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.