AAAAAAND a woman just appeared in my tiktok ipad screen and annoyed the fuck out of me by making a stupid "debunk" video where she turns from a 2/10 to a 6/10 with copious amounts of makeup while mentioning literal pseudoscience like "Emotional Intelligence" and whining about mansplaining. Jesus fucking christ they annoy the piss out of me I should have spent more time shitting on feminists in this essay
I actually have the reading speed of a toddler unironically. I have brain damage from two childhood concussions that severely impaired my reading speed and spatial awareness lol.
Childhood concussions actually don't have a very big influence on cognitive ability at all from what I've heard. Are you sure it's not just from being part of the ADHD generation?
Well something’s definitely wrong with me if it’s not that. It took me four years to learn how to drive a car safely, it can take me 8 hours to read 50 pages, and I literally have to be thinking about where I’m walking all the time or I just hit shit.
Did you read much as a kid? If you just avoided reading as a kid it can really really mess up your reading speed as an adult. My dad hated books as a kid and made my grandma do his book reports for him, and when he started enjoying reading as an adult it would take him ridiculously long to read even just two pages. Like literally almost 15-20 minutes sometimes. Me and my mom always made fun of him for that because we could read way faster than him. There's really nothing you can do about that unfortunately, it's one of those things you have to cultivate as a child or else you're just boned.
Same here, I didn’t read enough as a kid and now as an adult it is an uphill battle getting back into casual long reading. My reading speed is probably pretty ordinary but I can’t keep focused
I get laser focused if I like what I'm reading but if I don't care that much about it I will get distracted some. It's sort of a tradition for my grandma to get me the newest Diary of a Wimpy Kid book every Christmas and I will get it and read the whole thing in less than an hour usually. Obviously this is not a high reading level book and has a lot of pictures in it but I don't think most people would read it that fast.
Back a few years ago, Timothy Zahn was writing new Thrawn (Star Wars) books when I was still in college. I would drive down to the Books a Million near campus on the day of release pretty early in the morning and get it. I'd usually have the book knocked out by the afternoon, and these were 300-400 page books.
But if I have to read something for class I usually just can't make myself do it cuz most of the books suck so bad.
Sorta. As a really young kid, I had to read a lot for school, but by intermediate and middle school we weren’t being required to read a lot anymore and I just stopped doing so because I wasn’t interested by most books back then. I’m sure this contributed to the problem, but even as early as like elementary school I remember struggling a lot. 20 pages could take a whole afternoon.
It’s probably also worth mentioning I was only working part-time so I had plenty of free time to lock tf in on that for hours every night. The Substack I’m about to release is 90 pages and I’ve been on it for a month I think, typing at minimum 3 hours a day.
It took me two weeks just to draft the first pass of that document back when it was only 50 pages, and four entire days to review it before publishing!
There are a few points worth noting here which I believe require some clarification.
There is a necessary distinction to be made, first between Perennialism as a posthumous analysis of various traditions with the goal of extracting and directly identifying Truth and principles of eternal verity, and Perennialism as a perceived predecessor to such traditions themselves, and secondly between Perennialism's analytical or philosophical component, and whatever historic or contextual component it may be understood to have. Beyond this, the primary obstacles that seem to obstruct your acceptance of Perennialism are the difference in attitudes between what you have characterized as the mystified view and the religious view, and the difference between the mythical/ritual approach vs the philosophical/intellectual approach.
The conclusion of "Perennialism" is that of Universal incorporativity - that Reality is preceded and united by a singular principial source, and that it proceeds from this source - and operates - according to a certain formula which we may call the Quintessential Truth: the highest and most incorporative Truth that acts as the "design" of Reality. The identification of this Truth, regardless of ones attitude towards it, and regardless of how it is expressed, conditionally, through language, is the ultimate goal of Perennialism, and it achieves this goal through inter-religious study and discourse, providing Perennialism as a subsequent philosophical exercise as opposed to a precedent active tradition.
The innovations of the Axial Age come as a developed articulation of the natural intuition and myth which preceded them. With the lexicons provided by these schools we are able to extract and directly assess a principle in isolation from its symbolic and formalistic associations, establishing a different approach to Truth, but still identifying the same Truth. It was simply the explication of what had previously been implied in myth; that doesn't negate the propriety of what's being said by Plato, for example. It might even suggest that the exercise of analyzing traditions for the sake of identifying Truth (Perennialism) dates back to these philosophers who engaged in such explication. I do not see how this makes them, as you have put it, "motivated ideological schools", but even were that the case, these school are motivated by the desire to identify and proliferate Truth in the most concise manner possible, which I do not see to be a negative, nor do I see it as antithetical to Tradition.
The difference in the mythological approach from the intellectual approach is that on the one hand the former provides a much more fluid understanding than the rigid philosophies of the latter, but on the other hand the former allows for much more confusion than the latter, while the intellectual approach still provides the incorporative element necessary to understand that it is possible for multiple cosmogonies to possess and understand Truth. I would argue that Truth is more likely to be found, however, in the intellectual traditions as opposed to the ritual ones simply due to truth-seeking being the ultimate goal, as opposed to ritual-affirmation.
Regardless, the main qualifier for a *correct* tradition, in my opinion, is that it distinguishes the Quintessential Truth, regardless of the attitude it takes towards the world. It matters to be principially correct in this regard, not even to hold the correct attitude. To be a *proper* tradition, however, it must distinguish the Quintessential Truth, and possess a qualifying praxis on the basis of the formula provided by this Truth: the fulfillment of archetypes and so forth. Whether this is life affirming or denying, or world affirming or denying, does not matter, so long as access to and participation within higher realities is achieved through whatever method is employed.
Beyond this I largely agree here, and I must say I enjoyed the quote comparing Buddhahood to the completion of a Roblox obby.
Yes, I was planning on a revision of this post where I discuss more religious groups, and make some changes to the sections discussing the differences between the mystical tradition and the contemplative tradition. I think it is not well worded as I don't want to give the impression that the contemplative tradition is at odds with common religion, and as I say in the post (I think?) my feelings towards this divide became less and less emphatic on the post. I think, the justification for myth and rite even from the view of the philosophers will require its own section.
I would suggest a book to you titled "Philosophy As A Rite Of Rebirth" by Algis Uzdavinys; even just the introduction from the translator and the introduction from the author remedies what seems to be the divide between the philosophical/intellectual tradition and the mythical/ritual tradition.
Also I didn't get to the point about the difference between the historic and philosophical aspects of Perennialism as well. As kind of a digression, there are two ideas that often become confused in Perennialist circles: the "Sophia Perennis" - the Perennial Philosophy - and the "Prisca Theologica" - the Primordial Tradition. The former is the philosophical reconstruction of the ultimate identification of that Quintessential Truth which transcends all expression and formalism, while the latter is the theory of a single historic tradition that has branched off and deviated in different directions, suggesting that all the world's proper traditions today are the extension or the offspring of that ultimate Primordial Tradition. I'm unsure if I truly believe that, but the significance is that historic context doesn't matter for the Perennial Philosophy theory, whereas it does for the Primordial Tradition theory.
Pretty much agree but I think the reaction to axial religion can sometimes go too far in the opposite direction. Priests and religions buildings basically all had rather strict rules about purity and interacting with the mundane world. I don't think I can post links in a comment but the Wikipedia on the Flamen Dialis has a whole list of all their prohibitions like avoiding horses, dogs, battles, and corpses. Brahmins had a similar thing (pretty sure this is the origin of Hindu vegetarianism, although for some reason it became widespread), as well as Goðis although I don't think they were as strict.
I didn't know this. I actually prefer crab, I don't really like lobster that much but this time it looked good. But crab, it's really good. Snow crab is expensive so if you're gonna pay for it then go full in and get it at a seafood restaurant where it's fresh and well-prepared. Crab Bisque is also good soup, good to dip saltines in but also hearty on its own
Is the Catholic view on asceticism the reason why you say that if you were to re-convert to Christianity, you would be a Protestant (since Prots don't really practice asceticism, especially outside of the High Church denoms)denims?
Related: does this mean you are not the biggest fan of St. Augustine? He is more or less responsible for modern Cath asceticism, particularly ascetic chastity (albeit it did not become popular until the Middle Ages for largely political reasons). I am quite fond of Augustine (I would choose him for my Patron Saint if it was a Cath) but also really do not like this part of his philosophy. Obviously, I think he was off the mark on his interpretation of scripture here though and that this is not something intrinsic to Christianity or even Catholicism neccessaryily.
Not the reason but it is a plus for the proddies. Ascetic chastity is a bad element of Christianity but somewhat understandable. I don’t like that Augustinians call themselves Platonists and say they are the inheritors of the classical philosophical tradition when they’re really just retconning it into their religion but otherwise I don’t feel that strongly about the man one way or the other. Aquinas is sort of the same way but I like Aquinas
Great article, Sect! Now I need to know your thoughts on the Indo-European qualities of Zoroastrianism. Some people I know reject it outright on the basis it is Axial Age
My old friend TheWarg on iFunny had some great textposts on Germanic religion and also Zoroastrianism from way back in the day, but now I'm banned from iFunny and I fear he may be as well (the new bans don't really leave any trace, and he's not very active to begin with) so I don't have much of a way to contact him. But he went a long way in convincing me that Zoroastrianism is actually le good, and I was gonna request that he join Substack and maybe enlighten some people on the Avestas, the Runes, etc etc... There was a certain book he recommended me, a Zoroastrian apologetics book which criticized Islam and Christianity. But I don't remember what it is called, I'll have to find it
He has a post of it on his profile if you scroll down enough. It's easy on the app but on the website every post is full screen sort of so it takes a while.
Eventually a spongebob would reach buddhahood by incarnating through all of the dead spongebobs and gaining a little bit of enlightenment every lifetime, and then boddhibob could be able to fight it to a draw
i’m kinda confused on shintoism, i’ve read that it originated from buddhism and that pre buddhist japanese religion was some sort of shamanistic possibly religiously matriarchal religion that shared many similarities with shintoism
i’m not sure how to express this since eastern people generally view religion differently but i’m talking about shintoism from after buddhisms arrival, i believe shintoism had no concept of priests, temples , scripts or other “holy stuff”. They prayed at waterfalls, rocks and trees and the like instead. Also with the arrival of buddhism a whole host of gods from hinduism , taoism and confucianism also came along
Yes you make many good points here about the nature of enlightenment, it is very misunderstood by people as a form of escapism when it is more seeking the ultimate state of being (being?)
> You must understand that the reasons for more pessimistic attitudes had everything to do with the novel condition of sedentary existences, wherein Duhkha was completely inescapable and couldn’t be ignored.
I think that while yes, sedentary society is characterized by a sort of constant low-level anxiety, it is far superior for the elite element of society than primitive and especially Paleolithic life is. This elite element usually comes from a pastoral background, and continues to practice pastoral hobbies like livestock breeding and hunting during their reign over sedentary society. But being an Indian might be uniquely anxiety inducing, hence why the elite Indians were the most famous to adopt this pessimism.
> To have a world affirming and “interested” attitude in the world of modernity is nearly impossible without dishonesty, such a feat is strictly related to ones material conditions and has nothing to do with a flatly objective assessment of how life has developed, or rather degenerated.
A flatly objective assessment of history and the world doesn’t lead people to any form of historicism in my opinion. Not whiggism nor the “downward spiral” mentality of the Traditionalists. The world is bad today partially because of decadence, yes, but decadence specific to our current civilization and not to the entirety of history. But it is mostly bad because of mind viruses, for lack of a better term. The stochastic nature of human decision-making, as well as plenty of completely chance events. This was an accident… However, you are correct that it is very difficult to be enthusiastic about the world in this day and age, clearly a time of confusion. Furthermore, there is little we can do in the world to change this, once again it is mostly left up to fate. So yes, it is reasonable today to focus more inwardly.
> In that way this understanding of a “love for life” is a mere artifact of a concept of self or as an aesthetically desirable position, it is related to reputation-related anxiety. Otherwise the mass majority of these people would not be dissident reactionaries which believe that most if not all of the sedentary populations who are dysgenic need to be mass culled or otherwise disposed of violently. I wouldn’t call that life affirming at all and would in fact consider it to be profound death drive, abiding in the chaotic and unwholesome features of the world for their own interests.
I don’t think this is a death drive. People recognize that something has gone awry when the “eater” demographic is exploding in most societies despite being less useful than ever, and that ideologies are incorrect in believing that civilization was built for the “eater”. Civilization was built for the Pyramids and Ziggurats and not for the eater. Fascism tried to reconcile a lot of this stuff but was struck down
> Another feature I think needs to be addressed is that illusion and enlightenment are treated here as if they are novel historically, when these teachings are esoteric aspects of PIE religion and the seeds for later doctrines such as Buddhism have always been present in them, even to the extent of the German religion.
Enlightenment is actually one of the best things if not the best thing, don’t think I’m ragging on it. It’s more the method of attaining it. Contemplation about enlightenment has probably always been going on but historically I think theurgy (either through initiation or through heroic action) was what people most strongly associated with a state of divine understanding of the universe and ascendancy above death/decay after death. Meanwhile monastic and ascetic traditions are more recent. Asceticism is not all bad though, it can help you attain special states of consciousness. But sitting in your monastery as a hermit calling everything illusory, ehh I think that’s a more contrived thing
In respect to pessimism, there is a clear contention with the world that goes far beyond conditionality, is what I am supposing. We typically do not love our enemies, we do not love old age, disease, and death, we typically do not love being pulled away from the beloved and having company with the unwholesome and wretched. But life is not youth, health, friends, getting what one desires and being close to that which is familiar. This only describes one portion of a dependent dichotomy, each do not exist in any independent way. Such that we cannot slice out and separate them, they make sense of the other. I think that anyone who finds great interest or occupation with the “world”(and by world, I am speaking about dull mundanity, and its expectations of outcome and results, not the higher properties of excellence or austerity) are ignorant or otherwise deceiving themselves in that they believe this suffering is found in the world and not in themselves. Hence why I say that the vulgar interpretation of this dichotomy is maintained typically by spirituality ill people. Life is a game that must be played but it should be done so with excellence and mindfulness.
Pulling from the piece: “Dharma and Life affirmation”
—“To succeed is to be free of antagonism in the most basic definition. A successful individual is one who does not live a disaffected life of anger, craving or delusion. No one who is successful in a true sense, ever abides in, loves or “embraces” hatred, greed, anger, resentment nor craving. The successful do not suffer. Life as we understand it, is consistent of values. A value is that which we seek to keep or hold, and contentment is the result of actualizing a value. Getting what one wants out of life brings contentment. All beings are disposed towards this path, yet there are inevitable hinderances or conditions which will make this difficult, or often times in many cases, impossible. Thus those who possesses refined discernment or intelligence would conclude that there must be some ultimate value, one that is not subject to, or conditioned by impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and emptiness. The truly successful do not suffer because they are already victorious in knowing the ultimate, much like how a sage does not need to do philosophy because he has nothing more to know, and thus, to make suffering a value is to make incompetence spiritually economical. To accept or otherwise acknowledge these conditions as necessary, existentially speaking, is to “affirm” life, but it is another thing to behave or dispose oneself psychologically to crave antagonism. To make virtue of predatory, delusional and reckless behaviors and attitudes.
It is completely delusional even outside of a Dharmic view to love something like suffering or struggle, even if its for some aestheticized reason, such as the idea that suffering produces great characters or individuals. What is really loved or valued isn’t the suffering but the outcome of suffering, which is usually some romanticized notion of an “ideal” man or desirable conditions.
Do we really love our enemies?
Do we love threats to our wellbeing or lifestyles?
Our livelihood or physical health?
Is disease to be loved?
Death?
The separation from what is beloved?
Is that really true? Are we thankful for any of these things in an authentically true and real sense? I don’t think so.
Better yet, supposing that we crave challenges, do we crave them infinitely? Or is it more likely that we crave an infinitude of their fruits?
As, if there is no final destination or freedom from challenges, as in to say, there is no “ultimate challenge” to overcome(suffering), the point at which one challenge ends and another begins is arbitrary. No such overcoming of challenge is actually possible, as there is an unending set of them that each result in psychological emptiness, and craving for further struggle. It is struggling to struggle, not struggling towards any kind of substantial victory.“
Cont.. “ The mere idea of “samsara forever”, or endless eternal return as an actual proposal for a metaphysical ontology, is far more nihilistic and life denying than any kind of Dharmic understanding of the universe. To always be putting true spiritual gratification or victory so far from oneself is disenfranchising.”
A major reason renunciation and asceticism are unappealing or unappetizing to the crowd of life affirmers is that it contextualizes the outcome of activities and intentions in the world such that the individual will is silenced or made irrelevant, and this is the factor which drives causality into motion in the first place. In that way I think that pessimism here is more synonymous with realism in that it comes with a natural disinterest or dispassion for things which are not final solutions. Much like how we see weak-minded or weak willed operations as compromising or effeminate even in that same sphere, perhaps the dichotomy of populist ideology versus a more occultic or esoteric understanding of reactionary politics would be satisfactory as analogy.
Things like the decay of time and sedentary environments are inevitable, and in an empirical and soyentific sense, every existing human has such intense maladaption that there will never be a return to conditions which allowed suffering or conditioned existence to be ignored. I would think that most people who have had the luxury of seeing this from a third person perspective, e.g, historians, wisemen, priests and the intellectual caste, have always been constructing “exit” plans or theories of transcendent ascension. In that way I see the attempt at adopting a consciousness which was not “aged” as a matter of aesthetic appeal.
You are correct, that the glorification of struggle is really a glorification of virtue which comes from struggle. But, I don't think any pagans in history were really calling struggle "good". Also, just to clarify, the idea that evil exists in this world through some sort of human error is not what I meant. Evil exists in this world necessarily, as a sort of residual element, but is made more powerful than good by human error. But it exists no matter what. Enthusiasm about the world among pagans actually does not come from the world in-itself, it comes from a belief that the world reflects a divine element. That is what is good about the world, it is inspiration to the higher things and it is governed by higher things.
I don't think humans are as maladapted as you think, maybe read my post on Harpending vs. Primitivists. Human beings have evolved more in the past 10,000 years than in the preceding 100,000. We're maladapted to industrial life to some extent, sure, but sedentary life in general I'm not entirely sure. There is a darkness to band societies like you see in the paleolithic, a darkness which comes out today in places like Papua New Guinea where the locals eat peoples brains and don't know that sex causes reproduction.
You are correct that the intelligentsia was cooking up theories of ascension, but my main point is that these theories did not typically involve a renunciation of action until later on. They involved initiatory rite, demonstration of piety (in the Roman sense), and attainment of heroic virtue which all served to align someone with the creative principle in life. To do these things dispassionately is and has always been considered good. I would also maybe contest the idea that these pagans really fully believed in or cemented a belief in cyclical reality. That doesn't mean I am against it, I think it was just left ambiguous in these religions.
Speaking of which, eternal samsara as nihilistic is maybe something worth another post. Maybe I do some reading on justice, theodicy, etc etc and come back to that
>>Enlightenment is actually one of the best things if not the best thing, don’t think I’m ragging on it. It’s more the method of attaining it. Contemplation about enlightenment has probably always been going on but historically I think theurgy (either through initiation or through heroic action) was what people most strongly associated with a state of divine understanding of the universe and ascendancy above death/decay after death. Meanwhile monastic and ascetic traditions are more recent. Asceticism is not all bad though, it can help you attain special states of consciousness. But sitting in your monastery as a hermit calling everything illusory, ehh I think that’s a more contrived thing.
“Jhana” or what the catlicks would call “high contemplation” has origins in the stone age, in fact I am suspicious that meditation was related to ancient hunting, fishing and tracking practices. I have recently had a subtle revelation that meditation is so difficult because its akin to patience or deference of gratification much like ancient hunting practices were disposed to. Such that in meditation, we are still seeking out something by initiating a non-fragmented focus. Ancient hunter gatherers likely sat in thickets and densely covered places wherein they did not move at all until their prey was “in” sight. We might think the same thing of fishing phenomenologically, that we are waiting and abiding in focus until we feel the tug of the lure and line. This is likely the archaic origins of meditation in an anthropological sense, and it translating into sedentary contexts resulted in esoteric traditions. Meditation also slows RMR, and breathing, which would have the physical consequences of lowering one’s caloric expenses and silencing ones bodily or physiological racket so that prey would be unsuspecting. I think that it is hardly artifice or invented. Dhamma is only one instance of it, merely systematized in early civilized contexts. The Buddha and ancient sages ran into woodland dwelling ascetics all throughout their lives, and this could only have been inherited as a kind of ancient practice or wisdom. Notably, existing pagan religions like Dharma have a clearer line or connection to ancient shamanic religion such that we even see the bon tradition having these elements in tandem with Tibetan Buddhism and Hinduism. Methinks that meditation is more like hunting or fishing than it is a kind of dull laziness or slothfulness, as many people struggle to do it properly or at all. It is the cultivation of awareness to the degree that its final perfection is ultimate or total awareness. Meditation or renunciation in that way is like a fermenting process for wisdom, dispassion for material concerns or features is a side-effect or result, not necessarily its focus.
Think of times in your own experience wherein you are in the “zone”, even in mundane life. Such as a video game or having someone in your clutches in an argument or discussion wherein your focus or attention is nowhere else. This is a subtle meditative state and its also detailed in the suttas in regards to walking meditation and mindfulness just in general. This is what we mean by “awareness”, or “nibanna”, essentially pure focus that is not fragmented, conditioned or otherwise defiled in that way.
Very interesting ideas, I think you are right, and I think I actually talked a little bit about something like this in my Vidya post. Games bring us into a state where we don't really think about the result of our action, we're just doing. We're just doing for the sake of doing. The rewards in game aren't really that important, and death in games is not to be feared because you know there is no eternal death. Being in the zone is an incredible experience, sometimes you don't even realize it. When I focus too much on a game I start doing bad, my bad habits take over. But what is best is when I go "ultra instinct" and just let my hands do the work. But video games can obviously also cause people to become even more obsessed with trifles, so it is a dangerous gambit.
Shamanism might also need a post in the future, it is extremely interesting how Shamans can so potently feel themselves in the spirit world. Closest thing to shamans in the west might be divinely inspired poets. Except among the Germanics who did seem to have some vaguely shamanic practices. The Scythians too, but probably due to Siberian influence.
Not sure what you mean here. Do you mean ancient Iranic as in the actual Iranic people (ex: Scythians, Avestans)? Or ancient farmers from the modern country of Iran? Both had some Ancient North Eurasian ancestry which is also present in Siberian Hunter Gatherers. There are even some myths believed to be ANE in origin because they’re present among Europeans, Siberians, and Injuns. But, obviously Siberian “Mongoloid” HGs and Eastern Hunter Gatherers (and subsequently Indo-Europeans) and especially Iran Neolithic HGs have non-ANE sources of ancestry which are wildly different.
Also, just to clarify, ANE are the “Siberian Hunter gatherers” these groups have ancestry from. Newer Siberian Hunter gatherers are ANE + North East Eurasians
I suppose the most effective way of putting it is that it is quite difficult to accept or sanction “life” holistically when one has been given a birds eye view of reality, in that, suffering is not a result of conditions going awry, its intrinsic. Meaning, problems with reality are existential in a general sense and not particular. Unseeing this is impossible because consciousness has expansive features, and thus trying to return to a mode of living which requires ignorance or for us to “accept” what is unacceptable is no longer on the table. It doesn’t mean that one’s existence thereon is a series of dreadful and depressing events in a lost world of aimless misery, but it is certainly impactful on ones morality, conduct and dispositions towards expectations about the world. The pessimist in a refined or serious sense see’s the cup as half empty because he has memories of the lake or ocean.
AAAAAAND a woman just appeared in my tiktok ipad screen and annoyed the fuck out of me by making a stupid "debunk" video where she turns from a 2/10 to a 6/10 with copious amounts of makeup while mentioning literal pseudoscience like "Emotional Intelligence" and whining about mansplaining. Jesus fucking christ they annoy the piss out of me I should have spent more time shitting on feminists in this essay
Marking this on my to-read list. Will return
When Birrin say it 2 long 2 read rn u KNO you got a banger
I actually have the reading speed of a toddler unironically. I have brain damage from two childhood concussions that severely impaired my reading speed and spatial awareness lol.
Childhood concussions actually don't have a very big influence on cognitive ability at all from what I've heard. Are you sure it's not just from being part of the ADHD generation?
Well something’s definitely wrong with me if it’s not that. It took me four years to learn how to drive a car safely, it can take me 8 hours to read 50 pages, and I literally have to be thinking about where I’m walking all the time or I just hit shit.
Many great geniuses like Albert Einstein, Sheldon Cooper, and Feti had trouble driving cars...The walking in thing is pretty funny though.
Supposedly Einstein couldn’t tie his shoes. I can’t balance on a bike. Close enough
I heard that playing visual novels and setting dialogue speed to high is a good way to boost reading speed.
Does that actually? I should try that if so
by any chance do you day dream too much?
Only if I have nothing going on at the moment
Did you read much as a kid? If you just avoided reading as a kid it can really really mess up your reading speed as an adult. My dad hated books as a kid and made my grandma do his book reports for him, and when he started enjoying reading as an adult it would take him ridiculously long to read even just two pages. Like literally almost 15-20 minutes sometimes. Me and my mom always made fun of him for that because we could read way faster than him. There's really nothing you can do about that unfortunately, it's one of those things you have to cultivate as a child or else you're just boned.
Same here, I didn’t read enough as a kid and now as an adult it is an uphill battle getting back into casual long reading. My reading speed is probably pretty ordinary but I can’t keep focused
I get laser focused if I like what I'm reading but if I don't care that much about it I will get distracted some. It's sort of a tradition for my grandma to get me the newest Diary of a Wimpy Kid book every Christmas and I will get it and read the whole thing in less than an hour usually. Obviously this is not a high reading level book and has a lot of pictures in it but I don't think most people would read it that fast.
Back a few years ago, Timothy Zahn was writing new Thrawn (Star Wars) books when I was still in college. I would drive down to the Books a Million near campus on the day of release pretty early in the morning and get it. I'd usually have the book knocked out by the afternoon, and these were 300-400 page books.
But if I have to read something for class I usually just can't make myself do it cuz most of the books suck so bad.
300 pages in a day?? I’m intensely jealous!
I’ve had to do a lot of reading for college and nothing has improved yet
Sorta. As a really young kid, I had to read a lot for school, but by intermediate and middle school we weren’t being required to read a lot anymore and I just stopped doing so because I wasn’t interested by most books back then. I’m sure this contributed to the problem, but even as early as like elementary school I remember struggling a lot. 20 pages could take a whole afternoon.
Yeah may be something else then
How is this possible when you wrote a 2 hour long read article nigga
It’s probably also worth mentioning I was only working part-time so I had plenty of free time to lock tf in on that for hours every night. The Substack I’m about to release is 90 pages and I’ve been on it for a month I think, typing at minimum 3 hours a day.
It took me two weeks just to draft the first pass of that document back when it was only 50 pages, and four entire days to review it before publishing!
There are a few points worth noting here which I believe require some clarification.
There is a necessary distinction to be made, first between Perennialism as a posthumous analysis of various traditions with the goal of extracting and directly identifying Truth and principles of eternal verity, and Perennialism as a perceived predecessor to such traditions themselves, and secondly between Perennialism's analytical or philosophical component, and whatever historic or contextual component it may be understood to have. Beyond this, the primary obstacles that seem to obstruct your acceptance of Perennialism are the difference in attitudes between what you have characterized as the mystified view and the religious view, and the difference between the mythical/ritual approach vs the philosophical/intellectual approach.
The conclusion of "Perennialism" is that of Universal incorporativity - that Reality is preceded and united by a singular principial source, and that it proceeds from this source - and operates - according to a certain formula which we may call the Quintessential Truth: the highest and most incorporative Truth that acts as the "design" of Reality. The identification of this Truth, regardless of ones attitude towards it, and regardless of how it is expressed, conditionally, through language, is the ultimate goal of Perennialism, and it achieves this goal through inter-religious study and discourse, providing Perennialism as a subsequent philosophical exercise as opposed to a precedent active tradition.
The innovations of the Axial Age come as a developed articulation of the natural intuition and myth which preceded them. With the lexicons provided by these schools we are able to extract and directly assess a principle in isolation from its symbolic and formalistic associations, establishing a different approach to Truth, but still identifying the same Truth. It was simply the explication of what had previously been implied in myth; that doesn't negate the propriety of what's being said by Plato, for example. It might even suggest that the exercise of analyzing traditions for the sake of identifying Truth (Perennialism) dates back to these philosophers who engaged in such explication. I do not see how this makes them, as you have put it, "motivated ideological schools", but even were that the case, these school are motivated by the desire to identify and proliferate Truth in the most concise manner possible, which I do not see to be a negative, nor do I see it as antithetical to Tradition.
The difference in the mythological approach from the intellectual approach is that on the one hand the former provides a much more fluid understanding than the rigid philosophies of the latter, but on the other hand the former allows for much more confusion than the latter, while the intellectual approach still provides the incorporative element necessary to understand that it is possible for multiple cosmogonies to possess and understand Truth. I would argue that Truth is more likely to be found, however, in the intellectual traditions as opposed to the ritual ones simply due to truth-seeking being the ultimate goal, as opposed to ritual-affirmation.
Regardless, the main qualifier for a *correct* tradition, in my opinion, is that it distinguishes the Quintessential Truth, regardless of the attitude it takes towards the world. It matters to be principially correct in this regard, not even to hold the correct attitude. To be a *proper* tradition, however, it must distinguish the Quintessential Truth, and possess a qualifying praxis on the basis of the formula provided by this Truth: the fulfillment of archetypes and so forth. Whether this is life affirming or denying, or world affirming or denying, does not matter, so long as access to and participation within higher realities is achieved through whatever method is employed.
Beyond this I largely agree here, and I must say I enjoyed the quote comparing Buddhahood to the completion of a Roblox obby.
Yes, I was planning on a revision of this post where I discuss more religious groups, and make some changes to the sections discussing the differences between the mystical tradition and the contemplative tradition. I think it is not well worded as I don't want to give the impression that the contemplative tradition is at odds with common religion, and as I say in the post (I think?) my feelings towards this divide became less and less emphatic on the post. I think, the justification for myth and rite even from the view of the philosophers will require its own section.
I would suggest a book to you titled "Philosophy As A Rite Of Rebirth" by Algis Uzdavinys; even just the introduction from the translator and the introduction from the author remedies what seems to be the divide between the philosophical/intellectual tradition and the mythical/ritual tradition.
Also I didn't get to the point about the difference between the historic and philosophical aspects of Perennialism as well. As kind of a digression, there are two ideas that often become confused in Perennialist circles: the "Sophia Perennis" - the Perennial Philosophy - and the "Prisca Theologica" - the Primordial Tradition. The former is the philosophical reconstruction of the ultimate identification of that Quintessential Truth which transcends all expression and formalism, while the latter is the theory of a single historic tradition that has branched off and deviated in different directions, suggesting that all the world's proper traditions today are the extension or the offspring of that ultimate Primordial Tradition. I'm unsure if I truly believe that, but the significance is that historic context doesn't matter for the Perennial Philosophy theory, whereas it does for the Primordial Tradition theory.
Pretty much agree but I think the reaction to axial religion can sometimes go too far in the opposite direction. Priests and religions buildings basically all had rather strict rules about purity and interacting with the mundane world. I don't think I can post links in a comment but the Wikipedia on the Flamen Dialis has a whole list of all their prohibitions like avoiding horses, dogs, battles, and corpses. Brahmins had a similar thing (pretty sure this is the origin of Hindu vegetarianism, although for some reason it became widespread), as well as Goðis although I don't think they were as strict.
Lobster is haram sectionalism(well for shias at least)
I didn't know this. I actually prefer crab, I don't really like lobster that much but this time it looked good. But crab, it's really good. Snow crab is expensive so if you're gonna pay for it then go full in and get it at a seafood restaurant where it's fresh and well-prepared. Crab Bisque is also good soup, good to dip saltines in but also hearty on its own
I love a good crab chowder. Don't know that I've had crab bisque before. Had shrimp bisque doe, also good.
Crab is also (haram for shias)
*my jaw falls to the floor and my eyes bulge out like patrick star* ...whaaa?
Oh also im gonna read this whole article my shift is 6 hours I work at a gas station we do not do shit 95 percent of the time
Ya only fish with scales and shrimp is allowed I love shrimp
Is the Catholic view on asceticism the reason why you say that if you were to re-convert to Christianity, you would be a Protestant (since Prots don't really practice asceticism, especially outside of the High Church denoms)denims?
Related: does this mean you are not the biggest fan of St. Augustine? He is more or less responsible for modern Cath asceticism, particularly ascetic chastity (albeit it did not become popular until the Middle Ages for largely political reasons). I am quite fond of Augustine (I would choose him for my Patron Saint if it was a Cath) but also really do not like this part of his philosophy. Obviously, I think he was off the mark on his interpretation of scripture here though and that this is not something intrinsic to Christianity or even Catholicism neccessaryily.
Not the reason but it is a plus for the proddies. Ascetic chastity is a bad element of Christianity but somewhat understandable. I don’t like that Augustinians call themselves Platonists and say they are the inheritors of the classical philosophical tradition when they’re really just retconning it into their religion but otherwise I don’t feel that strongly about the man one way or the other. Aquinas is sort of the same way but I like Aquinas
Do you have any plans to join the ifunny in exile enclave on xwitter
Great article, Sect! Now I need to know your thoughts on the Indo-European qualities of Zoroastrianism. Some people I know reject it outright on the basis it is Axial Age
My old friend TheWarg on iFunny had some great textposts on Germanic religion and also Zoroastrianism from way back in the day, but now I'm banned from iFunny and I fear he may be as well (the new bans don't really leave any trace, and he's not very active to begin with) so I don't have much of a way to contact him. But he went a long way in convincing me that Zoroastrianism is actually le good, and I was gonna request that he join Substack and maybe enlighten some people on the Avestas, the Runes, etc etc... There was a certain book he recommended me, a Zoroastrian apologetics book which criticized Islam and Christianity. But I don't remember what it is called, I'll have to find it
Let me know if you remember
Found it:
https://ifunny.co/picture/highly-recommend-pagans-abrahamics-or-just-about-anyone-else-interested-lnJx0tyn9
The Shikand-gumanig Vizar
Hey thanks bro. This subject has always interested me.
He has a post of it on his profile if you scroll down enough. It's easy on the app but on the website every post is full screen sort of so it takes a while.
https://ifunny.co/user/TheWarg
In the process of reading. Looks good so far so I’ll leave a like for now and come back to comment when I’m done.
I’m very interested by your vegetable comment.. what does your diet look like?
where did you hear that the mongolians think veggies taste like wood?
It’s more like Turkic people and Siberians less so Mongolians I think
Caribbean Rhythms
oh i am actually retarded i did mean cr.
also i why does the ui keep cancelling the reply and making it a normal comment. am i becoming a tech boomer already?
Oh, I’ve been listening to CR for a good long while. But I don’t buy it, I listen to first hour hahahah
i have the entire library downloaded; if you want?
Full podcast episodes?
yup, the whole thing
have you strated listening to BAM?
No
How many SpongeBobs would it take to defeat someone who has reached Buddhahood?
Eventually a spongebob would reach buddhahood by incarnating through all of the dead spongebobs and gaining a little bit of enlightenment every lifetime, and then boddhibob could be able to fight it to a draw
Could you give a numerical estimate of how many spongebobs it would take to reach spongebuddhahood?
Same as the number of cattle in the herd of Helios according to Archimedes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2S39AgjFpQ
i’m kinda confused on shintoism, i’ve read that it originated from buddhism and that pre buddhist japanese religion was some sort of shamanistic possibly religiously matriarchal religion that shared many similarities with shintoism
It’s not matriarchal and Japanese people were probably never shamanistic. Koreans were though
i’m not sure how to express this since eastern people generally view religion differently but i’m talking about shintoism from after buddhisms arrival, i believe shintoism had no concept of priests, temples , scripts or other “holy stuff”. They prayed at waterfalls, rocks and trees and the like instead. Also with the arrival of buddhism a whole host of gods from hinduism , taoism and confucianism also came along
Yes you make many good points here about the nature of enlightenment, it is very misunderstood by people as a form of escapism when it is more seeking the ultimate state of being (being?)
> You must understand that the reasons for more pessimistic attitudes had everything to do with the novel condition of sedentary existences, wherein Duhkha was completely inescapable and couldn’t be ignored.
I think that while yes, sedentary society is characterized by a sort of constant low-level anxiety, it is far superior for the elite element of society than primitive and especially Paleolithic life is. This elite element usually comes from a pastoral background, and continues to practice pastoral hobbies like livestock breeding and hunting during their reign over sedentary society. But being an Indian might be uniquely anxiety inducing, hence why the elite Indians were the most famous to adopt this pessimism.
> To have a world affirming and “interested” attitude in the world of modernity is nearly impossible without dishonesty, such a feat is strictly related to ones material conditions and has nothing to do with a flatly objective assessment of how life has developed, or rather degenerated.
A flatly objective assessment of history and the world doesn’t lead people to any form of historicism in my opinion. Not whiggism nor the “downward spiral” mentality of the Traditionalists. The world is bad today partially because of decadence, yes, but decadence specific to our current civilization and not to the entirety of history. But it is mostly bad because of mind viruses, for lack of a better term. The stochastic nature of human decision-making, as well as plenty of completely chance events. This was an accident… However, you are correct that it is very difficult to be enthusiastic about the world in this day and age, clearly a time of confusion. Furthermore, there is little we can do in the world to change this, once again it is mostly left up to fate. So yes, it is reasonable today to focus more inwardly.
> In that way this understanding of a “love for life” is a mere artifact of a concept of self or as an aesthetically desirable position, it is related to reputation-related anxiety. Otherwise the mass majority of these people would not be dissident reactionaries which believe that most if not all of the sedentary populations who are dysgenic need to be mass culled or otherwise disposed of violently. I wouldn’t call that life affirming at all and would in fact consider it to be profound death drive, abiding in the chaotic and unwholesome features of the world for their own interests.
I don’t think this is a death drive. People recognize that something has gone awry when the “eater” demographic is exploding in most societies despite being less useful than ever, and that ideologies are incorrect in believing that civilization was built for the “eater”. Civilization was built for the Pyramids and Ziggurats and not for the eater. Fascism tried to reconcile a lot of this stuff but was struck down
> Another feature I think needs to be addressed is that illusion and enlightenment are treated here as if they are novel historically, when these teachings are esoteric aspects of PIE religion and the seeds for later doctrines such as Buddhism have always been present in them, even to the extent of the German religion.
Enlightenment is actually one of the best things if not the best thing, don’t think I’m ragging on it. It’s more the method of attaining it. Contemplation about enlightenment has probably always been going on but historically I think theurgy (either through initiation or through heroic action) was what people most strongly associated with a state of divine understanding of the universe and ascendancy above death/decay after death. Meanwhile monastic and ascetic traditions are more recent. Asceticism is not all bad though, it can help you attain special states of consciousness. But sitting in your monastery as a hermit calling everything illusory, ehh I think that’s a more contrived thing
In respect to pessimism, there is a clear contention with the world that goes far beyond conditionality, is what I am supposing. We typically do not love our enemies, we do not love old age, disease, and death, we typically do not love being pulled away from the beloved and having company with the unwholesome and wretched. But life is not youth, health, friends, getting what one desires and being close to that which is familiar. This only describes one portion of a dependent dichotomy, each do not exist in any independent way. Such that we cannot slice out and separate them, they make sense of the other. I think that anyone who finds great interest or occupation with the “world”(and by world, I am speaking about dull mundanity, and its expectations of outcome and results, not the higher properties of excellence or austerity) are ignorant or otherwise deceiving themselves in that they believe this suffering is found in the world and not in themselves. Hence why I say that the vulgar interpretation of this dichotomy is maintained typically by spirituality ill people. Life is a game that must be played but it should be done so with excellence and mindfulness.
Pulling from the piece: “Dharma and Life affirmation”
—“To succeed is to be free of antagonism in the most basic definition. A successful individual is one who does not live a disaffected life of anger, craving or delusion. No one who is successful in a true sense, ever abides in, loves or “embraces” hatred, greed, anger, resentment nor craving. The successful do not suffer. Life as we understand it, is consistent of values. A value is that which we seek to keep or hold, and contentment is the result of actualizing a value. Getting what one wants out of life brings contentment. All beings are disposed towards this path, yet there are inevitable hinderances or conditions which will make this difficult, or often times in many cases, impossible. Thus those who possesses refined discernment or intelligence would conclude that there must be some ultimate value, one that is not subject to, or conditioned by impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and emptiness. The truly successful do not suffer because they are already victorious in knowing the ultimate, much like how a sage does not need to do philosophy because he has nothing more to know, and thus, to make suffering a value is to make incompetence spiritually economical. To accept or otherwise acknowledge these conditions as necessary, existentially speaking, is to “affirm” life, but it is another thing to behave or dispose oneself psychologically to crave antagonism. To make virtue of predatory, delusional and reckless behaviors and attitudes.
It is completely delusional even outside of a Dharmic view to love something like suffering or struggle, even if its for some aestheticized reason, such as the idea that suffering produces great characters or individuals. What is really loved or valued isn’t the suffering but the outcome of suffering, which is usually some romanticized notion of an “ideal” man or desirable conditions.
Do we really love our enemies?
Do we love threats to our wellbeing or lifestyles?
Our livelihood or physical health?
Is disease to be loved?
Death?
The separation from what is beloved?
Is that really true? Are we thankful for any of these things in an authentically true and real sense? I don’t think so.
Better yet, supposing that we crave challenges, do we crave them infinitely? Or is it more likely that we crave an infinitude of their fruits?
As, if there is no final destination or freedom from challenges, as in to say, there is no “ultimate challenge” to overcome(suffering), the point at which one challenge ends and another begins is arbitrary. No such overcoming of challenge is actually possible, as there is an unending set of them that each result in psychological emptiness, and craving for further struggle. It is struggling to struggle, not struggling towards any kind of substantial victory.“
Cont.. “ The mere idea of “samsara forever”, or endless eternal return as an actual proposal for a metaphysical ontology, is far more nihilistic and life denying than any kind of Dharmic understanding of the universe. To always be putting true spiritual gratification or victory so far from oneself is disenfranchising.”
A major reason renunciation and asceticism are unappealing or unappetizing to the crowd of life affirmers is that it contextualizes the outcome of activities and intentions in the world such that the individual will is silenced or made irrelevant, and this is the factor which drives causality into motion in the first place. In that way I think that pessimism here is more synonymous with realism in that it comes with a natural disinterest or dispassion for things which are not final solutions. Much like how we see weak-minded or weak willed operations as compromising or effeminate even in that same sphere, perhaps the dichotomy of populist ideology versus a more occultic or esoteric understanding of reactionary politics would be satisfactory as analogy.
Things like the decay of time and sedentary environments are inevitable, and in an empirical and soyentific sense, every existing human has such intense maladaption that there will never be a return to conditions which allowed suffering or conditioned existence to be ignored. I would think that most people who have had the luxury of seeing this from a third person perspective, e.g, historians, wisemen, priests and the intellectual caste, have always been constructing “exit” plans or theories of transcendent ascension. In that way I see the attempt at adopting a consciousness which was not “aged” as a matter of aesthetic appeal.
You are correct, that the glorification of struggle is really a glorification of virtue which comes from struggle. But, I don't think any pagans in history were really calling struggle "good". Also, just to clarify, the idea that evil exists in this world through some sort of human error is not what I meant. Evil exists in this world necessarily, as a sort of residual element, but is made more powerful than good by human error. But it exists no matter what. Enthusiasm about the world among pagans actually does not come from the world in-itself, it comes from a belief that the world reflects a divine element. That is what is good about the world, it is inspiration to the higher things and it is governed by higher things.
I don't think humans are as maladapted as you think, maybe read my post on Harpending vs. Primitivists. Human beings have evolved more in the past 10,000 years than in the preceding 100,000. We're maladapted to industrial life to some extent, sure, but sedentary life in general I'm not entirely sure. There is a darkness to band societies like you see in the paleolithic, a darkness which comes out today in places like Papua New Guinea where the locals eat peoples brains and don't know that sex causes reproduction.
You are correct that the intelligentsia was cooking up theories of ascension, but my main point is that these theories did not typically involve a renunciation of action until later on. They involved initiatory rite, demonstration of piety (in the Roman sense), and attainment of heroic virtue which all served to align someone with the creative principle in life. To do these things dispassionately is and has always been considered good. I would also maybe contest the idea that these pagans really fully believed in or cemented a belief in cyclical reality. That doesn't mean I am against it, I think it was just left ambiguous in these religions.
Speaking of which, eternal samsara as nihilistic is maybe something worth another post. Maybe I do some reading on justice, theodicy, etc etc and come back to that
>>Enlightenment is actually one of the best things if not the best thing, don’t think I’m ragging on it. It’s more the method of attaining it. Contemplation about enlightenment has probably always been going on but historically I think theurgy (either through initiation or through heroic action) was what people most strongly associated with a state of divine understanding of the universe and ascendancy above death/decay after death. Meanwhile monastic and ascetic traditions are more recent. Asceticism is not all bad though, it can help you attain special states of consciousness. But sitting in your monastery as a hermit calling everything illusory, ehh I think that’s a more contrived thing.
“Jhana” or what the catlicks would call “high contemplation” has origins in the stone age, in fact I am suspicious that meditation was related to ancient hunting, fishing and tracking practices. I have recently had a subtle revelation that meditation is so difficult because its akin to patience or deference of gratification much like ancient hunting practices were disposed to. Such that in meditation, we are still seeking out something by initiating a non-fragmented focus. Ancient hunter gatherers likely sat in thickets and densely covered places wherein they did not move at all until their prey was “in” sight. We might think the same thing of fishing phenomenologically, that we are waiting and abiding in focus until we feel the tug of the lure and line. This is likely the archaic origins of meditation in an anthropological sense, and it translating into sedentary contexts resulted in esoteric traditions. Meditation also slows RMR, and breathing, which would have the physical consequences of lowering one’s caloric expenses and silencing ones bodily or physiological racket so that prey would be unsuspecting. I think that it is hardly artifice or invented. Dhamma is only one instance of it, merely systematized in early civilized contexts. The Buddha and ancient sages ran into woodland dwelling ascetics all throughout their lives, and this could only have been inherited as a kind of ancient practice or wisdom. Notably, existing pagan religions like Dharma have a clearer line or connection to ancient shamanic religion such that we even see the bon tradition having these elements in tandem with Tibetan Buddhism and Hinduism. Methinks that meditation is more like hunting or fishing than it is a kind of dull laziness or slothfulness, as many people struggle to do it properly or at all. It is the cultivation of awareness to the degree that its final perfection is ultimate or total awareness. Meditation or renunciation in that way is like a fermenting process for wisdom, dispassion for material concerns or features is a side-effect or result, not necessarily its focus.
Think of times in your own experience wherein you are in the “zone”, even in mundane life. Such as a video game or having someone in your clutches in an argument or discussion wherein your focus or attention is nowhere else. This is a subtle meditative state and its also detailed in the suttas in regards to walking meditation and mindfulness just in general. This is what we mean by “awareness”, or “nibanna”, essentially pure focus that is not fragmented, conditioned or otherwise defiled in that way.
Very interesting ideas, I think you are right, and I think I actually talked a little bit about something like this in my Vidya post. Games bring us into a state where we don't really think about the result of our action, we're just doing. We're just doing for the sake of doing. The rewards in game aren't really that important, and death in games is not to be feared because you know there is no eternal death. Being in the zone is an incredible experience, sometimes you don't even realize it. When I focus too much on a game I start doing bad, my bad habits take over. But what is best is when I go "ultra instinct" and just let my hands do the work. But video games can obviously also cause people to become even more obsessed with trifles, so it is a dangerous gambit.
Shamanism might also need a post in the future, it is extremely interesting how Shamans can so potently feel themselves in the spirit world. Closest thing to shamans in the west might be divinely inspired poets. Except among the Germanics who did seem to have some vaguely shamanic practices. The Scythians too, but probably due to Siberian influence.
Are ancient Iranics not directly descended from Siberian HG’s? Hence Turans, ANE, and other such red skinned fellows being cousins of IE?
Not sure what you mean here. Do you mean ancient Iranic as in the actual Iranic people (ex: Scythians, Avestans)? Or ancient farmers from the modern country of Iran? Both had some Ancient North Eurasian ancestry which is also present in Siberian Hunter Gatherers. There are even some myths believed to be ANE in origin because they’re present among Europeans, Siberians, and Injuns. But, obviously Siberian “Mongoloid” HGs and Eastern Hunter Gatherers (and subsequently Indo-Europeans) and especially Iran Neolithic HGs have non-ANE sources of ancestry which are wildly different.
Also, just to clarify, ANE are the “Siberian Hunter gatherers” these groups have ancestry from. Newer Siberian Hunter gatherers are ANE + North East Eurasians
I suppose the most effective way of putting it is that it is quite difficult to accept or sanction “life” holistically when one has been given a birds eye view of reality, in that, suffering is not a result of conditions going awry, its intrinsic. Meaning, problems with reality are existential in a general sense and not particular. Unseeing this is impossible because consciousness has expansive features, and thus trying to return to a mode of living which requires ignorance or for us to “accept” what is unacceptable is no longer on the table. It doesn’t mean that one’s existence thereon is a series of dreadful and depressing events in a lost world of aimless misery, but it is certainly impactful on ones morality, conduct and dispositions towards expectations about the world. The pessimist in a refined or serious sense see’s the cup as half empty because he has memories of the lake or ocean.
Hey now, let's not get too WHG-phobic!... A latvian cave monster will get you for that.. He will get you..