You doing okay there buddy?

I’ve realized that in my society, more or less, being human in general is worthless. Or more accurately, a person is as valuable as their latest income statement. I don’t evaluate any person this way. Therefore I refuse to evaluate myself this way.

People’s judgments are endless and contradictory. Because of this, many of us make their best effort to blend into the crowd, trying to conceal every part of themselves that doesn’t fit into the norms. I’ve always taken this to mean that I should be true to myself. This makes a lot of people angry, but that just makes it easier to tell who should I avoid.

A few years ago I started a community that has now outgrown me. I made a few close (mostly female) friends, and as an introvert that’s enough for me. I’m now more focused on strengthening those ties, keeping a door open for others who’d like to be part of my life.

In general, I try to live for my values, avoiding all ideologies, belief systems, political systems and other -isms. The more I go into this process, I’m finding my newer relationships more stable and fulfilling, even if not always easy to come by.

We live in an infinite universe. As such, it seems hubristic to me to believe that we have, more or less, nature figured out.

I don’t feel compelled to believe in the soul as some strange sort of object that is continuously reincarnated towards a great purpose. But if we consider consciousness as an energy of its own kind, then it should hold true that it cannot be created or destroyed, only change form. This could mean that the consciousness that resides in the body could move between different life forms like a fluid, freely mixing and melding with others, filling a new vessel as necessary.

Ah, you’re referring to the tendency of certain narcissistic people to treat others as an extension of themselves. That’s certainly not what I mean.

The golden rule works for the most part, but it also needs to create the Other to work. What I’m thinking about is closer to the philosophy of Ubuntu, sometimes stated as “I am because we are”.

Seems to me that someone who hates themselves is living with a tremendous shadow that completely cuts them off from unconditional love. Thus one lives in a constant state of war against themselves. I always enjoyed this clip of Alan Watts reading Carl Jung’s thoughts on the subject.

What is it if you don’t love yourself?

Love is the recognition that, on a profound level, the other is part of myself, and I part of the other.

House of Wisdom in Baghdad brought about some of the foundational texts of Islamic and European medicine till the 19th century.

Mystical experiences concern themselves with the relationship of the finite to the infinite. Tolstoy wrote about this in Confession:

I had asked: what meaning has life beyond time, beyond space and beyond cause? And I was answering the question: ‘What is the meaning of my life within time, space and cause?’ The result was that after long and laboured thought I could only answer: none.

In my deliberations I was continually drawing comparisons between the finite and the finite, and the infinite and the infinite, and I could not have done otherwise. Thus I reached the only conclusion I could reach: force is force, matter is matter, will is will, the infinite is the infinite, nothing is nothing; and I could go no further than that.

It was somewhat similar to what happens in mathematics when, trying to resolve an equation, we get an identity. The method of deduction is correct, but the only answer obtained is that a equals a, and x equals x, or o equals o. Precisely the same thing was happening with my reasoning concerning the meaning of life. The only answers the sciences give to this question are identities.

And really, strictly rational knowledge, such as that of Descartes, begins with complete doubt in everything and throws aside any knowledge founded on faith, reconstructing everything along laws of reason and experiment. And it can provide no answer other than the one I reached: an indefinite one. It was only at first that I thought knowledge had given an affirmative answer, Schopenhauer’s answer that life has no meaning and is evil. But when I went into the matter I realized that this answer is not affirmative and that it was only my senses that had taken it to be so. Strictly expressed, as it is by the Brahmins, Solomon, and Schopenhauer, the answer is but a vague one, an identity: o equals o, life presented to me as nothing is nothing. Thus, philosophical knowledge denies nothing but simply replies that it cannot solve the question, and that as far as it is concerned any resolution remains indefinite.

Having understood this, I realized that it was impossible to search for an answer to my questions in rational knowledge; that the answer given by rational knowledge simply suggests that the answer can only be obtained by stating the question in another way, by introducing the question of the relation of the finite to the infinite. I realized that no matter how irrational and distorted the answers given by faith might be, they had the advantage of introducing to every answer a relationship between the finite and the infinite, without which there can be no solution. Whichever way I put the question: how am I to live? the answer is always: according to God’s law. Or to the question: is there anything real that will come of my life? the answer is: eternal torment or eternal bliss. Or, to the question: what meaning is there that is not destroyed by death? the answer is: unity with the infinite, God, heaven.

Polynesia I assume.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator