06/19/2025

On consciousness and the soul:

	There is a subtle religiousness about most people, one of which
they are typically not even aware. I am talking about a belief in the
existence of a soul. A soul which is not a part of the body. Sometimes
when I bring up this topic, people get upset. They tell me that what
I'm saying is depressing and black-pilling. If the existence of a
non-corporeal soul is so important to your worldview that the idea of
it not existing is so terrible and depressing... you are religious.
It is honestly very shocking to me how widespread this belief is, even
among the allegedly non-religious. It makes me feel as if I am going
crazy. Most people believe in a SPIRIT. Not the brain. Some ethereal, 
non-physical existence of being that is the essence of yourself. That's
a ghost you are talking about. That is a supernatural form of existence
you believe in. This belief is so normalized that even in circles who
scoff at religion and the idea of spirits and demons, it is still
completely normal to believe in a soul. Has everyone simply never
thought about what the existence of a soul would actually mean? Do you
not understand what it is that you believe in?

	It is a bit more nuanced than just the soul. Many people have
an idea of "consciousness". They believe that humans are in some way
set apart from other animals by nature of being "conscious".
Consciousness is, in most people's opinion, a binary thing - you are
either conscious, or you aren't. But where is the consciousness stored?
How do you test for consciousness? I do not know, and neither do you.
That is because this is a completely spiritual belief, not a scientific
one. It seems that in most people's minds, consciousness is tied to the
existence of a soul. A being that is ensouled has consciousness.

	The alternative to this extremely religious theory of human
existence would be two believe two things, both of which many will find
to be problematic. The first is that consciousness is not a binary
attribute, something which a being either has or doesn't have. Rather,
it is simply an aspect of intelligence, which exists on a spectrum.
Humans, being the most intelligent creatures on this planet by far,
have a highly developed consciousness. We are thus able to be aware of
our own existence, to keep a continuous narrative across decades of
lifetime, and even to empathize with the experiences of other living
creatures. The ability to do these things is not a magical power that
is only unlocked by having a divine spiritual gift called a soul. It is
a power that exists where intelligence exists, and is improved as
intelligence increases. Any creature which might in the future evolve
to have greater intelligence would, theoretically, eventually have the
same level of "consciousness" that humans do now. The reason this idea
is problematic for many people is because humans have a wide range of
intelligence within our species, which would therefore imply that some
humans are more conscious, and therefore more "ensouled" than others.
This is a nasty thing for believers in a soul, because those people
tend to believe the soul is closely tied to humanity. In fact, the most
common belief is that the soul itself is what makes one truly a human.
Therefore, to believe that some are more ensouled than others is to
believe that some are more human than others. In order to uphold the
humanity of all people, it is vital for the believer in the soul to
also believe that consciousness is NOT an attribute that exists on a
spectrum, but a binary attribute, which all humans have. Whether or not
other creatures have this attribute is more heavily debated.

	The second thing which you must believe in order to be
non-religious about the human existence is that every aspect of a
person is physical. For some reason, this topic has previously gotten
friends of mine extremely angry at me. People like to believe that
physical attributes are shallow. But physical attributes are all that
you are. Everything about you is your body. The brain is a part of the
body. There is no essence of "you" that exists separately from the
body. There is no you without your body. You are a completely physical
being. When you think, that is a physical process. Your sense of self
is physical, and not just located in the brain. The brain is
interconnected to every other part of the body, I would go so far as to
say that you think with your entire body. A self existing without a
mind makes no sense, a mind existing without a brain makes no sense,
and a brain existing without a body makes no sense. I shudder every
time I read people using phrases like "the meat suit that I inhabit".
Your flesh is not a meat suit, it's YOU. Every bit of it is the essence
of your self, and your self does not have any existence outside of it.
If you find this concept to be devastating or objectionable, that is
because you are religious. A self outside the body is a religious
belief.

05/12/2025

On The Dark Underbelly theory of the world:

	I am going to describe a mindset that drives me insane. I think
this way of thinking is unhealthy, unhelpful, and simply not based in
the truth. This worldview is based in projection of the darkness in
one's own mind onto everyone else. It betrays resentment, nihilism, and
sadism, masquerading as concern, wokeness, and realism. This worldview
has been adopted by many young people, and I have been exposed to it
frequently even by my closest friends and family members. It is so
disturbing and off-putting to me that I must write this essay to get
it off my chest. This worldview I am calling "The Dark Underbelly
theory of the world".

	The main idea is that anything which appears to be good, must
actually not be good. Anything appearing good must have a dark
underbelly, a bastion of evil lurking beneath the surface. They believe
that everything must have a trade-off. If something appears positive,
there must necessarily be a negative aspect that makes it worse. They
refuse to believe that anyone is happy, no matter how much others
insist. If someone claims to be happy, that person must be hiding their
pain, suppressing their true self, putting on a performance, or
carrying some devastating secret. When I am typing it all like this, it
seems like a caricature of extreme pessimism. But it isn't as extreme
as it sounds, and when you carefully examine the behavior of people
around you, you realize that this is the underlying mindset behind so
much of the behavior of others.

	The quintessential example of the dark underbelly worldview in
my mind is the rejection of the nuclear family. Of course, people are
welcome to desire a different lifestyle for themselves. But this goes
beyond a simple desire for a different lifestyle, a huge portion of my
generation has somehow mentally hijacked themselves into feeling a
genuine disgust and aversion. These people look at a happy middle-class
family of four in the suburbs, and feel the kind of aversion that a
normal person would feel looking at a slum, or a hoarder's property, or
a crack house. I've seen an image floating around, it was a picture of
an idealistic 50s family having a BBQ, with a label over each family
member. Daughter: "I can't go to college or have a career". Son: "I
have polio and will never walk by myself". Mom: "I need a cocktail of
drugs to get through the day". Dad: "I'm secretly gay". Grandpa: "I
beat my kids, and now my son beats his." This is what they actually
believe! It's not just a meme, they really think there has never been
a happy family, and if anyone looks happy it's only because you can't
see the dark underbelly of their life. It has become an instinct with
these people to reflexively be against things which appear good. They
would call you naive, gullible, or shortsighted for not agreeing. But
this rejection of things which appear good is not in good faith, as
they would like you to believe. The reality is that they get a kick out
of it. There is a little sadistic pleasure in being contrarian and
subversive. They like the way it feels to believe that society is all
wrong. This is why I have separated myself from being so close with
communist and anarchist communities. I just can't take it. It's
exhausting. I'm happier being around people who believe there is a good
life out there to be lived, rather than around people who can't accept
good things and believe it is imperative to reject family, embrace
poverty, and glorify chaos and ugliness.

	The dark underbelly mindset presents itself in other ways. I am
now thinking about the slander of successful people. When encountered
by a person who is successful and put-together by outward appearances:
kind, beautiful, rich, charismatic, talented, etc... many people have
the instinct to assume that it's outward appearances only. They want to
believe that there must secretly be something wrong with them, hidden
away on the inside. A huge, defining character flaw. An addiction. An
affair. A trip to Epstein's island. Whatever. This attitude is actually
taught and encouraged by popular culture. How often is it a theme in
media that "you shouldn't compare yourself to others, because everyone
has their problems"? Well, people who are resentful of others take the
wrong message from this and decide "I'm just as good as them, and since
they have all these things that I don't, there must be something we
can't see that's really wrong with them to equalize things". The
inverse of this also appears, idolization and valorization of the
underdog and the disenfranchised. Make no mistake: it is not a virtue
to be a victim. It is a tragedy, and that is all. Nor is it a virtue to
be the underdog. Many people live their life believing that people are
like characters in a game with a skill point system. If you were
allotted a full 10 points for beauty and health, then you don't have
enough left for kindness and generosity. This is not how the world
works. People don't have a limited number of skill points. You actually
can have it all. When the dark underbelly worldview is expressed
against successful people like this, it strikes me as deeply
demoralizing and nihilistic. It tells me you believe that excellence
is not possible. You believe that anything good you accomplish in your
life must come with a tradeoff. It tells me you don't believe in the
concept of a role model, or more generally, you don't even believe in
the concept of an ideal. It tells me that excellence in every aspect
is not even worth striving for.

	If anything I said here describes you: you are depressed. Stop
projecting that on the rest of the world. Pessimism is not realism.
Good things are good, beauty is beautiful, excellence is excellent, and
virtue is virtuous. It may feel good to be subversive, but you're just
wrong. I have to reject every aspect of this worldview in my own life.
I want a good life for myself and others, and I want a good world to
live in. I want to pursue excellence in myself in all areas, and I
believe this excellence is obtainable. I want to surround myself with
people who also pursue excellence in themselves, who believe that good
things are good, and who seek out beauty in the world, I believe that
there are many people like this in the world, and I hope that we will
ultimately win the culture over from nihilism and resentment.

05/02/2025

On having morals and principles:

	At my elderly age of twenty-four years old, it is my right to
talk about how this generation doesn't have any morals. This is very
unfortunate, and the lack of morals is exhibited not only among my
enemies, but also by those with whom I agree on most things. I am sad
to say that my generation has abandoned the idea that there is a right
way to act on principle, and is moving towards the heathenistic idea
that you should do bad things to your enemy because they deserve it.
I have several things I want to say about this.

	The first topic is the distinction between a good enemy and a
bad enemy. This distinction comes from the idea of a gentleman's war. A
good enemy follows all the rules. Like a game of sports, you may have
negative feelings towards your rival, but in the end all's fair
whoever wins, and you would not make moral judgement against someone
for being on the opposing team, unless they were to play dirty and
skirt the rules. A bad enemy commits war crimes. A bad enemy cheats
and does not follow the rules. You can and ought to lay down moral
judgement against the bad enemy. The bad enemy is evil, the good
enemy is just an enemy.

	I fear that most people do not make this distinction at all
anymore. All enemies are evil, whether they follow the rules or not.
And when we do encounter bad enemies, those who break the accepted
rules to cheat or commit atrocities, most people have the urge to
strike back the same way. "They did it to us, so now we have the right
to do it to them". This is extremely flawed morally. If you strike back
the same way, then you are accepting that these tactics are not wrong
on principle. You are accepting that it is a legitimate way to behave,
so long as your opponent is bad enough. But if that is the case, then
your opponent isn't so bad in the first place! If breaking the rules
isn't a hard, uncrossable line, then why is your opponent so bad for
doing it? Maybe they thought you were really bad from the get-go. Maybe
they thought you were such a bad threat that it was justified to use
those tactics from the start. And if you agree that breaking the rules
is justifiable in that sort of situation, then why condemn your enemy
for doing so? In reality, you are only condemning the enemy for being
on the other side. And you're always going to dislike your enemy for
being on the other side anyway, but now you've corrupted yourself and
lost the objective claim to be the good guys.

	It is very important to be clear about what you are condemning
and why, if you are going to claim to be a principled person in any
way. "They are our enemy" is enough of a reason. Conflict exists. We
have enemies. It's unfortunate but true. "The ideology they stand for
is immoral" is an even better reason. But the ultimate condemnation
that stands higher than both of these is "they are a bad enemy". They
broke the rules. This is the ultimate condemnation because it is
objective. The world can see who is in the right and who is in the
wrong. Even those who agree with the rule-breaker's ideals cannot
refute it. But this condemnation MUST come from the high ground. You
must be relentlessly maintaining the integrity of the rules.

	Now for the boomer rant part, I believe people used to
understand this. You can tell from the stories of the past. The hero
archetype is always committed to following the rules and maintaining
this high ground no matter what. This is being rejected by my
generation. We like "heroes" (I argue that term cannot apply anymore in
this situation) who kill their enemies on a whim. The classic hero is
seen as naive, foolish, idealistic, even weak. We like stories where
the long-oppressed finally get their chance to wreak the same
oppression on those who harmed them. I do not stand for this. There
might be gray in the nitty gritty of morality, but when it comes to a
conflict, it is always clear who is acting with principles and who is
not.

	A final word on this, the word that comes up a lot is
"deserve". Our enemies have been so terrible, they DESERVE this. We
have been so harmed by them, we have a RIGHT to fight back with
everything they threw at us. This is a morally devoid way of thinking.
Why are you trying to act as poorly as you can get away with? Why are
you looking for a justification for brutality? So what if they do
deserve it? You can still just not do it. And you are better if you
don't. Perhaps it's true that those who do terrible things "deserve"
terrible things done to them, in the sense that if they do experience
those things, it would not be an injustice. But it's also not an
obligation. You can just not return fire. And if you do, that is YOUR
CHOICE. You did that because YOU WANTED TO. Because you are the type
of person who sometimes desires to do bad things to other people, and
you acted on it. Someone's wrong behavior towards you does not in any
way obligate you to behave equally terrible back at them. "But they
deserved it" is absolutely not an excuse in any way, because you still
entirely had the option to do the good thing or to do the bad thing,
and you chose the do the bad thing.

05/01/2025

On foresight and second-order effects:
Very few people have the capability to, or at least the habit of,
acting with foresight. Of course it is normal to consider the results
of your actions when you are making big decisions. The kind of decision
where you get out a whiteboard and write the pros and cons. But very
few people have the constant awareness of how the little actions will
affect the future as they go through the day. Today I pulled into a 
parking spot at work, the lot is always crowded, so it's hard to find
a good spot. There were cars on either side of my spot, and they were 
both kinda close to the line, leaving me with a very narrow space to
pull into. Usually in this situation, I try to be considerate of the
people who parked beside me, and pull a bit closer to whichever car has 
the passenger side facing me, so that the person with the driver's
side facing my car will have enough space to get into their vehicle.
But today I noticed that one car was pulled in forwards, and the other
had backed in, such that I was pulling in between the drivers' sides
of both vehicles. I got out of my car with extreme care, and was
aware that if the driver of either of those vehicles was even a little
wider than I am, they would not be able to get into their car because
of how close I was to both. I felt bad, but I had to park somewhere.
But this situation was avoidable by whoever parked second of those two
drivers. They could've realized that by pulling in with their driver
side facing the empty spot, they are creating the situation where there
is a narrow gap and someone is likely to block their door. But I would
not expect most people to have the kind of foresight to think that far
ahead about a trivial action like pulling into your work parking spot
in the morning. I can't say with certainty that I would have had that
foresight. But one ought to. I do actually think this kind of thinking
is a very strong indicator of overall intelligence, because it must be
real-time and instinctive. You can't stop in the middle of the lot
before parking and write down the pros and cons of different ways to
park your car. Having a good foresight into all your actions is a full
time, 24/7 attribute. If it doesn't come naturally, it would be
exhausting and eat up all your mental bandwidth to walk around
constantly trying to analyze the second order effects of every little
thing you do. It does not seem very fruitful to try very hard at this.
But someone who is intelligent in this way does not have to try, they
are simply aware instinctively of the possible ripple effects of their
actions. A lot of things in life are this way. You can force them for
a certain period of time, but they are only useful if they are a 24/7
constant habit that you don't even have to think about. My best friend
has a good memory, and this is something I've always been jealous of
and respected him for. Mind you, I am much better than him at 
MEMORIZING things, but he has a better general memory. The difference
is that I must memorize something intentionally. If you were to sit me
down with a page from a book and tell me to memorize it, I would read
it and focus on memorizing it, and after a period of time I would be
able to quote it back to you. But the difference is, my friend does
not have to memorize things actively like that. He just remembers. No
intentional act of committing it to memory, he knows without trying. If
you gave him a tour of your house, then two days later asked him "hey,
do you remember the painting in my younger brother's room?" there is a
high chance he would be able to describe the painting to you. I could
never do something like that unless I set out on the tour intending to
commit all the wall decorations to memory. Just by living my life
naturally, I won't remember, it takes specific effort to remember.
I don't know whether or not it is possible to develop this kind of
skill. I can't exactly go through my life constantly thinking "I need
to remember this" about every single thing I see and hear. Part of the
point is that I want to do it without trying. If I'm actively trying,
then I don't really have the skill that I want to develop. But habits
can be formed, so perhaps it is possible to develop a better general
memory and a better awareness of downstream effects of your actions.
When I was a young kid, my father would always lecture us on
situational awareness. He would tell me off if we were out in a public
crowded area and I got in someone's way, so I developed the instinct
to be aware of the trajectory of people around me and feel awkward if
I'm standing in a spot that inconveniences the flow of the crowd. Some
people CLEARLY do not have this instinct. I wonder if there is a way to
instill lifelong habits of observation and consideration into a child.

04/08/2025

On seasonal bipolar:
@punkreflex just read your post about how spring messes with melatonin
levels and also mania is more prevalent during spring. I have spoken
of this before, I am convinced that the latter is caused by the former.
In my rigorous scientific experimentation, I have discovered that
sleeping for 6-7 hours a night makes me happy all the time but also
lowkey insane and crazy in a nefarious way. Sleeping 8-9 hours a night
makes me chill asf and lethargic and perhaps apathetic. And which one
I do is definitely seasonal. I try so hard to push through the winter
lethargy, but no one ever wants to hang :sob: nothing irritates me more
than the way everyone is so quick to cancel stuff because of weather.
Like I really don't care if it's cold and snowing, they plow the roads.
And you're going to be outside for ten seconds and then inside the rest
of the night. Do we really have to cancel every single hang for an
entire season because it's too cold for the ten seconds it takes to
walk out to your car?

04/07/2025 entry 2

On fantasizing vs. doing:
The previous entry has brought me to another point. I have come to
realize that in this life, there are a lot of people who are completely
fine with always fantasizing and never DOING. I am not that person.
To me, there is nothing more painful than fantasizing about something
you cannot have. There are so many people who have something they've
"always wanted to do" that they could've just done. Like easily. But
I've learned that a lot of people seem to get the same pleasure from
THINKING about doing something, as they do from actually doing things.
So, they don't do things, they just think about them. This is where the
music thing comes in. When I listen to music, I imagine what kind of
scene it would be a soundtrack for. What would you expect to happen
while this music is playing? And if I get really into the music, but
the scene I'm imagining doesn't match up with what I'm actually doing,
that makes me sad. I was really into the vibe that the music elicits,
but it's not real. It's just in my head, and I'm not actually
experiencing it. It just makes me want to go live the experience for
which that soundtrack would be appropriate. I don't believe most people
experience this. I believe most people are totally fine just
fantasizing, going through their normal day while listening to music
and tricking themselves into feeling like they're living a life
that matches the vibe of the song. But they aren't. There is a type
of fantasizing that is enjoyable, but it's when you are taking active
steps to bring about the future you want to happen. When the fantasy
turns into a visualization of your future, everything changes. When
you're a kid, every fantasy is a visualization of your future, because
anything can happen. Once you're grown, it's not gonna happen if you
don't make it happen. As soon as the fantasy appears, I'm either taking
steps to make it a reality, or I'm not. Ever since I left school, there
has been a massive shift in my priorities as I confront this. So many
things that I always imagined myself doing in the future, I have to
either get on track to make them happen, or else drop the fantasy. The
one thing I won't do is keep wistfully thinking about it every single
day, knowing it's never going to happen.

04/07/2025 entry 1

On the music you listen to:
I've had this conversation a lot of times, so you've probably heard
this from me before if we've hung out a lot, but I'm posting here
anyway, so that I have my thoughts written somewhere. Music functions
as a soundtrack to life for me. Different types of days, activities,
and people call for different types of music. It is very important to
me that the music matches with the episode you're on. It is uncanny to
me when people listen to music 24/7 that does not match their life.
I guess I'm like an oldie who is concerned about the influence of
music on the youth. Actually yeah, I'll double down on that. Music has
an influence on your actions and the type of person you see yourself
as. Music is typically aspirational; the artist sings about a type of
life that you imagine yourself having. This is one of my favorite
things about country music, I do think it is very honest. It probably
applies to you. In college I loved playing 2010s party music at the
function. And it was fine because it fit. But now, if I put on Kesha it
feels like a LARP. I was running Kirksville just like a club.
I do not think I am running St. Charles just like a club. I'm scared
to take shots now because I have work in the morning and I don't want
to frow up. I go to bed before midnight. That's not my soundtrack at
the moment. I need to listen to music that applies. In my opinion,
people who are always listening to music that doesn't really apply to
the life that they actually live, are usually sort of delusional.

04/04/2025

On morality and intelligence:
In our current world, there is a lot of importance on being a "good
person". I do not believe that this has always been the case. In
previous eras, the average person might think that being extremely
virtuous was a thing for saints and nuns. This is no longer the case.
Being a good person is not going above and beyond anymore, it is what
you MUST do. If you were to admit that being good and always doing the
right thing is not a priority in your life, you would be ostracized
from most communities.

This is only a fair expectation for a population when there is a simple
set of rules of goodness to follow. It's fair enough in religious
societies: follow these rules and you are a good person. We do not have
such a society, we do not have a standardized set of rules, yet we
still have the expectation of morality. It's easy enough to say "just
be kind" or "treat others how you want to be treated" or my least
favorite, "do you really need a list of rules to know how to be a good
person?" But if you have lived on this earth for more than a week, you
should understand that nothing is that simple, and there are so many
situations where the right choice is not obvious. It seems cruel to
have a society where the worst thing you can be is a bad person, yet is
is so possible to accidentally be bad despite good intentions, the
rules for goodness are vague and not universally agreed upon, and worst
of all, being good is so often predicted on being CORRECT.

This last point is what bothers me the most. You must have correct
knowledge in order to do the right thing. You will be forced MANY times
throughout your life to pick a side. And you will have to do so without
full perfect knowledge of the situation. And not picking a side will be
the same thing as picking a side, with the same consequences. And later
on, the full truth will come out, and it will be made clear which side
was the correct one. And if you chose wrong, you will be punished,
people will say you are bad, and that if you had just BEEN A BETTER
PERSON you would have somehow had perfect knowledge to know which side
you should've chosen. You will be asked to apologize and
self-flagellate for making the best decision you could with the
information you had available. Those who chose the other side will act
as if they chose it out of greater moral virtue, rather than because
their interests and social ties tipped the scale in a different
direction than yours did. This is a cruel situation to be placed in! It
is cruel that the average resident of planet earth is expected to make
moral decisions and is held liable for them!

This point gets to the topic of intelligence. Someone who is dumb will
be incorrect about things more often, and therefore will make more
wrong decisions. I see people get blamed for this, and called bad for
their stupidity. As if they would've simply been correct instead of
incorrect, if only they were a better person. The lack of
intelligence is treated as a moral flaw. I hate this framing a lot. I
am of the opinion that intelligence is mainly innate and cannot be
controlled. If you are a person who disagrees with this - if you
believe that a person's intelligence is under their control, and that
one has a moral responsibility to not be stupid so that one can make
better decisions, then I ask you to think carefully about this:
Are you the smartest person in the world?
Or even the smartest person you know?
Why not?
Do you seriously believe that you have JUST the right amount of
intelligence to allow you to be mostly correct about the world and
make good decisions? That the moral responsibility to not be dumb
ends with you, because clearly you are not dumb?
Have you considered that you're dumb compared to someone out there?
Why have you not simply become as smart as that person?
Or is it possible that your intelligence level is just what comes
naturally to you, and those dumber than you are not doing anything bad
and wrong to make them that way, just as you aren't doing something bad
and wrong that makes you less smart than Einstein?

Following this thought process really dismantles the secular idea of
morality for me. How can I see someone do something bad, which they did
because they are stupid and believe wrong things, and blame them for
that? Do I really want to be liable for my own misunderstanding of the
world and lack of knowledge? Is it a fair expectation that that person
should've been smarter and more correct? Is it fair if that same
expectation is applied to me? Am I a bad person unless I become smarter
and more correct about things? Am I obligated to dedicate the rest of
my life to developing the perfect opinions on everything so that I
don't accidentally do something wrong?

Does the quality of a person as a human being really come down to this
nonsense? Is that really the innate truth of the universe?

03/31/2025

On understanding:
Recently I am struck with the
realization that the feeling of
"understanding" is an illusion.
In my life, I have tried to
learn many difficult and
confusing things, in college, in
my job, and for my own hobbies.
What you often feel at first is
a sense of mental frustration
when encountering a new concept.
Throughout my education, what
eased this was meticulously
going through the proofs. When
I have an understanding of the
concept from first principles,
the frustration goes away, and
is replaced with a feeling of
understanding. But I have come
to realize that this feeling of
understanding does not require
actually understanding: it also
comes from getting USED to the
topic.

In shorter form: you can easily
confuse not deeply understanding
something but being used to it,
with understanding that thing.