If you’re lucky, everything is not permitted.
I always tell people that it’s much easier to break something or completely ruin something than it is to maintain or fix something!
In regards to your quote Felix. If existence were about the path of least resistance (like water flows) we’d all be in hell forever (destroying and ruining - easiest thing to do!)
How do you know we’re not?
Thats the sad part: we are. Most people haven’t figured it out yet!
There is no heaven if even one person suffers. Most people can’t know or feel that yet.
So for you it’s all or nothing.
Because I’m an empath, yes, it’s all or nothing to me.
Not everyone is an empath. It’s nonsense for an empath to say something ‘normal’ such as “what a nice day today”
Well of course I don’t know you, but there is a lot of evidence that all or nothing thinking is a cognitive distortion that results in an unrealistic approach to life. This is because life is rarely completely either one way or the other. No one is absolutely brilliant or totally stupid. Absolutes do not exist in the phenomenal world. Dichotomous thinking is a perceptual error. Does being an “empath” mean you are stuck with an unrealistic way of looking at the world that doesn’t work?
Basic psychodynamics of wholeness. Psychical structure whether in normal or pathological development is an outcome of contraries–the resolution of incompatible aims or dispositions. The developing self is the referent of a sense of coherence, continuity and integrity at every stage of life.
There are two countervailing components of selfhood. One is the centrifugal assertion of personal autonomy. The other is a centripetal requirement of being integrated and a needed part of a larger more encompassing social unit.
No wonder the cross is a central archetype of existence.
No. All it means is that if there’s someone starving somewhere/anywhere I can’t force myself to saying something like “I’m having a great day”. Like all these fucking zombies. I’m real, I’m visceral, I don’t bullshit.
There’s always someone starving somewhere. Does that keep you from ever having a great day?
Absolutely, always will be that way for me.
Not because those people want me to have a bad day because of them, but simply because I can’t stand consent violation.
It’s simply the way I’m wired. Do I violate the consent of others? Of course I do, we all do. It doesn’t excuse consent violation though.
Part of it is the extreme to which I have suffered in life (and that’s even before I was in hell).
I make no excuses for consent violation. It’s ever present in my mind. That’s how I’m wired.
It seems to me you’re at war with nature. Nature doesn’t ask us for our consent to be born or die or for the fundamental facts of our existence.
I have a very dark soul I always need to reign in. If I wasn’t at war with nature, I’d be Dick Chaney or Donald Trump. Like an alchemist, I transmute my rage. It’s not natural at all.
When people tell me that nobody consents to be born, I always tell them this:
It’s not that simple. This is like saying that the leading cause of death is birth! That’s a fact to be sure, but it’s also the leading cause of life. In this same way, birth is not just consent violation, it’s the genesis of consent.
As for dying, I’ve learned we never die.
I’ve heard it said that the goal of philosophy is to learn how to die. That’s easy! Actually, the goal of philosophy is to learn how to live forever.
Actually Donald Trump is very much at war with nature. He has turned the Environmental Protection Agency against its own mission to protect the environment.
Denial of death is a component of many religions. It’s present paradoxically in Christianity. What is your basis for claiming we never die?
The reason I say Donald is not at war with nature, is because success is about destruction in nature. The supernatural is the opposite!
Why don’t I think we die? Because we exist. Let me explain this. If we ever die (even our continuity of consciousness) at some point, we (right now) being a subset of our death couldn’t be here right now. By definition of death of us, we’re here! Contradiction. We don’t die.
“Success is about destruction in nature” is not a self-evident proposition, if true at all. What if anything the supernatural is is likewise not self-evident. Grammatically the opposite of natural is unnatural. Anyway, your propositions are not a priori true, and so they require evidence.
Our present existence is no guarantor of future existence. Present consciousness is no guarantor of future consciousness. Surely you’ve observed animals die. Do you deny that you’re an animal?
Now we do have intimations of immortality. The question is, how do we interpret them?
Are you familiar with terror management theory? Simply put it is the theory that fantasies of immortality are means of coping with the terror of annihilation. The book to read is The Denial of Death by Ernest Becker.
In a world like this, domination breeds success… those are earthly laws. They work every time here.
The distinction between “Mother Nature” and the higher mind is clear as can be. One way to describe this discrepancy is to call it “supernatural”
Religions teach not to be attached to here “Mother Nature”, but to renounce it as illusion - delusion.
That’s the spirit world talking to us, not the narrow view of earthly success talking to us.
Without Mother Nature you wouldn’t exist. Unmitigated dominance brings about its own destruction. The way to wholeness entails balance.
Cool. We’re on topic again. So here’s the deal. From your earthly viewpoint balance is like the Tao, because you’re trying to make EXCUSES for all the consent violation. You know why people do this who’ve acclimated to a world like this? Because of their egos. Their memories must all be worthwhile! They’re not. All your memories of doing good here or being worth recollecting as good are ALL garbage! Huge ego hit!
There’s no balance in this at all. Yes, existence is ultimately about the extremes - non consent violation for everyone forever, or regretting all your memories forever. The only slight exception to not have to regret all your memories are the times when you explain these things.
Again, there’s no balance to this scenario.
You have 4 different reality types:
1.) negative non zero sum consent violating realities (The worst one)
2.) negative zero sum realities (our current one)
3.) positive Zero sum realities (which you define as balance!)
4.) positive non zero sum non consent violating realities (the only one worth having)
Consent is a human social concept. To apply it in that realm of existence itself is a category error. No excuse is required where what is involved is an impersonal entity or a God. Where ego is not involved no consent is required either.
Your assertion that my memories are garbage is unsupported. Your claim that there is no balance in all this is unsupported.
Zero-sum transactions always involve a gain for both parties. So the idea that a zero-sum transaction is negative is a contradiction.
What?! You’re lecturing me about existence and you don’t even talk about the most basic game theory correctly. Sorry, sometimes I have a sharp tongue!
Zero sum means this:
There is a winner and a loser.
+1 (winner) -1 (loser). Add them together you get a sum of zero! Thus ‘zero sum’ game theory!