Who invented the question mark?

Who invented the question mark? Nobody knows. It's a mystery; a great question.


https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/explore/origin-of-question-mark

Narcissists will say, "I'm a narcissist"

Narcissists will generally say, “I’m a narcissist” if asked. Other people will not do that so much. This is considered a good and quick narcissist test. If a person is asked, “That Carly Simon song ‘you’re so vain’….. is it about you?” a narcissist would say, “yeah.” That would be a good test. The Carly Simon Test. 

Don't Own Your Manic Episodes

This was an idea I first heard from Ajahn Brahm in a YouTube video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXd09oGHD0I&t=2578s

Basically, people with bipolar feel an extreme level of regret for the things they've done. The one key to overcoming that regret, and basically feeling no regret anymore, is to realize that it wasn't you doing those things. Anyone around you can see it clearly already. When you're manic, you're not being yourself.

I often want to hold on to all of my experiences even if they're painful. I want to feel like, "I may have been manic, but at least I existed." Well no, I didn't exist. Nothing exists forever. My real personality comes and goes. It will eventually die when I'm 84 (That seems like long enough). So why own the parts of me where I was clearly not myself? I felt like myself at the time, but I wasn't.

Don't own it. That is the idea of no-self for Buddhism. It's not just don't own that, but also DO own the parts of yourself that are really you. It's not hypocritical to say, "This was me" and "that wasn't me." It's not hypocritical because it's just a fact. The time you showed up manic to work and confused and scared people was NOT you. You are the good person right now who would never dream of doing those sorts of things.

It's very important. One of my goals as a teenager was to live a life of no regret. I can't say I accomplished that, except that I wasn't me when I did regretful things. In that sense, I have lived a life free of regret. I don't regret anything I've ever done while sane. And while insane, I wasn't me.

What Apparent "Laziness" Really Is For the Mentally Ill

People who are mentally ill are not lazy. I saw this posted elsewhere, on https://themighty.com/2017/05/unemployed-mental-illness-secrets/
However, from my experience this is also absolutely true. I have a mental illness, but that is not why I say this. I say this because I worked in a group home for the mentally ill for 8 months. Probably 10 out of the 12 clients there would just sit around apparently doing nothing. I have been in that exact same situation so I know it wasn't just, "doing nothing." What they were doing is getting into such a deep state of relaxation that they were unable at that moment to lose their minds. It is necessary for our health. When I'm sane, I am a remarkable person. However, there is a so-called monster inside of me, and when I go insane I really become a monster. I have to put in extraordinary effort, just like these clients did, to not let that monster dictate my life. I need to sleep a little more, zone out to get into that state of peace, and relax a lot.

It's basically like this: We sit around not going insane most of the time, and we do a little work here and there when we can. Then, if we do end up losing our sanity, it seems that not only are we lazy and selfish, but we also hurt other people with our behavior. It is a real problem, but it is not resolved by just working constantly and ignoring the illness. Ignoring the problem is a very ineffective coping strategy for anyone. We need to relax, a lot, in order to be good people. Everyone is capable of being good, but people have different mechanisms by which they accomplish this. Good luck to everyone out there who is struggling, and congratulations to everyone who is succeeding.

You may ask about those 2 clients who refused to take it easy and relax. Why could they do this but the others couldn't? The answer is: Those 2 clients ended up having extreme meltdowns and in various ways tore the entire house apart.

Golem was the only one who really loved the ring

Sauron was pure evil, except for his ring. However, his ring was still attached to him. The ring really was, like Isildur said, the one beautiful thing about Sauron. However, because it was attached to Sauron's menace, it had to be destroyed. Now, how could it be destroyed? Almost anyone who touched it instantly got attached to its magnificence and couldn't let go. They weren't in love with the ring, though. They loved it personally, for its power and grandeur.

Golem, however, loved the ring's power totally and absolutely. He saw something special in the ring. No matter where Golem turned in his life, there was despair and hunger. When he saw the ring though, he was free from all that. It brought him a glimmer of peace.

The only thing the ring needed to be freed from its dark side, Sauron, was to have someone unconditionally love it. Someone to love it not for its capability to bring power, but just because of its beauty. When Golem really showed it that the ring was loved, the ring did not need to be there anymore. It fulfilled its destiny. How did Golem love it when he was so despicable? The only good thing about Sauron was the ring, and the only good thing about Golem was his love for the ring. Golem was the opposite of Isildur. Golem was totally despicable except that he had the basic characteristic of love deep within him. That love was embodied by the creation of the most despicable creature Sauron, of something that truly was beautiful, the ring.

Isildur's bane killed him, but Isildur showed compassion for the ring. He knew that to destroy the ring would be to destroy the basic goodness that was within Sauron. That would mean making Sauron totally evil.

Yet Sauron threatened to bring doom to all of humanity if he returned. This was imminent. Sauron was destroyed by Golem loving Sauron with true devotion. The ring was the opposite of Sauron, yet made by Sauron. Golem became one with the ring, and disappeared forever.

Why the Hard Problem of Consciousness is Hard

The Hard Problem of Consciousness is hard because consciousness is the First Principle of existence. The Hard Problem of Consciousness is, "why do the chemical processes of the brain, the inputs and outputs, turn into an experience of being?" The answer cannot be solved because consciousness is the very first fact of being. Just as Aristotle's first principle of reason was noncontradiction, and so it became impossible to conclusively prove it in the field of logic, consciousness is the first principle of being. Noncontradiction is to reason as consciousness is to all of existence. David Chalmers famously said that one thing we cannot deny is that we're conscious. Descartes similarly said I think therefore I am, "cogito ergo sum." It is true it's the only thing we can't deny, but it is also the only thing we have to take on faith. It is the ultimate combination of epistemology ("how do I know" philosophy) and ontology ("what is being" philosophy). Along with this blend, or perhaps because of it, consciousness is self-affirming. It is also eternal, because if existence goes on in the universe for other people, and if consciousness is a first principle of being, then individual being exists beyond life and into the next life.

Axiomatic Rules in Psychology

There are axioms in math. There are axioms in physics. Great thinkers always use at least 1 axiom. A Big Think talk discussed the axiom of Einstein, "the speed of light is constant." What is the axiom in psychology? It starts from the self-affirming principle, "Truth is true." This is also known as non-contradiction. I propose that what we should hold onto (and what I do hold onto) is, "speak only truth." It is a moral imperative, proposed as far back as least 300 years ago with Kant. However, it informs psychological research rather well. It also takes it into a different domain than other sciences.

Originally, psychology was a combination of science, philosophy, and theology. It still has theology and science underpinning it, but it's losing some of the philosophy. The philosophy of ethics is a good place to see psychological axioms. How can obligation to such law create psychological insights in thinkers?

Clinically, this may have applications. The goal of counseling is often to get a client to reveal a big fear, something dark that was never revealed to others. Once this is done, counseling begins. This makes honesty essential.

Experimentally, this has methodological benefit. Do not deceive in order to learn. That would be self-refuting. Studies that use deception are not informative, because there is no proof in a deception. It is completely illusory. Falsehoods are fake. False=false.

What is an actual result in an experiment that could follow from "speak only truth"? Potentially, we could see if adherence to logic causes psychological benefits from emotions to thinking. However, we could also do it as a thought experiment. What happens when someone says, "It is but it isn't"? It is simply delighting in a feeling of intuition which is actually just confusion objectified.

Double Jokes are not Funny. There are no contradictions

When you see a parody of a parody, for example Austin Powers 3, it is not funny. It parodied Austin Powers 1. Austin Powers 1 was a parody of James Bond. Therefore Austin Powers 3 was not funny. Jokes about jokes are not funny. Take this simple python code:

>>> joke="joke"
>>> not "joke"
False
>>> not not "joke"
True
>>> not not not "joke"
False
>>> not not not "joke"
False
>>> not not not not "joke"
True
>>>

It is really the same as the Principle of Noncontradiction. It is possible to attempt to lie, but the nature of the lie is lllusory. The nature of illusion is illusion, and unreality. An unfunny joke is the same thing. A joke about a joke is an illusory humor. It is not funny. That is absolute. So it is possible to try, but it does not represent the all-funny nature of things. Creating contradictions does not expose the unreality of the world, but rather the unreality of the contradiction.

For that matter, Pythagoras claimed that there were no irrational numbers. That may even be true. The square root of 2 may be an illusion. Everything has at least 1 flaw, and everything being funny has the flaw of the double joke. Pythagoreans' flaw was the square root of 2. "Everything is one"'s flaw is "what if you don't believe that? Then everything's 2." Logic's flaw is that people can deny logic. However, all of those things are simply illusions. If you deny logic, you are not logical. Logically, that is true. If you make an unfunny non-joke, it is just not funny. If you see everything as dualistic, you are just in illusion. Illusion is not true. Logic tells us that.

Double jokes are not funny. 

How to arrive at absolute morality and what it is

One arrives at absolute morality by taking assumptions and finding their absolute rational nature. First, assume that you should be nonviolent. After years of nonviolence, you realize that there is no way that violence is the answer. It is a combination of the empirical experience and the rational generalization. After testing out nonviolence, or honesty, 100% of the time, it is easy to see that there is no other way. 

Sometimes religious leaders say, "you have to experience it to know it. Without the experience you can't know. It can't be explained." This is a half truth. You do need the experience to know something, but the explanation is equally important. This is the explanation: Speak the truth, and be kind. Those are absolute imperatives. The experience of this proves its validity. If you don't wish to prove the validity of nonviolence and honesty, then simply don't try them out.  However, if you wish for metaphysical certitude then you should try out the correct things. These are the correct things. 

Proofs For and Against God

The Transcendental Argument for God from Morality states this:

1. Some moral values are universal imperatives (e.g. "Don't kill, don't lie, don't steal, don't cheat")

2. Universal imperatives need a lawgiver

3. That lawgiver is God

That argument is strong but is not 100% valid, because laws might exist simultaneously with a cyclic and endless universe. There are many laws with less than perfect lawmakers which are still good laws. However, this argument against the God as described in the Bible is metaphysically certain:

1. Some moral values are absolute universal imperatives (e.g. "Don't kill, don't lie, don't steal, don't cheat")

2. God has disobeyed some universal moral imperatives, particularly, "Don't kill." He killed many people. He killed Jesus for starters. He also killed everyone except Noah and his wife once.

3. Any God that disobeys absolute universal imperatives is not a moral God

So God may exist the way the Bible describes, but that God is not moral. However, God may still exist. He just isn't the way the Bible describes him. That's where the first proof is more likely.

The Dream Me is sleeping. That's why I'm awake.

It's like a double negative.

a 3PM MP3 would be a palindrome.

Did you know that? Also, did you know that you can see about 10 times farther than a cat, if it is daytime?

There is only one Universe, because it is called a "uni-verse"

The Universe is the only thing that exists. Why? Because that's the definition of "universe." If there are multiple "universes," that would mean that each supposed "universe" is just part of the actual Universe, which is one. There is only one Universe, which contains all things, a priori.

The Jeff Bogdan Variation of the Transcendental Proof of God (The Moral + TAG Proof)

I recently proved God. It goes like this:

1. "Speak the truth" is metaphysically certain.

This is certain through experience. If you speak the truth as you understand it all the time, then you understand its eternal righteousness. It is not only right because it is skillful, but right because it is true. Truth is true.

2. If "Speak the truth" is an eternal law, there must be an eternal lawmaker.

Otherwise, why would that be the case? It is an action, it is a reality, and it is eternal, so there needs to be some agent.

3. That eternal lawmaker is God.

Or whatever else you'd like to call such an eternal lawmaker. It turns out this argument has already been formulated, and is called the Argument From Morality. The objection to it is that it "means that no objective morality could exist without God." However, the people using this refutation confuse subject and object. It does not mean a person cannot be moral without believing in God. A person can easily be moral without believing in God. However, it is true that no objective morality could exist without God as lawmaker. That is certain. A person actually sees God when they are acting from a place of absolute moral certainty, even if they don't know of God's Pneuma.

There is also the possibility that an eternal law exists based on nothing other than the usefulness of the law. This would lead to the result that future lives and past lives are necessary. So actually, the proof of God is not so complete if past and future lives are taken into consideration.

Ecological Poopprint

The average American produces about 323 pounds of poop per year. This is because for every 12 pounds of body weight, roughly 1 ounce of poop is produced. I currently weigh 230 pounds, so I produce more like 430 pounds of poop per year. If every overweight person could reduce their body weight and food consumption to the point where they produce 100 pounds less poop per year, that would be a significantly less amount of poop on the Earth and would be good for the environment. This would require lowering your body mass by 60 pounds, assuming that is reasonable. We can do it! For Mother Earth!

Science of morals

I would like to see a science that took as axioms the basic laws of morality. It also takes basic axioms like 1=1 into account, and the Law of Non-contradiction. The basic laws of morality would be... don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, don't cheat. There may be interactions between the laws of morality and the laws of physics. I guess the closest thing to this science would be psychology. I think that is the way psychology needs to proceed. There are moral imperatives in the psychological science the same way that there are physical imperatives in physics.

Truth is an object and an idea

Evidently, classical philosophy was concerned with objects, like bodies, wars, and people. This is my present understanding of "object." Modern philosophy concerned itself with ideas, like, "justice," or "being" (though to a degree, classics did too). The notion of speaking truth, satya, is both an object and an idea. It combines rational certitude with empirical, objective reality. There is such a thing as a truth claim when you say something that you mean, and there is the idea of the permanence of this truth claim. Put otherwise, there are the physically spoken words, and then there is the meaning and essence of the words. Only truth has this nature. Lies do not. They are nonsense and have no actual ethereal essence.

There is some historical evidence for the fact that the essence of satya, truth, is unchanging. Here it is:

Think of the number 1. Has the number 1 ever changed its nature over the course of civilization? 1+1=2, 3-2=1. Of course there are more things learned about it, but will it ever be different than how you understood its essence when you first learned it in school? Is it possible in any universe for 1 to not have the nature of 1? I did a search for "1=1" and Google showed some bizarre results. I have news for you. 1=1. Remember that. People seem to be able to go to graduate school for 4 years and by the end they don't know that 1=1 anymore. It does.