Category Archives: Metaphysics

There Is a Whole World Out There That Is Outside of the Realm of Science

Steve: Besides, it seems like most of what is presented as “science” in discussions is not actually scientific praxis but philosophical theory: scientism and materialism. The insistence that science alone can answer all questions about the nature of reality—often paired with materialism—is actually scientism, a type of quasi-religious faith that holds scientific knowledge as the only viable knowledge.

My mother and my best friend in my whole life have seen ghosts. Science tells me that they are lying, full of shit, hallucinating, or insane. I do not believe that are any of those things. They told me flat out that they saw them with their very own eyes as real as day as if you were standing here next to me as I write this.

My mother has also had some telepathy and clairvoyant experiences. Science tells me my mother is full of it.

People’s pets will often run to the telephone just before the master calls home. Science says this doesn’t happen or it’s just chance.

People go on vacations for a long time and on the day they come back, the cat goes outside and sits by the sidewalk waiting for them. Science says this doesn’t happen or it’s just chance that the cat sat outside.

They have done actual experiments that prove that people can sense when someone is watching them even when they cannot even see the person who is watching them. These studies are well done and have been replicated numerous times.

But Science refuses to accept these studies, with endless complaints about poor design, chance, lack of controls, selection bias, etc.. The truth is that the studies are never going to be good enough. For science to agree that humans can sense that someone is watching them even when they cannot see anyone watching them would mean that we have some sort of psi skills outside of the five senses. There is nothing that Science hates more than the idea of Psi Abilities. They probably hate that more than anything else. Because they hate it so much, they will never believe it. Their minds are already made up. They will reject every study showing that psi is real because it’s coming up with the wrong conclusions.

Science says that all of the psi evidence above is laughable bullshit, and anyone who believes it is an idiot or a kook or both.

I think science is wrong about all of the psi-type things described above, but on the other hand, most of this sort of thing is probably not provable by the scientific method anyway. The truth is that a whole huge hunk of the world is simply outside of the world of science. Science can prove, disprove or explain many things. But for a big slice of life, science has nothing to do with it, nor should it. Science needs to butt out of the whole part of the world that is outside of its realm in the first place.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.


Filed under Metaphysics, Philosophy, Psychology, Science

Scientism: Anatomy of a Modern Fundamentalist Religion

Most scientists nowadays do not even practice scientific thinking anymore. Instead, they are scientistic.

Scientism is where one states that the only things we can even know or pretend to know in this world are those things that have been proven by science, preferably in endless double blind studies with much replication. Even there, they pick and choose. Studies that show what “science” does not want to believe is true are dismissed by scientistic types, and the findings are derided as pseudoscience. Granted pseudoscience is a thing, but it is not nearly as much of a thing as the scientistic types say it is, and a number of things that are supposedly pseudoscience are not pseudoscience at all. Instead, they are simply true.

You can’t go through your life only believing those things that science has told you are true.

For instance, in any given day, I am constantly making generalizations about my environment. These generalizations are treated as facts by me. I also believe many things that, as far as I am concerned, are not beliefs at all. Instead they are simply true, at least as far as I am concerned.

True, a number of these beliefs-as-facts will later turn out to be false, but I regard them as true for now because they are based on the evidence available to me. Later when I get new evidence that disproves my previous beliefs, I junk my previous belief and pick up the new one instead. I am always changing my mind like this, which is one of the Net criticisms of me that I am not consistent, I am all over the place, I change my mind all the time. All of these things are true, but none of them are bad things. There’s a word for people who never change their mind: rigid. There’s another word: foolish.

A good 95% of the things that I accept as flat out truths or generalizations that are basically true in my day to day living have never been proven by science. I am sure that quite a few things that I believe would be called pseudoscience by scientistic types.

Scientism is a form of idiocy masquerading as genius, competence, and rationality. It is none of these things, and in fact it is more the opposite. It is science as a form of religious fundamentalism.

It’s also pussy.

These people believe in what I call Mommy Science. Remember when you were a little boy or little girl and you were always running to Mommy asking her if such and such was true or not? Mommy was literally your principal source for facts about your existence and the world around you, and what she said was golden, 100% truth that could not be challenged.

Well, scientistic types are five years old for the rest of their lives.

Adults don’t need science or Mommy or anyone else to tell them what to believe and what are the facts of the world around them. They simply observe the world around them repeatedly, draw up logical patterns, and label those patterns as facts. They don’t need to test their day to day theories about life with Mommy. And they don’t need to test them with science either, or Mommy Science as it is.

Scientistic types are babies until they die. They can’t make up their own minds about what’s true or not because like 5 year old’s, they are too scared to come up with their own answers. So they have to run to Mommy Science whenever there’s any question about anything. These are people who need to be told what to believe because they are too weak to figure out any facts on their own. And Mommy Science is just like Mommy when you were five years old. Mommy Science is always right. She’s never wrong.

These are pitiful people because they don’t trust their own senses to tell them what’s true and what’s not. Instead they have to run to some damned scientific journal to find out just about anything true about life and the world we live in.

The problem is that Science is not always correct. Many things are unprovable by science. Others are untestable. Others will never be tested. Others are untrue for now but will be proven true in the future, so in these cases, science is actually flat out wrong and those that have figured this out are simply ahead of the curve. Many other things are stated by science to be false because Science has become a fundamentalist religion that has decided that certain things are false forever and will never be proven true. No matter how much evidence you throw at them, they insist that these facts of existence are pseudoscience simply because they do not want to believe they are true.

If you could only trust or believe those things that were proven by science, you would not be able to live as a modern human being. You might not even be able to get out of bed.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.


Filed under Metaphysics, Philosophy, Science

What Do the Words Communism and Socialism Mean?

I am sort of a Commie. I am definitely a Socialist. Commie, not sure. Sort of almost kind of just about barely maybe a Commie. I still believe in market. I actually think that what the Chinese are doing is the best implementation of Communism or Socialism or whatever you wish to call it that has ever been done. And there are quite a few Marxists and open Communists out there who support what the Chinese are doing very much. I think any future implementation of Communism or Socialism will have to have some sort of a market. There are a lot of us out there who call ourselves Market Socialists. We don’t want the state running everything. We want a market also.

Communism or Socialism themselves are words that don’t have much meaning. They mean whatever meaning we humans decide to give to them. They have no inherent meaning in and of themselves. Check out Heidegger if you do not believe me. He makes it quite clear that the real meaning of objects is whatever we humans have decided are the meaning of those objects.

Words don’t mean much. They are just sort of “tags” that we stick on objects when we try to explain and give meaning to them. So there is no real meaning of any object. Any object means whatever you, I and the rest of us say it means. Meanings of objects are created by man. A search for the real meaning of objects will lead you down a rabbit hole you will never emerge from because you are looking for something that is not even there. You can’t find something that’s not there in the first place.

Anyway, enough philosophy.


Filed under Asia, China, Economics, Left, Marxism, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Regional, Socialism

“Hinduism Versus Confucianism: An Analysis and Comparison,” by Dota

Nice essay from Dota, former commenter here who now blogs at Occident Invicta with Bay Area Guy, another former commenter here.

The societies of India and China have been structured along feudal lines for much of recorded history. Despite both societies placing a premium on hierarchy and authoritarianism, their internal motivations and ethical paradigms are widely divergent. The Chinese mind has been shaped by Confucianism, whereas the Indian mind has been shaped by Hinduism.

Let’s begin by analyzing Confucianism.

Confucianism stresses social order and postulates that no society can attain political stability by precluding social stability. Confucianism views society as a massive collection of interdependent networks that are comprised of relationships on the atomic level.

The genius of the Confucian model is that it recognizes the inherently relative nature of power and how power is also a zero-sum resource. Those that possess power do so because others do not. An emperor may possess power over a subject, but that subject isn’t powerless, only merely so in relationship to his sovereign. This same subject may be a teacher and wield power over his students.

To ensure social stability, Confucius ordained that relationships be guided by the principle of ren or benevolence. This is Confucianism’s highest virtue and arguably the philosophy’s overarching universal ethic. A sovereign treats his subjects benevolently by ensuring that they are fed, protected, and generally want for nothing (materially speaking). The subjects then reciprocate with obedience and loyalty. Those in power must treat those without (in the context of their relationship) with benevolence, while the latter reciprocate with obedience and loyalty.

Benevolence is often strictly interpreted as each party honoring their respective obligations. It would be unjust for a wife to expect her husband’s kindness if she herself were disobedient. Conversely it would be unjust for a husband to demand his wife’s obedience if he himself failed in his husbandly duties. We see a glimmer of this idea even in Western tradition. Plato argued that interdependence was at the heart of justice, and that social order was maintained when members of social classes refrained form crossing lines.

Confucianism’s approach to social justice is not dissimilar to other Eastern philosophies. The primary aim here is to ensure the prevention of abuse rather than empowering the disenfranchised (a preoccupation of modern day social justice). Sumeria’s Ur-Nammu famously proclaimed that: “The orphan was not delivered up to the rich man; the widow was not delivered up to the mighty man; the man of one shekel was not delivered up to the man of one mina.” Not unlike other ancient societies, the Chinese also believed that class structures were an inherent feature of any civilized society, as men of greater talent would naturally rise above their peers. The ancients thus focused their energies on ensuring that men of ability did not use their powers unjustly against those lodged beneath them in the social order.

Before we move on to discussing Hinduism, a few comments are in order pertaining to the success of feudalism in China. It is my opinion that feudalism was wildly successful in China for the same reasons that the Catholic Church was successful in Europe. The Church absorbed some of the most talented men in society by giving them an avenue to express their talents. Such men could not ascend in a strictly feudal order despite their talents and thus gravitated towards the church.

The Chinese state implemented that very approach and absorbed men of resource into its ever growing bureaucracy. This also had another unexpected benefit – it prevented the formation of a class of dissidents that could prove to be a source of agitation. I believe the Communist Party of China absorbs talent in such a manner even today. Men who wish to ascend the rungs of power often choose the political route (via the party) as opposed to the riskier route of commerce.

Hindu society, like its Chinese counterpart, was similarly structured along feudal lines. There is, however, one key difference in their underlying composition – Confucianism stresses the interdependence of relationship networks, whereas the Hindu caste system is the world’s oldest pyramid scheme.

As we are well aware, a pyramid structure is one where every level attempts to profit (by exploitation) off the labor of the level below, and so it goes all the way down until one reaches the base – the most crucial level and also the most exploited. Pyramids are inherently unstable and one way to ensure their longevity is by means of force. Individuals must be coerced to remain at their stations so that the structure may endure. This method leaves the structure vulnerable to rebellions and a constant tension between the levels. This point is obvious from British history alone where Barons often clashed with the monarchy.

In order to allay this source of instability, some pyramids permit upward mobility. But this makes the crucial base unstable by putting it in a constant state of flux as individuals at the lower stations climb up and leave their former stations vacant. This problem is alleviated by constantly recruiting newer members into the base so that there is always a base available for exploitation.

The genius of the Hindu caste system is that it combines both the aforementioned approaches. Hinduism forbids caste mobility in the current life, thereby ensuring the perpetual hegemony of the upper castes. However, in order to prevent tension, Hinduism allows caste mobility but only through rebirth/reincarnation. This system ensures that the lower castes are given some hope of improving their station in the social order so long as they serve the interests of the upper castes in the current lifetime. It is karma, the cosmic recruiter, that ensures that the base will always remain staffed with compliant serfs.

The ultimate difference between Hinduism and Confucianism is that the former is an escapist religion whereas the latter is at its core an ethical philosophy. While many a Westerner would disagree with the ethical rules of Confucianism, it is impossible to deny the ethical focus of this philosophy. Ethics reside within the horizontal space between individuals. Any ideology or mode of thought that attempts to address this space is ethical in nature, even if we may disagree with the rules that regulate this space and by extension the human relationships bound to it.

By contrast, Hinduism addresses a very different space: the gap between man and the universe (cosmic order). The goal of Hinduism is to escape the world and become liberated from karma once and for all. Karma and Dharma are cosmic forces that to the best of my knowledge have no equivalent in Chinese philosophy; the focus of the latter being on social and ethical matters as opposed to metaphysics.

To illustrate this point, consider the life of an ascetic. Hinduism places a great degree of value on the ascetic lifestyle. But the man who renounces the world resides in (to quote Arthur Danto) a space “beyond good and evil.” In such an environment, an agent’s actions have no moral content. A hermit who lives outside society will always act in a morally neutral way. The closest analogy to this in Chinese philosophy is the Taoist wanderer, who is essentially a loner. But the wanderer is not seeking escape from the world, merely freedom from discomfort and anxiety that plague those that haven’t discovered the way (Tao).

Confucianism on the other hand, by its very essence, rejects the ascetic lifestyle. Man’s place is rooted firmly in society, for as Confucius put it: “One cannot herd with the beasts or flock with the birds. If I am not to be a man among men, then what am I to be?” It is this space that Hinduism ultimately seeks release from. Consider the following illustration from India’s Bhakti tradition:

In the basic story, Tiruppan grows up as part of an ‘untouchable’ panar caste of bards and minstrels in a town near the temple of Srirangam, arguably the most revered of all Vaisnava pilgrimage sites and indisputably the single most important temple for Srivaisnava devotees. From the moment he is able to speak, Tiruppan sings beautiful songs praising the qualities of Rangi (or Ranganatha), the form of Visnu worshiped in the temple of Srirangam just across the river from his home town.

Every day he travels to the south bank of the river and sings from a distance to his beloved Rangi. Tiruppan yearns to see the image of his beloved but is unable to enter the temple due to his ‘untouchable’ status. Eventually, the beauty of his songs and the intensity of his devotion awake the compassion of Rangi, who comes in a dream to the Brahmin priest of Srirangam and tells him to bring Tiruppan into the temple on his shoulders.

The priest goes to get Tiruppan, but he refuses to come, saying, “How could you do such a thing with me, your slave, who belongs to the class of untouchables?” In another version, he states, “How can I step with my feet on to the holy temple of Ranga?” And the Brahmin replies, “Never mind! You can go [sitting] on my shoulders.” In yet another version, Tiruppan is so insistent that he cannot come to the temple because of his low birth and sinful life that the priest must physically force him onto his shoulders.

Eventually, Tiruppan enters the temple riding on the shoulders of the Brahmin priest, and gazing at Rangi in devotional ecstasy, he sings ten verses of praise describing the God from foot to head. These are the very verses that are still remembered and recited today in the Srivaisnava community. The story concludes with Tiruppan miraculously uniting with and disappearing into the image of his beloved Rangi.

This story illustrates how a man can close the gap between himself and the divine (Tiruppan and Rangi) whereas leaving the glaring gap between individuals (Tiruppan and the Brahmin priests) unaddressed.

This brings me to the final point of this essay. What is Hinduism’s overarching ethic? Western civilization’s universal ethic is moral universalism, and Confucianism’s is Ren (benevolence). It is my view that Indian civilization is unique precisely because it failed to do something which other advanced civilizations have done: produce a universal ethic. This view was shared by three individuals whom I have listed here in chronological order:

  1. St Francis Xavier
  2. Max Weber
  3. Dr Ambedkar

Francis Xavier, the Spanish missionary, made a series of observations about Indians that are quite illuminating. It is obvious that he did not think too highly of Hinduism, but it is one particular interaction that I wish to draw your attention to – a conversation between Xavier and a group of Brahmins:

When Xavier asked a group of Brahmins to summarize what Hinduism stood for, he was told that their gods “required two duties of those who desired to go to them hereafter, one of which was to abstain from killing cows because under that form the gods were adored; the other was to show kindness to the Brahmins, who were the worshipers of the gods.”

Max Weber arrived at a similar conclusion when he stated:

“There is no universal ethic but only a status and professionally differentiated dharma according to caste”

The Religion of India the Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism

Dr Ambedkar’s observations in his book The Riddles in Hinduism were identical to Weber’s. The very first chapter, The Difficulty in Knowing Who Is a Hindu, is centered around an attempt to define some common ethic or even creed that binds Hindus together. Ambedkar arrived at the conclusion that one is a Hindu precisely because one is born into the faith and not due to any universal ethic that binds individuals together under a set of agreed-upon moral rules.

Just as it is impossible to practice larceny in a culture that has no concept of private property, similarly it is impossible to practice intolerance in a culture that believes in nothing. I suspect this is the secret of Indian ‘tolerance.’ Tolerance can only be measured in opposition to what one cannot tolerate. The act of enduring what one cannot tolerate is in effect practicing tolerance. It is only in this context that tolerance acquires a moral quality. One however cannot practice tolerance when one subscribes to no real beliefs whose limits can be tested. The Indian approaches the world with extreme apathy and conflates his indifference for tolerance.

In conclusion, the difference between Confucianism and Hinduism can be observed in their differing worldviews despite some overlap in social conventions. Hinduism’s focus is on mystical objectives, as it dismisses reality as we understand it as illusionary. Confucianism’s focus is squarely on this world, and its chief emphasis is social and political harmony.


Filed under Asia, Catholicism, China, Christianity, Culture, Ethics, Guest Posts, Hinduism, India, Jurisprudence, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Political Science, Regional, Religion, Sociology, South Asia

An Approach towards a Unified Theory

What is the world made of?

  1. Matter
  2. Antimatter
  3. ?

What are the principal force(s) in the world?

  1. Energy
  2. ?

How do these forces manifest?

  1. Electricity
  2. Magnetism
  3. Chemical/molecular bonding
  4. ?

What is the direction of these forces?

  1. Heirarchical evolution/building blocks
  2. Entropy

What are the purposes of these forces?

  1. Bonding
  2. Persistence
  3. Chaos
  4. Disintegration
  5. ?

What are the central laws of existence?

  1. Thermodynamics
  2. ?

Commentary: The world’s ingredients can only be matter and antimatter, no? What else do you need?

The force of the world is energy and nothing else. Other than energy, there is no force at all.

The force manifests as electric current, magnetic pull and especially bonding of elements. Like Einstein said, everything’s a force field.

The purposes of the force are creation/progression (hierarchical evolution), attachment (bonding), scattering (chaos), and annihilation (disintegration).

Casting all distraction aside and boiling what’s left all down, the underlying rule of existence seems to be thermodynamics. Getting down to brass tacks, what else do you need other than thermodynamics? It’s the base law of them all. Strip it all way, and only thermodynamics remains. All else is dross.

Now that we have solved some of the major problems of the universe, I think I will go lie down for a bit.



Filed under Metaphysics, Philosophy, Science

Heidegger, Feynman and a Bird

You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you’re finished, you’ll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird…So let’s look at the bird and see what it’s doing – that’s what counts.

– Richard Feynman

Sounds like Feynman is channeling Heidegger here. Heidegger is pretty damn hard to understand, but I do understand some of his ideas.

In Being and Time, he talks a lot about meanings. He differentiates between surface meanings and deep meanings.

Surface meanings are like those 6,000 words for the bird. As a good general rule, the name or names of a thing (what we call it) tells us little or nothing about that thing. Imagine that we had no language, but we were as smart as we are now. We would see birds flying about and doing their thing all the time. We would observe those birds and we would form a lot of ideas about what that bird is and what it does. We would do this even if we had no word for the bird whatsoever. Follow?

So what we call the bird or object does not mean a whole lot or even tell us much if anything about what the object is. The name of the bird is the surface meaning of the object that is that bird. Surface meanings, as I mentioned, don’t mean a whole lot. They are more a means of classifying objects in our brains so we can think about them more easily and quickly and so we can communicate about them with other humans.

Many objects have more than one name and actually have many different definitions. Some of the definitions that we have of objects not only don’t tell us much important about the object, but in some sense, while they are technically correct, they are often wrong because they sort of give a false meaning to the object and distract us from the meaning that makes them important.

There is a difference between objects and what I call essences. Often we think of things not in terms of the names or (often lousy) definitions of them but instead we think of these objects in terms of what the essence of the object is. The true meaning of an object lies in its essence, not in any surface definition we give to it, which in a lot of cases is no more important than a “tag.”

We have objects that we can “tag” in all sorts of different ways according to whatever definitions the object has. But those definitions are just tags and some are even contradictory as an object can be two contradictory things at once when it has a surface definition or tag of one meaning but has a deep meaning or essence of the opposite meaning.

This is why definitions are inherently problematic. We studied Semantics a bit in my Linguistics studies. One of the main principles of Semantics is that the definitions we give to words are in many cases incomplete. In other words, it is often impossible to give a full definition of a word that describes the meaning of the word perfectly.

Getting back to Feynman here, all of those words for that bird probably do not tell us a whole lot about the bird. They are just “tags” or surface meanings so to speak that we use to categorize that bird in our brains so we can store information about that bird in our brains better. In other words, Feynman says, who cares what the damn bird is called! It’s got 6,000 different names all over the world world! As I noted, objects can have more than one surface meaning or tag. In the case of this bird, it has 6,000 different tags on it, none of which tell us much about the bird!

If we wish to understand the bird, Feynman notes, we forget about whatever it is called (its surface meaning) and instead focus on what it is doing – let’s observe the behavior of the bird. By observing the actions of the bird, we can come to understand it better by uncovering its deep meaning, or essence. This is what the bird really means and what it is really all about.

This seems a bit long-winded, but this is very important to know. Don’t pay a whole lot of attention to what something is named. Particularly in politics, things are often given names that are the exact opposite of what they are. Forget about what surface definitions people give to objects, actions or events because they are often misleading and even flat-out wrong. Instead, pretend that you have no word for the object, action or event and try to understand the deep meaning or essence or what something is or what happened. If you put these Deep Meaning googles on, the world starts to look like a very different place, and you can think about the world in a completely different, and better way.

I will have a bit more on this later on. This should be plenty for now. This was a bit of a mouthful here.


Filed under Metaphysics, Philosophy, Science

Man World, Woman World and Universal Gender

I finally noticed something  very  curious about me. I’ve probably been  doing it my whole life and recently I have surely been aware of it on some level, but I never quite pinned it down.

When I am out in public in a business somewhere, the males are not even in the room. There could be 20 males in the room, but there might as well be zero. The only entities that exist in the room are me and all of the females in the room. And I am picky even there because really the only sentient beings in the room are me and whatever attractive women are there.

The unattractive women are more sentient then the men, but not by much. I am too busy focusing on the attractive females in the room to pay attention to the landwhales and muglies. Sure, some of them are very nice people and they are often kind to me, but they’re not very interesting.

So the whole time I am in say an ATT store or a coffee shop, I will be focused on whatever attractive females in the room much to the exclusion of everything else. You can call me a creep and a stalker all you want. Call the cops. Try to have me arrested. Call the Gender Police.

I really can’t help it. My mind simply naturally homes in on any attractive women in the room like a bee to honey. It’s as if I am drawn to them by some sort of compelling energy such that I can barely pull away or maybe I see no point in pulling away.

If there are attractive females in the room, that’s all I want to be looking at while I am in the room. There’s nothing else to look at, and besides they seem to have some sort of an energy field that actually pulls me towards them like suction and then locks me onto them like radar. I finally realized that I do this completely normally and naturally, and I have probably been doing this my whole life. But I didn’t actually pin it down until age 58. Life is an ongoing project the objective of which is the progressive accumulation of wisdom and an understanding of the underlying mechanisms of human social and psychological life.

As an androgynous spirit, I have always felt a great commonality with women. It’s not that I am a woman too. It is hard to explain. It’s more that women and I are the same gender. And we are neither men nor women, but we are instead something in between, a common gender that we both share. On the other hand, I am also very much a man. What I mean is that I like females so much that I can quite easily suck myself into their spiritual Gender World, call it Woman World.

Let’s say that Woman World is half the universe, and Man World is the other half. I can go romp around in Female World to my heart’s content because I feel quite at home there. While being very much a man, I also have a feeling that woman are “just like me.” Women and I are not really different. I am not a woman because I do not act like one, thank God, but still there is a sensation when it comes to women that “I am one of them and they are one of me.”

I think what that means is that instead of acting like a woman, I feel like one of them because I can go romp around in their half of the world and feel quite at home, as if I am with people who are “just like me.” It’s almost like when I am romping around there that is there is no Male and there is no Female. There’s One Gender, call it Universal Gender if you will, and that’s the one I share with women. Women and I are not really different. We are the same essential being, a shared entity and spirit.

1 Comment

Filed under Gender Studies, Man World, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Sane Pro-Woman, Women

The World Is Only Fun If You Understand It

There really are deep and relatively simple meanings for most puzzling things about humans. Humans really are not that complicated. It’s just that it takes so many years to strip away at all of the fluff, dross, fake meanings, non-meanings, nonsense, lies, cant, politics, self-deception, distraction and red herrings to finally get at the deep meaning underlying supposedly puzzling things.

Another thing you will learn as you start grabbing some deep meanings is that deep meanings start connecting with each other. A deep meaning for one type of behavior connects with, or maybe is even identical to, the deep meaning for another behavior.

This is even more rewarding because even better than peeling away the endless layers to get at the deep meaning underneath it all, you can now start connecting one deep meaning with another. There is a profound sense of deep spiritual and philosophical satisfaction that comes with this sort of enlightenment, discovery, and in a sense, self-actualization.

The world is only fun if you understand it.

If you don’t get it, the world seems arbitrary, insane and even evil because so much human behavior seems indeed arbitrary, insane, irrational or even evil. But it’s usually not. Most people are are doing most things for a reason, and it’s often a pretty good reason. Once you start to learn why people do things, you can relax a lot more, stop being frustrated at people and life, calm down and dissipate a lot of needless rage.


Filed under Metaphysics, Philosophy, Psychology

Repost: Masculine Feminine Dualities Chart


This is a very popular post that is still being linked all over the web. I will repost it again because I believe many of you are new and you have not read it yet.

Go ahead and comment on it as there is a lot to comment on. You can say whatever you want. You can even say that this is sexist, well some women are like the masculine quality, some men are like the feminine quality, bla bla. That’s PC bullshit, but some of you SJW’s on here like to talk like that. As I said, I will not ban on these comments, but I will say in advance that that is a retarded critique of the post.

First of all, it’s not about men and women. It’s about the masculine spirit and the feminine spirit. Keep in mind that aspects of both the masculine and feminine spirits are probably present in most if not all humans. I agree with Weininger on that one.

So when your critique is, “Hey some women are like that male spirit,” or “Hey, some men are like that female spirit,” you are being an SJW retard, but that phrase is a redundancy. Let me reiterate this over and over: Masculine spirit does not = men. Feminine spirit does not = women! Got it, SJW’s? Any given man probably has some feminine spirit in him and may have a number of the attributes below. Any given women probably has some of the masculine spirit and may have any number of the masculine attributes below.

One way to look at this is to see this as a binary view of the universe. We can say that the universe is 50% masculine spirit and 50% feminine spirit. Neither one is better than the other, and in fact, they are quite complimentary and fit together like two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.

In fact, without each other, these spirits are rather bereft. For instance, if you are a man who lives only in the masculine half of the universe, that’s ok by me and a lot of men probably do just that. However, my point would be that you are only living in half the world. You are missing out on one half of the whole universe that you could be experiencing. Although it is fine with many folks to live in only half of the world and blow off the other half, personally I think you are living a somewhat diminished life by doing that.

I would also argue that these spirits modify each other. In parts of the world where there is excessive masculine spirit, there are all sorts of problems. I am sure you know what I am talking about. Latin America and the Arab and Muslim world, I am looking at you. These places are suffering from an imbalance of spirit. They need more feminine spirit to equalize matters and create a more harmonious society. As it is, they are out of balance.

Excessive feminine spirit doesn’t really work either. All-female workplaces are known to be nightmarish, and the women who work there will be the first to tell you so. The PC West currently suffers from excessive feminine spirit, and the results are not pretty in my opinion. This out of balance world has resulted in the growth of MRA’s, PUA’s, Game, Red pill, the Alternative Right, etc. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Remember? Works in sociopolitics as well.

Ultimately I would argue that when you have a true excess of feminine spirit, probably not a lot of work gets done, people are probably not very ambitious, there could be a lot of chaos and dysfunction in society and ultimately society pretty much falls apart. I believe that society must be run pretty much according to the masculine principle. The feminine principle can participate, but a collaborator with the ruling principle, not a competitor to it.

One way to divide the world is into masculine and feminine essences or spirits. Half of the world is the Masculine Spirit and the other half of the world is the Feminine Spirit. If a man only lives in the Masculine Spirit, he is missing out on half the world! Similarly, if a woman only lives in the Feminine Spirit, she too is blind to half of the world.

This post made a lot of women mad. They called it sexist and left the blog or got banned. Oh well. I happen to think there is something to this.

Feel free to comment. I think it is an interesting chart:

The first five principles are by Otto Weininger and are bolded, but the last 56 are by me.

Characters     Masculine   Feminine 


Activity       Active        Passive
Consciousness  Conscious     Unconscious
Thinking       Objective     Subjective
Genius         Yes           No
Productivity   Productive    Nonproductive
Energy         Generative    Receptive
Mind           Thinking      Feeling
Emotion        Stoic         Moody
Tactile        Callous       Sensitive
Humor          Slapstick     Irony
Weather        Calm          Unsettled
Temperature    Cold          Warm
Graph          Linear        Scatterplot
Empathy        Poor          Rich
Pain           Inflict       Receive
Confrontation  Forward       Withdrawal
Reaction       Contemplative Reactive
Style          Deliberative  Unthinking
Intensity      Concentration Distraction
Denial style   Projection    Fantasy
Egotism style  Narcissism    Histrionic
Pathology      Sociopath     Borderline
Defense        Anger         Denial
Ego desire     Expansion     Dissolution
Depression     Sublimation   Immersion
Reliance       Self          Others
Compassion     Little        Great
Wakefulness    Aware         Unaware
Alertness      Wide Awake    Sleepwalking
Planning       Methodical    Conspiring
Morality       Strict        Contingent
Aggression     Physical      Subterfuge
Violence       External      Internal
Warfare        Bully         Victim
Hierarchy      Dominant      Submissive
Force          Blunt         Subtle
Texture        Harsh         Smooth
Resistance     Extreme       Yielding
Linear         Straight      Jagged
Presentation   Forthright    Devious
Surface        Clear         Opaque
Understand     Simple        Complicated
Logic          Linear        Circular
Movement       Stiff         Flowing
Grain          Coarse        Fine
Instrument     Blunt         Subtle
Transport      Highway       Stream
Route          A to B        Roundabout
Tour           Autobahn      Scenic route
Flight         Soar          Flutter
Hobby          Monomania     Dilettante
Truths         Multiple      Singular
Theory         Branching     Obsessive
Fact           Durable       Momentary
Manichean      Yes           Grey Area
Systematics    Categorizing  Noncategorizing
Science        Empirical     Intuitive
Philosophy     Tough         Dream State
Ubermensch     More common   Less common
Body           Hard          Soft
Tissue         Sinewy        Fatty
Signal         Weathervane   Antenna
Telepathy      Illiterate    Mindreader
Broadcast      Subwoofer     Subliminal 
Travel         Itinerary     Lark  
Decision       Plotted       Whimsy
Confusion      Certainty     Perplexed
Party          Kegger        Cocktail  
Social         Optional      Mandatory
Sex            Compulsion    Choice
Intellectual   Paradise      Boredom
Bird           Hawk          Hummingbird  
Birdsong       Crow          Warbler 
Love           Auxiliary     Requirement 
Danger         Physical      Psychological 
Grudge         Discard       Retain  
Armistice      Reconcile     Cold Peace
Storm          Thunderstorm  Spring Shower
Communication  Telegraph     Epistolary novel
Law            Spirit        Letter
Style          Avant-garde   Fashion   


Filed under Cultural Marxists, Culture, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Politics, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology

The Final Three Steps of Wisdom

RL: Wisdom = (something like this):

  1. Accurate pattern observance and formation.
  2. Accurate pattern recognition.
  3. Accurate hypothesis creation.
  4. Accurate hypothesis testing.
  5. Accurate generalization (tentative conclusion) formation.
  6. Accurate understanding of the underlying nature of existence.
  7. Acceptance of the reality of existence based on making peace with life’s underlying nature.
  8. Proper application of all of this wisdom-knowledge to the day to day business of life and especially human relations.

Steve: I think 1-5 is more the processes involved in gaining wisdom rather than what wisdom itself is.

RL: I think those were supposed to be steps actually. Step 1, Step 2, etc.

Steve: Ah makes sense. My bad.

I really like 6 and 7. I think 6 gets to the essential point about the nature of existence. Plus I wouldn’t have thought of it, but I guess there is wisdom in acceptance. 6, 7 and 8 are a bit like the Buddhist view, meditation and action.

The problem is that just understanding the underlying nature of existence is not enough.

Suppose you figure out life completely, but instead of being enlightened, you become bitter and decide that it all sucks or the downside outweighs the good. And that is a perfectly logical conclusion to make based on an understanding of the nature of existence. It makes complete sense to think that life blows or that the down outweighs the good. It’s not an erroneous belief at all. Nor is it a correct one.

And even if you thought it was wrong, there would be no way to prove it was either true or false because philosophical statements are generally outside of the realm of science. In other words, everything in philosophy is just a bunch of opinions. We can’t write some mathematical proof on the board that proves that Nietzsche or Wittgenstein or Spinoza were right. Nor can we prove they were wrong. All of that stuff is pretty much a matter of opinion.

But rationally speaking, concluding that life blows and the bad outweighs the good – let’s face it – it’s not exactly adaptive. It’s not a view that is going to lead to a happier and easier existence, which ought to be one of the goals of life and is actually a form of wisdom itself.

So instead, we have:

6. Figure out life and understand the true nature of existence, the good, the bad and the ugly. This can be thought of as possibly Transcendental Wisdom.

7. Hopefully without making too many value judgements, just simply accept the reality of existence – the good, the bad and the ugly aspects of it all – and simply accept them in toto as “this is the way things are, and there’s nothing to be done,” and  accept that life is full of sadness, pain, etc., but it doesn’t get you down because you realize that that’s just the way life is. In fact, the Buddhists say, “All of life is sadness,” or “All of life is suffering,” depending on the translation you prefer, and that’s not necessarily a false statement.

But in Buddhism you simply accept that as an unalterable aspect of reality, and you accept it and make some sort of a peace with life instead of spending your whole existence warring at life for being what it is, which after all, doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Now that you understand the full nature of existence and you have swallowed hard, bit the bullet and made whatever peace with it that you can, now you can stop fighting. You can stop fighting against life for being what it is. You can stop raging at other humans for doing what they do because that’s what they do, and there isn’t a lot of hope of changing them, and it’s not even relevant if they can change or not. You can stop hating people for acting like people, for being people.

Do you hate your cat for acting like a cat, for being a cat? Of course not. Nor do you expect it to act entirely rational? No, because after all, it’s just a cat, and cats just do what they do and don’t have a lot of control over themselves. If you accept your cat for being cat, why hate women? Why hate men? Misogynists hate women for acting like women, for doing what women do. Misandrists hate men for being men, for doing the things that men do. This second step could be called many things, but perhaps it is best summed up as Peaceful Acceptance of the True Nature of Life or possibly Meditative Wisdom.

8. Armed with all of your acquired knowledge, wisdom and whatever intelligence you have, you know go out into the world applying your understanding of the underlying nature of life and even better, your acceptance of that for what it is and your peace with it. You apply this synthesis of

  • wisdom
  • transcendental knowledge
  • peace

to the world around you and most importantly to the humans in it. Hopefully, doing that, you will try to make the most correct, rational and adaptive decisions possible to whatever events you may encounter in life. This final step can be thought of as Wisdom in Action.


Filed under Buddhism, Disciplines, Meditation, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Psychology, Religion