put the blame somewhere, you can always create an imaginary collection of evildoers in your mind. Conspiracy when blame has nowhere else to go.

I confess being a sinner myself. I’m quick in judgement and rather unforgiving. What should I do?

In the religious tradition, if I forgive others, God will forgive me too. But since I’m not religious in the traditional sense, who will forgive me if not God? Should I bet on my neighbors when I treat them with respect, forgive them hoping they do the same in return? The way I treat neighbors is more like how I treat dogs: I don’t provoke them into barking or biting, because that is something I want to avoid. I have a talent with dogs, they naturally like me and even listen to me because I’m not intimidating in any way but also never intimidated in any way, I guess. Something like that. And most dogs just love to play and fool around a bit.

What seems to be absent in the old traditions, is the concept of self-forgiveness. Your neighbor might forgive you which would be a bonus, but without God forgiving you there is no real redemption. Being able to forgive yourself to my knowledge is not much of a thing in the old tradition. Is this because self-forgiveness is an oxymoron? How can “I forgive myself” since that would mean I consist of two separate identities: the sinner and the forgiver of sins, all in one? There is something delusional about it.

Maybe in cultures and times where you are less an individual and more a hub in a collective that controls and defines you, there is no functional need to forgive yourself since you are completely at the mercy of others. In a culture and times like ours however, with near-complete emphasis on our individual conscious existence, our rights and responsabilities, of me-myself-and-I in relation to the rest around me, the need to self-forgiveness feels much more natural. Modern wisdom says that: “only if you love yourself, you can love others too” and similar soundbites.

ChatGPT also has no problem distilling contemporary wisdom on the supposed value of self-forgiveness.

I’m open to the idea that this type of self-talk where “I forgive myself” is schizoid gobbledygook. It feels very odd indeed, not even real, to forgive myself. Problem for me is that talking to God instead of myself feels equally not real, or even more strange. Like talking into the void. Damn if I do, damn if I don’t. Unredemptive material.

[Parodite]

We are all familiar with the Silent bigotry of Low expectations especially in relation to racism.

In general, it is the element of expectations acting like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Expect/aim low, you will probably go lower. Expect/aim high, you will probably go higher.

It is true that there is no equal playing field: privilege is real when you grow up in a richer, healthier environment more conducive to your own wellbeing and flourishing. "You can do it, you can do better, do your best!" The feeling as a child this gives you that you matter, are special and loved, that you can achieve things if you put your mind to it. To experience the fruits of that process. It is confirmed by the successful people around you with the same mindset, usually already for generations. Growing up in a safe, well to do neighborhood. It helps.

It really is a privilege to get such a head start. If you grow up in an environment with the bigotry of much lower expectations, this also becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy generation after generation, where not only lower expectations flourish and drag everybody down but also the hardware might deteriorate on average. (avoiding the IQ-word)

Successful, happy, productive, rich people with high IQ versus poor, unproductive people with lower expectations of themselves all the way down to levels of a perceived victimhood where there is no escape but to behave and be miserable accordingly, with revenge on the people you believe are the cause of your misery as the only option left: the successful ones. (Big blame-games always need stereotypes; white, black, male, female, left, right etc.) Who by then start to look down on that class of deplorable losers and need guns and fences to keep them at a safe distance.

This seems to me the real mechanism creating class divisions in society. Amplified and solidified by general human traits like selfishness and the omni-present pull of crime which can be found in all segments of society. A bankster-prankster stealing money by selling dog-poo financial products that are nothing but pick-pocketing automatons, is the same type of criminal as somebody who loots a store in Chicago. Both feel equally entitled to do what they do, these bankster gangsters are just equipped with better tools and probably higher IQs to steal on a much grander scale than a store looter.

[Parodite]

Yuval Noah Harari: Human Nature, Intelligence, Power, and Conspiracies | Lex Fridman Podcast #390
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mde2q7GFCrw

Noah Harari will be soon paying a visit to Mama Nature and Papa God. The lost son went astray completely, connecting all the dots in reverse order.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Yuval Noah Harari: Human Nature, Intelligence, Power, and Conspiracies | Lex Fridman Podcast #390
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mde2q7GFCrw

Noah Harari will be soon paying a visit to Mama Nature and Papa God. The lost son went astray completely, connecting all the dots in reverse order.

Did not watch. I find Harari to be a sophist.

The interesting thing about is WEF is how they deliberately set themselves up as an emotional whirlpool. Not much thoughtful deliberation in that group.

[Parodite]

One has to give it to the WEF: they managed to appear much bigger and more powerful than they really are. A true puffer fish. Especially Americans are sensitive to suggestive appearances so an easy target audience to convince that Schwab is a Schwarzenegger in disguise. He is just a businessman organising parties for the rich and powerful and of no other significance.

The dirty secret being that had WEF not existed, it would have made zero difference. It does serve as a great distraction though from the real cogs in the machine that do the heavy lifting: central banks and EU politicians who want to change the european neighborhood into a United States of Europe. Introducing the Euro was the brilliant first step to that end. The idea came from investment bankers like Goldman Sachs and Italian old gen politicians dreaming of another European Empire. Once again, just follow the money. One could add: the irrational dreams of megalomaniacs in politics.

It seems to me knucklehead Europe is once again being manouvered into some serious tribal warfare to reassert its nature. The only Empire to date that managed to unite and force big chunks of Europe into one organism was the Roman Empire. All efforts after that were meaningless short episodes of short-lived mini-empires. The new burocratic-techno superstate however is new. It doesn't have that much of a face and its tentacles are more like written statements and decrees, deeply buried in the dungeons of Brussels. With national courts slowly losing their independence and instead becoming its servants. The tribal monkey however didn't change one iota.