Maciej Bembnista

Kudos!, brother!

I think about your question for 5 years, almost everyday... My understanding: to understand the idea of the concepts is to understand the relationship between language and reality. concepts are words. (see comments above) to begin to describe the world (in our minds) using the words means that we create the whole new artificial world in our heads this world have only its roots in reality, but it is NOT a reality any more it is pretty easy to mislead others using storytelling- in these stories concepts are being used as containers for projection of our feelings (of ourselves), they also begin to live their independent from reality, collective (in collective mind of the society, carefully controlled by storytellers like shamans, priests, historians, politicians etc.) lives. we live our lives in these artificial worlds of stories, which we are told as a children we constantly have a dialogue or monologue in our minds- in this world we live in the future, in the past and in the present, but through the intensity of the thoughts and through reality distortions being caused by words/concepts which are independent from reality, we loose a contact with a reality of the moment- there is never "now", we rush with our thoughts, so we don't feel(!) the reality of our moments in this world and we cannot connect with other people (since they live their lives also in their heads). Concepts are very useful, but very very dangerous- the price is well known: unhappiness (since more reality means more happiness) if you want to know, how it could be to live without the concepts- try mindfulness meditation in this way you can grasp the reality without thinking in words that is an explanation why meditation improve our happiness

That's me. With tears in my eyes and fists in my pocket. I'm a man. Since I know why, I can bear any how. Thank you!

Thank you for your words, D.! Your comment is not only philosophically suitable for this thread, but also beautiful and touching (at least for me). <kiss> And worth reposting. In my own personal history, as a child I was forced to comply so I've "took away" my desire to be a "good boy" and projected it into abstractions like patriotism, where they merged with other fantasies like grandiosity etc. It took me a looooong time to frame the heroism back into the reality, to have back my basic, authentic (and not: sentimental) satisfaction from being a virtuous man.

Hello Jessica! I'm also happy to see you here. And I would like to encourage you to take a offer of support from kathryn or dsayers at some time, because (like in my case) swallowing a red pill /rewiring your brain isn't a most pleasant time of one's life. But definitely worth it.

"He's avoiding answering your challenge by pretending to speak for somebody else while not referring to that somebody else by name as part of his ongoing looking down his nose at everybody except those who actually modeled this sophisticated form of manipulation for him. I feel like Neo at the end of the first Matrix because this is all SO my father, which is why it all stands out so clear to me. It kind of reminds me of when little kids dig at one another while "fighting" by telling a 3rd party to tell something to their adversary, even thought they are actually within earshot. Oh shit, that's what I just did!"

"There are no unchosen (positive) obligations". In my opinion rituals are wrong, are the way to perform and harden tribal thinking. Magical thinking. The certainly played a important role in times, when we had no reproducible rational thinking as a species- emotional "bonding" with a tribe. Today they probably fill the hole in our heart through activating some buttons left there by our abusers. That would be a reason, why we are so susceptible to them. If I love/like someone, then I can decide to express it in a way I like or not to express it. If I express my admiration, than I can own some positive feelings (about me, I have a satisfaction). And I can connect. If it is in the context of a ritual, I am a part of a crowd led by some sort of a leader. I am not free- if I choose not to take a part O can hurt someone I like (it´s a trap, something like welfare state- if you dont´t agree with taxation, you hate the poor ). It means, I´m not free!!! Thus I do not agree, that rituals are "pretty harmless"- they support wrong methodology, wrong way of thinking, they inhibit a formation of the new species- Homo philosophicus! In my opinion. PS. some positive/nice of them (like above) are merely "steps in the right direction" ( I thought about it and finally I do agree with dsayers, that " `steps in the right direction` is a myth perpetrated by the immoral to trick good people into supporting immorality.")

It is also my experience, that corrupt people speak about "steps in the right direction", but at least they are not denying or misleading the rightness of direction. Consecutive, they are corrupt (maybe not open enough), and not wrong/immoral. I don't think, that "less force is equal to more force" (of course ), less force is surely preferable. To keep you distracted from proper way of thinking (proper methodology) by giving you "less force" as a reward, can be seen as immoral, but you you'd have to be sure about intension of this action, since direction is right. This people in my opinion are not our bitter enemy, they are just false friends (being counterproductive/self-defeating), but the problem can be unsolvable. Stef: "Evil is deep knowledge of good used to violent this goodness". I don't think, good is violated by "steps in the right direction", I do agree that it is a wrong step according to methodology. m.

Hi from Zurich! Welcome on the journey into the future! I'm very happy for you, you've decided to show yourself here, to show who you are. And I admire it- I'm here for three years and still "didn't have a balls" to do this, what I consider as a part of healing-process- to introduce myself, to open myself to the world, to have a such strenght of vulnerability, that you have shown. I see the same path of suffering in your post, that I went through. So (projection! ) I assume you won't give up, there is no way back... I think, you can do it better than me- you look for the real time connection. Please share your experience, don't be ashamed of your childhood combat scars, be proud of it! "Strike this match"! I'm definetly on your side, {> m.

...and Emanuel- it takes time! With a lot of emotional pain. That was at least (and occasionally still is) my own experience.But there is no other (known) way to undo the damage they have done to your mind, to you, I think.XOXO,m.

I forgot to mention Stefs theory: we are trained/primed to attack te most reasonable person (to avoid feeling reality- in other words: to avoid to feel like a slave). That is essential part of our upbringing, coped in instinctive parental rules- to protect their offsprings, to bring them the best chance to survive, that is to conform with the herd! That's our basic survival strategy and a reason for existence of the state (and other f***ing hierarchies). The essential reason! Source: FDR podcasts: 948, 947 and (one of my favorite): 946

I'm not really sure, if I get it right: you put foreword a theory, that this constantly nit-picking and searching for flaws presented by most of us as a "default position" by discussing strange (for us) theories is result of insecurity- we need a perfect knowledge to get out of world of phantasies/of conclusions inflicted on us by our caregivers? If so, what about the other patterns we learn unconsciously from our parents: e.g. (1)stronger one (physically, intellectually and so on) is always right, or (2)if something (e.g. an idea) is not comfortable for me, I can wish it away for example through inflicting self-doubts- through passive agression (what fundamentally is this nit-picking in my opinion). I know, that psychological processes are very, very complex (as the world is for us, maybe with one more "very":)), that we can be narcissistic (e.g. 5% on the usual scale) and altruistic (e.g. 80%) at the same time and that can be reffered to as being altruistic (for utilitarian reasons)- so I think I understand, that it's not so easy/simple to name one reason for certain behaviour, BUT : don't you think, that (if I understood right your argument) your explanation assume a positiv reason for striving for perfect knowledge (disorientation and seeking a right navigation for the world around us) and "my" explanation assume a negativ impulses (hands-off my comfortable, artificial vision of the world, don't matter what)? And if so, is the world so complex, that we are able to have a positive and negative impulses in one topic at the same time and that they result in (in fact) consistent and consequent behaviour? PS. Thank you for bringing your fresh view (and in this way: stimulating) topic- it's still fascinating for me, how we are broken...

That`s interesting, thank you! As a feedback: I had a strong and ambivalent feelings towards your pictures and these feelings somehow correlate with your answer- interesting and "cute" graphic on one side, confilicting/inconsistent message in form of Socrates with his look and gesture (I think(!), that the man, who know himself or who is into the self-knowledge, wouldn`t act like that- in this way you loose the potential contrast effect of "superficial world" against "things of value", which could be in addition more interesting, if it would be your intention of course...). So, at the end I had a curiosity with a aftertaste of inconsistency. And I had my fun by thinking about that! Thank you once more TT! Take care, m.

Hey, nice idea, interesting graphic design... I`m not sure, if I understand- punk rock design with tatoo`s and Socrates with his "know thyself" are for me the two opposites, don`t you think? Do you have something to tell us (or to potential onlookers/audience) with your work or is it just for fun?

I had a positive emotional response to Stefans's statement! Unfortunately I didn't elaborate on it enough (not enough- as I see it now), so thank you Jose for starting this conversation. The question for me was: why (oh, why;) did I react similarly to non rational (I fully accept Joseito's arguments) statement? After analyzing/considering my personal issues and feelings toward Stef (that's the man who save the future of my beloved one's and mine) I could (blessedly!) exclude them. Why did I react then that way? Because I think that's ...a true statement! Let me explain my thoughts: 1. I don't think you could take every statement rigorously- as a rule. You can't make such a principle from what Stef said, one should depend on context- in FDR people don't discuss (by wrtiting!) determinism any more, but Stef would do it in a real-time-relationships, because "Philosophy is a spoken discipline". For me it was clearly expression of preference! 2. Philosophy preceds (and is a "cause" of) scientific method, but also accept and use it, as a only valid method to examine reality (if I understand it correctly). It's then indiffrent to the language, which is used to communicate- writing, speaking, drawing and so on... That doesn't mean that e.g. drawing the diagram is simmilar effective to speaking about it. In my opinion talking about philosophy is much more effective/inspiring, than writing. You can use the whole rage of your senses (used particulary by your unconcius mind) to understand your (potential) opponent, you have more empathy and understanding, you can engage her/his attention and your emotions don't mislead you so often. And since philosophy is about studying the reality, you can do it by speaking in a more (most) fulfilling way, confronting opinions of others. -------------- nota bene: 5/26 Freedomain Radio Sunday Show was one of the best I've ever heard. Stef is in very, very good form.