(1) What did I mean with this? What is “truth”? Here, “truth” is when a mental object corresponds to that which it claims to correspond to. For example, I may think “The sky is blue.” If now, the sky I thought of, is truly blue, then this means that thought was true – it was truth. (2) Therefore, if there is only one truth, this means that nothing can be relative. That means that for example, the sky is truly blue, and not also red. But as we have seen, relativity exists, too. So, how can we say that there is one truth? (3) There may be one thing behind the truth, but it might manifest in different ways to different minds.

(3) “There are absolutes.”

(1) What is meant with “absolutes”? What is an absolute? An absolute is something that is the way it is, unchanging, not dependent on anything, not relative or affected by perspective, and so forth. An absolute can therefore be an absolute truth, which is true regardless of any context, interpretation, system etc., or “the Absolute”, a metaphysical idea of something that exists in itself, complete, perfect and without change etc. These are what was meant with “absolutes”.

(4) “There is value and meaning.”

(1) What is meant with “value”? What is meant with “meaning”? I shall explain these: “Value” is something such as “good”, “bad”, “right”, “wrong”, “beautiful”, “ugly”, etc. “Meaning” is something such as a goal or end of things (i.e. telos), a purpose or significance, importance, other ways of putting something, an interpretation, etc. It might be when something is more than itself. For example, a tree lying on the road is a tree lying on the road. But, if it is also a sign and has meaning, it is also a sign, not just a tree lying on the road. It stands for something else. (2) This statement means that value and meaning exist, independently of a mind, somehow embedded in the fabric of the world. Maybe each little particle carries value or meaning. There might be purpose, telos and so on within each thing, intrinsically, interwoven into the definition of a thing. This is what is being challenged here.

(5) If there were truly one truth, how could it be that what is tall is short, what is bright is dim and what is good is bad to some?

(1) If there were one truth, the tree would be either tall or short. But it cannot be both, tall and short. But some people say: “This tree is tall.” And others say: “This tree is short.” Let us assume that both can be right. This would mean that there are two truths, not one. The same for brightness and goodness. (2) Let us say that stealing is bad for person A. But person B steals. Therefore, it cannot be bad for person B, or they wouldn’t do it. Therefore, for person A, stealing is bad, and for person B, stealing is good. Therefore, stealing is both good and bad. These are two truths, not one.

(6) And if there were absolutes, then how do we think of changes, that is, my own self is never the same any subsequent moment – how can it be absolute yet undergoing change?

(1) We have previously said (B:2:3:1) that an absolute is something that doesn’t change. But things change (e.g. the sun rises and sinks). Therefore, those things aren’t absolutes. Can we really think of anything that doesn’t change? This is questioned here.

(7) And, if there were value, let us say that we could find it, but different minds find different value, thus such a value might be hallucinated by us all?

(1) What is meant by “hallucinated”? Here, to “hallucinate” means merely to see something that isn’t objectively there. This isn’t good or bad. (2) The question here is: If person A sees stealing as bad and person B sees stealing as good, what is more likely: “Either A or B don’t see the truth.” Or “There is no one truth.”? (3) We know that people have different aesthetic tastes. One person might like red, the other blue. There doesn’t seem to be one objective truth about this preference in colour. Both are equally right. Therefore, we have seen that the mind can create subjective truths. Is it not possible that other values behave similarly (e.g. “good”, “bad”)?

(8) There are those who say: “Things are with essence.” [...]

(1) What do these people mean when they say: “Things are with essence.”? They mean that there is something that makes the thing what it is – an essence. This is a kind of way of explaining why things are what they are. This essence is not changing and is absolute and intrinsic. If the thing lost its essence, it would no longer be what it is. (2) Here, I ask if it is even possible for essences to exist in a changing world. (3) I also ask if the dependency of things on their parts and on wholes makes it possible for essences to exist. (4) I also hint at a psychological bias: We – often – want things to have an essence. It might be comforting, for example. Therefore, this is all considered when thinking about whether essences can truly exist or not.

(9) And there are those who say: “Good is objective.” [...]

(1) What do people mean when they say: “Good is objective.”? They mean that the world itself holds such a judgement, independent of minds. If love is good, then love is good even if no minds were to exist in the world. It would be like a fact of things, written into the fabric of the world itself. This I have questioned here. (2) There are those who say: “The mind creates good.” And there are those who say: “The mind discovers good.” The latter is like a sense for the good – we can sense correctly or incorrectly whether something is good or not. But this I have questioned and find myself believing the first statement, more. (3) Given the idea of evolution, it might be reasonable to say that the mind has evolved values that helped it survive. But these values are nowhere to be found except for in the mind. (4) The example of a spider’s ethics has been brought up: A spider may eat her mate. We wouldn’t. Therefore, the ethics of the spider is strongly different from ours. If “to eat one’s mate” were either right or wrong, then how comes that different species have different truths? Maybe it is that the rule is: “It is wrong to eat your mate if you are human, but it is right to eat your mate if you are a spider.”? This, however, sounds more confusing than the alternative: ethics is subjective. (5) It might also be that the spider is wrong in doing so and that we have evolved to see the truth. But, given that the spider might not survive without eating her mate, can it be said that it is really wrong from her perspective? And why place such importance and superiority on us humans? (6) Again, the word “hallucinate” comes up. This means “to see what isn’t objectively there” and isn’t good nor bad.

(10) Furthermore, there are those who say: “All should become one unity.” [...]

(1) What do people mean when they say: “All should become one unity.”? They mean: “We should all hold the same views, values and ways of thinking.” (2) It is criticised here that views and values are imposed on others. Amongst the reasons are that homogeneity in thought can lead to stagnation and lack of diversification to manage things in the most suitable ways. Of course, if there were no common ground, a society could not exist. This, too, has to be considered and is seen as a risk.

(11) Thus, I have realised my mind becoming more and more displeased with this line of thinking. What is this kind of thinking? [...]

(1) Here, I show which kind of thinking I have become displeased with. This does not mean that it couldn’t be true, good or beautiful. But it means that it doesn’t satisfy. Alternatives have to be explored and things have to be questioned.

[3] The Midst of Night: Suffering

(2) “All is suffering.”

(1) This statement is probably the one that can benefit from most exposition and elaboration and is very central to this way of seeing things. (2) Clearly, this echoes Buddhist thought very directly – that is clear. (3) What do I mean with “All is suffering.”? What is “all”? What is “suffering”? (4) “All” means: Every human mind will, in every moment of existence, have the potential to experience suffering. Just like a figure of wood will have the potential to burn at any moment, if a fire is added to it, so the mind has the potential to experience suffering at any moment, if the right conditions are present. (5) “Suffering” means: Any state of mind that is displeasing, disliked, not “good”. Suffering is the opposite of happiness. Suffering is any such state such as: injury, pain, illness, hunger, thirst, (possibly) weakness, sadness, anger, fear, boredom, hopelessness, discomfort, agitation, turmoil, stress, longing, frustration etc. Suffering needn’t be profound pain from physical injury, from mental trauma or such. Even just the discomfort of having to breathe, can, at the most subtle level, be suffering. (6) Thus, “All is suffering.” means: “In every moment, a human mind has the potential to experience discomfort and dislikable, undesirable states of mind.” In a sort of similar way, we can even say something like: “Any moment could be undesirable.”, or even more trivially: “Any moment could be imperfect.” Since the presence of even a drop of suffering in an ocean of happiness is, technically, suffering. (7) Some may feel that this invalidates profound suffering. While most people don’t have an issue with an itch or slight discomfort, they’re concerned with profound suffering from illness, injury or trauma. This is very true and important to distinguish. Thus, while it doesn’t make the statement “all is suffering” untrue, it is important to think about. It can be too vague if we don’t remember that the statement aims at warning us of profound suffering even in happy moments. (8) Another way of thinking about suffering is this: If it is suffering, we wouldn’t want to be united with it for eternity. Anything we couldn’t endure for eternity, is suffering. For example, we may have a very subtle itch. This, we can endure for minutes if not hours. But after days of living with it, we start to be very dissatisfied. An eternity? We’d be completely unhappy. (9) Can we not also say that “everything is happiness”? Yes, we could say that. But the reasons for “pessimism” and such attitudes should be explained another time.

(3) Now, immediately, I thought of it as hyperbole, exaggeration or of such kind. Then I listened to their arguments, [...]

(1) This is usually what happens when we hear “all is suffering”: We think of it as hyperbole or something untrue. Therefore, it is important to carefully explain and elaborate on this statement. (2) Here, the methods of inquiry are partially listed: listening, observing and training. Here, “observing” can also be “meditation”. But it can also mean “analysis” and “contemplation”. “Training” is, likewise, “meditation” and such means of doing things with the mind. (3) This should also illustrate the importance of questioning and testing things for oneself.

(5) But this is only one of the beliefs I have learnt. Now, whence does this suffering come from, or what is the reason for it?

(1) The expression: “this is only one of the beliefs” occurs several times and is meant to show that the entire ways of seeing things is more extensive than just one or two statements. (2) The question is asked, what the cause for this suffering is. Without knowing the cause, can we really hope to solve something? Therefore, this is the part of the analysis of suffering that should try to explain how suffering works.

(6) Imagine hunger or thirst: While the mind desires nutrition, it does not have it. This is suffering. [...]

(1) This can be said to work with any desire: If we have a desire and that desire is unfulfilled, we suffer. (2) There are four possible permutations on desire and fulfilment here: First, desire and fulfilment. Second, desire and non-fulfilment. Third, non-desire and fulfilment. Fourth, non-desire and non-fulfilment. The second and third cause suffering, the first and fourth cause happiness. The pattern is: If desire and fulfilment match, there is happiness; if they do not match, there is suffering.

(7) Thus, suffering corresponds to a desire that is mismatched.

(1) This is a central claim and results from the previous analysis under 3:6. (2) We also have to think about the following: What about pain from injury? Is there a desire involved? To this, I say: The “desire” here, clearly, is not of the same kind as a mental motivation. But it is – if only figuratively – a desire of our biology, of our body-mind. If our body-mind were made to “desire” harm, there would be happiness when we get injured (maybe hardwired into our genetics). (3) Is this way of seeing things helpful, if it sounds very trivial and very general? This is a valid concern. To this I have to say: Maybe it is not impeccable, but helpful insofar as it shows us that desires seem to correspond to suffering and happiness alike; and if we want to attain happiness, we need to examine (at least) our desires. This is the provisional claim.

(8) But let us also think of this: Suppose I desire nutrition. It takes work, effort, energy to attain this nutrition one way or another. [...]

(1) This is the second idea pertaining to the way suffering works: Work is suffering. It is not pleasurable or desirable to exert oneself. (A gymnast may feel great joy in working out, but my claim is that the prospect of fitness or the doing of something interesting and meaningful can create excess happiness that overcomes suffering. But if they could have the same happiness without exerting themselves, maybe they would.) (2) Maybe this kind of suffering is also included somehow in the first “rule”. Maybe it is that work creates displeasure, which we don’t want because we desire the opposite somehow.

(9) Therefore, to desire means to require to work, which is suffering – thus, desire brings with it suffering, regardless.

(1) It is not pleasurable to exert oneself, as previously mentioned (B:3:8:1). Thus, this creates a kind of prison for ourselves: If we don’t do, we will suffer (due to e.g. hunger), and if we do, we suffer (due to exertion). (2) What is the chain of desires, here? Maybe it is that we don’t want to use up energy due to it jeopardising our well-being, and this in turn is desired because we want to live. Now, why do we want to live and is this also a secondary desire based on a more fundamental desire? This, I do not know, yet. Maybe this is the fundamental, original, first desire – to exist. (Which may not be the same as “to live”. For example, to exist as a memory seems pleasurable, too, yet we wouldn’t “live” in the normal sense anymore.)

(10) Now, let us think of another situation: Suppose I desire nutrition, [...]

(1) This shows that two conflicting desires can also lead to suffering. Why is this so? This is because not both of them can be fulfilled. And an unfulfilled desire causes suffering, as we’ve mentioned previously (B:3:6:1). (2) How can it be that we have two opposing desires? This seems like a paradox. It’d be as if we had two minds within us. This, I believe, is yet not properly understood, but is could be that we have lists of desires that we enact in every moment.

(11) Now, yet another issue is discussed: Suppose that you and I both desire the same thing. Both cannot have it, only one. [...]

(1) This is a conflict. It means that something that should be, isn’t (or cannot be). Conflicts can lead to fights. What is a fight? A fight is when two or more parties work against each other in means by mind and/or body. (2) Fights can harm. What is harm? Harm is when an effect causes something to be less well-off than it would’ve been otherwise. (This definition was borrowed from others, and it seems to work.) (3) Becoming less well-off causes suffering (unless it might be unconscious). Therefore, conflict leads to fight, fight leads to harm, harm leads to suffering. This means that conflicts lead to suffering (often). (4) Here, I explained it through empathy: Because you suffer, and I have empathy, I suffer. But, as we have seen, suffering can also arise in me because conflicts can lead to fights which require exertion and/or cause harm. (5) But suppose there is no fight, only peaceful agreement: One of us will be harmed, i.e. be less well-off, because not both can be fulfilled in their desires and/or needs. Therefore, conflict causes suffering regardless, because two competing desires cannot both be fulfilled.

(13) To desire this but not have this, is suffering. (And this is one of the manifestations.)

(1) Here, I summarise in plain form the view of suffering: desire without fulfilment is suffering. (2) What does the expression in parentheses mean? It means that there are also other ways in which suffering can emerge, as we’ve discussed. But the way mentioned here is the probably most intuitive one.

(14) Without desire, can there be suffering?

(1) This sudden question seems out of place. It came to me as I was thinking of the previous statement, but didn’t think it’d be the right moment to go into details, there. (2) Some (e.g. Buddhists, some psychologists) may say that suffering is defined as a mental anguish, whereas pain is the physical and/or emotional displeasure. Suffering can be overcome by not desiring, but pain cannot. Even so, as I have put forth, maybe there are subconscious or even physical “desires” that produce the suffering that we call “pain” (B:3:7:2). While it is currently not an idea developed to satisfaction, it has been presented and might become more developed at a later point. (That is: the union of suffering and pain.)

(15) Thus, I have learnt and pondered over this belief of suffering. And since our very existence is a chain of desires [...]

(1) The claim here is the following: “Our existence is a chain of desires.” This means that one desire follows the next, beginning when we begin. (2) Is this so? Clearly, there doesn’t seem to be any moment where we don’t “desire” something. Maybe there is even a fundamental force within us, which we call life, and which is really just “the desire for living” – a force that makes us breathe and maybe even think. Maybe everything serves living? (3) I’ve also asked whether we could do anything if there were no desires. This is the belief: “In order to do, we need desire.” Or: “Doing comes from desire.” (4) If desire is a fundamental force, the motivation for things, then yes, without this force, there is no action, no doing, nothing happens. (5) Since we have more conscious desires, such as “I want to make a cup of tea.”, but other things within us occur (e.g. the heartbeat), and we can at least speculate that conscious thought and physical processes might be a continuum or gradient, the following follows: In the conscious mind, “desire” manifests as a want the way we can feel before taking action. In the body, “desire” manifests as the mechanism by which things are animate. (6) But, since some people say that mind and body are a continuum, does this mean that “desire”, broken down, is essentially also what we find in atoms? Is “desire” just a complex version of this “desire” of things like atoms, that is, the force that makes things do something? This, I leave for another analysis. (7) Here, I also say that “our very existence is immersed in suffering”. As with other expressions, it sounds a bit sad. But this is good. It motivates us to find solutions. (8) I’ve equated – or correlated – “desire” with “suffering”, and “existence” with “desire”. Therefore, it logically follows that “existence” and “suffering” also correlate in this way. (9) In this passage I also say that “suffering needn’t be great to be called that, suffering”. This echoes what we have elaborated on under B:3:2:5. That is, suffering not being only profound pain or distress, but also slight and subtle discomfort or annoyance.

[4] The Midst of Night: Wish

(2) “The source of suffering are wishes.”

(1) This is another statement that at first, is easy to misunderstand. Someone may say that there is suffering without wishes, such as when we suffer injury. Or someone may be confused about what constitutes as a wish. The former has been discussed before (B:3:2:5), the latter will be explained in the subsequent sections. (2) Since we have previously claimed that desire causes suffering, and now we say that it is wishes, we need to explain what we mean by this. This will be done in the next few passages. (3) Are those the only sources? In one way, maybe yes – if “wishes” are also the genetic consequences which create our pain etc. (Which might be more figurative than literal.) In another way, maybe no – if “wishes” are only mental, conscious and maybe volitional.

(4) Wishes can be both positive and negative. The positive wish is a desire, the negative wish is an aversion.

(1) Here, I defined “wish”. Because the word “wish” is used in a unique way, this definition is necessary. (2) “Positive” and “negative” needn’t mean “good” and “bad”. They merely denote two opposites. (3) Therefore, every wish, every kind of wanting, has either a forward or backward motivation. Either it makes us want to go towards the thing we wish for (e.g. we desire happiness), or it makes us want to go away from the thing we negatively wish for (e.g. we are averse to suffering). The positive we want to be with or be, the negative we don’t want to be with or be.

(5) If I feel an itch – which is a type of suffering –, this means that there is something that shouldn’t be this way. [...]

(1) Again, here we need to make sure that we understand that “suffering” needn’t be profound suffering like from injury or trauma. It can be anything displeasing to the mind, anything we don’t want. (2) That this “shouldn’t” be this way implies a value judgement by an authority. And what makes this judgement? This, I believe, is an inner voice – maybe the subconsciousness. (3) We may ask: Do we have the ability to follow our own authority? Or is all ethics based on the authority of our inner voices? This might also blur the line between “us” and the “subconscious mind” and even “body”. (4) Again, here it becomes more visible how the notion of a conscious, mental wish – as we usually use this word – and a wish in the sense of an instinctive, deep, biological mechanism, gets blurred. (5) This is also a clear mismatch of reality and desire: reality has an itch; desire wants no itch. We have previously shown how this is suffering (B:3:6:1). Maybe we can say: “If our desires don’t match reality, we suffer.” (6) While we may change some external things, much of it is beyond our control. (As others have said before.) Therefore, it might be easier to match reality by changing ourselves, than to change reality.

(6) Let us say that we were made to want itches. Then, this voice would sound: “I want this to be so.” [...]

(1) Here, my claim is this: If our genetics were such that itches were good, then our body-mind would be constituted in such a way that itches would lead to an inner voice saying: “This should be so.” This would lead to happiness. (2) The correlation of wishes/wants and suffering is also important in the sense that it seems that the wishes of our biology might be what drive us, and there is the question if “we” even have wishes to begin with. (3) Maybe “our” wishes are to gain happiness, and our “biology” wishes to exist? Or maybe there is no difference between us and our biology.

(8) Wanting this, but not having this, is suffering.

(1) This repeats the view and belief formulated previously. It is the probably most intuitive version of the wish mismatch. Others will follow. This has been the positive formulation.

(9) Wanting not this, but having this, is suffering.

(1) This should better be formulated as: “Non-wanting this, (...)”. That is, to positively not want, to be averse to something, to dis-want. (2) This is the second formulation, the negative one. (3) The others are as follows: We can think of the following four permutations, which we have previously formulated here (B:3:6:2), and again in the way of using “wishes” instead. “Desire A and not have A is suffering.”, “Desire A and have A is happiness.”, “Aversion to A and not have A is happiness.” and “Aversion to A and have A is suffering.” (4) If we desire A but have B instead, the suffering may not arise from having B, but from not having A. (5) Some may say: “To non-desire A and not have A may only be indifference, not happiness.” Maybe this is right.

(10) These are the positive and negative wishes. Not fulfilling them leads to suffering.

(1) Again, “positive” doesn’t mean “good” and “negative” doesn’t mean “bad”. They are merely two opposites. (2) To fulfil an aversion might lead us to formulate the aversion in a different way: “I desire to not have A.” Instead of “I non-desire to have A.” Which works, too. This way, every wish can be formulated as a positive desire. Subjectively, however, this feels different.

(11) And what are we if not a collection of wishes? Let us say I write. Why do I write? Because I wish to write. [...]

(1) Of course, we are more than just wishes. We are also a history, a body, a will and so on. Or at least, that would be another way of looking at ourselves. (2) But there are those who say: “We are what we do.” And if our doing stems from wishes, then are we not our wishes? (3) If we didn’t do anything, could we be anything (meaningful)? From a biological perspective, we are a process. A process is doing. Thus, we are doing. Therefore, we might be our wishes. (4) Is there something behind wishes? Maybe the patterns of our biological constitution and forces? Are we thus those?

(12) What are we if we didn’t do anything?

(1) As previously mentioned, this is a question that leads to other big questions, such as: “What is doing?” (2) If doing is the effect of an agent, and we are an agent, then we might ask: “What resulted in this effect?” (3) With “doing” I mean: Any activity of body and/or mind, be it as tiny as drawing breath or blinking, or having a thought or a memory. That is, anything we decide and therefore occurs (within our body-mind).

[5] The Midst of Night: Struggle

(2) “All is struggle.”

(1) Some of this will be explained later on in the text. But we can also try to quickly define what we mean by this, here. (2) “All” means: Every doing of ours, every action or maybe process of our body-mind. (3) “Struggle” means: A doing or action which is accompanied by difficulties, discomfort, suffering, exertion, etc. (4) Therefore, this means: “Every doing of ours is accompanied by suffering and exertion etc.” (5) It also means that everything we do is work, is tiring and can even be exhausting. (6) Clearly, this is a very general claim and it also carries a sad tone with it. But in later passages, it will be explained and elaborated on.

(3) At first, I did not understand what this meant. But then I have listened, observed and learnt, and now can say this:

(1) This sequence of actions is the same as previously explained upon (B:3:3:2).

(5) Why is this so? What is struggle? Struggle is when discomfort has to be endured in action. [...]

(1) There is the definition of “struggle”. This definition has also been given here in even greater detail (B:5:2:3).

(7) We say this because whilst not every moment is filled with things such as hard physical labour, nonetheless, [...]

(1) Here, it is important to notice the difference between volitional, conscious actions and mechanisms and processes of the body-mind beyond our control, such as the heartbeat. (2) This is not entirely satisfactory, but it is meant to show that life is fundamentally hard work, and such things as sleep are very welcome. Maybe it can feel overly pessimistic, but that is also the goal, here.

[6] The Midst of Night: Conflict

(2) “All is conflict.”

(1) This is yet another of the big statements that can lead to confusion if not explained properly. Some of it is explained in the text, later, but we will still define it properly here. (2) “All” means: “In potentially every phenomenon in this world, or at least in thought and wishes within us, or between us and the external world, and such things.” (3) “Conflict” means: “Something should be A but is not A.” That is, there is a mismatch between ought and is. For example: The rule is that things should be this or that way, but in reality, things are another way. Similarly, if there are two contradictory or irreconcilable things – such as statements –, there is conflict. (4) This does not mean that everything is opposed to each other, or that everything is irreconcilable, or that there are no solutions. It means that within the world is a kind of “law” that makes us observe the recurring clashing of two or more things. (Technically, even two atoms can be in conflict, but we shall not get into this, now.)

(3) This, I found difficult to understand at first. But through listening, observing and learning, I can now say this:

(1) Again, here we repeat the actions as explained here (B:3:3:2).

(5) What is conflict? Conflict is when something should be a certain way, but isn’t or cannot be that certain way.

(1) Here I give a definition of “conflict”. It is a mismatch between ought and is. (2) Technically, it is only a conflict when something isn’t a certain way. If it merely cannot be a certain way, this doesn’t yet say that it isn’t a certain way. Although this is up for discussion.

(6) For instance, let us say that you and I both want a shirt. Only one of us can wear it. [...]

(1) This passage explores the definition using an example.

(9) I want this.

(1) In this and the next two passages (6:10 and 6:11), the following is illustrated: “I want this, you want this, we fight over this.” (2) This means: We both want A. Only one can have A. This is a mismatch and a conflict. And conflicts (can) lead to fighting. Fighting is defined here (B:3:11:1).

(12) Alternatively:

(1) The next three passages (6:13, 6:14 and 6:15) illustrate the following: “I want this, you don’t want this, we fight over whether to have this, together, or not.” (2) This means: We are a unit, e.g. a group, team, family, friends. We need to decide on whether to have A or not have A. I want A. You don’t want A. This creates a mismatch, a conflict, and again, can lead to fighting, as previously explained.

(16) And even within ourselves, there is always conflict: A decision is when there are two or more options, [...]

(1) “There is always conflict” can be understood as hyperbole and exaggeration. But the claim is still rather radical. (2) We define a decision as something where one is sacrificed for another (roughly). (3) We say that we are doing. But what doing? We are – maybe – thinking. And what is thinking? Largely, it might be making decisions. Therefore, a large part of us is making decisions. (4) Therefore, a large part of us is constantly making sacrifices in mind, letting go of something, losing something in potential. (5) Where are examples in which nothing is lost? In theory, there could be a decision that is trivial: Between A and B, A has value 100 out of 100, and B has value 0 out of 100. Therefore, A is the clear choice and nothing is lost by choosing A. (6) But wouldn’t such a decision mean that B is perfectly bad? I.e. there is nothing that could be gained from it, not even a drop of happiness in an ocean of suffering? Can something like this even exist in reality? (7) Therefore, maybe really every decision results in us losing something. (8) Furthermore, there can be decisions that right now may not lead to loss, but further down the line have prevented us from something good. For example, at night, I may not suffer from not opening a window, but in the morning, had I opened the window, maybe fresh, warm sunlight would enter my room?

(17) For instance, I could be lying in bed and desiring a cup of tea. Neither option (i.e. remaining in bed or getting a cup of tea) [...]

(1) An importance sentence here is: “Maybe this can be even more fundamental than that (...)”. This means: In my inquiry, I have not yet come to a ground where it is logically impossible for conflict not to be even more fundamental than this. Maybe there is some way of viewing things where conflict is so fundamental that even those examples are just secondary?

(18) Every doing, we might argue, is a decision. If we say that “I do this because I chose not to not do this.”, [...]

(1) The claim is not final, but still, is: “Every doing is a decision.” This is difficult to gain certainty over, but is a possibility. (2) A doing has been defined here (B:4:12:3). (3) If every doing is a decision, then we could also not have done it. (4) If, of course, something is a doing but without a decision, then it couldn’t have been prevented, as there is no alternative to the doing. For example, if I raise my arm, every moment of it must be a decision, or I couldn’t interrupt this process at any moment. (5) Thus, maybe, every doing is a decision, as I have claimed. (6) This thought needn’t necessarily be conscious, but can be a subconscious mechanism that evaluates between two possible options. (7) Is this still a decision, if we’re not conscious of it? Maybe it is a decision, but not “ours”?

(19) I therefore come to believe that “all is conflict”.

(1) The former analysis has led to this insight, or belief, that “all is conflict” under these definitions. (2) Of course, first there is a bit of a hyperbole, then a new definition of “conflict”, so it may not be as “satisfying” as saying “Yes, everything in the world is intrinsically full of conflict and fighting.” (3) But, what this means, is: “At least within us, there is constantly the law of conflict at work, i.e. we can never have everything but must give up, let go and lose some things.” (4) For extremely small decisions, this is hardly a problem for us. E.g. I may not feel great distress over not being able to both lie in bed and make a cup of tea. But even a droplet is still water.

[7] The Second Half of the Night

(...)

[8] The Dark Night: Value

(2) “It is objectively wrong to harm someone.”

(1) What do people mean when they say this? They mean: “There is no way of seeing ‘harming someone’ in a good light.” Or “’To harm someone’ is definitively written as a wrong in the fabric of the world itself, like how our genetic material defines us.” Or any such ways of saying things.

(3) But then we point to harm in self-defence, or to eat, and we ponder: “Why did they say this?”

(1) If it were wrong to harm someone, but it is right to harm someone in self-defence or to eat an animal or plant, then this is a contradiction. It cannot both be right and wrong to harm someone and still be only one of either (“right” or “wrong”). (2) Therefore, it seems sensible to think of such things as relative values. Something can be right or wrong, but needn’t always be right or wrong.

(4) And if it were objectively so, this means: A thing exists, independent of minds. But something like values, [...]

(1) Here, I first give a brief definition of what is meant by “objectively”. I say that a thing is objective if it is so, independent of any mind. (2) I claim that values are “matters of mind”. This means: Just like motivations, feelings or views, a value is a mind-thing. It exists in the mind, is made by the mind and serves the mind. (3) Of course, I didn’t give enough explanation or justification for why I believe that values are mind-things. Firstly, we cannot find value anywhere, except for within our minds. Secondly, it distinctly feels like something mental, much like motivation or view. Or should we begin to ask for justification as to why “motivation” isn’t maybe objective? Thirdly, different minds see different value in the same thing, implying subjectivity. Fourthly, other types of related phenomena, e.g. aesthetic values, seem to be very clearly mind-things. By similarity, we can argue that ethical values, too, are mind-things. (4) Furthermore, “assume little” is a kind of maxim that some deploy. I, too, assume this and therefore will not make values something objective if they could be subjective. It is the less risky approach. (5) What do I mean with “risky”? With “risky” I mean: Things tend to work with less inventions (i.e. “Occam’s razor”). (6) Also, if values are objective, then everyone disagreeing with them is absolutely wrong. We can hardly imagine a worse kind of tyranny and oppression than the one that makes claims to objective ethics (as history has shown, too). Through it, only destruction lay in its wake. This is also meant by “risky”. (7) If we mean by “objective” that it is independent of a mind, what about if no minds were to exist? Would e.g. values still have any meaning in a world without minds to perceive them?

(7) “But my deity tells me that it is so. Thus, it is objective.”

(1) Firstly, I didn’t love to include this. It feels like a detail that isn’t necessarily all too important in the greater scheme of things. But, I felt that it still was of weight since many will say “My deity tells me so.” as a counter-argument. This also applies to teachers of mortal origin, not just spiritual beings. Whenever something with a mind says something, that is subjective. The being is a subject. (2) Does this mean that beings cannot utter objective claims? No. We might be able to say things that are objectively true. But the source and ground cannot be the being itself. It must lie outside of a being. (3) Can a deity’s claims be binding and absolute? I believe they cannot be absolute, as they are subjective. But they could be binding. The question is: “Why should I follow this deity’s claims?”

(8) And there I told them: “Your deity is a subject. If a subject says this or that, then this or that is subjective, not objective.”

(1) Here, I argue that whatever a deity is the ground of, is subjective. Because the deity is a subject, anything that we ground in this deity, is subjective – by definition. (2) There is, however, an error in expression: I am not sure whether anything a subject says is subjective. Maybe it is. But the grounding in those things is subjective.

(10) “Life is intrinsically meaningful.”

(1) What does it mean for something to be meaningful? This translates to: “being full of meaning”. Maybe it means that a mind can perceive some quality in it that provokes a mental state. Maybe it means that there is a mental or mind-related quality in that thing. Or maybe it means that that thing stands for or is related to something else (i.e. similar to a sign). It can also mean “to be important (to something)”. This also relates to “value”. (2) In some sense of the word, we have to ask ourselves: “Does life have to stand for something else?” That is, is it instrumental? (3) In other senses of the word, the question becomes: “If life has no meaning, what has?” Life might be like the container within which everything exists (subjectively). (4) The difficulty arises in the word “intrinsically”: This means that it is written into the fabric of the world, into life, that it has this or that meaning. But we have already claimed that values are subjective, mental things. Therefore, life cannot have meaning intrinsically, only by interpretation. (5) “Meaning” itself might be exactly that: something that is added by a mind in the process of interpretation. Therefore, it is mind-dependent, subjective, a mind-thing. (6) Furthermore, we can argue that “life” is a mental construct and doesn’t exist objectively and “really”.

(11) To which I have responded: “If a tree lay on the road, some will see this as a meaningful thing, others as chance. Is it not so also with life?”

(1) This example is meant to illustrate the following: Things are. Minds perceive them. Some minds will add meaning to those things. Others won’t. Therefore, what is meaningful to some is not meaningful to others. Thus, meaning is created, not discovered. (2) Furthermore, it seems that we can add meaning and related things to the world that are clearly subjective. For example, I may say that this or that object is “sacred”. Thus, by similarity, we can infer that meaning should, likely, also be subjective. It would be strange for the mind’s faculty of creating subjective things to also be a receptor for discovering objective things – it should be either a creative faculty or a sense faculty, not both.

(12) To a mind, things appear. These things may not have any meaning. [...]

(1) Here, I explain the process of attributing meaning to things, as I have done here (B:8:11:1). (2) First, something appears to us, e.g. a tree. Then, we identify this. Then, we analyse this and compare to other remembered things. This results in attribution of meaning etc.

(14) “The mind creates value where there is none.”

(1) This is another view, belief or insight. It is supposed to show that things such as values (of which “meaning” should be one) are mind-dependent, mind-created and ultimately, mind-things. (2) To some, this is a problem, to others, it is comforting.

(15) Thus, I have come to disenchant the world from this illusion and cure myself from hallucination. There are no external values.

(1) What is meant with “disenchant”, with “illusion”, with “cure” and with “hallucination”? This is what is meant by those words: (2) “Disenchant” means: “To remove enchantment.” What is “enchantment”? “Enchantment” means: “A kind of effect on the mind that makes it see things that aren’t there, and no see things that are there.” (3) “Illusion” means: “Something that makes us see things not the way things really are.” (4) “Cure” means: “To remove something harmful.” Here, what is removed is seeing things that aren’t there, and not seeing things that are there. (5) “Hallucination” means: “To see something that isn’t there.” and isn’t meant in a way that supposes it to be good or bad. (6) What this says, is: “I have removed the views that show things that aren’t there, and I have added the views that show things that are there.” (7) The belief and view “there are no external values” is reiterated in this form. Values are something in the mind, not out there. The mind does not sense them, but creates them.

[9] The Dark Night: Truth

(2) “There are absolute truths.”

(1) What does “absolute” mean? “Absolute” has been explained here (B:2:3:1). (2) What does “truth” mean? “Truth” has been explained here (B:2:2:1). (3) This statement means: “There exists at least one such statement that is completely independent of anything, is always true, is context-independent and objective, and corresponds to what it claims to correspond to.”

(4) Suppose I was to tell someone: “There is a large disc in the sky that glows. I call it the sun.” [...]

(1) This is an example that should illustrate the following: We make claims, say things, create statements. These are provisional. New knowledge might invalidate them. What to some was a disc at one point turns out to be a sphere later. There may be some approximate truth in it, but refinements still mean that the statement was not completely true before, if it had to get refined. (2) It also shows that naming is, in and of itself, not truth-apt. What we name something cannot be true or false. (Although this can get complicated, too.)

(5) Thus, in all that others have shown me, it would seem that our descriptions are only approximations, and sometimes faulty ones at that. [...]

(1) The problem is twofold: First, so far, all kinds of truths have been shown to be faulty and get revised. Second, what if this is somehow a logical necessity? I.e. what if nothing can, for one or the other reason, be absolutely true? The latter is just a weak hypothesis, but still worth thinking about. (2) “all that others have shown me” means what I have learnt from the sciences and so on, whether through a teacher directly or otherwise.

(6) Furthermore, consider this: Someone says to me that “1 + 1 = 2 is true” and argues that this is an absolute truth. [...]

(1) We have previously defined what an absolute truth is (B:9:2:1 - 2). (2) Because that statement depends on axioms and rules etc., it is dependent on something. Therefore, it is not absolute. (3) Are axioms true? Are they absolutely true? Maybe they are dependent on something, e.g. the authority of the person who comes up with them, or the inner voice that says: “This is true.”? (4) If therefore every truth depends on some axioms, aside from axioms, there is no absolute truth. (This is the hypothesis.)

(7) If thus, in external things (e.g. astronomy) our senses are imperfect and we might not fully capture the truth, [...]

(1) There are a few claims here: “Our senses are imperfect.”, “Because our senses are imperfect, we cannot fully see truth.” and “External things might also depend on axioms.” (2) First, I believe that most will agree with the first statement. (3) Second, while we have means by which we can help our senses (e.g. logic, instruments, ...), this remains a concern. The mind is imperfect. Therefore, anything coming from the mind could be faulty, e.g. our instruments, our logic, methodology, etc. (4) Third, external things might firstly be dependent on a complicated chain of definitions and ontology (e.g. “The sun exists.” relies on “sun” and “existence”, for example.). And secondly also on axioms (e.g. “Things can exist.”). (5) This passage does not necessarily prove that everything is relative in truths. But it hypothesises that things might be relative and shows why. There are epistemological worries in it which also relate to very strong scepticism.

(8) Furthermore, there are those who show us that certain truths are relative even in the external world. [...]

(1) What does this mean? This means: From some scientists, physicists etc., I have learnt that for example space-time is relative and there are effects in the quantum world that behave relatively. Therefore, even in our sciences we play with the idea of relativity.

(9) I have thus come to disenchant the world from this illusion and cure myself from hallucination. [...]

(1) This passage repeats the same formula from earlier (B:8:15). (2) This statement, “there are no absolute truths”, is not to be understood as being too strong. For example, there may be absolute truths, but those might be reserved for special cases such as axioms or meta-statements. For the sake of simplicity, the statement was phrased in such ways that it – truly – is false, if we want to be precise. (3) That, however, was also amended by the expression in parentheses. (4) While not perfectly satisfactory, the idea behind it is of importance: Things may in themselves be relative. Relative to perspective, context, system and so on. And it would be very difficult to figure out and prove what is absolute and not relative.

[10] The Dark Night: Relationality

(2) “I am myself.”

(1) This reminds us of the law of identity, “A = A”. However, it is to be understood as: “I am my own Self, an absolute, essential I.” (2) This is a very intuitive idea and belief, but one which doesn’t come with its own problems, as we will discuss later.

(4) Now, they will list things such as mind, body, and such other things like their role or function. [...]

(1) Here, I mixed two ideas in one passage. (2) One idea is: It would appear that even if we were to exchange most of the things in us, there is still something we can say is “us”. We are not the individual atoms, we are not our roles, we are not the individual thoughts. Therefore, what are we? (3) The other idea is: It would appear that eating a fish, we do not become the fish. Why is this so? This is because the individual parts, atoms etc., that constitute the fish are not “fish”. There is no fish-atom that, if absorbed, will make us part fish. (4) This is an intriguing paradox: How can we be human if we’re composed of non-human? (5) Also, I mention here that we are the relations between these things. Why is this so? This is because – as previously seen – it is not in the things themselves that make us what we are, but in their arrangement. (Although, if we exchanged every atom of this type to that type, we’d not be human, either.) Maybe we can say that it is the interplay of the things with other things that make us what we are.

(5) For the role it is clear that this is a matter of mind: [...]

(1) There is a claim here: “Roles are mental things and not in the external world.” (2) Now, again, if someone walks around commanding others, claiming to be their king or queen, but nobody obeys and follows, is that person really royalty? It shows that roles and such are mental constructions.

(6) And so, I say: “We might be the relations between the parts we’re made from, and those relations are matters of the mind.”

(1) This is the conclusion from the previous thoughts. The claim is as follows. (2) “We might relations.” and “Relations are mental.” Therefore: “We are mental.” (3) It is more difficult to doubt the second statement than the first. Of course we wouldn’t be the way we are without some matter, some atoms and so on. But, because these can be exchanged (e.g. we constantly exchange atoms with the world), but relations not (or less), such relations are to be thought of as our “being”. (4) What if relations are neither just created by the mind nor somehow of substance and essence? Then we might be that. Maybe some kind of metaphysical “pattern” or “law”. (5) Even if we may be more than just a thought, subjectively, this seems to be what we mostly are – “thoughts”.

(7) Which then creates the belief: “We are matters of the mind.”

(1) Here I reach the conclusion from the previous passages, as already explained here (B:10:6:2). (2) This is a way of showing that both subjectively/phenomenologically and in analysis, we appear to be (mostly) “thoughts”. (3) What does this imply? Clearly it would be dangerous to say that we are less important or valuable because of this. What it can show, however, is that the mind is central to perceiving and dealing with any thing such as ourselves. And it might place more importance on the mind and its functionalities.

[11] The Dark Night: Relativity

(3) To which someone else might say: “No, this tree is short.” And they might both be right.

(1) This and the previous passage show how relative statements work. Insofar as we’re dealing with relative qualities, a statement will become relative. This seems obvious.

(4) For there are those things of relativity, where something is a certain way because [...]

(1) That first example was about the relativity coming from comparison. For example, if we have a 10m tall tree in mind, a 2m tall tree might appear short. And if we have a 2m tall tree in mind, a 10m tall tree will appear tall. But this second example shows a different kind of relativity: Relativity stemming from our own biology. (2) This means: Because of how we are, the world appears differently. But which perspective is the right one? (3) Furthermore, if reality appears to beings relative to their biology, what can be said is the “true” reality? Can reality even be without beings to appreciate it?

(5) Like this, we can explore many examples and find how strongly our perspective will shape what is true.

(1) What I say here is that, if we engage in more such experiments, we will find how reality can be often strongly shaped by our perception and perspective.

(6) To some, this is good and that is bad. But to others, this is bad and that is good. [...]

(1) Here I show the relativity of ethics and of values. (2) I also hypothesise that physical things themselves might have a relative character, more than we’ve already figured out. If that were the case, then even the world’s foundation would be relative. (3) I also say that things affect one another. If I walk and you push me, which parts of my state and of my distance covered was my doing and which was your doing? In this interaction, I got affected. Thus, parts of how I am is relative to, and dependent on, you. While this might not be the strongest point, it is still worth thinking about. (4) That is, we can think of an atom that is calculated in its position, velocity etc. by removing foreign influences. Where would it be if we traced those influences back to the beginning of the universe? Did it ever “do” or “be” out of its own, inner characteristics?

(7) This thus creates the belief: “(Almost) everything is relative.”

(1) Based on the previous contemplation, this belief is formed. (2) While it is maybe a bit weak due to its inclusion of “almost”, it is worth pondering, because it could be more fundamental and it also shows us how strongly our perspective and position in the world can shape reality.

[12] The Dark Night: Void

(2) “This is myself.”

(1) This might be better written as: “This is my Self.” (2) What is the Self? The Self is that which we are, the I in a statement using “I”.

(3) And I respond: “Where is yourself?” And they point to their body and say: “This.”

(1) Again, this might be better written as “Where is your Self?” or “Where are you?”.

(4) But clearly, that is not them, but a part of them – maybe their chest. [...]

(1) They cannot be the part because the Self is larger than just a part. This is one reason.

(5) And I respond: “How can a combination of this and that produce something else? [...]”

(1) This is an issue that can be difficult to formulate well. (2) Some might point to a wall and say: “This is a wall.” by pointing out that the 100 bricks of the wall create the wall, once in this particular arrangement. (3) But we might have this wall fall down on the horizontal and ask: “Is this a wall or a floor?” Therefore, the arrangement alone isn’t the identity of a thing. (4) Others say that it is the function: If it serves as a wall, it is a wall. But then I could say that I’m whatever people use me for. Is this true? Furthermore, a function is mental, therefore, the identity would be mental or at least mind-dependent. (5) What about the context? If there is something valuable to gate off, maybe this makes a pile of bricks a wall? So, it is dependent on other things and/or on mental constructs? (6) Or what about its history? Did it have to be assembled by a wall-maker to be a wall? But what if a wall-maker makes a wall and I use it as a floor? This doesn’t seem to be a stable identity. (7) And, what about what the mind labels it as? If I see it and say: “This is a wall.”, does this make it a wall? (8) Others might say things like: “The whole is more than the sum of its parts.” – But whence does the “more” come from, if not from the mind?

(6) So, they try the following: “Alright. I am something apart from these parts.” [...]

(1) What is the role, function and purpose of the parts if they are not somehow part of the whole? (2) And doesn’t this answer just push the question further back, somehow? (3) While not clearly absurd, it still causes one to think and ask questions.

(8) And then they say things like: “This table is essentially real.”

(1) What do I mean with that? I mean: “This table has an essence which makes it what it is, and this table is real.” (2) “Essence” has been explained previously (B:2:8:1).

(9) And I ask them: “If the table is dependent on its parts, how can it be essential?” [...]

(1) The claim is this: A table is dependent on its parts for its existence. Something that is essential isn’t dependent on parts, but on essence. Therefore, the table is not with an essence. (Or another contradiction occurs.) (2) I also say that the table is a creation of the mind. Why is this so? It is true that something is there. But what makes that “something” a “table”, is the mind and mind alone. The mind separates this “something” from the environment and labels it as a “table”. (3) We can also say that “parts” are a mental creation, since we analytically need to first identify parts and then remove them from the whole to become parts. (4) What does it mean for the parts to be “real” and the other things not? It means that the only thing that the mind didn’t create was the atom. (Here, I mean “the smallest indivisible part”, which may be elementary particles or something else.) This, it perceived. The rest, it created.

(10) This, of course, creates a problem: If the table is dependent on the legs and surface, [...]

(1) If a wall is dependent on bricks, and bricks are dependent on rock, and rock is dependent on molecules, and molecules are dependent on atoms, and so forth, then what is at the bottom (if anything)?

(11) Can we therefore say that there is no table, there is no leg, no surface, no wood, no anything; and all is in the mind?

(1) We have a few possibilities, here. (2) “Everything is infinite regress.” This means that there is no bottom. (3) “Everything ends in nothing.” This means that the bottom is nothing. (4) “Everything ends in a fundamental ‘atom’.” This means that the bottom are such “atoms”. (There may be other possibilities, too.) (5) Therefore, either there is only mind, there is nothing and mind (i.e. only mind, in a sense), or there are such atoms and mind. (6) In any case, there isn’t a lot and it is mostly mind.

(12) This thus creates the belief: “Everything is void of inherent existence.”

(1) This echoes a Buddhist belief, clearly. (2) What does this mean? This means that there is no inherent existence in things. (3) What is “inherent existence”? “Inherent existence” is when a thing has an independent, eternal, unchanging essence, a nature that makes it what it is by itself, without any dependency or interrelatedness to other things and with permanence. (4) The consequence is drawn from the previous analysis and investigation into how things exist. (5) This means that things are fundamentally always changing, dependent on parts and other things for their existence, and have no essence that makes them what they are (like an ideal). There is no “type” that things become and then try to remain.

[13] The Dark Night: Endless

(2) “One day, we will find the end of the path.”

(1) What is meant by this? “Path” means a way of thinking, a philosophy, a tradition. “End” means that such a way of thinking can be completed, finished or perfected. That there is no more to learn, develop, refine or improve on. (2) This would mean that there is a way of thinking that is perfect and can explain everything, as well as give guidance in every situation to utmost satisfaction of everyone.

(3) With which they meant that either there will be omniscience and/or the right way of seeing things will be found.

(1) This means that one day, everything can be known, or the right way of looking at things can be found. (2) The “right” way here means: The way that is ethically right, good and correct. Either such a way has to be discovered or agreed upon.

(4) Now, I have doubted this. Think, that we were to have omniscience. [...]

(1) The claim is: “Time always produces new things that cannot previously be known. Therefore, omniscience is impossible.” (2) While not necessarily strong, the idea holds: Change means that some unpredictable elements may surface. This means that ways etc. need to adapt (as history has shown countless times). (3) Could there be true omniscience? What if some things are inherently not deterministic? Maybe then, not.

(5) But also, if we could achieve omniscience, we would need knowledge of each other and ourselves [...]

(1) This does not preclude theoretical omniscience. But, since we tend to be often enigmas to ourselves, we might never fully know ourselves and thus not have perfect knowledge of the world. This is thus meant in a practical way, i.e. what this means for most people, not in theory for “perfect beings”.

(6) And if there were a right way of seeing things, then does this not imply that everyone will become one homogenous mind [...]

(1) This has to be understood in this way: If, taken to the very extreme, every single thought could either be right or wrong, then everyone would have to be exactly the same. (2) Now, in a less extreme way, it would still lead to homogeneity, although less so. (3) I also said: “(...) give up their preferences”. This means: If aesthetic judgements can be right or wrong (i.e. there is a right way of seeing even this), then one of us needs to give up their preferences and adapt to the objectively right way of liking things. If we exclude aesthetics, then this statement may not hold, of course. (4) What about the sentence with the “inner voices”? This means: In order for e.g. ethics to be homogenised, we need to decide on axioms. But which axioms should we choose? This, I claim, might be undecidable or lead to rhetorics and other means of solving the dispute.

(7) Thus, and not only thus, I have come to believe: “There cannot be one ultimate end of the path.”

(1) Why “not only thus”? What are other reasons? These, I have omitted for now, but might be elaborate on, later. (2) What does “one ultimate end of the path” mean? This means that a way of thinking, a philosophy and so forth, could be fulfilled, complete, perfect and no longer require any development, critique or improvement. (3) The claim is that such an end cannot exist, due to previously established reasons. (4) This means that philosophy will always develop, evolve and grow, continuously.

(8) And since it has already taken myriads of people across millennia to learn all of this, [...]

(1) “All of this” means “the cumulative knowledge of humanity up to today”. (2) “(...) no single one could embody it all” means: “No single person could hold all of this knowledge within one lifetime.” (3) The claim is that even if it were theoretically possible to “finish philosophy”, practically, no single person could hold the knowledge and study it all within one lifetime.

(9) This thus creates the belief: “There is no ultimate path nor end to paths.”

(1) This is the conclusion and consequence from the previous contemplation. It comes in two pieces. (2) First, “there is no ultimate path” meaning: There is no one best way of thinking that will always, everywhere and for everyone work. (3) Second, “there is no end to paths” meaning: Philosophy will not end, be solved or get perfected.

[14] The Dawn: Mind

(2) “The mind is the answer.”

(1) What is meant by “the mind”? “Mind” here means “that which thinks, perceives and remembers, amongst other faculties”. (2) The significance of this statement will be explained in the following passages.

(4) First, is it not so that all of this is a result of the mind? Answers, questions, doubts. [.,,]

(1) The claim is that “things like these” are created by the mind. Those include: answers, questions, doubts. (2) The mind constructs sentences (like answers and questions), has certainty (e.g. doubt), feeling and much more. (3) What has previously been expounded stems from the mind. Any truth and falsehood came from the mind. Every doubt and insight, certainty and motivation, too. Every suffering from uncertainty and every happiness from certainty (or vice versa), too. The entire book came from the mind.

(5) The mind creates views, which are fictional. Some may correspond to the things they aspire to simulate, others not.

(1) A view is a fictional thing, a mental construct.

(6) The mind creates values, which are fictional. [...]

(1) Again, as earlier argued, values are mind-things (B:2:9:3). (2) With “who is there to say”, I mean: I acknowledge an agnostic standpoint in this, that is, my openness towards a sort of realism of values exists. But equally I question whether we can ever know this, for sure.

(7) So, can we not say that whilst everything is void, everything is without value, everything is relative, and so on, there is something – the mind stuff.

(1) Here, I repeat the previous provisional beliefs I have come to. All of those beliefs remove a lot of reality. They may feel pessimistic, but are resolved into a hopefully balanced outlook. They come close to nihilism, too. (2) However, all of the things that we’ve subtracted from reality didn’t just vanish into complete nothingness. They exist. Although not in the external world, they exist as “mind stuff” in the internal world, in the mind. (3) This is a turning point in the book: Where the first part deconstructs everything into nothingness, this second part constructs everything into something. And it begins in and with the mind.

(8) There may not be value out there, but there is within. There may not be colours out there, but there are within. And it works.

(1) The claim is that values don’t exist objectively. But they exist somehow. If there are only objective and subjective, they must exist subjectively. (2) What about colours? Since different animals can perceive colours differently, we may say that colour itself is a subjective thing. The wavelength is objective, but what it does in a mind, i.e. colour, is subjective. Similar with sound, etc. (3) “It works” means: Had we not analysed things into nothingness, we’d never have known that values and colours could not exist objectively out there. Therefore, whether such things are external or internal, doesn’t seem to make a very big difference, in the end.

(9) And while everything is suffering, everything is conflict, everything is struggle, [...]

(1) This, again, repeats previous insights. However, now it shows that these might be due to the mind. (2) Where is happiness and suffering if not in the mind? (3) “Everything is conflict.” might be more difficult to argue that it stems from the mind. Although it may be said that there is no such thing as conflict, only perception of conflict. Maybe this, too, is mental. (4) “Multiplicity” may exist objectively, but even that might be an illusion. (5) This new belief is to many maybe more important than the one that values stem from the mind. The reason is that, if suffering comes from the mind, then we have the power to change this with our minds (arguably). But it also means that we have a responsibility to train the mind and not let suffering arise, probably.

(11) “The beginning is in the mind.”

(1) This not only means what will be explained later, but also the following: The beginning of philosophy is in the mind and should place importance on the philosophy of mind.

(12) And with this, I mean: Let us imagine that we have an itch. Where is this itch? [...]

(1) The claim here is: There may be a physical basis, some process, behind an itch; maybe chemicals coursing through the skin. But the itch itself, the experience, the feeling, the sensation, maybe the “qualia”, is in the mind. (2) “This is where our being begins (...)” means: Everything we do is a mental action. If we blink, this was first a mental action, then became a physical action through signals sent down nerves to activate muscles around the eye. (3) “(...) and also ends” means: Every effect of an action can only be perceived and felt in the mind. If there were no mind, there would be nothing to feel or experience. (4) This also means: No matter how hard we look for our realness anywhere, we will always find it being a part of the mind. We may say: “Clearly I have a body with skin.” But when we say this, this body and skin exist in the mind as a representation of a (probably real) situation in the external world. (5) Therefore, things can be shown to exist primarily in the mind. (6) It can also be said that anything external must be a thought. Consider this: Pure sense information doesn’t say anything. It doesn’t say: “I am the sensation of touching a table.” or anything like that. It just “is”. The mind’s thoughts interpret sense information in such ways, creating statements like “This is the sensation of touching a table.” That is a thought. Therefore, the external world only exists as thoughts for us. (This can be developed further at another time.)

(13) Everything we do, stems from the mind. Consider making a cup of tea: [...]

(1) Here, I explain with an example the way that anything we do is either closed off in the mind (e.g. a thought) or commences in the mind (e.g. a physical action, such as making a cup of tea).

(15) “Everything emerges from the mind.”

(1) What does “everything” mean? “Everything” – here – means: Every experience, thought, physical action, much of what external objects are (e.g. a table), truths, values, etc. (2) This is another quite fundamental belief and view. We have shown this by analysis to “some” satisfaction. (3) In our language, we make a little mistake, if I may: We say “the perception of the tree” and put the mind as secondary and the external world as primary. But I would say “the tree behind the perception” and make the mind primary, and the external world secondary.

(16) And not only that. But is it not so that we may even say that we identify with the mind, or something related to it? [...]

(1) This idea goes into the question of identity of Self: What are we? “What am I?” (2) If we try to find “us”, often we will end up somewhere around the head. Am I my head? Probably not. Am I something in the head? Maybe. (3) This means that what we think we are, is either the mind, a part of the mind etc. or it is grounded in the mind or a part of it etc. (4) As we might expound elsewhere, the “I” might be just an illusion created by the mind. (5) We cannot be the entirety of the mind, it would seem, as there are processes in the mind that seem to “contradict” our processes. Although this requires more analysis, too.

(17) Now, if I were to train my body to be skilful in archery, this requires the mind: [...]

(1) Clearly, the muscles of the back and arms will grow and become more refined, but without the mind, no archery could be done. (2) This is meant to show two things: First, the mind is included and important for many more bodily things as we would credit it with. (3) Second, there may not be a sharp distinction between mind and body, although this is up for debate.

(19) “If everything originates in the mind, then we must make the mind the highest priority.”

(1) This should be relatively obvious. The more central to life something is, the more we should make it our priority, I claim. (2) The mind seems to be so central that it might be the most central thing, even. Therefore, it deserves highest priority. (3) What does it mean to “make the mind the highest priority”? It means that we set aside time and other resources to study, develop, train, cultivate, tend to, heal etc. the mind, from an early age to old age, always. We should also observe the mind in many situations and use it carefully in our daily lives. Things such as these.

(20) And thus, I must understand the mind, train the mind, tend to the mind.

(1) These three are only a few of the commands that I suggest here. Others include to cultivate and heal/mend the mind. (2) This belief or insight is meant to summarise the importance of the mind. (3) What happens if we don’t do these things? We can observe many terrible things happening, such as illnesses, destructive anger, vices (e.g. laziness and greed), distorted views and misunderstandings. (4) Is this an imperative to everyone? I believe so. If only a few were to understand the mind – as we can observe happening –, then others will become dependent on the few, amongst other difficulties.

[15] The Dawn: Training

(2) “I must train the mind and tend to it.”

(1) This is a simplified repetition of a previous statement (B:14:20).

(3) For the mind will be the grounds of my self, of my activities, of my views, of my values, of my happiness, this is important.

(1) What does “grounds” mean, here? It means: That which supports, creates and causes something. (2) We have previously speculated that the mind is somehow related to what “we” are (B:14:16:1). This is what I mean with “grounds of my self”. “Self” could be capitalised here to indicate it to be “the Self”. (3) We have previously shown that views, values and happiness all come from the mind.

(4) And therefore, I should ask myself such questions as:

(1) This is a very important statement. It means that we should use questions as a method to learn about such important things as our Self, but also to construct them. (2) Questions are prompts. They make us do something in a controlled, systematic and structured way. If I ask: “Is the sky blue?” then you will think: “The sky is blue. Is this true?” or something similar. The right sequence of questions can lead thought down a path of discovery.

(5) “What is the good?”

(1) What does “good” mean? “Good” means: That which is ethically, morally valuable, is the goal, is what we should do, ought to do and what we must protect. (2) This question might be one of the most fundamental questions. The reason is this: Can I do anything without knowing what I should do? If there is no “should”, there is no action. The mind cannot orientate itself at anything, it has no direction, no goal. Thus, it cannot do anything. Therefore, the mind needs “good” to do. (3) Even just for something as small as philosophy in our lives: If we don’t know what we should do, how we should do philosophy, we cannot do philosophy. Therefore, we need a “good” to begin doing anything. (4) This also brings us to some questions such as: “Is it possible to do ethics and reinvent the fundamental good? That is, while being in a system and using it, can we dismantle it?”

(6) And if I have found this, I can develop my beliefs around this, or with this.

(1) Once we have a good, we can create a system of thought around it, with the good at the centre. (2) But we also need it to do something such as creating our system of thought, or system of beliefs, as explained previously (B:15:5:2). (3) Without beliefs, I claim, we cannot navigate the world. We can only navigate an internal world. This means: We need to construct a representation of the external world in the mind, in order to navigate any such world. We may not realise it, but I claim that we constantly navigate inner worlds, not the external world. (4) This becomes obvious in distorted views, e.g. when we mistake something for another thing in the external world, such as a rope for a snake. (5) Thus, we always navigate our internal world, which is shaped by beliefs as a kind of network or web structure.

(8) “Who or what am I?”

(1) This is a very big question. Instead of going too deeply into it, I will say this: It may sometimes be less important to ask this question than to give an answer, or simply ignore this. (Although this can be debated.) (2) This has also been discussed a bit before (B:14:16:1).

(9) And I might realise that this is completely up to my making. Since the Self seems to be no more than a mental creation, [...]

(1) Let’s think of it this way: Yes, there may be physical and otherwise grounds to what we are. If this weren’t so, then how could it be that we wouldn’t survive bodily death? Therefore, something about our bodies is necessary for our Self. (Although the metaphysical speculation goes deep.) (2) However, that which grounds us or carries us is not the same as “us”. Maybe just like a wall is not just the bricks, “we” are not just the body-mind. (Others say that we are “consciousness”. But consciousness itself might not be able to “do” anything. We seem to be able to “do” things.) (3) It seems that our personality etc. is not as fundamental to “us” as other aspects. Thus, it would seem that much of what “we” are is a kind of continuum of mind (maybe), which can redefine itself so long as it isn’t interrupted entirely. (4) If, of course, we mustn’t get interrupted, then what about deep sleep? Maybe “we” really die every night? But just like how a text can be read aloud to produce the same sound every time, “we” emerge from the same physical basis every morning? (5) What I claim here, is: (Under one interpretation) it seems plausible to say that “we” are merely something constructed by mind. (This “something” might be a combination of “substance” and “form”, e.g. “mind itself” and “the specific personality that is a configuration of mind”. Although I will keep it simple, here.) (6) If, therefore, “we” are constructed by the mind, then, using this same mind, we can reconstruct ourselves in ways that are more or less up to our discretion. (7) This means: Our personality etc. aren’t fixed and static, but can be moulded and shaped (to a certain extent, or maybe entirely).

(11) “What do I wish?”

(1) This can also be translated to: “What do I want?” or “What do I desire?” (2) This may feel like a simple question, but if we try to examine our wishes, they become somewhat difficult to elucidate.

(12) And with this, I might come to see and understand what motivates me.

(1) It is also important to note that something “motivates me”, not “I motivate myself”. Whatever “we” are, it may be that motivation is an external force of some kind.

(13) One could say that therefore, I should carefully train my mind in being healthy, strong and flexible, and then construct values, beliefs and so on.

(1) I have listed “strong” and “flexible” here as two qualities that can be helpful. Why did I say “strong”? This is because our mind needs to be able to accomplish things. (2) Why did I say “flexible”? This is because the world is changing, therefore we need to be flexible to adapt. (3) There is a sequence wherein we first have to make sure that the foundation is well (i.e. healthy, strong, flexible) and only then do we start doing more advanced things with the mind. This is important, because without a solid foundation, the other processes will be more difficult or develop faults and flaws.

[16] The Dawn: The Other

(2) Others, too, exist. Others have minds, too. Their minds should be well. And whatever I do with my mind, might affect others and their minds.

(1) Here are two claims. First, “Others should be well.” (2) Second, “Whatever I do with my mind, might affect others and their minds.” (3) The first claim is not as easy to argue for as we might intuitively think. Why should others be well? What about those who try to harm us? Etc. (4) If someone isn’t well in their mind, they aren’t well. Therefore, their minds should be well. (5) Does every thought affect others? Maybe indirectly. Since thoughts shape directly or indirectly our behaviour, and our behaviour influences the world, and the world affects others, our thoughts affect others, somehow. (6) More practically, what does this suggest? It suggests that if we were to completely disregard our mind, we might become harmful to others and/or others might have to tend to us, etc. This means that we should understand that a disregarded mind can become difficult for others, too.

(3) Therefore, this training of the mind is not exclusively a solitary practice, but a social practice.

(1) Because a disregarded mind causes others (possibly) difficulties, and others should be well, we should regard our mind as important and tend to it. This logically follows. (2) What does it mean for the “mind training” to be a social practice? This is not yet fully explained, but I would say this: Help each other to have healthy minds, and discuss views and values to coordinate in such a manner that conflicts etc. can be most effectively dealt with.

(4) Let us say that I choose to value my own happiness. Let us say you choose to value your happiness. [...]

(1) “Fighting” has been defined here (B:3:11:1).

(5) If, however, we discuss together and come to the agreement that we should value all our happinesses, we can better coordinate and live together.

(1) Once we are an “us”, any harm done to each other will be a kind of “self-harm” by the “us” to itself. (2) Anything like organic lifeforms – and arguably even social phenomena – tend to have a self-preserving mechanism somewhere. (3) Therefore, if the “us” exists and has a self-preserving mechanism, it will try to prevent harm to occur to the parts that make up the “us”. For this, however, it may be argued that the idea of an “us” has to be important to its parts/members.

(6) And if I see the sky as blue and you see the sky as red, we might struggle to navigate things together.

(1) What this means, is: If our views, our perspectives, our beliefs and values conflict, or aren’t the same even, there can always be a situation in which e.g. fighting can occur. (2) Interestingly, some views etc. might have to be the same (e.g. “You are important.”), but others should be the opposite or different (e.g. if everyone were to want to do the same job, all other job positions would be vacant and the economy would collapse).

[17] The Dawn: The Ways

(2) “There may not be one way.”

(1) What does this mean? “Way” means something like a “philosophical system”, a “tradition”, a “way of seeing things”, a “way of thinking”, etc. (2) If “there were one way”, this would mean that one type of thinking could be good for everyone, always, in every situation. This is challenged.

(3) There are many who say things such as: “With this way, all is good.” [...]

(1) This means that there are those who say that there is a perfect way which works for everyone in every situation for every problem. (2) But clearly, if the people are too much A, a way that decreases A is necessary. And if they are not enough A, a way that increases A is necessary. Therefore, because a way that both increases and decreases A is not possible (we argue), but people can be not enough A and too much A, a perfect way cannot exist. (3) Some also say that we don’t have the perfect way, but it can be developed. Again, due to our previous argument here (B:17:3:2), I claim this is not possible.

(4) But, just as the same medicine might not work for everyone equally, the same way might not work for everyone equally.

(1) We know that in some medicines, people react differently. This is used as an analogy here.

(5) And, just as different medicine is prescribed for different illnesses, the different ways might be mixed and switched for different seasons.

(1) Another analogy to medicine is used here. The claim is this: Different ways are good for different problems. If someone is too active, they should be more “sedated”. If someone is too passive, they should be more “energised”. (2) These ways can be switched for “different seasons”, meaning intervals in time of human history. This means that relative to the situation, the times, etc., the way is chosen respectively. (3) What does it mean to “mix” ways? It means that new ways are created from old ones. For example, there can be compromises between ways.

(6) Some already work parallel, while others require ways about ways to do this.

(1) What does it mean to “work parallel”? This means that in some situations and some people, more than one way is present and running parallel to each other without conflict. For example, between a couple, one could be working during the day, the other at night, or indoors, outdoors, in one or the other room, etc. (2) What is a “way of ways”? A “way of ways” is a meta-way, a kind of way of thinking or method that coordinates, manages and harmonises ways. (3) If two ways conflict, we can either fight and see which way emerges victorious, or we can have a mediating third way, which tries to achieve a new balance between the two. This is the idea, here.

(7) “But how can progress be made if the way is constantly changed?” [...]

(1) This is a concern that I have found before. It says: “If I use way A now, but way B later, then neither A nor B could fully do their work.” (2) Therefore, the argument is that we should only use one way. (3) Of course, if we were to never change our way, but the world changes, we would get into conflicts. What they might mean is: “We should adapt the way, but not change it completely.” (4) The problem again is: What if the situation is such that a way cannot change enough to adapt without “breaking” and being effectively a new way? (5) The claim that we should “gain some expertise in both, or rely on others” is only mildly satisfactory. Here is why: In some situations, we should have a diverse set of ways (e.g. a student might do well in learning all of the elementary sciences a bit), but if we really do this all the time, we lack expertise in any one way. We need experts, it can be argued. (6) Also, if we have to rely on others, then where did they get their expertise from? They must’ve chosen one way exclusively, too. (7) Therefore, what I want to say is not that nobody should have a specialty, expertise, way they’re most adept in, but that any single way cannot be generalised for everyone. (8) If everyone became a baker, whence would the grain come from? (And vice versa.) (9) The “ways of ways” are therefore necessary to mediate and coordinate between such ways. (And to maybe come to beliefs such as this one.)

[18] The Dawn: Ways of Ways

(3) Thus, if there are no ways of ways, there cannot be peace, nor harmony.

(1) The problem (or one problem) is this: If there are two different ways A and B which are in conflict, how can this be resolved? I claim the following. (2) Either a third way C is chosen. Or way A is chosen. Or way B is chosen. (3) A way has to be chosen. If neither A nor B are chosen, then a new way C is chosen instead. (4) The way C can either be: Completely different from A or B. A perfect balance between A and B. More A than B. More B than A. (5) Without a method to establish this solution, there is no resolution of the conflict. (6) “Peace” here means: “The absence of fighting.” (7) Therefore, a “way of ways” is needed, which is a method of resolving tension and conflict in such situations.

(4) What do ways of ways consist of? They consist of mental aptitude, communication and such things as love. [...]

(1) Here, I agree that this is maybe saying too much of a way of ways already. (2) However, if we don’t have the first, then chaos ensues or doesn’t get solved more. Without the second, nothing can get mediated, nor can anything get expressed properly. Without the third, there may not be any interest in a resolution to begin with. (3) What is this love for? This love might have to be a state of mind that wishes things to exist, be healthy and well. (4) Of course, if something destructive is loved, love turns into hatred. (5) But what I mean here, is: Maybe a way may have to get discarded, but not the people who embody it.

(5) Now, clearly, this already proposes a way, since a way of ways is also a way. But that is one of the manifestations of such a way of ways.

(1) It is impossible not to propose a way, one can argue. (2) One difference here is that this meta-way itself is not capable of e.g. running a personal life or a society’s life. It can only mediate and coordinate. (3) What does “manifestation” mean? “Manifestation” means: A way in which something can take on a real form, body or presence, existence.

(6) For a way of ways to work, we might require to study, learn and understand different ways. [...]

(1) If we don’t understand what we’re trying to harmonise, how can we harmonise it? (2) Why should we make questions the virtue? This is because – even if a sceptic might argue against even this – without questions, no new thoughts are formed. (Or at least not systematically.) This should not be the only virtue, but one of them. And it helps us in understanding the situation, the ways in question, and how to create a resolution.

[19] The Dawn: Walking

(2) “Make walking the goal.”

(1) What does “walking” mean, here? “Walking” means: to do, to act, to think, to put in effort, to work, to proceed, to question, to ask, etc. (2) What does it mean to “make something the goal”? This means that in (arguably) every situation, we try to fulfil this idea. (3) This statement/imperative is further explained in the next passages.

(3) That is, ponder the following: While I have questions, I think. While I have answers, I cease to think. [...]

(1) Of course, we can also think without having questions. But this means: Questions provoke thinking specifically. (2) When we “have answers”, there is no curiosity or wonder, no uncertainty or inner drive, urge to do, to think. Therefore, I say: “I cease to think.” (3) If there is no thought, can we improve on ourselves? I believe that, in order to change something about the web of beliefs we have, we need to investigate it and weave new threads. This is thinking. (Although subconscious thought or mechanisms might also be at play.) (4) Why do I say: “(...) even death will follow”? This is because, while meant to be metaphorical and symbolic, in extreme circumstances, the lack of thinking can lead to such dire consequences. (5) While we think, we have not yet reached the destination of an answer. This is “walking”.

(4) Likewise, consider this: The farmer of the West ceases to work after the harvest, having found this to be the goal. [...]

(1) This is an analogy using “the farmer of the West” and “the farmer of the East”. Here, “West” and “East” are symbolic and represent two qualities, not real-world geographical features. The Western farmer stops working, the Eastern farmer continues working. (2) The decision to use West for this and East for that is seemingly arbitrary. (3) While not the strongest analogy, the meaning is that life requires work.

(5) It is thus that things never stop revolting that we, too, must never stop. [...]

(1) What does it mean that “things never stop revolting”? This means that the world is always in change. Things move, do, behave. (2) What does it mean that “we must never stop”? This means that we must not stop doing, working, changing. (3) Does this mean that we cannot rest on an afternoon or sleep? No. It means that we shouldn’t neglect activity where activity adapts to changes etc. (4) Does it mean we need to change and cannot have a fixed centre? No. It means that we may only change ever so slightly every few decades or so, but change, we will.

(7) “Make balance the goal.”

(1) What does “balance” mean? “Balance” means: A state in which two or more things relate to one another in such a way that neither is too much nor not enough, relative to the other things. (2) Again, “to make the goal” is explained elsewhere (B:19:2:2). (3) The meaning of this statement/imperative will be explained in the next few passages.

(8) If one lives by extremes, consequences will be extreme. One cannot endure extreme bad. But one can endure living with only mild good. [...]

(1) Here, I make a few claims. First, extreme living leads to extreme consequences. If we walk down a road and fall, we might injure ourselves very slightly. If we use a fast horse to gallop down a road and fall, we might injure ourselves much more. (2) Second, to win a lot is very good, but not necessary (unless one’s circumstances are so severe). To win little is a bit good, but not necessary (unless one’s circumstances are not well). To lose a lot is very bad. To lose little is a bit bad. (3) With this, I claim that (unless one is in need) to win something is an optional good which can be done without, but to lose something is always bad and would always be wished away. (While this particular formulation is maybe not very strong, the argument is that good and bad are not entirely symmetrical in this sense.) (4) Also: What if we could bet on all of our belongings? Gaining twice as much is very good, but way too much. Losing it all is very bad, and we have nothing anymore. (5) The idea is this: n amount of loss is more bad than n amount of gain is good.

(9) Let us say that one is very active and the other very passive. Neither will fare too well. They both are extreme, [...]

(1) Extremes can be necessary in extreme situations. In most situations, which aren’t extreme, however, moderation seems to be better. (2) This means that moderation, balance and a kind of “equilibrium” has to be achieved, somehow. This can be done either by being balanced within oneself, and/or to be balanced together as a unity.

(10) But what is balance? This brings me to the next view:

(1) This is not a definitional question. We know what balance means, linguistically. But we may not know what it means to have found balance.

(11) “Make inquiry the goal.”

(1) What is “inquiry”? “Inquiry” is when we ask, think, ponder, contemplate, question, investigate. (2) What “making something the goal” means, is explained here (B:19:2:2). (3) The statement/imperative will be explained in the next few passages.

(12) In each moment, make effort to inquire about things. What is the balance in this moment? [...]

(1) If we want to know what the balanced way of doing things is, in each moment, this balance might be different. Therefore, we need to think about the situation, analyse it, contemplate, listen, see, and then get a feeling for the new balance that we can embody.

(13) To rely on ready answers and rules that will guide us, is laziness, and difficult to accomplish. [...]

(1) It is not impossible to accomplish, but difficult. (2) This means that we once think about things, arrive at a solution, memorise them as rules and henceforth live by such rules without thinking about the variables in a new situation in which this rule might not apply very well. (3) There are things to be said about rules in general, both for and against them, but we will not elucidate on them all, now. (4) It does not necessarily say that laziness is bad. (5) The analogy is meant to provide a little example for how rules can also lead to bad, and how sometimes, we ought to rethink things for each situation anew, or at least forge new rules. (6) This also echoes the idea of “walking”: To not stop doing, thinking, acting. In (somewhat) every moment, we should use our minds to try to make the best out of the situation. (7) Of course, this is not to be taken to an extreme, as mentioned previously, as it can also lead to mental distress if we overdo thinking etc.

(14) If inquiry is not made the goal, then improvements might be difficult to achieve, if at all.

(1) Without thought, can there be improvement (B:19:3:3)?

(16) “Do not depend on happiness, do not shy from suffering.”

(1) This “depend” means: To become addicted to, enamoured with, defined by. (2) Taken together with the idea of “Avoid extremes.”, this suggests that happiness can be a goal and suffering its opposite, but if we overdo it, difficulties arise. (3) The statement/imperative will be explained more in the following passages.

(17) For, let us say, we were to shy from suffering and seek only happiness, we become lazy, dull and will not put in effort anymore.

(1) This is also related to short-sightedness in these matters. If we avoid a physician because of the discomfort, we might get ill and gain even greater discomfort. (2) “Lazy” here means: “To not put in effort anymore.” (3) “Dull” here means: “Of little mental clarity.” (4) This can also be illustrated with unhelpful eating habits, such as consuming excess sugar. Whilst pleasant in the moment, it can lead to great harm later on.

(18) Clearly, some will then live by this and endure great harm where they needn’t. [...]

(1) This shows how we cannot just establish clear rules and then live by them. “Balance” has no clear rules and has to be intuitively understood, moment by moment. (2) Sometimes, an extreme is necessary, too, e.g. to “extremely save someone’s life”.

(20) “Life is change.”

(1) This statement will be explained more in the subsequent passages.

(21) And that means that things do, they behave and they work. (This is tied to the belief of “all is struggle”.)

(1) How is it tied to the belief that “all is struggle”? This is tied to that belief in that there is no true rest for things. There may be momentary points of equilibria, and things such as sleep, but change soon follows again.

(22) To strive for, believe in or cling to anything other than what this is, leads to displeasure, pain and suffering.

(1) What does “this is” mean? It means “the belief that life is change”. (2) This means that if we were to strive for, believe in or cling to the belief that things could be fixed, absolute and unchanging, we’d experience suffering etc. Why is this so? This is because it doesn’t correspond to reality, therefore makes us behave in ways that conflict with reality. And conflict – in one way or another – leads to suffering.

(23) We are life. Life is change. We are, and should be, change.

(1) Why “should we be change”? This is not perfectly evident, but is derived from the following thought: If we are A and reality is B, there is conflict. Conflict leads to suffering. Reality (most of it) is change. We should not have suffering. Therefore, we, too, should be change.

(24) Every pond that has no stream will become a marsh. Every room that has no fresh air will grow mould. [...]

(1) It is somewhat hyperbole to say that “nothing good can come” if there is no change. This should be understood as a statement affirming that changes are, often, very necessary and helpful for our lives.

[20] A Sun Shines

(...)

Composed: 07.04.2025 – 10.04.2025

Updated: 19.04.2025