That isn’t what I am advocating. If an extreme exists due to an extreme then I feel an extreme should be met with equal value of that extreme to preserve balance. Which is what justice is and how it stems from tyranny being an assertion of will. If one refuses to see then they have made a choice in itself to be extreme and ignorant.
Not to turn the other cheek, that is dependent on value. I propose a meeting of equal force relevant to the causation of such bad if necessary to preserve a balance.
It started from a yin yang though, which it evolves and overlaps itself.
The balance is dependent upon an individuals choices, what do you think I am saying. A balance must be fought for, not against, thus, a balance won’t exist if fought against but only extremes, of which one would choose to be apart of.
Well that is unfortunately what reality is, conflicting contrasts that create balances, it isn’t bad or good, existence is objectively good or valued otherwise one wouldn’t exist at all and one also has the option of suicide which shows the system is not exactly tyrannical or inherently evil.
Choices create realities and decisions from points of lesser understanding vs higher understandings is what gives the appearance of bad, evil, etc.
Pain is temporary as well as relief or satisfaction, too much of either will kill you, that’s a fact.
So what do we call being in between pain and satisfaction then? Which both are dependent on choice and temporary, satisfaction leads back to pain and fear still and fear and pain gives the illusion of satisfaction/relief. The way out is through an unbiased attribution of value. A being of neutrality, and pursuing an understanding whilst already understanding the intricacies of both paths and their ultimate natures.
Life doesn’t have opposites, it only has otherness.
Every being is different, because of that otherness, and because of that difference, we do have mutually exclusive consents… like some people allergic to peanuts and some not.
So we can take a step back and say, well it violates my consent that allergies even exist …
From here, all of us are on the same path, it’s not yin yang, because we’re all in it. To eradicate consent violation for all beings.
It violates your consent that people believe they have values (an extreme position which you stated that you’ve transcended). An extreme position, not a middle position.
People do have values, that’s a middle position… you claim to have transcended (or are at least working to transcend) extreme positions while adopting one of the most extreme (value is illusion)
That’s extremely extreme!
So here’s the deal: it’s different for everyone, but consent violation is defined as what is not wanted by people … it’s true by definition that nobody wants consent violation for them.
So, anything you argue against me is just a consent violation that YOU don’t want, and it makes me correct and you wrong.
I don’t care to be correct and so this is where I draw the line of receding from this discussion because you make apparent, your motive. Which is what makes you /incorrect/.
“So, anything you argue against me is just a consent violation that YOU don’t want, and it makes me correct and you wrong.”
You literally stated that you don’t care to be correct (which suprized me), yet you put forth arguments and defend them just like me.
This is not philosophy that you’re doing artimas, it’s a brainwashing tactic to do whatever you want without consequence. You don’t follow your own rule, as you’re trying to convince others that “correct” and “value” are shallow concepts for shallow people.
It’s a lack of accountability technique.
I’ve seen this manufactured strain of weaponized philosophy before.
I accept reality for what it is. Value is illusory due to the fact that we have to exist objectively to attribute things with it. We aren’t the center of reality/existence, sorry to burst your bubble.
‘Correct’ is trying to be satisfied by an attempt at an understanding, instead of being humble and accepting the understanding for what one truly is and implies.
Why would you want to be correct in everything being inherently evil, not that I advocate for such and how could you be truly correct if knowledge is continuous and always able to be sought eternally?
What value would you ascribe to something eternal and objectively good?
You can achieve an understanding for being wrong as well as right, which is what I advocate for. So there is no desire of me or a need to be correct, knowledge is on both sides but a quicker understanding requires humility which may be painful dependent upon ones view and ultimately isn’t dependent upon satisfaction.
I consent to objective reality by /choosing/ to stay alive as the unique id of which is me, if you don’t consent, then end your life… that’s how that works man. That’s reality.
Yup, that’s one of the major strains of laboratory created weaponized strains of philosophy used to dominate others and society, like the movie 1984 where they get the guy at the end to say that 2+2=5
You value the correctness that value is incorrect.
It’s just a contradiction.
Then you make it seem like you come off as the non aggressor, above the fray. You are being an aggressor.
further more, you tell me that if I don’t say that 2+2=5, that I can just kill myself (to remove those you can’t dominate)
Value exists but it isn’t what it appears to be, that’s obvious, is that not why knowledge exists through pain?
The only objective value of existence itself is that it is existing, which shows it as inherently good in my eyes. You’re the one trying to paint reality as inherently evil, so if it’s evil, then you have an option to leave, a conscious choice, if made one consents. Better something than nothing.
I don’t always agree with others values but there is an easy system to determine if one is evil or ego infested and I am also in no place to judge others values unless they are or of lesser understanding(ignorant), which then criticism or an attempt to offer an understanding or knowledge of ones own perspective is deemed authoritative if in collision with ones ego.
Everything you try to portray to paint me as, since that’s what you seem to be so focused on, is an image of yourself. That’s what psychology has revealed at least. You’re better than such tactics, Ec.
You mean a position of unbiased view? One has to be balanced so that means also having a view of value, just not a narrowed one.
It is an extreme position. I’m not trying to convince anyone that it isn’t but if one can still partake and see what value is and deem it upon specific facets of reality, while also choosing which topics to remain unbiased on or on how to react with in a proper/necessary means to an attempted balance, then is that not more power or executed knowledge rather than partaking in an extreme of fear or delusion? Downward or upward spiral of which doesn’t lead to understanding much?
I didn’t say it doesn’t exist, I said it’s illusory. There’s a difference. I didn’t say life doesn’t need moderation and oneself doesn’t, that’s actually what I advocate for. For one to know thyself and better equip oneself for harsh reality by seeking an understanding through experiencing of all.
Bias creates a lessening of experiencing due to fears or desires. Do you think less experience is worth more than more experience and even more than that, an understanding of said experience?
I am saying to experience but don’t be effected by the lengths of which bias may head of/from what one experiences. Which leads to a defeating of self.
I have changed tunes a lot of times.
No, saying it is illusory means that it is temporary. The pain or value has only as much power over self as what one gives it or consents to, this is the choice between spirals or paths of which I have been trying to explain. The present moment is temporary, which is also illusory, so if one attributes value in a present moment, the value changes based off of a continuation of seeking understanding (coming of future), so that is why I am stating to choose to learn or grow from pain, to give it less control through an understanding of how value and it’s functioning in reality occurs. This is why there is a fluctuation of moods and what one feels about oneself because value is illusory, temporary to the extent of the power in which one gives it over self and others.
But every pain does have consent to how much power it holds over you.
Death is ceasing to be self or ceasing as self in interaction/observance with and of the present moment. We don’t die as ideas or genetic code of one wishes to spread such. Which I do personally.
The mirage isn’t people’s ability to judge, it’s the power of which one attributes to a value in the present moment or the continuation of blaming the power value has over self when one has the choice to change the power of value.
Pain doesn’t last forever unless one chooses to let it fester into fragments of agony and negative attributes.
So, you’re really going to tell me, as has been the theme of your last 20 posts, that no matter what happens to a person, their response to it is only their fault and their fault alone??