(26.09.2025)
Investigations & Notes
Contents
C. What and for whom is this Book?
---
[1] This book is called “記 – Investigations & Notes”, where “記” is pronounced /ji/ and is a placeholder for the idea of a “note”, “commentary”, “record”, “reflection”, “explanation”, “writing down”, etc. This is thus a little book on philosophical reflections, akin to a diary or an exposition of thoughts.
[2] In order to fully enjoy the book, the following sections/chapters will be added. Please navigate the book using the internal structure as found below; or use the table of contents at the very beginning of the book.
1. First Part: Preparations
a. Preface
b. Dedication
c. What and for whom is this Book?
d. Why is this Book?
e. Context
f. Motivation of the Writer
g. Motivation of the Reader
h. Prerequisites
i. Acknowledgements
j. Disclaimers
k. Terminology and Syntax
2. Second Part: Corpus
[1] This work is lovingly dedicated to all the beings.
[1] This book is a collection of short thoughts.
[2] This book is meant for everyone and anyone. Particularly those interested in exploring reality.
[3] The book is written as short notes and ideas. This means that some are more personal (e.g., “I think (…)”), whereas others are more impersonal (e.g., “It is the case that (…)”).
[4] The book is highly interconnected. E.g., an entry on “life” might feature elements from “ethics” and “ontology”, too.
[5] Some thoughts are more finished than others.
[1] This book came to be in order to help and assist people.
[2] It should also help to foster dialogue within oneself, and between people.
[3] It can also assist in creating connections between people.
[4] And it can be used to help in thinking and in the exploration of reality.
[1] This book was first written in the year 2025 CE.
[2] The original authoring language is English.
[3] The aim of the book is to discuss universal truths, not current-day situations.
[4] There is one individual author behind this book.
[1] The writer sought to inspire new thoughts and ideas in people which may advance their own thinking.
[1] The reader might have various motivations that led to reading this book.
[2] Amongst them might be: intellectual thirst, seeking new ways of seeing things, training the mind, expanding knowledge, gain means to help others, etc.
[1] Any person may be able to read this book.
[2] However, certain elementary familiarity with philosophy might be helpful.
[1] We thank the following for making this book possible:
[2] To family and friends, for their love and support.
[3] To the many schools, learning institutions and teachers.
[4] To those who developed the tools by which learning and writing was made easier.
[5] To the reader, without whom this book were vacuous.
[6] To everyone who enabled the right conditions for this book to have been written.
[1] A few disclaimers have to be made.
[2] This book is not to be read as answers, but inspirational ideas.
[3] Not every topic can be covered, due to various reasons.
[4] Certain passages might involve simplification in idea and language to be more readable.
[5] The personal identity features of entities are to be understood in an open way, i.e. while there may be gender, age, language, etc., these can largely be replaced by an alternative.
[6] In matters of criticism (e.g. on religion etc.), the stance should be seen as constructive and supportive, not malicious or confrontational.
[1] This book uses a terminology and syntax standard that is shared with other projects across the greater “P-Project”.
[2] Referencing individual parts of this book can be done as follows:
[3] The book itself has the ID “A.22”.
[4] The book is followed by the chapter in this format: “A.22:#”, where “#” is the ID of the chapter, e.g. “1” for “Metaphilosophy”.
[5] The chapter is followed by the entry. This is written in this format: “A.22:1:#”, where “#” is the ID of the entry, e.g. “1” for the first entry in “Metaphilosophy”.
[6] Therefore, to reference the first entry of the first chapter of this book, we can write: “A.22:1:1”.
[7] The syntax “(: S)” means something like: “This entry was either entirely original to, or inspired by another thinker.”
[8] The date format is in the pattern “Day/Month/Year” and signifies when the entry was written.
[9] The date is of the record/entry is written as “(##.##.####)”, e.g., “01.10.2025”, prior to the entries.
[10] Quotes are written centred, italic and on a yellow background.
[11] The ID “A.2” refers to the work “P-Entries” – a collection of short philosophical propositions, questions and phrases.
[12] The entry itself is numbered as “[#]”, e.g., “[1]” is the entry with ID “1”.
---
(27.09.2025)
[1] In order to do philosophy, we need concepts, which at first get synthesised from smaller parts (e.g. from experience and from logic). But philosophy not only creates a web of beliefs, but also the methods by which we traverse it.
[2] What is the “goal” of philosophy? Is it within philosophy or outside of it? Is it to no longer need philosophy, or is it, maybe, philosophy itself?
[3] And might it not be that all of philosophy is about simplification and summarisation? To draw rules and laws where formerly individual things were?
[4] There may be beautiful ideals, perfect solutions, but if those aren’t possible to apply to the real world (e.g. what real people can accommodate), then it is futile to try (e.g. such thoughts as the “philosopher king”).
(01.10.2025)
[5] Philosophy produces a thought, but also the thinking which produces the thought.
[6] In a changing world, philosophy must exist for us to adapt. Furthermore, does philosophy question power as a mechanism? (: S)
[7] As humans we have infinite capability to come up with new thoughts, which fuels philosophy as an endeavour and will always be possible to philosophise about some thought, some concept, some creation.
[8] Since we can come up with new problems, we need philosophy, in order to solve such problems.
[9] Others will come up with thoughts and we need philosophy in order to answer them.
[10] It is boredom which leads to problems, which in turn need solutions, which rely on philosophy.
[11] There may be the subjective end of philosophy, when we as humanity think “It is done.”. But there might also be the objective end of philosophy, which is when by some kind of logic, it is determined that it cannot proceed any further. Also, there may be the end within one individual, and the end of all of humanity’s philosophy.
[12] Everyone needs to do philosophy instead of just learn the results of philosophy, i.e. they need to learn the steps and process. Thus, as long as there are people, there will be philosophy.
[13] Cannot every question be philosophical if our attitude is correct and/or we approach it properly to ask with depth and in depth etc.?
[14] Can there be philosophy about fiction? That is, about things where the result does not lead to realistic philosophy. For instance, if we philosophise about a centaur, while it may be fictitious, many things about it (e.g. form, telos, ethics) might end up in realistic attributes (e.g. we philosophise about things that belong to this world, not the fictious world, such as “matter” or “to eat” etc.). Can there be pure fiction and philosophy thereof?
[15] It seems that philosophy is a necessary therapy for our drives. Not for any and/or all drives, although that might also work, but for specific drives: the drive to curiosity, for example, is probably best solved within philosophy as a mechanism to calm and still it.
[16] There may be “still” answers, i.e. answers that do not let us proceed in philosophy and appear to be “solved”. Those might be deceptive, however, and maybe more of a problem than an actual solution. Maybe the questions weren’t asked correctly, there.
(02.10.2025)
[17] In philosophy, to be philosophy, there has to be internal honesty in the philosopher.
(04.10.2025)
[18] If we only had one mode of thinking (e.g. the “Greek” mode of thought), we’d quickly end up in a fixed, rigid and closed system. But there are multiple modes (e.g. also the “Indian” mode of thought etc.), and thus the systems give rise to variations and to changing, moving, living structures.
(27.09.2025)
[1] Isn’t it so, that in order for anything to occur, there has to be time? For any action might be a difference in time, no?
[2] The wind, water, everything works in balances. We might think that human thought is the one thing that can challenge balances. But maybe even this is always flowing towards the lowest place.
[3] The interesting thing is, that only in the absence of thought can we be in reality. Things just are. But only with thought can we be in a world – that is, there are individual things. And what differs here, substantially, is that in the former, the invisible remains invisible, but in the latter, the invisible becomes visible, yet only speculative as the phenomenon (i.e. inferences etc.).
[4] If we only had one thing, there’d be no meaning nor identity, nothing that we can do with it.
[5] Thus, because of A.22:2:4, only once we have two things can we say anything meaningful about anything.
[6] The idea now (from A.22:2:5) is: there might not be any properties that are closed-in-themselves. It might be that every property, everything we can say about something, is in itself a duality. For example: “A is up” because “B is down”. Because we hold those two things in our mind, we can see their difference. But the difference cannot be across different properties. The difference must always be within one shared property, but different valuations of it (e.g. “brightness” and “bright” vs “dark”).
[7] It is not quite obvious to me if things can exist “in a moment”. The moment, being infinitesimally short in time, might even be illusory to begin with. The interesting thing, of course, is, that we – typically – only operate on static things in the mind, whereas we only ever experience dynamic things in the external world. Thus, is there such a thing as “being”? Or is all just “becoming”, even if infinitesimally short?
[8] Because the moment should be infinitesimally short, but our experience of the moment is more than just that, and we cannot live in the future, we live mostly in the past and to a very tiny degree, maybe, in the present. Though I doubt the latter.
(28.09.2025)
[9] How do the following two statements differ in terms of their realness: (a) “John is in the room.”, (b) “John exists.” – The latter seems to be a substantial truth, in that it talks about an object (“John”) that is associated with reality in a way of “existing”. The former, however, requires us to have a conception of a “room”, and if our conceptions were different, could be false. Thus it is a “conventional truth” (not to be mistaken with Buddhist “conventional truths”), in that it works by conventions.
(29.09.2025)
[10] When we say: “The sky is crying.” as for describing rain, clearly in a literal sense, this is false. But in a metaphorical or poetic sense, it is true. Is it because we first need to translate into literal logic, or because metaphorical logic exists in a different realm of reasoning?
(30.09.2025)
[11] For two things might have something in common to a certain degree, but it could still be entirely a different thing and not a universal: for let us think that both A and B appear to be “red”, but in reality, A’s redness is slightly darker than B’s redness, thus there is no universal, but our minds and instruments perceive them to be the same value.
[12] Does everything require to be its own potential and actual in order to be, or at least in order to change? Can there be something that is not containing either or any of them?
(01.10.2025)
[13] Is it possible to ask a question without wanting its answer? Is it possible to take a walk without having a goal in mind? If there is no goal, no endpoint of movement, how can it emerge? Maybe, it is thus that we can infinitesimally shorten the steps and goals to make it be the step itself as the goal.
[14] Are there such things as e.g. “normal people”? Is it maybe a paradox, for to be “normal” means to be “like everyone”, but looking more deeply, nobody is like everyone, thus maybe they cannot exist?
(02.10.2025)
[15] What doesn't relate to any universe categories such as matter etc., is fiction (e.g. a transcendental being).
(03.10.2025)
[16] Since we need to talk about this world’s properties and at best can invent some – most likely based on other “real” properties –, the things of our fiction are, in a sense, only fiction insofar as their full set of details and properties doesn’t seem to exist in our world, but is still just reducible to “real” properties. Thus, philosophising about those fictitious things might, after all, result in “conventional” philosophy.
[17] As for A.22:2:2: a balance might be when two (or more) things interact and cancel each other out. But what is it that cancels out the human mind? Maybe the human mind itself?
(04.10.2025)
[18] If we only had one thing, one pole, one value, nothing would emerge. It is thus only in the presence of a second, conflicting thing that any action can occur. The tension, broken, is the origin of any movement – it is when an imbalance between two tries to reach an equilibrium. But is this always destruction? For if we have A and B (which is non-A), and we balance towards A, at its peak B will vanish. Thus, it might be the quest for “being” which leads to destruction. For A wants to be, B must not be.
[19] It is only in the balance between “Yin” and “Yang” that anything “lives”. What do I mean with this? “Yin” is the dark, flowing, relational; “Yang” is the bright, still, absolute. Where the weather is Yin, so the structures, building we engineer, are Yang. If everything we maximally fluid, nothing could emerge such as societies, buildings, stable thoughts. If everything were maximally rigid, nothing could emerge either, since only in change, difference and relationality do things “become”.
[20] Do things only have tension between each other (e.g., two particles that attract or repel each other), or also within themselves (e.g., a thing that can change states without any outside influence)? If only the former, everything is relational; if the latter, too, then everything is “tension”, “contradiction” and “paradox”.
[21] If between A and B there is a pull from A on B, then, if the pull is strong enough, A disappears, but with it the pull, so A might reappear again. This might explain infinite cycles and “cosmoses”.
[22] At the deepest level, do things both “will to exist” and “will to not-exist”? That is, is it from within a particle that it appears into the universe, and also that it can spontaneously disappear again from within itself? Or is “non-existing” due to competition and conflict?
[23] It seems that complexity gives rise to more potential to “fail”. More complex systems have more vectors of failure than simple systems, it seems.
[24] Either limitation is built-in into the cosmos (e.g., “Only n amount of particles can exist.”) and/or limitation is due to the division of the cosmos into “things”.
(06.10.2025)
[25] Why is it that the minor (“Yin”) is sometimes more powerful than the major (“Yang”)? It might be that they’re of equal power, but that suppression leads to (a) a stronger reactionary effect, and (b) perpetual “seeping” effects from within.
[1] If we want to “perfect” something, there may be a problem: Where do we put the “imperfection” which makes things real? E.g., if we want to have the perfect person, how do we create the imperfections within him or her?
[2] The perfect is that which is abstract and thus alien to the external, physical world. It is also therefore that e.g. some people appear “unnatural” when they attempt to reach “perfection”.
[3] Can a thing be recursive, or is it that its instrument goes against its owner? E.g., my hand may strike me, yes, but it cannot strike itself, nor can my Self strike itself. It is my instrument, the hand, which strikes at e.g. my head.
[4] Can anything be that is not made up of parts in some or another sense? That is, even the tiniest particles in physics seem to consist of “properties”. But here is the thought: In order to understand my body, I observe the interactions between its parts, e.g. organs. In order to understand each organ, I observe the interactions between its parts, e.g. molecules. And so on. But in order to understand a thing without parts, can I even say anything about it? (It is clear that we may observe its interactions with other things, but the issue remains.)
[5] Some disagreement in matters of philosophy comes from saying that “A is B.” and “A is C.”, while really not recognising that both are true and false: For one aspect of “A” is “B” and “C”, but the totality of “A” is neither.
(27.09.2025)
[6] To say that A has this or that identity means to establish its place within our mental web of beliefs and propositions, nothing more nor less. There is no such thing as identity in the external world, the numinous. This is all about how a thing’s representation relates to other mental things within our mind. The wooden pole “isn’t a stick” nor “is it a cane”. This is in our mind. (Even it being “wood” is in our mind.)
(29.09.2025)
[7] Are there variables that are, with or without some advanced operations, “null” in identity? For instance, we say “A”, which is no truth, or “A = A”, which seems true, but once we connect A to something non-A, it gets interesting. Aside from double negation (e.g. “A is not not-A”), how do we connect A to anything without leading to falsity?
[8] Identities are only meaningful or useful if they show a relation between two (or more) things. It means nothing to say: “Tree.” and a world with only a tree in it might be at best, uninteresting. It is only when we relate two things to each other that thought becomes useful. Some may say it is the difference between things that we express, but I would say it is also the similarity (which is a negative difference, of course).
[9] It appears that we always split reality into discretes and never into continuous things (with exceptions). And there is usually no middle of opposites: e.g., we may say “tall” or “short”, but there is no real word for that which is neither or both at the same time. (: S)
[10] In any thing of analysis, we can observe the following categories of results: (a) all examples have the factor X, (b) none of the examples have the factor X, (c) some examples have the factor X. “C” can be further sub-divided.
[11] Is the continuous (e.g., the curve of a river) a symptom of mystery (i.e. not having full knowledge of e.g. the smaller parts of water that constitute the curve), or is maybe the discrete (e.g., the clear numeral division into “four apples”) a symptom of mystery (e.g. because we simplify into discrete mathematics and ontology instead of seeing an underlying continuous metaphysics)?
[12] Let us imagine that we only have the sensation of blackness (e.g. in a dark room, with closed eyes). This, in and of itself, does not yet give rise to “discrimination”, maybe even thought itself. But the very next thing that can happen, might: we remember the previous blackness. Maybe we still can’t “do” anything at this point, as there is no difference, no multiplicity, nothing, and we cannot operate on “A = A”, maybe not even recognise it.
[13] Thus (A.22:2.1:12), what needs to happen, is to (a) capture two or more mental objects in the mind simultaneously (if we were to remember one and hold the other, this still results in holding two at the same time), and (b) have them be of at least two kinds (e.g., a black and a white patch). This, then, gives rise to many new phenomena: (A) properties (insofar as they didn’t exist before), (B) “complexes” (i.e. that which occurs when two things get connected in the mind), (C) operations (e.g. “X and Y are not equal.”), (D) names (especially meaningful names, i.e. that which lets us distinguish one from another thing), (E) hierarchy, etc.
[14] We may say that every property exists in the following manner: The property itself (e.g. “colour”) has values, or actualisations (e.g. “red”, “blue”, etc.). But these – maybe necessarily – emerge as tuples from contrast and difference. For “black” to be, we need “non-black”; for “non-black” to be, we need “black”. Only in the comparison of “black” and “non-black” emerges each of them, as two variants of the same species.
[15] Moreover, there are trivial properties, such as those where we need the “negative prefix” for in language: “red”, “blue” etc. have their own words, but “existence” and “non-existence” have no unique word, and require to be expressed using one of them using the “non-“-prefix.
[16] Is “existence” a unary or binary property? We said that unary property might not exist, so let us explore: I cannot say that anything exists if I don’t have an understanding of non-existence. If something can only exist, can we even talk about its existence? But where does non-existence lie in our reality? Nothing simply “disappears”. Everything is merely transformation. Thus, whence does “non-existence” come from? It is precisely in the mental operation of a comparison: When I think of “black” and then of “white”, I recognise that “black” is “non-existent” and thus, as an inversion, “white” is “existent”. Thus, maybe it is that “existence” is that which follows non-existence and should be secondary.
[17] Of course, we can also say that there are unary properties and it is merely a logical operation on them that produces their second counterpart, i.e. the negated property.
[18] Is a degree of a property one value (e.g. “tallness”) or is it actually two values (e.g. “tallness” vs “shortness”) with a continuous metre between them?
[19] If we have a property P1 which has three values x, y and z, then the rule: “Every P must have values a and non-a.” turns into the values “x, y, z, non-x, non-y, non-z” of which “non-x” can be “y” or “z” and so on, thus is fulfilled.
[20] For “existence” and “non-existence”, the latter might be a logical operation on a unary “existence” property. But for “red, blue, green” we cannot say “non-red = some mystical colour that’s not defined”, but “non-red = either blue or green” in this colour spectrum. Thus it is my belief that the operation for “non-A” is not merely an operation but a selection from amongst the alternatives in the space of a property (e.g. “non-existence” or “blue”, “green”).
(30.09.2025)
[21] Might the thing that emerges from comparing different things not be what they all have in common, but what none of them have in common or something else entirely (i.e. metaphysically speaking)?
[22] If A and B are only identical, there is not much we can say about their relation(s). If A and B are only different, we cannot even conceive of them in one statement. Thus, only when A and B have at least one similarity and one difference, can we do anything sensible with them (in thought).
[23] In all of our scientific endeavours, are we not looking at patterns? Thus, at what is similar but also different. That is, we observe how similar things express their differences in different ways.
[24] In an analysis, we look at the “real” thing and its parts. But also at the abstractions and syntheses therefrom. Is there something else aside from this that seeps into analysis?
[25] When two things are different, e.g. “A” and “B”, then seeing B we say “A isn’t.” – this means that “non-existence” is the differential between things. (: S)
[26] Is a thing basically like a mathematical set, with its properties being the members of the set (or at least possible to express in this way)?
[27] Do relations depend on elements, i.e. only once we have two or more elements can there be a relation?
(03.10.2025)
[28] Because of A.22:2:6 and A.22:2.1:16, we may postulate that every property is to be thought of as requiring its opposite.
(04.10.2025)
[29] If we have two systems, A and B, and they begin to influence one another, how should we think about this? If B influences A, it might do so in two ways at least: (a) it triggers a movement inside of A, (b) it introduces or removes a part of A. In the former case, parts of B are indirectly within A as an effect – e.g., a friend might prompt us to rearrange our house, without actually ever adding or removing any furniture. In the latter case, parts of B are directly within A as a constituent – e.g., a friend might bring over furniture or borrow some of ours. When do we speak of “fusions” and when not?
(06.10.2025)
[30] In order to work with anything, we need to define things. And defining means to limit. Thus, in order to work with anything, we need to limit.
[1] Are we the external world, e.g. the tree we observe? Clearly not. Are we our deeper drives, instincts and physiological responses? Clearly not. But we consider the former “outside” and the latter “inside”, i.e. further in front and further behind “us”. We might, therefore, be a horizon between the external and internal worlds, a kind of filter or lens that operates at the junction between “out” and “in”.
[2] Can we choose our wants? Can I choose that I will be wanting a cup of tea later? Maybe not. Can I choose that I just wanted to think of this? Maybe not. Thus, what I am is in-between the prior and future wants. I am that which mediates wants, that which continues wants, the thought that processes wants into more wants. I am the servant of wants, and ultimately, of life itself.
(29.09.2025)
[3] To follow means to give up one’s agency, to subordinate one’s will to another’s will. Thus, we no longer truly live, but become a vessel for another’s will; and they live through us, as an extension of their power. – It is to be drunk.
[4] Are we the same consciousness as a moment ago? Or does consciousness flicker into existence? And what about during the night: Does a new consciousness emerge and is born, or is the old one merely dormant for a while? Is deep sleep the same as or different from death?
(30.09.2025)
[5] Is anything we do co-authored by more internal and/or external forces (e.g. our instincts, drives, or the weather, other people, etc.)? What does it mean to “author our own life”?
[6] Are we the degree of conscious control we have over things? E.g., we might have more control over faculties and parts of the mind as we become more “conscious”, thus expanding our “influence” and “become more” (i.e. as opposed to being e.g. intoxicated etc.).
(01.10.2025)
[7] Are we fragmented into different faculties, parts, sub-selves etc.? Or are we a whole, whether indivisible or not?
[8] If we weren’t ourselves, does consciousness matter more than identity? E.g., if I were to be in “Heaven”, and were to lose my identity in favour of pure happiness, would the trade-off be worth it or not? And why or why not?
(06.10.2025)
[9] There seems to be more than one voice of the “Self”. Some “we” disagree with. But how is this possible? Maybe “we” are meta-values that get attributed onto more direct values and propositions from other parts of the mind?
[10] Maybe “we” don’t have “felt propositions” or emotions, but only channel them through a web of rational evaluation.
[1] My wanting to drink tea is a consequence of life, because it unfolds within life (in myself). My wanting to live is a consequence of life, likewise. And even me wanting to end my life would be a consequence of life. Thus, maybe paradoxically, even a desire against life is a consequence and a product of life.
[2] Whatever we think of life, whether we like or dislike it, we are and we use life to do so. Thus, life is the absolute frame within which all unfolds (for us).
[3] The fear of death is what inhibits our living; we become inanimate. Yet, without it, we’d meet death sooner.
[4] Life is a tragic struggle of avoiding the inevitable. A fleeting melody, a blooming blossom that soon withers, and that is perfectly apparent to all.
[5] We wish for life; that much is clear. But when wishing for e.g. an afterlife we become convinced of it, now we have much more life: this life and the afterlife. Thus, mathematically, this life loses value.
[6] To some, the fear of death is too much and they might need afterlife hope. To others, the desire for the afterlife is too much and they will neglect this life.
(28.09.2025)
[7] What is life? It is movement, doing, change. But change means the death of one and the birth of another. Thus, life is a continual process of dying. (: S)
(04.10.2025)
[8] Our life is a balance of balances. Too much of one force would destroy it. And interestingly, it seems that we want to “become”, not just “be”. Maybe this is an instinct, a drive, a will that is here because other things also “are” and “do”. We need to keep up with other things in order to “remain”.
(27.09.2025)
[1] The enemy of the oppression will, in a sense, have to become the oppressor and inherit power to free themselves.
[2] A simple analysis of power could be: A holds arms, B doesn’t. Thus, A holds power over B.
[3] A more interesting situation is: If there are three people (A, B, C), and A and B are allied, then each of them holds power over C. But even more than that, if none are allied, but C thinks that A and B are allied, then A and B hold power over C.
(01.10.2025)
[4] When we give up our authority by delegating it to another’s authority, we do so by our authority – thus, we are responsible for what follows, to some degree.
(02.10.2025)
[5] Is it not also an exercise of power by not harming something? For instance, if we were to refrain from killing animals for food, is this not also a demonstration of power – we refrain, and refrain goes against a force, our power, thus proves this power.
(03.10.2025)
[6] Does power aim for a higher quantity that can never be perfected?
(05.10.2025)
[7] “Health”-culture and obeying in masochism to the authority of a sub-culture.
[8] It is when we perform masochistic, self-disciplinary rituals outwardly, that others are satisfied. For to them, then, we become docile, domesticated, harmless.
[9] Others engage in masochistic rituals to internalise power structures, so, if another does not do that and rebels, it can feel as unfair – “Why should you be free if I enslave myself?”
[10] Is it not so that society has built-in structures of “morality”, such as for example: “You ought to discipline yourself in ways A in order to attain the good B.” Discipline, order, structures like that are ingrained and work as a social code, a game, a language. We have preestablished axioms, e.g., “You ought to be healthy.” and preestablished rules for the game of how to achieve these results, e.g. “To take walks leads to being healthy.” – The latter being disciplinary structures. But is it not so that those disciplinary structures might be enjoyed for their own sake, without their original intent and their results?
[11] Does the friend who urges us to tidy up our room really want our best, or do they merely want to uphold and establish power structures and “tidy up the world”? Is it maybe that they enforce a structure they barely believe in, thus practice “sadism” and “masochism” in conjunction, by being a tool for another power, yet also gaining gratification from exercising power?
[12] How can we be sure that we selflessly, lovingly and altruistically “advice others” and not sneak in (a) self-gratification, (b) power enforcement, (c) Schadenfreude at others’ conformity, etc.?
[13] Modern man, instead of being judged by a judge and sent to prison, is judged by a psychiatrist and sent to the hospital.
[14] Maybe the authentic act is that which occurs in shame – for shame is the other’s exercise of power gone wrong.
[15] Wherever fear (of shame, guilt, blame, etc.) surfaces, domination and power structures are at play.
[16] Power may be more about what is perceived rather than an objective fact of the matter, e.g. to fear that someone could shame us.
[17] Power is always a relational property. There might not be just “power”, only “power to do A”.
[18] Is the defiance of suffering a pleasure stemming from the experience of power?
(06.10.2025)
[19] Might there be a kind of “perverse enjoyment” in becoming a subject of surveillance?
[20] We may imagine that at its maximal extent, all we want is to be perfectly mighty, alone on a throne over our own lives, without bothering others. But is this the case? Or might we actually (then) want to further extend this power over others?
[21] In how we “correct” ourselves, we “give” to society in a ritualistic act of loyalty and submission. Insofar as we have “flaws”, we can give. Thus, they who are most flawed can give most and show their loyalty best.
[22] Power, much like freedom, is a currency we cannot hold as its end-goal, but as a means for other goals.
[23] Weakness – i.e. the absence of power – may lead to neurotic strategies, which harm. But is it not a matter of reality that much of life is unbearable for one’s power alone? It might thus be only in the power of community that life itself can be dealt with without neurosis. And some things, we may never have the power for, not even collectively. Which are these neuroses of mankind?
(02.10.2025)
[1] Because we’re free, we’re lonely. Freedom is the absence of restrictions. Love and togetherness restrict us. Thus, loneliness it the ultimate end of freedom.
(03.10.2025)
[2] If we were to lead the idea of freedom to an extreme, a society would disintegrate, for freedom means “no bonds”, and a society is defined by bonds.
(04.10.2025)
[3] By completely liberating the individual they also lose what liberty was here for: in a vacuum, the given freedom cannot be exchanged for anything anymore and becomes void of any meaning.
[4] People don’t want to be “completely free”; they want to be “free from what they don’t want”, but they want the shackles of “what they want”. (E.g., a person will not want to be in isolation and be free from responsibilities, but will want to be free from “undesired bonds” and that in others which offends them.)
[5] Freedom spells nihilism. As freedom is the absence of certain things, it has to disintegrate values to be called “freedom”. – The paradox is: Freedom is desirable because some values want to manifest and actualise themselves. But in turn, they have to rid themselves of the very objects of their endeavour, i.e. that which they want to exercise power over. (I.e., “freedom stems from value”, “values want to manifest themselves”, “values manifest through power”.)
[6] Of course, freedom as the aim for “lack of limitations” must, in turn, limit other things to be that. (: S)
[7] If now, freedom as an absolute is pure tyranny and nihilism, how should we think about it? When people seek “liberty”, they might mean to say: “I seek to dominate.” – In focusing on one’s own “passive, pacifist” freedom, in the inverse, on the other side, reactively, the other gets oppressed and controlled. It is not direct oppression, but indirect – as if we were to lower our end of a seesaw to elevate the others’.
[8] If my freedom is your oppression and vice versa, this leaves us with two options: (a) a conflict through power, (b) the establishment of a relationship, i.e. to communicate, learn about the other and result in a balanced compromise.
(05.10.2025)
[9] Both the positive command (“Do A!”) and the negative prohibition (“Don’t do A!”) inhibit freedom.
(06.10.2025)
[10] Freedom as absence of restrictions (e.g., “no limits to one’s own power”) is no power, but freedom as presence of assistance (e.g., “interference in other people’s freedom”) is an exercise of power, specifically against the freedom of others.
[1] There seems to be a kind of “knowing” that is beyond propositions. At least superficially. For consider what the difference is in knowing that “I am myself.” and “I am myself.” Propositionally, they’re the same, but experientially, phenomenologically, in one we can say that we have a kind of technical and linguistic understanding of a fact, in the other we deeply feel and dive into the fact. There is a “feeling” dimension to knowledge.
(29.09.2025)
[2] It is said that we can know what we do, but is this really the case? Maybe it is inevitable, but only the initial impulse in the mind – not the entirety of what we do, especially not that which is subconscious or not fully conscious.
(01.10.2025)
[3] To learn the solution is not the same as going through the process of discovering the solution for oneself.
(04.10.2025)
[4] Even if we merely observe or learn some proposition(s), we don’t passively “absorb” truth, but actively (co-)create it. To learn means to create the learnt. To experience reality (to some extent) means to create reality.
(30.09.2025)
[1] When uttering a belief, is it because we believe it or because we doubt it and thus need to reinforce our faith in it?
[2] In uttering a belief, do we impose it onto others or onto ourselves (primarily)?
3.5. Truth
(04.10.2025)
[1] When people speak of “my truth”, one way in which they might mean this is: “This is my manner of relating to the world.”
(27.09.2025)
[1] There is always a part of ourselves in whatever we observe, I think, and thus what appears beautiful might be about ourselves, too. (: S)
(01.10.2025)
[2] When A is beautiful to us, this means that we judge it to be so and it “fulfils us”. By our authority and our worth, A now has been praised to be good for others. Thus, in a sense, A is good for itself if A can be beautiful, for now it has “justified” itself in the face of other things, insofar as we can say that.
[1] We think about the goals in life and ask ourselves: “Is happiness the goal?” As I have found,
[A.2:3:2151] What gives us happiness might be the goal, and happiness is but its smoke.
As smoke is to fire, so happiness is to the real goal. But what is this real goal?
[2] If I praise you, with which authority do I do this? Is praise not a kind of power dynamic, where the more powerful is thus he who confers upon the inferior their boon, which that one has deserved? Who am I to say that you’re good or bad? Do I not position myself into a god’s shoes?
[3] And is not a statement such as “You are bad!” a strike of the tongue, a mental whipping, a type of power display and violence? But to say "You're good!" still upholds abuse, since we say: "Normally I'd punish you, but you have satisfied me, so I let it slide." By saying "You're good!" I say: "I am superior to you. Because I have more power and authority, I can dictate your worth. And I declare that you're good."
[4] We may never know what is “right” or “wrong”. How could we? But we can prove what is successful. What if some course of action is completely unsuccessful but we consider it “right”? What is to be done?
[5] Happiness is the offence to the suffering. That is, those who enjoy life are like salt to the wound of those who are tormented by life.
[6] What is “oppression”? Is not the restriction of theft “oppression” to the thief? How then can we truly know what restricts us fairly and unfairly? Will not everyone cry “Oppression!”?
[7] Let us say that someone does something wrong and is unfamiliar to us. Often we can be harsh and condemn them strongly. Now, if it were our own sibling doing the same thing, would we not be more understanding and lenient in our judgement? Thus, the more a fragment of ourselves seeps into the being of the other, the less ethically consistent we might remain.
[8] How do we determine what people need? They can always say: “I need this or that.” but lie to us, in order to gain more than they really require. Or maybe we should measure what each needs at the most excessive demand’s level?
[9] Maybe progress is not about which thought or proposition is lived, but how or how well it is lived. E.g., we may live “peacefully” in varying degrees of success.
[10] Once the mental realm has become too strong, the bodily realm collapses. E.g., if we care about feelings to the degree of sacrificing wealth, health and power, everything falls apart.
[11] The person who goes to a priest to ask for advice has not thought that they could answer their own question. Clearly, there is no ethical elite, no priest of philosophy, or such, and those that claim to be (e.g. the priest) have often not seriously studied the matter at hand, but inherited dogmata.
(27.09.2025)
[12] Where there is good, there is bad. This must be like that. For it is a dual concept. And when something does, it should be able to do more than one thing, no? For otherwise, what meaning is there in doing if there are no options? (We can, of course, imagine a world with only one possible state or sequence of states; but this is not our world.) And, what one does towards the good, its opposite option would have been the doing towards the bad. If I can either lift or lower my arm, one of which must be good, the other must be bad. Thus, because the world has multiple options, and because good and bad come in a pair, it is impossible to have a world with only good or bad. A world of options, thus, necessitates both good and bad. What this means, is, that any world of options is a world of good and bad.
[13] Is it really so “good” to teach love and peace? Is it not too simple, deceptively so, if nothing else?
[14] Since the “good” stems from a need to make decisions, if we are in an inanimate state of non-doing, have we attained the good? Or is any state a state of doing, since we “do to not do”, e.g. in lying?
[15] The naturalist says: “Ideals are here for the body.” The romantic says: “The body is here for ideals.”
[16] Indeed, it may not be a problem for a proposition to be “false”. If it is useful, even falsity is “good”.
[17] What happens when we strive towards an ideal? What if the ideal is, as we should assume, not realistic, i.e. ideal? Or can we only strive towards such things as ideals, never towards realistic things? How should we think about it and what should we do?
[18] What is the use of freedom? To be empty. But life needs fulfilment. Thus, any freedom once acquired should be used to become shackled. Shackled to a good. So, for instance, would accumulating gold be useless, but translating it into e.g. food, is useful. Therefore, freedom is no goal in and of itself, but a currency we use to obtain the good.
(28.09.2025)
[19] Is objectification and instrumentalisation of people really bad? Let us say that we die, but our death could be an instrument of great good – would some of us not want to be used in this way and become an object of good?
(29.09.2025)
[20] For something to be good or bad, does it have to be an authoritative voice other than our own that tells us: “Do it! / Don’t do it!”? (E.g., intuitions.)
[21] As for A.22:9.3:9: If we delegate our maturity to someone and merely execute their will, can we ever be properly worth of praise or blame? And if we merely live as someone else’s shadow, their arm, their instrument, then is maybe us trusting the wrong person the only fault we can be blamed for? For the process of decision-making is no longer in us, but has been externalised.
[22] When there is a dilemma and we try to solve it using either e.g., “rights” or thought experiments, but they offer two contradictory answers, which should “win”: the rule-based logic or the thought experiment? Maybe we can have an intuition for a though experiment that shouldn’t be followed, or we might arrive at rules that shouldn’t be followed.
(30.09.2025)
[23] There is a problem in determining whether ethics is subjective or objective: I have no access to others’ minds to determine what is going on there when ethical propositions are evaluated. We might try to measure effects in sciences and research, but can we really talk about the almost ineffable grounds of moral intuitions?
(01.10.2025)
[24] Do we have a claim to our desires? Is there any obligation on others to accept and allow our desires to be fulfilled? Or is this what turns society into a battleground to begin with? Maybe, once a group is formed, a relationship emerges, then do we play the game of “claims”. (: S)
[25] If we ground ethics, rights, etc. in something fundamental, maybe even transcendental, we might risk going into dogmatism and give rise to abuse of power.
[26] Is the goal to keep doing, e.g. keep asking questions, keep thinking, and never find “true” happiness?
[27] In being bad, or cruel, to someone, there is also an element of enacting a personal history within oneself that is taking place. It may be accidental whether the other did something deserving of badness, and is more about fulfilling an internal desire of violence etc.
[28] If we treat one side of a coin well, it becomes suspicious why we focus on that side and not its counterpart, too. This is unequal treatment and leads to conflicts, jealousy, envy, hatred and so on.
(02.10.2025)
[29] Defeating symptoms keeps the system alive, for the cause doesn't change and if it symptom got stronger, the system might collapse.
[30] Is there dissatisfaction that is illegitimate? For instance, if a people were to complain to their authorities about “lack of freedom to steal”, how should we address their unhappiness and suffering that stems from this?
[31] If our happiness points at different things as “good” in different moments, can there ever be a static, eternal “good”?
(04.10.2025)
[32] When we motivate someone to do bad as a step in an action (e.g. lead to the death of an animal for their products), is this also bad or not?
[33] The thought that “punishment rectifies things” can turn into “My life isn’t going the way I want it to, thus I should suffer.”
(05.10.2025)
[34] If we were to say: “Do not do unto others what you don’t want to have done unto yourself.”, and thus exclude e.g. imprisonment or other judicial actions, we are ethically coherent but still violate other “rules”.
[35] We are a sub-set of life, thus cannot judge life or anything larger than life?
[36] Indeed, to invite the gaze of the “other”, of society, of the disciplinary, into oneself, is an almost self-denying act. It illuminates oneself; it strips the mind of its clothing and embarrasses in a masochistic manner to the “other” (e.g., “confession”).
[37] The prohibition (e.g., “Don’t steal!”) might only prohibit one thing (e.g. stealing), but the command (e.g., “Help others!”) clearly prohibits every possibility except for one (i.e. to help others).
(06.10.2025)
[38] Is it always fear, e.g. fear of punishment, which creates obedient behaviour?
[39] Is all of ethics twofold? That is, one part is to figure out one’s own intuitions, the other part is to convince others? I.e., as for the latter, what if we are convinced of something that the majority isn’t convinced of? Does it thus result in a “tyranny of the majority”?
(29.09.2025)
[1] When someone says: “You are like A!”, comparing you with e.g. a famous person in a praising manner, of course we accept this as a good valuation. But, in another sense, it claims that one’s own value (of e.g. being a “good” person) is at best a shadow of the “real” person they compare us to.
(01.10.2025)
[2] Do we value ourselves, or maybe, do we value anything other than ourselves? Is any value merely an extension of our own value?
[3] How we see things relates to their accidental, current state, maybe moreso than any intrinsic essence. For instance, the enemy is an enemy only while their thoughts make them behave in an enemy-manner. (: S)
[4] If we have values and cling to them, they might stifle life. (I.e. value seems to be that which predicts a decision.) Should we therefore try to change our values and keep them flexible?
[5] What is the value of a question? Is it not in what it does for anything other-than-itself? That is, its effects on the world?
[6] If it is good to be A, then it means that this A is a relevant category for worth. For example, if we say that “It is good to be a man.”, then “manliness” (or gender more broadly) is considered a relevant attribution for “goodness”.
(05.10.2025)
[7] In order to treat something in any way, it must have a value, no? For example, if I were to disregard something, needn’t it have a negative value? Thus, nihilism, in a strict sense, is impossible.
(02.10.2025)
[1] A statement like “2 + 2 = 4” isn’t “true” in that sense, but “coherent”, as there might not be any fact it corresponds to, only a system it fulfils.
(03.10.2025)
[2] A statement that depends on optimism/pessimism or other sentiments and perspective, is, in a sense, unhelpful and might not be verified. For example, I can say: “Plato’s philosophy was sufficient. The rest, we can derive from it alone.” With enough optimism, yes, we only ever needed his philosophy. But with enough pessimism, no, we need more than only his philosophy. (This type of reasoning is common in religious discussions, too.)
(04.10.2025)
[3] A statement holds implicit effects and meaning from the person who speaks, e.g., “You should do A.” holds different implications and causes when spoken by a physician vs a non-physician.
(05.10.2025)
[4] Due to the reason of undecidability etc., a meta-level statement probably has to be absolute, even if it captures relative sub-statements.
[5] There are propositions that span over more immediate than abstracted objects, e.g. “This tree is tall.” vs “The statement about trees being tall is true.”
[6] A discussion with simplifications isn’t a discussion (e.g., “A is B!”).
[1] Does hope not cling to something and tranquilise our faculties? In hope, we take things not as seriously as they could be. E.g., if my hope of salvation and eternal afterlife is strong, I may discard this very life. Clearly, this is a danger.
[2] What happens, when aggression cannot get let out? Is there not this mechanism by which it turns inwards? And is not one of the variations of this, that perform a self-sacrificial, self-abusive action on myself, to show my loyalty to the group? Thus, in some sense, there is the “moral self-harm”, an aggression that (maybe in excess) becomes instrumental to establish a certain hierarchy in society.
[3] The mind has this unique capability to create ideals, perfect things. This might just be fantasy, fiction, but is real to us, nonetheless. As we only observe balances (I claim) and not extremes (e.g. perfect happiness), an inner tension makes us create such ideals in fiction, e.g. “paradise”.
[4] The human mind seems to be “centric”, i.e. it requires a centre around which it thinks. It is difficult if not impossible to treat all objects as equal, symmetric or relational. We need a staring point and a standard.
(27.09.2025)
[5] There is an interesting effect: We may think a sequence of “A, B, C” such that we confuse A and B as “B, A” instead of “A, B”. While thinking “C”, we remember “A”, but since C is after B, A now is after B and we confuse the order.
[6] In writing letters, it quickly becomes clear that we do so to a fictitious partner, akin to the figures in our dreams. But this goes even a step further: Even when talking in person, the other carries such dreamlike realities within them.
(28.09.2025)
[7] We go through the world with our concepts, and try to force new phenomena into existing concepts. This creates a bias that does not see things for what they are, but as variants of concepts we’ve already defined and structured.
[8] An expectation is a reality that we have, however hypothetical it might be, and thus, when not fulfilled, we have lost something.
[9] We require emotions, feelings. This might be why we exaggerate things, e.g. by thinking in absolutes and extremes, in order to arrive at a feeling. In this sense, a “truth”, sometimes, might be less about a correspondence between things etc., but more about an emotional reaction.
[10] In hope, the future must look better than the present moment. Thus, the present moment isn’t fully enjoyed, and we’re not present and attentive, but escape into a fantasy. (: S)
[11] When perceiving time, it stretches, at times becoming unbearably wide.
[12] As for
[A.2:3:2177] In the unfamiliar we allow ourselves aggression.
This shows that “good behaviour” might be rooted in empathy, and empathy might be nothing else than us projecting ourselves into the other. Once this no longer functions, and there is no “us” in “them”, we can destroy “them”, as our own instinct for survival doesn’t exist in them.
(30.09.2025)
[13] When considering something as humourful, might it contain a taboo that is in the object of humour and which we signal as a kind of shyness, embarrassment or admittance and apology in our laughter?
(01.10.2025)
[14] The drive to live (maybe also “will to live”) is what sparks curiosity.
(02.10.2025)
[15] There is the tendency of us to go towards comfort, e.g. to retreat “to the womb” and “feel at home”, e.g. in adopting old, familiar thoughts and behaviours.
(03.10.2025)
[16] Once we recognise the bad, we (can) increase in motivation, unless the insight paralyses us. For instance, I may remember that I’m mortal and thus gain the strength to do my best.
(04.10.2025)
[17] Are motivations part of us or “behind us”? That is, for something to motivate us, doesn’t it have to be something other than us? Or can a thing motivate “itself”?
[18] In the very act of designating a part of our experience as a “thing”, we introduce a bias. For, let us say, I behold a tree: Who is to say that what I see as a “stem” is its own thing, or that the one thing isn’t more like what we call “stem + branch”?
[19] Is every image we see a recombination of older images and never just the “new” image? (Also by extension, any thought or experience.)
[20] Might it be that by saying: “Your identity is flexible. You can be anything you want.” we actually do a disservice to people? What if we (a) don’t know what we want, (b) don’t want to decide, (c) cannot decide, (d) our identity is not our making to begin with?
(06.10.2025)
[21] It is the self-disciplinary act of “putting oneself in order” and “imposing order onto oneself” that establishes the Ego as the primary force over the others in the mind’s hierarchy.
[22] The person who enjoys their riches is, in a sense, bathing in a fantasy. For they enjoy the (possibly true) proposition “I am wealthy.” But this is no sense-experience. It is a mental exercise, a fantasy, a kind of imaginative process around a proposition.
(27.09.2025)
[1] What happens when we see things in a pessimistic way? Maybe it is the rebellion against a conflict, against a tragedy. It is defiance. For the pessimist says: “I see the bad and I will not let life get away with it.” Whereas the optimist says: “I see the bad, but choose to ignore or even excuse it.”
(01.10.2025)
[2] The intelligent sees himself as unintelligent in order to grow.
(04.10.2025)
[3] One of the dangerous acts of the mind is to be afraid of truth. When we feel pain in the face of truth, we build “neurotic structures” that aid us in escaping the pain (e.g., cognitive dissonance, ideologies, etc.). These structures do not change reality, and often harm us and others in the process. Thus, how we look at things can be more serious than we might at first believe.
(06.10.2025)
[4] In a situation concerning A and B, there are three possible perspectives: (a) from A’s side, (b) from B’s side, (c) from a separate, virtual, “C”’s side.
[5] We ought to remember that in everything we observe, we observe it as a being observing the observation. Even when we see “John and Mary”, we – possibly – see “I observe John and Mary.”, thus our point of reference might not be in “us” as we might think it usually does.
[6] For A to be wealthy, B has to be poor (relatively speaking). Thus, to bathe in happiness over wealth (especially by analogy: any kind of “wealth” in a metaphorical sense) means to bathe in the misery of others. – For example, if I get the last seat in a theatre, someone else must not be getting it instead.
[7] It might be that the proposition and the view “Happiness is good.” must already be present in order for e.g. advertisement with happy actors to work.
[8] In order for a view to fail, it (possibly) has to be shown to run against other views we hold on to. I.e., it has to reveal an internal inconsistency in one’s web of views.
(27.09.2025)
[1] Often it is the case that novelties aren’t discovered when thinking about the concept itself, e.g. “What is power?”, but by thinking of other things and their relation to the concept we’re investigating, e.g. “Why do I behave the way I do? – And how does this relate to power?”.
(29.09.2025)
[2] A thought might be the tension between two mental states. – In only one state, nothing really happens. In the second, it is the same as the first. But between them, a tension can and should arise, for it is a differential between two things; this is potential.
(01.10.2025)
[3] When we think something, what do we concern ourselves with: (a) the direct object (e.g., the tree I see), (b) the secondary object (e.g., its roots which I cannot see), (c) the relation between them? – The direct object is merely raw sense information. We need to create concepts and entities around it. The secondary object is an idea, a fantasy, a fiction. We need a primary object and a relation that leads to the secondary object. The relation might not be something we can ever see or experience and is, thus, derivational, too.
[4] Moreover, there are propositions that stem from experience, e.g. “A is taller than B.”, in which we observe both A and B. This is maybe merely comparison and immediate calculation. Then there are propositions that concern themselves with inference, e.g. “This tree must have roots, for (…).”, where we only observe the tree but not its roots. Then there might be pure speculation and fiction, where we observe neither A nor B, e.g. “This deity has that relationship to such another deity.”.
[5] Is a more complex thought a more “true” thought? For example, if I explain a desire to eat as a simple “They wanted to eat because of a desire to eat.”, is this less true than a complicated manner of explaining it with depth psychology?
[1] We say:
[A.2:3:1989] If true happiness could be achieved, life would stop doing.
And what I mean by that, is: Aren’t we motivated by suffering (i.e. the absence of perfect happiness)? Can we really do anything if we’re not driven by this force? Thus, if we were perfectly happy, we’d not have any drive and we’d not do anything – we’d be, in a way, inanimate.
[2] Since life is suffering (as we’ve explained elsewhere), eternal life would be eternal suffering. This is one of the critiques of an eternal afterlife, and is less difficult to imagine in rebirth philosophies.
[3]
[A.2:3:1995] Is happiness a reward for living a good life, and a good life a reward for attaining happiness?
We think about this: When I take care of myself, I am greeted with happiness – thus me living a good life is rewarded by happiness. And when I attain happiness, e.g. I am happy because I have drunk a cup of tea, this means that my life is good – it is happy. In a sense, we speak of two different kinds of “life is good”, maybe. But the point remains: happiness and a good life, in a way, are inextricably linked.
[4] We are forced to avoid death through suffering, day by day, only to be met with death one day. – Life, therefore, is clearly a tragedy. A story that cannot be saved, and which is filled with unfortunate and painful chapters.
(01.10.2025)
[5] Can we ask questions when we’re perfectly happy? Is not happiness the state that requires no improvement, and is a question not a quest for improvement?
[6] In order to keep up with the world, we need to be unhappy. For in happiness, there can be laziness and some complacency, which inhibit our strife for improvement. The other will not cease their striving, thus neither should we, or should we?
(03.10.2025)
[7] Only by seeing a worse situation can we enjoy this situation. (: S)
[8] Because of A.22:6.10:1-2 and A.22:2.9:7 – and other reasons –, we may infer that “life is intertwined with suffering”. This means: because life requires desires and doing, and because those – in turn – (can) lead to suffering, “All is suffering.”
(04.10.2025)
[9] Is it that the moment is best enjoyed using no fantasy or maximal fantasy? For with fantasy, the moment is gone, but without fantasy, what is there of the moment?
(06.10.2025)
[10] Suffering not accepted is a clew of worms ready to fester from within. – Only in looking at it, recognising it, accepting it, is internal authenticity established and “neurosis” prevented. And the worst kind of ignorance towards it, is masking it; for if we were to only suppress it, at least it will boil and it is recognised, but in masking, it seeps into our very actions and being, akin to a poisoned well.
[11] In forcing happiness we bury our truth. And others will have to suffer for it. For their authenticity, their own pain and their speech will sting the wound we’ve covered up.
[12] Thus (A.22:6.4:11) it is better to be of a suffering kind than to deny what ails us. For denial can lead to ignorance, and a treatment consists of knowing and accepting what we aim to treat.
[13] Those with extraordinary amounts of pain will cling to the positive, and risk covering up their suffering. Like a shipwrecked sailor at sea, they float in and out of means to try to stabilise this positivity. But is there float sufficient for this?
[1] As many different types of love as there may be, humans tend to group them together by seeming similarity where they might differ more than we may think. For consider the friend, the romantic partner, and the parent: Each of them says “I love you.” to a respective other, but the meaning behind those words is vastly different!
[2] The friend might be one of the purest forms of love. The parent is coerced, by instincts, to care for their offspring. The child is brought up into love against his or her will. The romantic partner partially desires the other for reproductive success. But a friend, what can be said about the friend? Maybe we merely enjoy the pleasure our friend gives us? But in any case, we are not made to love by our drives or instincts, and more “freely” choose such a love.
[3] But beware of what we call “romantic love”, which turns out to be self-love!
For consider this: A man tells a woman that he “loves” her. “What does he mean?”, we might ask. “I want to be with you.”, will his reply be. But what does he really say here? He says that “being with you is good”, i.e. it gives him pleasure, and thus “I want you to be around me, so that I may feel pleasure.” “How selfish of him!”, we might say. “I cannot be without you!” is exactly the honesty we hear in extreme situations – finally they admit, he admits, that it has been about an addiction to his lover, for his own good, because he loves himself so dearly – not the partner!
[4] Is every romance such a deception? Probably not. For different kinds of love may mix, and genuine love for the other may be experienced besides selfish desires. But the other types of love must be of friendship, for example, to counteract the selfish kind.
(28.09.2025)
[5] When we say: “I miss you.”, what do we want to hear? Probably not “Thank you.”, but “Me too.”. If it were the former, it’d be a sign of “love”, i.e. we want to give. But since it might be about the latter, it is a reciprocal, transactional force, maybe proving that the bond is still intact, and/or a request for love or attention.
(01.10.2025)
[6] We not only want to be in love, but also have others stay in love with us. This is a reason why we are defendant of the idealisation and romanticisation of love. If it weren’t as beautiful and good as we idealise it to be, we’d lose the pleasure from loving and the pleasure from the narcissistic fulfilment by others.
(02.10.2025)
[7] Love is the absence of freedom. When we love, we are in a relationship. And any relationship is a confinement of freedom. Thus, love is the antithesis to freedom. – In a world driven by the desire for freedom, it will be the death of love and the triumph of narcissism.
(03.10.2025)
[8] Because of A.22:2.16:1 and A.22:6.5:7, we can see that perfect freedom completely disintegrates love, and perfect love leads to a complete loss of freedom.
[1] It is only in me having a desire and it not being fulfilled that any doing can be possible. Without desire, nothing happens – we are inanimate. With fulfilment, nothing happens, as the desire is no longer. But while I desire and I have not yet fulfilled said desire, do I have motivation and will to do anything.
[2] But because “unfulfilled desire is suffering” and because of A.22:6.10:1, having motivation and will to do, as well as doing, are intrinsically linked to suffering.
(27.09.2025)
[3] If I desire something, clearly I cannot have it yet. Thus, it is revolving around a lack, yes. But the issue is that the lack, while being the difference between “is” and “ought”, is not always about substantial lack (e.g. survival), but often about idealised life (e.g. luxury).
[1]
[A.2:3:2039] We do not use words; words use us.
Is it not thus that especially at some point, it is less that we are that which instrumentally makes use of a word, but that the words themselves have already chosen themselves and impose themselves upon our will, which is powerless in delivering those to the manifest reality they seek?
(27.09.2025)
[2] Arguing over semantics isn’t philosophy, but linguistics. E.g., to say “nothing” as a thing vs “nothing” as the absence of things, is not doing philosophy, but arguing over which words have which meaning.
(28.09.2025)
[3] Is the meaning of a word only ever really understood once its sentence, in which it exists, is understood?
(29.09.2025)
[4] There may be something like “universal” words, as opposed to purely objective (e.g. “round”) or subjective words (e.g. “beautiful”). For instance, if something is “holy” to someone, in a sense, it is “holy” to all of humanity. Though this is, of course, contestable.
[5] A directive word like “do” or “don’t” manifests the target and the subject into a scene where power is exchanged.
[6] We may have two different kinds of words: (a) primitives, (b) synthetic words. “a” is a kind of word that stems directly from experience, e.g. “tree”. It can be defined, of course, but this would actually decrease its meaning – e.g., we could say that it is “a plan with a bark”, but each of those two (“plant”, and “bark”) are themselves less informative than simply showing someone a tree. The latter, “b”, is a word that truly doesn’t come from experience (if this exists), e.g. a “nation” (insofar as this isn’t from experience).
(01.10.2025)
[7] When using a term, the expectations we imagine others to have for our usage of the term will be important in how we use the term. If I say: “I am an artist.” but I know that “artists” ought to produce art in the monetary market, then I better do that in order to call myself an artist.
(02.10.2025)
[8] A word's introduction can happen as a relation between words and/or to experience. – That is, if I point at a tree and call it a “tree”, this is one way of introducing a new word into the vocabulary. The other (one of the others?) is to use words to introduce words, e.g. “A tree is a plant with a bark.”.
(04.10.2025)
[9] What if the word itself holds morphological invisible patterns that only emerge when written in different forms? For instance, it is “liquid” and “liquefy”, so we’d assume “liqu-“ to be the stem; but what if “liquX” is the stem with a value “X” that is indeterminate by definition? (This examples is false, of course, but is used to illustrate an idea.)
(05.10.2025)
[10] With the exception of “thing” (which has anything as its target/object), every word divides the space of things into two. Is there a word that has no targets/objects?
(06.10.2025)
[11] Categories as much shape as they describe reality. E.g., we see similar things and group them, but we also force the similarities, especially later on with added elements to the group.
(29.09.2025)
[1] What does “meaning” mean? We have a phenomenon, e.g. the sounds behind the letters “tree”. These sounds are bundled together as what we call a “word” – a piece of “meaning”. But what is this “meaning”? As for the “tree”, maybe it is the mental object “tree” that we envision whenever we utter the word “tree”; stemming from an experience in the world. What about a “unicorn”? It, too, is a mental object that we have synthesised and is referred to. Thus we have an abstract, class-functional object (e.g., the “tree” in our mind), which is the object of a meaning. But what about “this tree” in particular? This relates to the reference theory of meaning: We instantiate our internal tree into the hypothetical external world; this is the claim. But the reference is never to the tree in the “real world”, only as a manifestation and instantiation of a mental tree into a fictional world (e.g. the external world). (Why is it a “fictional world”? Because it requires our mind to create it.)
(01.10.2025)
[1] Is it not so that any “good” philosophy will not take the answer to the initial question as the goal, but merely as a necessary means to derive much more interesting products? That is, we need a goal (the answer) in order to ask questions, but it is the “side-answers” and byproducts of the questioning which are the real fruits of philosophical discourse and analysis. Once we have reached the main answer, the analysis is over and we are outside of philosophy, again.
[2] Does asking a question mean that we already know the answer? I.e., if I ask a question, I have a goal (the answer). But to have the goal, should I know it? (: S)
[3] There are those questions that lead to deceptively comforting answers, which make us stop asking more questions and thus end up in a standstill. Maybe, these we may call “questions that lead to inanimation”.
[4] Does every question ground itself in the desire to know? Or is there sometimes also the desire for asking involved?
[5] It is the surprise that wakes us up into wonder, and which allows us to ask questions. This can happen when we find a problem, when we love something (and desire to know it more fully to be in contact with it), and when we are bored.
[6] Can questions answer whether they are good or not? If we need a question to determine if it is good or not, does this recursiveness lead to a paradox or not?
[7] When presented with a problem, what happens? We notice that something is not “good”. We try to investigate, i.e. ask questions. And ultimately, we wish to arrive at a solution, an answer. But what are those questions?
[8] Is there only a “right” question when there is a problem? What does it mean for a question to be the “right” question? Is it the question that leads to a solution of a problem?
(29.09.2025)
[1] Of particular peculiarity is the grave: From early on, mankind must have felt great horrors and fears in the face of death, as well as had to worry about contamination for coming in contact with the deceased. Yet, at least today, this very place is associated with the greatest sanctity and cleanliness, with love abundant and with holy values.
[1] In order to attain the counter-intuitive, something counter-intuitive has to be done. In order to attain paradise, we have to fast and starve ourselves.
[2] Maybe, a reason why we seek an ideal person (e.g. God), is that we desire a metre of the human mind against which to measure all human minds. We may measure body and other things against metres we’ve found (e.g. in the sciences), but have none, no standard, nothing for the human mind.
[3] Can there be a “(insert religion’s name) philosophy”? Is it not that religions tend to revolve around dogmata (absolute truths held by faith), and thus are antithetical to philosophy (which aims to be flexible about grounds of thought)?
[4] The vast majority of all followers of a religion do not know their religion and do not follow it truly. It is more important to forge one’s own religion in one’s head than to research it. Maybe it is just an instrument to justify oneself and one’s wishes.
(28.09.2025)
[5] There is a tendency in the follower of a religion to proselytise in order to gain power. For a thought is as mighty as the number of minds believing it.
[6] Is cultic behaviour maybe an excess of joy, of love for an object? (E.g. of a deity or another sacred object.)
(29.09.2025)
[7] Religions are closed systems; dogmata mustn’t be questioned. The idea of philosophy is to find new ways of thinking and expand the horizon of thought, the idea of a religion is to remain within a system of thought and conserve ways of thinking. Thus, they are antithetical to one another.
[8] Philosophy blended with dogma becomes religion.
[9] It seems that religions have as one of their main motivators the aim of stability: We seek stability, something to hold on to, and religions can provide this. How and why? In that we delegate our thinking to an ideal (e.g. a priest, deity, etc.). This, however, means “Unmündigkeit” (“immaturity”). We give to another (the ideal) a part of our being, which ought to remain with us (i.e. our “Mündigkeit” (“maturity”)). We give up responsibility, agency and both the target for praise and blame – for how can we be judged if we didn’t decide ourselves, but have someone decide how to live, for us?
(02.10.2025)
[10] If there is an afterlife, who gets to be with us there? All humans, including difficult people? Animals, including predators? Bacteria? Viruses – life or not? And if these organisms co-exist, how is conflict prevented? And if it can be prevented there, why not here?
[11] Why would a creator deity create us with ethical intuitions, yet also with the ability to stray from them? If this intuition were divine and absolute, then we’d not have any reason not to follow it. Maybe it is about “strength of the will”?
[12] There is a tendency in the religious to create paradoxes and illogical statements, defending them as “higher truth that escapes our low intelligence” and be satisfied with it. But if we accept this as a methodology, then anything goes and aesthetic judgements of a statement might be the only metre against which we test truthfulness.
[13] It is to be regarded with deep doubt that each religious figure will claim to be the “last” and “perfect enough”. Especially since it has shown that we could really need further guidance.
[14] In everything humanity evolves: new technology, state forms, philosophies, art genres, etc., but in religions we’re still in antiquity.
(04.10.2025)
[15] If life is a test for us, but we will be glorified in the afterlife, then the test was for one person but the result for another person.
[1] Is it not so that there is a certain kind of tendency or even desire of one to be objectified and used in romantic love? Maybe it is a form of liberty to be instrumentalised, to be free from subjectivity and fully live in the other.
(27.09.2025)
[2] Might there be some kind of autoeroticism in romantic contact? In that this is the only manner in which we can love ourselves, by being our partner. Only then can we see ourselves, treat ourselves.
(29.09.2025)
[3] Might we be closer to union already if we were to think in relations instead of divisions and discretes? Might this still our hunger for union?
[4] The other might be a window to one of our inner personae, a mask that these wear. It wouldn’t work with our own face, but does so with others’ faces.
[5] In this kind of love, there are a few different ways this may manifest: (a) “I desire to nourish and fulfil you.”, (b) “I desire to merge with you.”, (c) “I desire to become you.”, (d) “I desire to obtain you.”, (e) “I desire to keep you well.”, etc.
(04.10.2025)
[6] In romantic connections, we may ask ourselves what the purpose of such a relationship and its acts are: (a) What does the romantic partner do that a friend does not?, (b) Are words or physical acts (e.g., embracing) more fulfilling?, (c) Might sexuality merely be a side-product and side-effect of it? – As for “a”, there might be two different kinds of “romantic partners”: (A) someone who fulfils an inner ideal and with whom we want to be united (“the beauty”), (B) someone who is an apt “end” for our inner figures that we project into (“the avatar”). As for “b”, both seem to have in common that we seek more than just “love”, “connection”, “protection” etc. The “face of the other” seems important in this, too. (E.g., we can imagine hugging a faceless person.) It would appear that there is an intuition, a wish, to “embrace the other and integrate them into one’s heart”. Maybe a recollection of a missing part of one’s self? – And as for “c”: It would seem that sexuality plays a role insofar as that some people attract us more than others, and this seems to coincide with sexual variables. However, this might be a “façade” of something deeper.
(27.09.2025)
[1] If we assume that there is a god, and he is perfect, then his creation must be perfect, no? Thus, he must never intervene in creation, for it would indicate that something went awry. Thus, if he cannot intervene, then how come prayer should be successful?
[2] Regarding A.22:4.2:12: If there is a god and he made this world, for he made it with options, he couldn’t have not created evil. Thus, maybe he was powerless to do so, powerless to create good and evil alike? There might be, thus, laws that go beyond such a god: the laws of necessity.
[3] We must think about whether a god even has a choice in doing anything. For isn’t a choice a response to a stimulus? And what stimuli could there have been prior to the world’s creation? Thus, a god might not ever have had any “thought” or choice, no options, nothing. Creating this world was the only, inevitable, raw course of action that was possible to him.
[4] There is, of course, the issue that we pray to that which has brought us into this situation to begin with.
(28.09.2025)
[5] “Where there is a need, there is a lack.” Thus, if we need a god, we feel a lack of something. In a way, a god is an ideal vessel for our lacks, as he can be anything we imagine him to be. But herein also lies the problem: We become dependent and fill him with ourselves beyond what is necessary. We empty ourselves of our potency and give it all to that god. (E.g., to no longer think for oneself but rely on sacred rules. Thus, belief in a god relates to insecurity.)
[6] If there were a perfect being, wouldn’t this completely devalue our life? For now we stand in the shadow of a teacher whom we can only emulate, but never be; and now the world’s values are all in this being, not in this world or us, for where value appears, other value disappears. (: S)
(29.09.2025)
[7] If there were a perfect being, any of its parts or properties needs to be closed, i.e. have no relations to an outside, for otherwise those would depend on something outside of the being. But if that were the case, then there could be no connection to anything outside of it, i.e. a created world couldn’t co-exist with the perfect being but had to be ontologically split from it entirely. Since we can think of such a being or even claim to interact with it, it follows that it needs to be connected to us, which means it cannot have closed properties or parts and needs to be imperfect.
(01.10.2025)
[8] Why do people invest energy into e.g. “loving a deity” instead of using this energy to love one another? And why not use a deity etc. to live out frustration and energies that may harm others but not a deity, e.g. complaint or aggression?
(02.10.2025)
[9] If a deity is transcendental and connected to this world, it is mundane, not transcendental. For it only escapes this world in some aspects, but not entirely. It might, for example, still be bound to space-time or having a mind.
[10] If the world is connected to transcendental being, it is transcendental, not mundane.
[11] If it (the deity) is transcendental, logically, we cannot know anything about it. For it would escape our very tools of knowledge, such as categories, properties, language, etc.
[12] If there is an original deity that is an “unmoved mover”, then we can’t interact with it as it would otherwise “move the unmoved mover”.
[13] If a deity has to test us in this life, could we really say that they accept us the way we are, and love us unconditionally?
[14] If a god “steers” us – even if temporarily –, we don’t exist in that moment and have lost agency, autonomy and in a sense, “life”.
[15] If there is a god and he is in nature the nature of logic, but logic is limited and limitation itself, then he is limitation himself.
[16] If a deity were to have created logic, it still would’ve had to create logic by some rules, thus isn’t completely free. (Unless the rule is “freedom”, but “freedom” shouldn’t be able to prioritise any option over another, thus results in randomness, possibly.)
[17] Why should a deity have to be “good”? Why “perfect”? What even is “perfect”? Is weakness maybe the “better” pole of “potency”? Does this deity have a voice, i.e. is maximally vocal, or maximally silent – i.e. which is “perfect”?
(05.10.2025)
[18] If there is an original deity that has always been, it hasn’t created itself, thus is not omnipotent.
(06.10.2025)
[19] Maybe "God" is an externalisation of one's own Self into the world to prevent it from being mortal.
[1] A society is, almost by definition, that which translates and sublimates the individual into a collective, i.e. sacrifices parts of “one” to establish the abstract “it”.
[2] The more I become, the less you can be. There is an equilibrium of being, of power, which a society establishes.
[3] As a society cannot keep gods under its wings, it must cripple them into servants.
(02.10.2025)
[4] We may relate to someone in a way, e.g. admire them for their role etc. But is this not nothing about the person and more about society itself? For their role is not about the person itself, but about virtual agreements between people.
(03.10.2025)
[5] Is the neighbour not too close, thus one’s friends should be further away? (: S)
(04.10.2025)
[6] There is a suspicion that sometimes, people practice a virtue due to a sort of “servant mentality” towards an ideology, a system, akin to religious devotion. For instance, “positivity” may be such a phenomenon: If we shatter it, we are seen as heretical. Thus, this might reveal deeper mechanisms of a loyalty to a manner of thinking rather than merely “being virtuous”.
[7] It is observed that there is a trend within society, which we might formulate as follows: People, being their own royalty, are too proud, and also wary of hierarchies and the other. Any elite is seen with suspicion. Any other is seen with suspicion. Thus, they attempt to solve things by themselves. Society’s disintegration lie within this thought. We do not want to “bother” the other nor depend on them.
[8] A society that elevates the individual above all else will face challenges: (a) pressure on oneself, (b) disintegration of bonds, (c) relativisation of things such as truth etc., (d) nihilism and “depression”.
(06.10.2025)
[9] What would happen if we inverted the tendency: what is low becomes high; what is high becomes low? That is to say: What if our mask of positivity were to be turned into the mask of our inner truth, and our subconscious darkness were to surface onto our visage? Could there be a society that can endure this?
[10] Is the poor, the ill, a reminder of our true side in society (i.e. the suppressed and “cleansed”), or is it maybe even a necessary element to uphold the masks, ethics and power structures?
---
6.10.