• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

The Self, the Other, The Will, the Being, and God.

QuickTwist

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 06:05
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,957
Location
...
#1
The self is evil. Why? Because its' primarily concerned with the self and not the other.

What is the self? The self is what one identifies itself as. It is the soul proprietor of its' own fruition as a manifestation of will by which is felt through the state of being the self experiences. The self doesn't have direct knowledge of the other. The other is the selves that are outside the specific self. The self is singular and simple and the other is plural and complex. The self's primary frame of reference is the self in relation to the other because the self fully understands the self in its singular simplicity and the other is preliminary because of the distinction that the other isn't intimately known by the self.

What we learn from the self is that of the other. How? Because the self is at it's natural state at rest and the other in its natural state is in motion. Where is the other? The other is both within the self and outside of the self. It is outside the self because it is the self that senses the motion of the other that is outside of the self in relation to the self. The other is inside the self because to the other self, that self is that of the other. The other is many selves that are not a specific self, but the selves as a complete group. Because the self has a priori knowledege of the self, and because any given self is the other self in comparison to the original self, the self has post priori knowledge of the original other.

The self cannot be made plural and complex and the other cannot be made singular and simple. Why? The self only has intimate knowledge of the self because the self knows the self a priori and has a superficial knowledege of the other because the self's knowledge of the other is post priori. The self only knows one intimately under natural circumstances which is the self. The other only knows the self post priori and so only knows the self superficially. The other is plural and complex because the other knows many selves on a superficial level.

But there is more than the self and the other. There is also the will and the will of the other. The will for both is what gives them direction to move in relation to each other. The will is what they choose to do in relation to each other. It is the choice, but not so firm that it acts in its own accordance. The will is the intimate communication between the self and the other. What is the will? The will is the knowledge of the motion between the self and the other; it is what decides. When the self sees motion from the other, it reacts to the other. The other then sees the motion of the self and reacts to the self. The self senses the will of the other and the other senses the will of the self.

Without any motion from the other, the self would not know it exists. It is in the will within the self in its relation from the other to the self that the self is able to identify that the self exists. Therefore, the will is not just the movement of the self withing itself, but within the self's reaction to the other that the self knows it exists. Likewise, the other knows the self exists because the other senses the will of the self on the will of the other. And like so it oscillates back and forth.

Why does the self react to the other at all? Because in the self's sensing of the will of the other on the self, this creates a state of being that the self experiences. It is the will of the other that is imposed on the self that the self feels this state of being. The other also experiences a state of being produced by the will of the self imposed on the other. When the self experiences that state of being that the will of the other imposes on the self, the self exercises its will on the other through the experience to which the will of the other is imposed on the self. The self has to react to the will of the other, otherwise the other will devour the self and the self will become nothing but the other and will no longer be the self and the will of the self will become the same as the will of the other. The self wants to belong to the other, and because of this, the self reacts through its will by its state of being imposing on the will of the other, but in doing so, this just reaffirms the self as the self and not as the other which separates the self from the other.

When the self experiences its state of being and by which imposes its will on the other, this tells the other that the self exists. When the other experiences its state of being and by which imposes its will on the self, this tells the self that the other exists. if there was no will of the other in relation to the self, the self would not know the self exists and there would be no other, but only the self would exist and the self would not know it exists.

How the self imposes its will on the other is how the other imposes its will on the self. For true communication of the wills between the self and the other, the state of being that the self experiences has to be true, but it is not always the case with the self to represent the self's state of being being true.

It is necessary that the other's will imposed on the self is too complex and strong for the self to handle. The self wants to belong to the other, but it can't do this fully. So because the self cannot handle the complex state of being that the other imposes on the self, the self then suffers. This is done because when the self imposes its will on the other, the other identifies the self as a singular simple state of being. Because the self wants to experience a complex state of being, but can't the self suffers knowing that its will cannot adequately be imposed on the will of the other. Its in the rejection of the other in its complex will imposed on the self that the self suffers.

This great difference in complexity and strength that the others being is in relation to the self's being is what causes the self to suffer. The self then, in its state of being of suffering, imposes its will of suffering on the other. The other then receives the suffering in the will of the self and it too begins to suffer. The other then imposes its will of suffering on the self and the self cannot handle it and wants to die because all it can experience is suffering. When the self imposes its will of wanting to die to the other, the other then also wants to die as well. This is absolute suffering.

Now because the other wants to die, it must kill the self.

But the self and the other still exist so something must be keeping the self from absolute suffering. Therefore, there must be something greater than the will of the other. The self must necessarily call this alleviation of suffering something of divine work. The self must call this for all intents and purposes, God. Only God at this point has the power to alleviate the suffering of the beings of the self and the other. God must choose a perfect self; a self that has never suffered. The only way this perfect self can exist as an entity is if it has never imposed its will on the other. The perfect self must know that the other suffers and that the other wants the self to die. The perfect self must want to alleviate the other's suffereing. The perfect self must accept the death of itself so that the suffering of the other will be alleviated.

So the perfect self accepts its death by not imposing its will on the other. After the perfect self is killed by the other, all the selves within the other are free from their suffering and can act as though they are a new self that has not yet suffered.

The self now has a choice to choose not to suffer and live, or ignore the perfect self and die.

So now some selves of the other choose not to impose their will on the other, but instead experience the state of being of the perfect self. It is now these selves that keep the balance so the other can live.
 

onesteptwostep

Think.. Be... ..buzz buzz :)
Local time
Today, 21:05
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
2,953
#2
Hmm I think a philosopher named Fitchte would be of interest to you. Fitchte was a German idealist philosopher who was in the ranks of Hegel.


I think what you've wrote on the end is a little bit on the doctrine of Atonement in theological terms, that Christ, who is perfect, died for our 'perfect' imperfections, therefore we are able to live. I hope this rings any bells?

Either way I do think you going to church is having an influence in your philosophical thinking. ^_^
 

QuickTwist

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 06:05
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,957
Location
...
#3
Hmm I think a philosopher named Fitchte would be of interest to you. Fitchte was a German idealist philosopher who was in the ranks of Hegel.
He sounds like an interesting guy, but without knowing what it means to rid the wold of nature I am not sure I agree.

I think what you've wrote on the end is a little bit on the doctrine of Atonement in theological terms, that Christ, who is perfect, died for our 'perfect' imperfections, therefore we are able to live. I hope this rings any bells?
It's along those lines yes. I didn't get into what happens to the perfect self after it dies though, so it doesn't have as much of a biblical representation as what appears.

Either way I do think you going to church is having an influence in your philosophical thinking. ^_^
It's more by beliefs that are influencing this rather than my going to church. IDK if you get that distinction. Actually, I miss going to church about half the time. I was raised in the church but my beliefs are not just what is preached in front of the pulpit.
 

The Grey Man

Active Member
Local time
Today, 07:05
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
494
Location
Canada
#4
I think you'll agree that the way you've written this all out is obscure in places, so I'm going to try to interpretat para by para and we'll see how well it matches up with your intent.

The self is evil. Why? Because its' primarily concerned with the self and not the other.
This seems to me a statement of the principle of psychological egoism, the idea that we act always in our self-interest merely because it is we who are acting. With this I agree. Distinctions between one's will and one's interests are useless pedantry.

What is the self? The self is what one identifies itself as. It is the soul proprietor of its' own fruition as a manifestation of will by which is felt through the state of being the self experiences. The self doesn't have direct knowledge of the other. The other is the selves that are outside the specific self. The self is singular and simple and the other is plural and complex. The self's primary frame of reference is the self in relation to the other because the self fully understands the self in its singular simplicity and the other is preliminary because of the distinction that the other isn't intimately known by the self.
Looks like the good old subject-object paradigm under the guise of 'self and other'. The world hovers, as it were, between the opposing poles of unity and multiplicity, simplicity and complexity.

What we learn from the self is that of the other. How? Because the self is at it's natural state at rest and the other in its natural state is in motion. Where is the other? The other is both within the self and outside of the self. It is outside the self because it is the self that senses the motion of the other that is outside of the self in relation to the self. The other is inside the self because to the other self, that self is that of the other. The other is many selves that are not a specific self, but the selves as a complete group. Because the self has a priori knowledege of the self, and because any given self is the other self in comparison to the original self, the self has post priori knowledge of the original other.
It sounds like you're saying that the world and the self are identical. What are "outside" the self—mobile objects in space—are nevertheless part of the self because it is the subject that unites them as a complex. I agree with @onesteptwostep, this is very Fichtean, also very Schopenhauerian ("The world is my representation"). Of course, both were inspired by Kant's theory of the subject as the a priori condition of possibility for the representation of objects (as 0ThisThouArt0* points out in his Goethe video, Goethe was also an exponent of this 'participatory' model of the world contra the prevailing Newtonian materialism of his day (which, to my everlasting annoyance, remains the dominant model in the West today), so the preeminent poet and the preeminent logician of the 18th century are of one mind on this).

* An admirable name for a philosophical Youtuber! There is perhaps no more important insight in all of philosophy.

The self cannot be made plural and complex and the other cannot be made singular and simple. Why? The self only has intimate knowledge of the self because the self knows the self a priori and has a superficial knowledege of the other because the self's knowledge of the other is post priori. The self only knows one intimately under natural circumstances which is the self. The other only knows the self post priori and so only knows the self superficially. The other is plural and complex because the other knows many selves on a superficial level.
We can know not each other, but only objectifications thereof; I can see your body, but I can't see you, your subjective experience, because my subjective experience is a simple unity. "I am that I am" and no other.

Leibniz said:
Monads do not have windows.
But there is more than the self and the other. There is also the will and the will of the other. The will for both is what gives them direction to move in relation to each other. The will is what they choose to do in relation to each other. It is the choice, but not so firm that it acts in its own accordance. The will is the intimate communication between the self and the other. What is the will? The will is the knowledge of the motion between the self and the other; it is what decides. When the self sees motion from the other, it reacts to the other. The other then sees the motion of the self and reacts to the self. The self senses the will of the other and the other senses the will of the self.
It's possible that I'm just projecting my own beliefs onto what you've written here, but it looks like you're talking about causality and will as dual 'aspects' of the world that stand to each other as do complexity and simplicity, object and subject. We have both a multiplicity of objects characterized by their reciprocal relations with each other and a unity characterized by the totality of these relations—and these are identical.

Without any motion from the other, the self would not know it exists. It is in the will within the self in its relation from the other to the self that the self is able to identify that the self exists. Therefore, the will is not just the movement of the self withing itself, but within the self's reaction to the other that the self knows it exists. Likewise, the other knows the self exists because the other senses the will of the self on the will of the other. And like so it oscillates back and forth.
Strife is an occult quality of the subject just as relation is an occult quality of objects

We can learn what an object is by learning how it is related to—and thereby individuated from—other objects. This apple is adjacent to my hand, more red than that apple, smoother than than a third apple, smaller than a fourth. We cannot, however, learn what a relation is. Relation is the organon, the means by which the complex of objects is known, not something that can itself be known as part of a complex.

Similarly, strife is a means by which the subject can be known, but is itself inscrutable. It is pointless to ask what suffering is, what evil is—it is. We may, however, ask what is its objectification, and the answer is resistance—the subjective 'I am that I am and no other' has its objective corollary in the reconciliation of contradictory tendencies of movement which are known a posteriori, in compromises between opposing forces.

Heraclitus said:
Strife is justice.
Am I in the neighbourhood?

Why does the self react to the other at all? Because in the self's sensing of the will of the other on the self, this creates a state of being that the self experiences. It is the will of the other that is imposed on the self that the self feels this state of being. The other also experiences a state of being produced by the will of the self imposed on the other. When the self experiences that state of being that the will of the other imposes on the self, the self exercises its will on the other through the experience to which the will of the other is imposed on the self. The self has to react to the will of the other, otherwise the other will devour the self and the self will become nothing but the other and will no longer be the self and the will of the self will become the same as the will of the other. The self wants to belong to the other, and because of this, the self reacts through its will by its state of being imposing on the will of the other, but in doing so, this just reaffirms the self as the self and not as the other which separates the self from the other.

When the self experiences its state of being and by which imposes its will on the other, this tells the other that the self exists. When the other experiences its state of being and by which imposes its will on the self, this tells the self that the other exists. if there was no will of the other in relation to the self, the self would not know the self exists and there would be no other, but only the self would exist and the self would not know it exists.
We are at once simple acts of will and complex concatenations of objects by means of relations. Acts of will can be objectified by other acts of will so that we have both a soul and a body, a self in itself and a self as it appears to others, a noumenal and a phenomenal character. The world is a self-licking ice cream cone.

DrawingHands.jpg

Again, I'm not sure if I'm really getting you, but this is my attempt.

How the self imposes its will on the other is how the other imposes its will on the self. For true communication of the wills between the self and the other, the state of being that the self experiences has to be true, but it is not always the case with the self to represent the self's state of being being true.
You've lost me. How can a subjective experience be untrue?

It is necessary that the other's will imposed on the self is too complex and strong for the self to handle. The self wants to belong to the other, but it can't do this fully. So because the self cannot handle the complex state of being that the other imposes on the self, the self then suffers. This is done because when the self imposes its will on the other, the other identifies the self as a singular simple state of being. Because the self wants to experience a complex state of being, but can't the self suffers knowing that its will cannot adequately be imposed on the will of the other. Its in the rejection of the other in its complex will imposed on the self that the self suffers.
I don't get it. How/why does the self want to be the other?

This great difference in complexity and strength that the others being is in relation to the self's being is what causes the self to suffer. The self then, in its state of being of suffering, imposes its will of suffering on the other. The other then receives the suffering in the will of the self and it too begins to suffer. The other then imposes its will of suffering on the self and the self cannot handle it and wants to die because all it can experience is suffering. When the self imposes its will of wanting to die to the other, the other then also wants to die as well. This is absolute suffering.

Now because the other wants to die, it must kill the self.
I still don't get it, but this idea of the self wanting to die reminds me of Mainländer's conception of the will as the will-to-death whereas Schopenhauer had conceived of it as a will-to-life. I sympathize with this idea, for experience teaches us that our will is always resisted by something. If there was no resistance, no outside forces to keep us in check, our bodies would surely disintegrate; likewise, wouldn't the will cease to be if it 'won' and had nothing left to strive against?

But the self and the other still exist so something must be keeping the self from absolute suffering. Therefore, there must be something greater than the will of the other. The self must necessarily call this alleviation of suffering something of divine work. The self must call this for all intents and purposes, God. Only God at this point has the power to alleviate the suffering of the beings of the self and the other. God must choose a perfect self; a self that has never suffered. The only way this perfect self can exist as an entity is if it has never imposed its will on the other. The perfect self must know that the other suffers and that the other wants the self to die. The perfect self must want to alleviate the other's suffereing. The perfect self must accept the death of itself so that the suffering of the other will be alleviated.

So the perfect self accepts its death by not imposing its will on the other. After the perfect self is killed by the other, all the selves within the other are free from their suffering and can act as though they are a new self that has not yet suffered.

The self now has a choice to choose not to suffer and live, or ignore the perfect self and die.

So now some selves of the other choose not to impose their will on the other, but instead experience the state of being of the perfect self. It is now these selves that keep the balance so the other can live.
Again, not following at all.
 

QuickTwist

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 06:05
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,957
Location
...
#5
@The Grey Man,

It's because the self at its core is pathological in its need to be like the sum of the wills of all the selves that this is what causes the self to engage with the other in the first place and by doing so it separates itself from the other whereby it maintains itself through independent will of the other because it says "look, I have a voice". Because the self reacts at all is why it is both like the other and distinct from the other. The perfect self says, "Look, I have no voice, I submit to the will of the other."

Hope that answers your question. If it doesn't tell me where you don't get the link I am making.
 

The Grey Man

Active Member
Local time
Today, 07:05
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
494
Location
Canada
#6
Are you associating a vehemence of the will, a need to dominate the world, with suffering and this 'perfect self', submission to the world with goodness or Christ-like attributes?
 

QuickTwist

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 06:05
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,957
Location
...
#7
Are you associating a vehemence of the will, a need to dominate the world, with suffering and this 'perfect self', submission to the world with goodness or Christ-like attributes?
Yes and no. Yes because to will upon another is something I categorically do not agree with. I don't think this means one needs to necessarily submit to the will of the collective unconscious, but rather, to be very careful about what you choose to do with your will. The mission for the the others after the perfect self is dead is to contemplate "what do I need to do to eliminate suffering in this world?"
 

a_ghost_from_your_past

Ujames1978Eternally
Local time
Today, 13:05
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
143
#8
What is the self?
The self is a consciousness and bodily awareness of its existence separate from the world.
Is that evil in and of itself? I don't think so.
Being self and being aware of other selves is not mutually exclusive.
In fact the very process of socialization makes self aware of other selves.
It can grasp that other selves are just as valid as the own self is,
but it can regress under certain conditions to a more primal level of awareness.
Such as survival stress or simulated survival stress.
(Oh god, i'm going to unknowingly write a handbook for the far right again)
I'm aware that they read here, so i am not going to go further.
 

QuickTwist

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 06:05
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,957
Location
...
#9

QuickTwist

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 06:05
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,957
Location
...
#11
I have got it from a source close to Bannon that they read here.
So i won't give them any ideas on how to manipulate the masses.
Knowledge is a double-edged sword, that is why secret societies exist.
Feel free to PM me about... all this.
 

onesteptwostep

Think.. Be... ..buzz buzz :)
Local time
Today, 21:05
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
2,953
#13
Geez, I think I know who the next person on the 'altar of the banned' is going to be...
 
Local time
Today, 13:05
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
7
#14
QuickTwist said:
The self is evil.
An excellent start. This is the essence of the “Theologia Germanica”.

Theologia Germanica said:
It hath been said, that there is of nothing so much in hell as of self-will. The which is true, for there is nothing else there than self-will, and if there were no self-will, there would be no Devil and no hell.
QuickTwist said:
But there is more than the self and the other. There is also the will and the will of the other.
It would cause less confusion to equate both will and self, as the writer of “Theologia Germanica” does.

QuickTwist said:
self because the self knows the self a priori and has a superficial knowledege of the other because the self's knowledge of the other is post priori.
That’s not self-evident. Kant tried to prove in his “Refutation of idealism” that the internal sense and the external sense mutually presuppose each other.
 

QuickTwist

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 06:05
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,957
Location
...
#15
@Kakariki,

I see what you are saying, but then if the will is the same things as the self, where does that leave room for the being? The way I have it is that the self is the combination of both the will and the being, not just one or the other.
 
Local time
Today, 13:05
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
7
#16
@QuickTwist

I think we can safely ignore "Being". According to Kant, "being" is not a real predicate and says nothing at all.

Being is evidently not a real predicate, that is, a conception of something which is added to the conception of some other thing. It is merely the positing of a thing, or of certain determinations in it. Logically, it is merely the copula of a judgement.
 

The Grey Man

Active Member
Local time
Today, 07:05
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
494
Location
Canada
#17
@Kakariki this is what I was trying to explain to @higs earlier, but I think I did a poor job of it.

We were talking about Platonic ideas. I argued that it was absurd to ask whether or not Platonic ideas exist because existence is a "term with no referent", by which I meant that to say that a thing exists or not is to say nothing at all about it.

Kant rightly identifies existence or being as the copula of a judgment and not a predicate: this means that existence is not something that can be said about something, but it is the means by which something is said about something. When I say that something is something else, I am connecting two concepts, but the connection is not itself a concept. It is the organon of my conceptual system, that by means of which the concepts are reciprocally individuated (extrinsically characterized) and thereby explained but which cannot itself be explained, like causality in the natural world; in Schopenhauerian terms, it is that form of the principle of sufficient reason which is applied to concepts, the principium rationis sufficientis cognoscendi.

I hope this post makes up for some of my shitty communication.

Incidentally, it's funny you should bring up Theologica Germanica because I just now began to read it. It may be illuminating to compare notes later, if you would be so inclined.
 

QuickTwist

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 06:05
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,957
Location
...
#18
@QuickTwist

I think we can safely ignore "Being". According to Kant, "being" is not a real predicate and says nothing at all.

Being is evidently not a real predicate, that is, a conception of something which is added to the conception of some other thing. It is merely the positing of a thing, or of certain determinations in it. Logically, it is merely the copula of a judgement.
To say being does not exist is to say experience of the individual does not exist. Also, my interpretation of being may be different than Kant.
 
Local time
Today, 06:05
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,957
Location
...
#20
but it is the means by which something is said about something.
Yes. This.

It's complicated to explain, but let me try, and then @Kakariki can have another crack at me.

It's like this...

Being is much akin to the unconscious. It communicates to others what it's intentions are subliminally without consciousness. It is a bit "deeper" than the will because the will is consciousness and what the conscious mind wants, where the conscious and unconscious merge, is that they both want to "belong" when left on their own. This is where the idea of the collective unconscious comes up. When thinking about the being of the other, what we are really talking about is what the spirit of the collective wills of the other actually is to the self. The spirit in which this message is subliminally picked up by the self has an effect on the will of the self. But just to be clear, the being is the feeling/experience/spirit of the will, not the will itself. So like, you can think of being different communication styles. You can say the same thing like a million different ways and even though you are saying the same thing, that gets interpreted differently depending on the spirit of the message that the collective unconscious is communicating through the consciousness (wills) of the other. The self gets completely lost in all this mass communication so the self more or less has a fissure of being that this gets communicated from the self to the other. Also, this is like a chain reaction, so the longer the self and other exist, the higher chance the fissure of being is embodied in the others being.

Does that make sense to anyone?
 
Local time
Today, 06:05
Joined
Dec 13, 2018
Messages
4
#21
I find the state of mind that you are describing one where you become so intellectually distanced from the 'egragorical' hive mind that most people live in that you naturally project your own reality onto all interactions that you have. This allowing you a way of learning from reality even when reality doesn't reflect you at all. So yeah, it is highly self-serving, but at the same time, all of reality serves you in this parsing of self that you're engaging in.

Basically the cafeteria food isn't the food you're eating. From this state, magic is highly effective, as is self programming, and all other self absorbed actions. It's kind of a divine state.

I was in a similar way about a year ago. I felt it like the stillness of a lake. Me meditating on the surface of the water near the middle. Anyone else adding their 2 cents causing ripples around the edges before I simply tuned their input and pushed them back out. Returning my reality to stillness and bliss.

Eventually I hit such a high vibration that every interaction with another human was them harshing this perfect crystalline vibe that I had created.

Reality became demon possessed to the extent that every interaction caused loss of money and freedom for me leading to me living back with my parents. This situation forcing me to re-engage reality at the level of consciousness that the masses project.

I have since transcended this situation as well. Meditation and the maintaining of high standards in all interactions leading to a surmounting of this level of the game.
 
Local time
Today, 06:05
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,957
Location
...
#22
I find the state of mind that you are describing one where you become so intellectually distanced from the 'egragorical' hive mind that most people live in that you naturally project your own reality onto all interactions that you have. This allowing you a way of learning from reality even when reality doesn't reflect you at all. So yeah, it is highly self-serving, but at the same time, all of reality serves you in this parsing of self that you're engaging in.

Basically the cafeteria food isn't the food you're eating. From this state, magic is highly effective, as is self programming, and all other self absorbed actions. It's kind of a divine state.

I was in a similar way about a year ago. I felt it like the stillness of a lake. Me meditating on the surface of the water near the middle. Anyone else adding their 2 cents causing ripples around the edges before I simply tuned their input and pushed them back out. Returning my reality to stillness and bliss.

Eventually I hit such a high vibration that every interaction with another human was them harshing this perfect crystalline vibe that I had created.

Reality became demon possessed to the extent that every interaction caused loss of money and freedom for me leading to me living back with my parents. This situation forcing me to re-engage reality at the level of consciousness that the masses project.

I have since transcended this situation as well. Meditation and the maintaining of high standards in all interactions leading to a surmounting of this level of the game.
I don't mind attracting people who are open to different things. Better than the people who don't think at all.

I have basically just highly abstracted a bunch of concepts in this thread. From Jung to the bible to Sartre to Peterson to Godel. It's really just a little tiny bit original and that comes from the abstractions to put everything in a cohesive idea.

My brain does cool things with information sometimes. It just sorta spits things out that ends up making sense in a holistic way. I can't explain it. My mind is simply closer to the collective unconscious than most peoples.

As far as inhibitions go, I have relatively high Openness and very low Conscientiousness, so my mind is horrible at compartmentalizing things, but the upside is that I can take concepts that my brain has taken hold of and meld them altogether.
 
Local time
Today, 06:05
Joined
Dec 13, 2018
Messages
4
#23
Yeah, you make connections. Once you start to make too many, the whole ball of wax crumbles away as a kind of totality consciousness or understanding takes over.

That's been my experience.
 

QuickTwist

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 06:05
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,957
Location
...
#24
Yeah, you make connections. Once you start to make too many, the whole ball of wax crumbles away as a kind of totality consciousness or understanding takes over.

That's been my experience.
I'm curious why you joined this forum.
 
Local time
Today, 06:05
Joined
Dec 13, 2018
Messages
4
#25
I was on the original INTP central. I was curious to see if there was any resonance here. If there's none, I'll just doot doot along. There's really not much worth fighting for on Earth in an infinite reality.
 
Top Bottom