Hopefully, everyone can read the small print.
The left path leads to having any form of identity and self-preservation.
The right path leads to being braindead sheep herded for the slaughter
The twist: The right path is objectively more virtuous and moral as long as it only pertains your own existence, because you are free to do with your own life as you please, even within a suicide cult.
Yet the moment you have a family, you are basically telling people to stand aside and let the get raped and murdered, because allowing it instead of resisting it will make sure that your virtue and morality remains immaculate as newly glorified victim and martyr.
The choice is yours.
I thought buddhists were a third-way kind of people…? Or was that zen?
Either way, it’s AI slop fed by misanalyzed stuff, that’s for sure
This is just another way of saying, “I don’t want to engage with this argument.”
I agree that the diagram is the result of ChatGPT analysing my essay and producing an overview. However, the observations are my own.
Well, at least I know where you stand. In actual fact, it is the result of an essay that was based on McGilchrist’s The Matter With Things, and I think the observations are quite acurate. Your reading, on the other hand, is superficial.
That hope may diminish with time, of generations so they may redirect it’s course
So that patient nurturing will begin the cycle of belief in the faith.
Unashamedly , without the express need to scale that magic mountain repeatedly.
The observations are quite accurate.
If you pay attention i did not question the virtue of the message.
Ironically, i think its this position that is extremely superficial, because it does not contend with the idea that people will exploit it and use it against your entire community, just like Christianity and Jesus is currently being used to erase the entirety of europe.
I am not superficial about the message Bob. I am just 5 books ahead of it and asking you directly about the people who will inevitably look at it, have a laugh and shoot you in the head.
Will you just like Jesus proclaim that fighting back will tarnish their immortal soul?
That the injustices of this world are temporal, but the consequences are eternal?
Will you tell your family and followers to lay down and die?
It means nothing to me. Its your business and your faith. And its a fair point: You will by definition have the moral high ground. Granted. You will be dead. But you will be right.
But i AM asking.
Because im one cynical fuck and i am sick and tired of half truths which are not followed through to their natural conclusions.
Families of resembling qualities can not fill in their total succeeding generational gaps , so they must be prioritized to their closeness to the need for revival, and need patience par excellence without excluding any one else in all the universe(s)
I don’t think it’s helpful when we frame one way as totally stupid and disassociated and the other as saintly and perfect. That schema also puts things as opposites that need not be. Like people can’t like fantasy games and have the second set of values? That’s going to be news to millions of young people.
What is tribalism in this schema? Many groups that inclusivity aims to include are often quite tribal. Is that wrong?
The right path is very Christian. Why should sacrifice and service - one a kind of self-violence the other a class-based metaphor that often implies self-abnegation - be the spiritual path or the good spiritual path?
There are other choices than the ones on this schema.
Truth over spectacle - spectacle is most groups tool. No Pride parades? What are the spectacles that are bad and can these be defined?
I’m being a bit scattershot here, but this schema implies so many vague and confusing things. It seems like a set of false dilemmas. Either you’re this or this. And then it is so utterly uncharitable. Wouldn’t it be better to express the highest intents and concerns of both paths? It just seems like another
There are two teams and positions - when this is false
Or to phrase that differently: here are the two options - when there are many more.
One is dumb and bad.
One is good and smart.
The dumb and bad path is really us and them - and how us/them the schema seems unnoticed.
And you, cynical as you are, will conform to what power tells you and applaud.
Everyone latches on to his own pet habit and overlooks what is said. It’s not fantasy games per se, but when they take up our time, replace reality and its complexity, and offer an escape from reality, we are wasting our imagination just passing time. If we can imagine together, we might just build something that is not just virtual fantasy.
We can spend hours, perhaps days going through all the negative ways of how to interpret what I have written, but if we spend some time thinking about how we can avoid the mistakes of the past, we might actually produce something sustainable and beneficial.
Of course, that is one way of looking at things, but I tend not to be so negative. Many wisdom writings begin with dichotomies, but progress as the ideas become more sophisticated and choose to work for the common good. The key word is application or implementation, and as long as you are only capable of good/bad, black/white thinking, your thoughts will be dogmatic and inflexible.
If you can understand that there are habits that weaken us, it is easier to decide to stop doing them and turn away towards a more beneficial way of life. Then it isn’t so much a moral issue but a question of what helps more. I didn’t stop smoking 45 years ago because it was evil, but because it wasn’t good for my health and expensive as well.
Above all, it is about engaging with people, looking at what can improve our situation in view of the challenges that we face, instead of standing alone. Group decisions are better as long as it isn’t the coercion of group dynamics but made in a cooperative spirit.
But not Jesus, He IS Immaculate!
Does this mean I did that? I don’t play fantasy games. Do you mean I overlooked what was said? What was it I overlooked?
Well, the fantasy up to and including cosplay engaged in creating worlds is more common in progressive circles. You may not have intended the schema to be right and left or conservative vs. progressive, but it looks a lot like what was produced.
I did make a main suggestion about how to make the schema better. It seems like you are saying here that you think criticism would be wrongheaded. If I misinterpreted something let me know.
If I look at half of your schema, I think you are missing how negative it was. The left side is completely negative. Perhaps you don’t tend it to be negative, but here you painted the paths as utterly binary with one as completely negative.
Was this directed at me or meant to include me? In any case, you’re now responding in a sense aligned with the very criticism I aimed at the schema. The schema in the graphic is extremely binary. If the goal is to avoid dogmatic thinking, I’m not sure why the chart is like that.
It’s not clear to me you responded to the point I made about how it might be better to deal with a more charitable version of the left hand path. If one doesn’t one alienates immediately people who identify with parts or most of the left side without finding it merely stupid and dumb, especially if the idea is to lead to a cooperative spirit.
It seems that whenever I write an article, people complain that it is too long, but when I decide to make a graphic that condenses the article, it is also not what people want to see. I will post a link to the article and let you make up your mind whether you’ll entertain it.
Not at all! I engaged, and showed you how that’s a false dichotomy, and that graph is AI slop over misanalyzed stuff.
Wokies sure do have a high opinion of themselves. Shame no one else shares it 
1 Like
ps You didn’t have much ‘empathy’ when you were shooting Irish people in their own country. Did you believe the Irish should have been more ‘inclusive’ of the English when it came to the Irish genocide, destruction of the Irish economy and theft of their country? Perhaps they should have given the English a big hug and stood around holding hands.
1 Like
Bob shot Irish people in Ireland? Are you conflating Bob with the country of his birth?
1 Like
He was there with a big loaded gun to assert dominance over the population. Isn’t that what guns are for? Shooting and intimidating people?
1 Like
Wow, could you share the photos. It just doesn’t seem very Bob. And here I thought for a moment you didn’t understand what a philosophy forum is.