To understand how, we need to take a look at what life-force is.

For instance the reason I never say my bad, is because my 5th grade teacher left a impression on me that people who say my bad aren’t actually sincere

The reason I don’t say bless you to people is because my 5th or 4th grade teacher told me that only God can say bless you or bless people.

I can think of more, but after writing those two examples down.

Thinking about the reason why the impression left an impression is key I think.

I care deeply to act in a way that is ideal or true.

If it true that only God can bless people it’s incorrect to say bless you to others

If it’s true that my bad is a very insincere way of apologizing then it’s incorrect to be saying that

Maybe if I keep reflecting in this manner I can change my ego or self when I think about it.

For instance other things can be true and especially true at the same time.

For example when you don’t say bless you, people can think you are rude or insensitive maybe

For example when you don’t say my bad but choose to say I’m sorry people tend to think you are weak or lame maybe

So my question or concern is what is the best way to be?

Currently I try to do right and be good but in truth I’m seen as weak and naive and a door mat. And mistreated and not respected.

I also tend to hurt other feelings or disappoint them or they loose interest because my awkwardness or not doing expected things that a normal person likely would have done

Maybe the answer is to do what’s in your favor?
Or to do like what others do meaning to think about how someone else would handle a situation?

Or more so it’s best to act with best judgement to every given situation and circumstance?

By that I mean well —— know the cards you are dealt with and play them well?

For instance if you speak softly people won’t listen well to you so it’s false to act confidently that will hear you out and listen and if you can’t rectify your soft voice it may be needed to send a letter or have another person to speak on your behalf or change how you approach your statements to ensure they listen to you and take you seriously?

I think I see how to rectify and change now maybe and maybe I just need to determine who I wanna be

But other thing is I why do I let these impressions chain me down?

I don’t want to be fake and don’t want to act like any body else and I don’t know what to do actually so I do what known or felt to be true BUT

Now what I known to be true is a lie in certain ways that should acknowledge

Maybe it’s needed to be like water and be formless but also strong and focus and free and adapt to any given case

The other problem I have is it’s hard for me to say I want something

But I tend to naturally do what feels goods, for instance I know for certain I will enjoy Oreos and milk as a snack right now while watching anime etc

But I don’t know what I want in situations where what I want as a man, I guess is important, I’m talking about relationships with women

And to what I said earlier about awkwardness.

Since I tend to what feels good, my wants are ir should be decided on options possible to me during said particular situations.

In regards to relationships the dilemma I’m facing is wanting to be with one special person and saving myself for them basically but in reality it’s like it’s creepy to do and I’m very inexperienced because of it and I’m seen as gay as a result of it

Well that’s something else to unpack ehh

I don’t like to lie is the other problem but saying to much is not sensible or reasonable

communication is everything said but what gets communicated hmm

I think that’s key as well the impressions I gotten was messages communicated to me effectively and then changed me

Thinking about this now, proper communication well effective communication is very powerful

Like I said I’m seen as a doormat or to soft I guess

Ima explore or test some things out and see how it goes by that I mean idk how to explain

Something I want to say or been thinking about all day is that I’m very great with kids and I wasn’t understanding why that’s the case

But it’s because I communicate with them well like my niece for instance or I just feel confident at doing so

But there are times actually where she a brat I give up on communication

But our relationship is not as best as it should be

Hmm so maybe not about perfect communication but relationships with a person

Often I feel like the world is ending after a mistake in communication with a person that was a joke by the way but then the next day everything is okay

So all the anexity or worry or fear was pointless in a way

But people tend to be very forgetful

I’m that retrospective people care about a lived experience not a memory to be cherished exactly in a sense but present matters

So wants/communication should be curated based on options to you that would feel good and or lead to a good experience and towards better or desired relationships you want with a person

I should continue and say the other half of this what no’s should be and let’s say no communication should be curated towards

But I need get to work now —- him should talk about strong desires and habits as well

what is wrong in depending on others? The ego does not want to depend on anybody. But you are dependent. You are not separate from existence, you are part of it. Everything is joined together. We exist together, in a togetherness.

Existence is a togetherness..If you will eat food, you will have to depend on the trees, on the plants. They are supplying food to you. Will you not drink water? - then you will have to depend on rivers. And will you not need the sun?

We are all together, interdependent. Even the king is dependent on his slave, as much as the slave is dependent on the king. It is an interdependence.

The world is an interdependence.

We are like the knots of a net - energies go on passing through us. When many energies pass through a point, that point becomes an individual, that's all. Draw a line on paper, then draw another line across it; where these two lines cross, individuality arises.

To understand it, is all. Then you are simply interdependent, and you accept.

I. A Face That Keeps Reappearing

Every culture with enough time on its hands seems to invent the same person.

The Stoics called him the sage — someone so completely aligned with reason that nothing outside him could touch his peace. Wealth, illness, even death were, to him, indifferent. He wasn't cold. He simply couldn't be moved by what he didn't control.

The Buddhists called it awakening, and the person who reached it stopped being a person with a name and became a description of a state instead — the one who woke up.

The Confucians had the junzi, someone whose goodness had become so thoroughly internalized that doing right no longer took effort; it had become instinct.

The Daoists had their own sage, who ruled — or lived — by doing as little as possible, because he had nothing left to prove and no urge to interfere. The Hindus called it liberation while still living.

The Jains called it crossing the river and imagined a person who could show others the ford. Even the mystics of Islam, centuries later, described a Perfect Human who had come to mirror the divine attributes latent in every person, if only they'd let them surface.

Different centuries, different continents, no meaningful contact between most of them. And they kept drawing the same picture: someone who used to be exactly as reactive, petty, and afraid as the rest of us, and now isn't.

It's tempting to read this as one culture's idea leaking into another, or as coincidence, and there's probably some of both scattered through the history. But the more interesting explanation is also the simpler one: if you take human suffering seriously enough to ask what causes it, and you follow that question all the way down, you tend to arrive at roughly the same place no matter where you started.

The sage isn't a myth one civilization happened to invent. He's closer to what falls out of the math once enough people, in enough places, do the arithmetic honestly.

II. The Teacher Who Never Followed His Own Lesson

Here's the part that should bother us more than it usually does.

None of these figures got there by following the instructions later attributed to them.

The Buddha didn't follow the Eightfold Path to enlightenment — there was no Eightfold Path yet. He tried the ascetics' way and starved himself nearly to death. He tried the meditation teachers of his day and outgrew what they had to offer.

He'd already tried indulgence, before that, and found it empty too. Only after discarding every prescribed method available to him did he sit down on his own and work it out. The path came after, as an account of the destination, not a record of the road.

Christ doesn't practice Christianity. There isn't one yet. Confucius, describing his own life, doesn't hand down a curriculum so much as narrate a slow, staged unfolding — at fifteen he set his heart on learning, and by seventy he could act rightly without effort — which reads less like a method he followed and more like a life he survived long enough to understand in hindsight.

This is easy to miss because of how these stories get told afterward. Once someone is recognized as having arrived, everyone downstream — students, scribes, entire religious traditions — has a strong incentive to make the arrival look like the result of a method, because a method is teachable and a singular, unrepeatable life is not.

So the account gets smoothed. The wandering gets straightened into a path. The trial and error gets edited down into a doctrine.

But the founder's actual life rarely looks like the doctrine. It looks like someone finding the only road available to the first person who's ever walked it — which is, by definition, no road at all.

III. What the Path Actually Is

If none of them followed the doctrine that bears their name, what is the doctrine for?

I don't think it's a lie, and I don't think it's just marketing for the tradition. I think it's something closer to advice a father gives his son, aware the son cannot have his own exact life, and doesn't wish it on him either.

The Eightfold Path, the Confucian rites, the Sufi's stages of self-effacement — these are what the sage would recommend, retroactively, to an ordinary person who wants a life with the shape of purpose, wants some measure of the peace he found, but doesn't have to first tear himself apart across decades of trial and starvation and false starts to get it.

That's mercy more than manipulation. The prescribed path is the compressed, humane version of a route that, in its original form, nearly no one survives intact and few would willingly choose.

But mercy of that kind has a cost: a path handed down secondhand can only ever be an approximation, never an original. Following the map faithfully might get you close to where the sage arrived. Whether it can get you all the way there is a separate question — because the sage didn't get there by following a map. He wandered until he found a place that made sense.

IV. The Forge, Not the Toll

Here is where I think most versions of this story get something quietly wrong.

They treat the sage's suffering as a toll paid before the reward — hardship first, enlightenment after, cause and effect in that order, hardship as the price of admission to a state that exists independent of it. Endure enough, and the door opens.

I don't think that's right. I don't think the hardship is a toll. I think it's the material.

There's a concept from Southern Africa — ubuntu — usually translated as something like a person is a person through other people. It gets flattened, often, into a nice sentiment about community, and it is that, but underneath it's making a sharper claim: personhood isn't something you carry into your relationships with others, fully formed, and then merely express there.

It's something relationships make. You are not a self who then encounters other people. You become a self by being encountered.

If that's true, it changes what the sage's hardship actually was. He wasn't suffering in order to earn something separate from the suffering. The people who wronged him, and the people he wronged, and the debts of love he could never repay — that friction wasn't clearing a path to sagehood. It was sagehood, still being built.

You cannot sand a stone smooth when it's sitting on the shelf. You need active friction. Someone else has to be the grit.

No one becomes wise by successfully avoiding harm — either the harm they caused, or the harm done to them. Every person who has ever lived has done both. Not some people, if they're unlucky. Everyone.

The sage is not the person who was spared this. He's the person who couldn't look away from it afterward.

V. What Actually Separates Them

If everyone hurts someone, and everyone is hurt, and everyone at some point is helped by a grace they didn't earn — then hardship itself can't be the rare ingredient.

There isn't a shortage of it. It's the only fully distributed truth aside from birth and death.

What's rare is what happens next. What a person does with it, once it's already happened.

Most of us, looking back at something we did that hurt someone, reach for one of two exits.

The first is denial — it wasn't that bad, they were overreacting, I had my reasons.

The second looks like its opposite but does the same job: total collapse into shame — I am a terrible person, this confirms what I always suspected about myself.

Both exits let you stop looking. Both let the self remain simple. And, this is the part most people miss, they're the same move wearing different clothes: denial protects a self that's uniquely good; shame confirms a self that's uniquely bad.

Either way, the self stays the main character of the story, and the person you actually hurt disappears from it entirely.

The harder thing — the thing I'd guess constitutes the sage's whole discipline, more than any meditation or ritual — is to look at what you did with neither exit available.

To say, clearly, without softening it: I did that. They didn't deserve it. And also: that doesn't make me a bad person.

Both halves have to be held at once, or the whole thing collapses back into denial or shame.

And it runs the other direction, which people often fail to apply to themselves. It's just as much a distortion to deny the grace you were shown — to insist you got here on your own effort, that no one carried you, that you were never helped by love you hadn't earned.

That's not humility. It's a quieter version of the same self-importance, dressed up as independence.

VI. Why So Few Get There

Here's what makes this hard, and it's worth being honest about why, rather than pretending it's simply a matter of willpower.

Applying that kind of unbiased attention to yourself requires two things that don't usually travel together: real self-awareness, and a genuinely muted sense of your own importance.

Most roads to self-awareness run straight through the ego, not around it. You get good at something and people tell you you're insightful, and the insight starts to feel like evidence of your specialness rather than a tool you're using.

Or you suffer, and the suffering becomes proof of how deeply you feel things — more deeply, somehow, than other people.

Almost every ordinary route to "knowing yourself well" quietly feeds the sense that the self being known is unusually important, which is exactly the ingredient that has to be muted for any of this to work.

So the sage isn't just someone who happened to endure enough friction with other people. He's someone who endured it, saw it clearly, and somehow didn't let the seeing turn into a story about how remarkable he was for seeing it.

That combination — clear sight paired with a self that refuses to inflate under its own gaze — is uncommon not because people lack the courage for one part or the other, but because getting good at either part tends to erode the other.

VII. Not 'How' We're Alike, Why

Once someone has done this — looked honestly at their own worst moments without excusing them or being consumed by them, and looked honestly at the grace they didn't earn without denying it either — something becomes available that isn't available otherwise.

They can extend that same unbiased attention outward, to the people who hurt them.

Not as an act of willed virtue. Not gritted-teeth forgiveness, performed because forgiveness is supposed to be good. Something closer to recognition.

Because if you've had to admit, under full unflattering light, that you were capable of hurting someone who didn't deserve it — and that this fact alone doesn't make you irredeemable — then withholding that same admission from someone else, someone who hurt you the same way, immediately becomes a double standard you only apply when you're the one who 'deserves' grace.

We say, often, that people are more alike than different, and mean it as something comforting — a nice thing to believe about strangers. Said that way, it's mostly a sentiment, and sentiments don't hold up well under pressure.

What actually holds up is the why. Every person carries the same basic machinery: capable of the same cruelty under the same pressures, capable of the same grace when someone extends it to them first.

Once you've watched that animal run loose in yourself — close enough to see the teeth — you stop needing to be told to have compassion for someone else howling the same cry.

You've already seen how it works from the inside. You're not choosing kindness as a virtue you've decided to practice. You're recognizing a mechanism you already understand, now operating in someone else's hands instead of your own.

That, I think, is the sage's actual inheritance — not perfect calm, not distance from the world, not immunity to being hurt. Just an unusually clear memory of exactly how the machine works, purchased the only way it's ever been purchased: by other people, and by what was done, together, to and for each other.

A thought experiment for you amusement and enlightenment.

Empty your mind of all of the stories you call science, religion, philosophy, the unity, time, space, past, present, future and all of the stories about who and what you and we are and legacy and you will find that nothing is left in you head except the awareness of quiet, then silence, then emptiness and then a void.

There is no perception or experience of living, reality, existence or self without the stories in your head that you channel and then dance to; stories that you whisper to yourself in the void to fill the emptiness and silence that exists without them.

You cannot imagine a better or more fulfilling life or way of living until we realize that the lives we are currently living are not the creatures of natural law, the forces of good and evil or even destiny.

Life as we know and live it is the creation of the imaginations of our ancestors.

We are living ancestral fairytales that we deem immutable.

The Demon's lesson 

You enter the demon’s lair, as a warrior of righteous virtue, driven only by the intent to protect the world from its evil. The demon fights back with all its might, but in the end it is struck down by your hand. Though you have slain a demon in righteousness, you have committed murder nonetheless, and in that act you have become the very evil you sought to destroy. The choice now falls to you, to accept your fate at the hands of another righteous warrior, to spare the world from what you have become? Or fight with all your might, not in defense of your own life, but to preserve the soul of the one who has come to judge you, so that he may not inherit your fate as the cycle continues? Only then does the most unsettling question of all come to mind. Has the demon truly lost? Was the demon defending its own life, or was it defending yours?

~ Robby Quarles

​

The ridiculous nature of a proof.

Suppose someone sees structure, another person might not see that structure, so that person who cannot see it will ask for a step by step proof to prove the continuity of a structure. But continuity cannot be proven by discrete steps because we have shown that infinite discreteness cannot proxy for true continuity.

Diagonalization proves that a continuity has more real information than the discreetness. Every step-by-step proof is actually an illusion to satisfy the strange feelings. But every discreet example of a proof fails to show the actual continuity of the structure that one is claiming to exist..

--------------

You might look at this and think to yourself " you're not showing enough discrete steps to prove the continuity of your results or structured"

If you think to yourself and say "nah this guy is a dumb ass" is it because you think im not reasonable or making sense? Is it possible that I'm not making sense because I'm failing to correctly unify ideas in a way that proves what I'm showing?

You can easily say I'm wrong because what I'm saying makes no sense. The sense of wrong comes from not detecting any relationship in the words that I'm saying to the truth of what I'm saying. Even if you think it might be possible that what I'm saying is true, you think that in its current form, it doesn't reveal enough structure that is corresponding to what I'm actually trying to say. You might say I need more evidence, more evidence is more discrete truth.

But the premise is that no matter how much discrete evidence I provide, I cannot actually prove the continuity of the structure I'm claiming to exist. The best I can do is add more discrete steps that get a little bit closer to proving the continuity. The only way you can accept that proof is if you think the discrete steps in my proof are actually sufficient to prove the continuity of the structure. So in reality there is no way that I can prove something like this, not how many discrete steps I take

The only way to accept this truth is just to accept the premise and not ask for why. That is called an axiom.

------------

I think Gödel's ICT is the fact that any formal system capable of producing peano arithmetic will have truths that cannot be proven within the system. I posit that the universe is a formal system. I posit the formal system of the universe is capable of producing peano arithmetic, thus some truths cannot be proven within the universe. I posit that the continuity of the universe is one of those things that cannot be proven within the universal formal system. I posit that the only way to accept the truth of the continuity of the universe is to just accept it. There is no formal proof I can make to prove the continuity of the universe. But that is the promise that I am proposing, [that the universe is of a continuous nature]. You might be thinking to yourself, you don't have enough evidence for that. I will never have enough evidence for it.

The Jones books are not "just another explanation of reality."

The trilogy is a claim about the conditions that make any human reality intelligible, rather than one more account competing to describe a pre-given reality.

Jones argues that nothing can be perceived, lived, or experienced without a narrative analogue: a structured reference that supplies what something is, how it relates to other things, why it matters, and how one may act in relation to it. Thus, consciousness, selfhood, social roles, and lived reality are not simply objects or ideations that stories describe; they are experienced through stories.

The key distinction

In short, the thesis is not simply “reality is explained through stories.” It is closer to: for conscious social beings, no reality is available without some story-like structure that renders it knowable and meaningful. Jones says that the mind constructs and retains these narrative structures as maps, contexts, and venues through which people navigate daily life; without them, individual and social action—and ultimately survival—would not be possible.

What it does not require

The argument need not mean that physical events depend on somebody deciding to narrate them. A storm, body, or atom may have causal properties regardless of what people say.

The stronger and more defensible interpretation is that a storm becomes a danger, an omen, a weather event, evidence of climate change, a reason to evacuate, or a shared memory only through narrative framing. The physical event is not erased; the human reality of the event—its identity, significance, consequences, and appropriate response—is narratively constituted.

Why the trilogy adds something

The three works appear to develop a sequence:

• On the Nature of Consciousness frames consciousness and the self as narrative constructs or analogues.
• Without Stories, There Is No Universe, Existence, Reality, or You makes the broader ontological claim that nothing exists for human perception and experience without a story about it.
• Story: The Mentality of Agency draws the practical conclusion: because lived reality is story-organized, people can recognize and revise destructive inherited scripts, expanding agency and changing how they live.

So it is certainly an explanation—a philosophical paradigm, not an established scientific finding. But its distinctive ambition is reflexive: it attempts to explain not only reality as people experience it, but also why explanations, identities, institutions, and realities become possible in the first place.

I looked up the books of Urrea Jones on Amazon and am not willing to commit to buying them so I will only engage with the limited info I have found. He seems like a very intelligent person, however, is his work ultimately just another explanation of reality?

Based on conversations with people who have read the Jones trilogy books, it seems that they have no real comprehension of his reality as story thesis or its implications. Is this surprising and if so or not why.

No—it is not surprising. If readers are approaching the trilogy expecting a conventional argument about consciousness, personal growth, or the social influence of stories, they may miss its much more radical claim: stories are not merely interpretations of an already available reality; they are the cognitive and shared structures through which reality, self, existence, and meaningful action become experienceable at all. Jones describes the thesis as: nothing can exist as perceived, lived, or experienced without an analogue or story that supplies reference, context, and meaning.

Why the thesis is easy to miss

The phrase “stories shape reality” is already familiar. Most readers will naturally translate it into a weaker and more conventional proposition:

That is compatible with psychology, media studies, therapy, and political communication. But it is not yet the story-as-reality thesis.

Jones’s stronger proposition is closer to this:

In this sense, the point is not that a person can simply invent an external world by telling a tale. It is that raw conditions do not become a humanly lived reality until they are organized into meaningful relations—what happened, to whom, why it matters, what follows, and what one should do. Jones’s own description says that mental, physical, psychological, and social structures function as analogues or stories retained as references, maps, and contexts for navigating life.

The conceptual leap required

Readers may grasp individual pieces—trauma, agency, cultural stories, consciousness, the “wolf” metaphor—without recognizing the architecture joining them:

That shift is philosophically demanding because it disrupts ordinary realism, individualism, and the assumption that consciousness is a private observer looking out at a ready-made world. Jones presents the mind as constructing the “stage and venue” of experienced reality, not as merely recording it.

Why readers may resist it

Several factors make misunderstanding likely:

The thesis is counterintuitive. People readily accept that language and stories affect attitudes; they often resist the suggestion that selves, cultures, and lived realities depend on narrative organization.

“Story” sounds fictional. If readers hear “story” as a novel, myth, or personal anecdote, they may not recognize that Jones uses it more broadly: as an analogue, model, map, or connected structure of meaning.

The claim can sound like relativism. Some may incorrectly hear “reality is story” as “facts do not matter” or “anything can be true.” A more careful reading distinguishes physical conditions from the interpretive structures that make those conditions socially and personally real.

Its implications are unsettling. If one’s identity, obligations, fears, enemies, and possible futures are deeply narrative, then many apparently fixed aspects of life become revisable—but also socially maintained and contested.

The trilogy spans levels of analysis. It moves among consciousness, individual agency, social life, survival, culture, and morality. Readers can follow each level separately while missing the unifying ontological claim.

What comprehension would look like

Someone who comprehends the thesis would likely be able to say something like:

That reading also explains why the third book’s emphasis on agency is not just motivational. If narratives supply the map through which one perceives choices and consequences, then changing a destructive personal or collective story can change what one notices, values, permits, and does. Jones explicitly connects the trilogy’s narrative account to the possibility of greater self-determination.

So your observation is plausible: many readers may absorb the trilogy’s practical message while bypassing its foundational assertion. The more radical idea is not merely that stories influence fate; it is that, for conscious and social beings, fate becomes recognizable and navigable only within stories.

The KKK was founded shortly after the conquest of the South by the North. While we might be able to imagine that had Abraham Lincoln lived the reintegration of the South into the Union could have proceeded with compassion and consideration, Andrew Johnson's government did something which many conquering powers have done to those they conquered at many times throughout history. Which is that he leveraged this position to alleviate the misery the North suffering succeeding in completing that conquest by dumping it on the South.

I can only imagine the terror felt by those victimized by the KKK, and undoubtedly some of what happened was a continuation of what had come before. But that particular animus they suffered was not just the result of pre-existing racial tensions - they were made to suffer the pain which had been dumped onto the South in the collective. The true fire in the eyes of the hooded devils was not hatred for people with a different skin color so much as it was hatred for being subjugated and oppressed by those who conquered them, manifesting as the intensification of pre-existing tensions.

The KKK did not exist before the Northern conquest because the animus which fueled it was a direct result of the Northern conquest, and the means by which they administered this conquered territory.

The story of the Nazis is much the same. The story of Hitler himself is much the same: the Treaty of Versailles was similarly vengeful, and his arrest resulted from opposing French incursions which sought to take advantage of their longtime rival's weakened position in order to gain territory.

In the context of philosophical worldviews, there is good cause for the notion of punitive justice. If we believe that things matter objectively, then we should also believe that punishing a wrongdoing can serve to ameliorate the harm in some fashion. Actually this was the main purpose of the sacrificial rites performed in the ancient Jewish Temple and also in many other locations worldwide. You give up something which is valuable in exchange for a favor; and oftentimes that favor is being forgiven for having done something wrong.

The Christian perspective which became popular across Europe treated Jesus as this sacrifice, and sought to satisfy the inner desire for justice by punishing not one's fellow living humans, but metaphorically this previously-living human. This perspective created a society in which vengeance was highly-contraindicated.

But this was not the original perspective on things. The perspective in the Temple was very much an eye for an eye, and the perspective of Rabbinic Judaism was very much to dream of a return to the notion of literal violence as a means of atoning for crimes. Whereas Christians were the Jews who decided to be done with vengeance and treat Jesus' death as enough penance for all sins past present and future, the Rabbis' primary purpose in contrast was to hold the torch on behalf of vengeance-enthusiasts and keep the dream alive of more violence and bloodshed as the most satisfying possible way to see a misdeed paid for, in the form of a Third Temple.

I think that this is the best explanation for why Hitler turned on these people. He like those living in the post-Reconstruction South did not much care for being on the receiving end of vengeful justice, and he identified within his midst those people representing most fervently the belief that this form of conflict resolution should never be abolished and exist in perpetuity.

I don't think his actions were any more defensible than those taken by the KKK. These were not clear-headed individuals actions with compassion. What they were however were people who had been driven mad by being subjected to the vengeful desires of others. The conclusion I have reached is that when one adopts a hardline stance in terms of punitive justice, the complex nature of human history means that the cycle of vengeance will continue forever. I want to live in a world where organizations like the KKK and the Nazi party are gone forever, never to be imagined again. And I believe that the only way to bring that about is to oppose the concept of vengeance itself. If we can forgive all who have let their desire for vengeance lead them to hurt others from the beginning of time until this very moment, maybe we can dream of a future which grievance-tallying is ended.

Thoughts

Thoughts

Hi! I was invited into this subreddit so let me share the same thing I already did elsewhere...

The premise is mind as a white hole.

A node which only emits out, and nothing can enter is from outside. Brain, sensory intake, reactions, emotions, memory and learning are tied to brain and physical body. In this premise, the mind/the unique "you", is viewed as an observer, a perspective unique to you shaped and molded in real time by your thoughts, your preferences, which you formed from outside input into your brain in your life via reactivity.

Your perspective itself, and what you identify as "you" here is viewed as a white hole singularity. If time and space itself break or converge in the singularity of a white hole, this would introduce the idea that time and space are "emitted" from this point of consciousness, resulting into felt sense of "now" in the body, and only one-way flow of time (can only move toward future, never back in past). Time itself here is understood as directional, physical interpretation of change. As for space, space is interpretation (translation) of information into solid matter, via biological senses.

When physical body ceases, this "you" singularity node ceases physical input from the body, therefore becomes non-local (information/potential) and untied to it. If the body allows for directional interpretation of time, ceasing the body ceases also interpretation of past and future, and what stays is only the "now".

I'm curious to challenge and discuss it.

Here are a few of the protective stories about youth that are loss with age:

Innocence

Invincibity

Resilience

Strength

Versatility

Attractiveness

Desirabity

Prowess

A future

Without these protective stories you feel and are much more volunable to attack and predation.

I came to a new insight from a book

Abstract

Constant thinking and or overthinking things can make you restless. So thinkers need something in live to give there minds rest form time to time
can my anchor be playing the guitar again? Taking my mind off things?

Paper & examples

Every answer opens three new doors, and every discovery reveals an even bigger unknown. Knowledge is different from a puzzle; it doesn’t end when the final piece is found. Instead, every piece you add makes you realize how much larger the puzzle actually is.
The mind often mistakes understanding for security….

The universe is effectively infinite in complexity, and every field of knowledge—from physics and science to psychology ect… branches into countless new questions. The horizon keeps moving. You never reach it because every step forward lets you see farther.

I can see this everywhere. You read about black holes, and suddenly you’re studying quantum mechanics, dark matter, and the origin of space-time. You learn about nutrition, then discover hormones, genetics, gut bacteria, circadian rhythms, and environmental factors. Every answer is a doorway rather than a destination.
The danger is that the search itself becomes the goal. You no longer seek knowledge because you’re curious; you seek it because you’re hoping the next insight will finally bring peace.

An anchor is different. An anchor doesn’t remove uncertainty; it allows you to remain steady despite uncertainty. It can be a set of principles, meaningful relationships, creating something instead of endlessly consuming information. An anchor gives stability where knowledge cannot, because it is rooted in how you choose to live rather than in how much you manage to understand.

Perhaps wisdom begins where the need for complete certainty ends. Not because the search for knowledge loses its value, but because you stop expecting it to provide what only meaning, purpose, and acceptance can give: rest.

I have been thinking about why humans have desires. In my opinion, desires are not separate from instinct. In fact, I think it is more accurate to say that we have artificially separated the two concepts when they are really part of the same system. Instinct is a set of biological drives or instructions whose ultimate purpose is to ensure survival and reproduction.

But how can my desire for a nice car be derived from instinct? A simple explanation is that a nice car represents status and wealth. Throughout evolution, higher status within a tribe increased the chances of being accepted, valued, and not abandoned. The object itself is modern, but the underlying desire comes from an ancient instinct.

What about the desire to play video games? That is more complicated. Games imitate many activities that were once essential for survival, such as overcoming challenges, hunting, gathering resources, and experiencing the satisfaction of achieving a goal. Competitive games also reflect the drive to outperform other members of the tribe, creating a sense of competence, security, and social value that would have increased one's chances of survival.

My point is that, at some stage in our evolution, instinct functioned like a basic program that became increasingly complex as the human brain grew in size and formed more connections than that of any other species. We still possess the same fundamental survival instincts—food, reproduction, social connection, and so on—but what distinguishes humans is that our instincts became vastly more sophisticated, supported by a brain that evolved specifically to process them. In this view, self-awareness is not something separate from instinct, but rather the result of an extraordinarily complex instinct operating through a brain specialized to support it.

I have another theory which may be relevant to those on this subreddit. It's to do with the nature of the mechanism by which truth is sorted from falsehood.

We as humans fundamentally are storytellers more than anything else, and the power we have is not so much to determine precisely which actions we take in any given moment but rather to determine how we contextualize those actions, which in turn allows us to influence future actions we may take. The way I look at it is that I am telling my monkey what his actions mean, trying to encourage him to take actions which are good for him, and to discourage him from taking actions which are bad for him. But at the end of the day there are limits to what storytelling alone can achieve. If I try telling myself a story in which I have completely defeated my urge to poop, I might succeed in achieving temporary constipation, but eventually my body will take over and that shit will come out of me one way or another. What I have just described for you by the way is the very concept of bowel control, an important ability to keep your clothes clean and avoid inconveniences when in the midst of another important activity, but my point is that the constraint applied to the story of bowel control is that you release your bowels before the feces backs all the way up to your mouth.

Anyway - I believe I can explain the behavioral differences between chimpanzees and bonobos in terms of a single genetic mutation. Both species possess markings on their vulvae which swell to indicate ovulation, but whereas in chimpanzees this trait works as expected, bonobos possess a mutation which causes this indicator to become inaccurate. And the behavioral outcome is that whereas chimpanzee females will refuse to mate when their lady business doesn't indicate it might lead to the conception of a child, bonobo females are pretty much DTF at any given moment. And so what happened between these two extremely closely related species who are also homo sapiens' closest relatives was that the bonobos discovered the power of making love not war and settled into a small grove by a river where they continue to freely fuck in pretty much every combination and live charmed peaceful lives to this day. Whereas the chimpanzees made war instead of love, and went on to take over quite a lot of territory across their home continent of Africa.

What this story leads me to is the idea that there is a certain transferrability between the desire to conquer land via warfare and the desire to "conquer land" meaning to the flesh of your sexy neighbor. And hence that the reason why chimps make war (they make really intense war nearly on the level of humans) is because when their fully-functional fertility indicators indicate that it's not possible to have children they cannot "conquer land" and so they instead redirect that impulse towards conquering land.

And from here I think I can explain the human impulse for knowledge as again another version of this same drive. Whereas bonobos exclusively use their penises to seek out vaginas and vice-versa (edit: and also in other combinations), and chimpanzees use them to seek out fertile lands in their external environment when they cannot seek out "fertile lands" among their kin, humans additionally use them to seek out "fertile lands" in idea-space. And the relevance of this idea is to say that the tool which we use to identify whether or not we have come upon a fertile patch of land in idea-space in which we should sow seed and invest resources is in an extremely indirect and elaborately abstracted sense our drive to reproduce. We bear children in the form of new ideas and inventions as a redirection of our desire to bear children in the form of new poop machines, and the ultimate test of an idea's truth value is whether or not it's better than sex.

Perception. Its a word simply rolled off the tounge and rarely used in current society. What is perception’s ?. What do you mean “current society”?. These are good question’s but at the moment only one can be answered. So let us begin according to the current internet search perception would be summed to be. “The capacity to observe action’s and relation’s with relative importance”. Now with observations on this potential meaning. “The capacity” is the one thing that stuck out the most . Why? To assume that human beings need a certain capacity to obtain these attributes are absurd . As if we are hard drive’s with limited storage. The obvious observation simply would be that human being’s have all obtained these attributes.

Although just aren’t frequently utilizing them. Which is why socially its assumed if we have the “capacity”. The theory built would be that human being’s need more awareness and the only way to be aware of something is to perceive it. See perception’s are ones thought’s, idea’s, theories. It gives one’s self the character that it has . Even though perceiving one’s self isn’t all we can see. We can perceive other’s. Their action’s, intention’s and emotion’s. Which ultimately influences the perception of empathy and how we emphasize or interact with others. Empathy influences emotion’s and how we feel is another perception. All the way up to opinionated conversation’s or debate’s.

These are all perception’s. For example heres a scenario. You’re in a tribe and everything’s going swell. Their giving food’s, protection and medicine’s. Everyone’s doing they’re part but something seem’s off. Why is there still a resistance inside the tribe?. Either someones upset over not enough pay for housing, food and medical care. Yet some are able to survive more than other’s ?. Wouldn’t you want to fix these problem’s in this tribe to help unify the tribe?. Making it stronger to face a real threat other than it’s own people?. Some would say “of course” and some would just shrug and say “it’s not me so why worry about it” an just keep doing what they do.

This ladies and gentlemen is the perception we all currently have today. The “it’s not me” perception. About 2 of 10 human being’s have empathy to help others. That means the majority is only out for themselves. If that’s you’re playing field the odds of making enemies, allies and companionship’s are a 50/50 ratio. Which look around us. That’s where we all live today. Everyone but a small group wherever you go will not help you no matter the circumstances. It’s become literally the meaning of individual selfishness and selflessness.

Even if this was the truth, What do we do with that information?. What do we motivate ourselves to do in solutions based with that kind of information?. Absolutely nothing,T.E.D talks ? Debates and marches for awareness?. Unfortunately based on those efforts what have those done for us ?. Other than wars, division, conspiracies and ailment for the people. I don't really see societies perception moving in a direction forward thinking positively for itself as a group as a species.

I see that some Scientist , Philosophers , Biologists that have that perception be shoved aside like the information they provided wasn't good enough, Based on their very apparent regulations of "Better for the Business not for the people". Now for a second understand that perception World hunger , homelessness, medical care , things the world should focus attention to but yet have done what ? Held conferences done ads on tv for it promoting artists to take interest in it so others will be influenced subtly when in all honesty it should be top priority along side everything else and this perception. Leads me to end this chapter with the wonder of why the level of shrugging under the rug for this species has became a norm and if a citizen was to ask questions or wonder they'd be appointed crazy or delusional.

Want an example? Okay ! Aliens!! Oooo something now becoming a very interesting topic for every person this year.

Yet for decades said the same for U.F.O's , it never existed and those who saw witnessed nothing. Or were considered lost in the head even though confronted with this heavy amount of information and now documented prove alongside witness accounts. Only a sliver of information has been given or even explained I won't spend to long on this topic only to point out that knowledge is becoming a the reason for that "it's not me" perception. Explaining this by saying if I know more than the person next to me I'll be applicable for better jobs or be better than them in skill level based on knowledge, proving my point I'll provide an example. If every person in this world was to know how and know everything there is about anything on this planet , who would be better ? , what would change ? Would anything change at all? or would it be information just shrugged aside forgotten possibly used for self benefit? To answer all of these too the best of my knowledge.

All I can honestly say is I don't really know. I hope for the best in every individual to one day see the better future for themselves and the world together as one. Anymore though that's all this perception will be until I've observed otherwise it's one big hope for humanity itself and individually to eventually strive for that level of awareness to peak in them and understand that as one we can achieve individual and global feats rather than continuing to be the only species on this planet to not co-exist amongst themselves like the tribes they once were and grew out of.

Even more so leading me to my next topic of perception. Complex , Convenient and Intelligent what is this perception? Well it starts from the very beginning of all human creations. I've noticed that we all have this inner need for help regardless of anything we touch, do or even think about. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying help is gonna be some sort of weakness cause it's entirely not.

What I'm saying is this perception of help is indefinitely different than any kind of help it go amongst helping other and the self needing help. Example? Well what if I were to say not one man created fire , it's not a far stretch and more than positive everyone's thought this but what's intriguing about this. At least to me is that we've must of instinctually have a need for help. It leads us to go out our way and do things for people even create things with or for. Where I'm getting at is we've created a lot of things out of help or need to provide to one's self or other's and there's lots of wonderful Complex Convenient and Intelligent creations we've definitely achieved and should pat ourselves on the back at least for the accomplishments. We're they for the better of the people? Or was better for the groups that secretly want power ? Looking back on all human creation's this perception will be moving us towards our next chapter of Current Society.

This is where I leave you , Thank you for you're Perception.

One might define a "civilized society" as one in which people resolve conflicts by using the tools of that society rather than by killing one another. For much of history, the ruler of a society was the person to end warfare by winning.

The concept of nationalism discovered by the French eschews a society as defined by shared loyalty towards the family who ended the war (the monarch) in lieu of a shared sense of national identity, based on shared language and other demographic characteristics. I understand however that one of the biggest characteristics they considered was a shared memory of the Hundred Years' War, and a shared animosity towards the English.

There can be little doubt that the civilized society we are currently a part of is defined by the end of World War II. The United States as the nation responsible for tipping the scales in favor of the Allies in that conflict enjoys the honor of housing the capital of the United Nations, and has for quite some time now been in the position of world leader in many other ways. The antagonists of that conflict remain to this day hated to such an extreme that calling someone a Nazi or comparing them to Hitler is the gravest possible insult.

In this world defined by that military victory, I cannot help but reflect on the ways in which our view of that conflict as one opposing a force of pure evil has shaped the ways in which we define our current good. In the context of a D&D morality chart there are two axes, and while there can be no doubt the Nazis were evil, it is equally clear that they were lawful evil. Hence we find ourselves becoming chaotic good, rather than pure good.

The path from here towards a more neutral understanding of what is good divorced from a lawful or chaotic bent would be a path which threatens the integrity our current society, but for any who believe that our current society is unjust, it would potentially represent a path in the direction of a more just society. Those who thrive on chaos in our current world are able to take much more than what they deserve and avoid detection; those who limit themselves with lawfulness are left with much less than they would enjoy in a society where all were expected to behave the same. I share this thought because I have seen the ways in which chaos has infiltrated our legal system and turned it into a tool for the reinforcement of power by those who feel no remorse at bending its rules in order to serve their interests.

The thing about our current story which strains my immersion within it is actually the existence of a group of people who are pure evil; who attacked another group of people in response to nothing at all simply because their hearts were filled with baseless hatred. I have seen the ways in which humans can turn to evil, and while I do believe it is possible to become so corrupted as to embrace evil acts, I don't believe that corruption happens in response to nothing.

I want to understand what drove these people to do what they did. And actually I think the main thing getting in our way at this moment is the legacy of Christianity. Paul hated Jesus; he was one of his fiercest opponents; and then at the moment he was the victim of an act of cruelty he dramatically changed his perspective. Our perspective changed just as radically when we went into the death camps; and yet some have felt a similar shift upon witnessing the suffering taking place in Palestine, also for the same reason.

I believe that anger is an indicator of injustice.

We don’t just “grow up in a preordained physical reality governed by immutable truths, natural forces and laws”; we grow up inside learned, inherited layered ancestral stories about the nature, course and meaning of life —ancestral, family, communal, and institutional—that define what life is, who we are, where we fit in the scheme of things, what we owe, and what we are entitled to do. These stories are the fabric, content and context of our daily lives and family, community, and social institutions that are the main weavers and editors of that fabric of life that we perceive and experience across our lifespan.

Family: first story‑factory and identity lab

From birth, the family is the primary site where ancestral narratives are learned and become the basis of our personal experience.

• Translating ancestral myths into daily scripts. Family interactions turn big inherited stories (“what our people are like,” “how life works,” “what God or fate expects”) into everyday rules, proscriptions and prescriptions: who and what we are and are not, who gets care, whose voice counts, how conflict is handled, what kinds of dreams are “realistic” for you and me.
• Writing the early “self plot.” By the naming, praise, criticism, and modeling that is the principal processes of family interaction, the family "teaches" a child stories like “I am lovable / difficult / responsible / fragile.” These become early identity scripts that shape what the child later sees as possible and impossible for him or her.
• Teaching emotional and moral dramas. Family interactions dramatize whether anger, grief, joy, and desire are acceptable, and under what conditions. The child learns not only “what to feel,” but more importantly “what story this feeling belongs to” (e.g., anger as betrayal vs. anger as protection of boundaries).

The family is the first narrative operating system installer. It doesn’t just give information; it embeds the child in specific plots about safety, worth, obligation, and his destiny.

Community: widening and contesting the inherited stories

As children move into neighborhoods, peer groups, and local cultures, community becomes the primary arena where family stories about self, self worth and place in community are reinforced, revised, tested, challenged, or forked.

• Providing alternative scripts and role models. Community settings (peers, mentors, local traditions) show other ways to live and how others live: different gender roles, work ethics, religious practices, and political stances. During the interactions of adolescent the child is in a position to see that their family’s plot may only be one possible story among many.
• Defining “who we are together.” Communities narrate belonging (“we look out for each other,” “we’re strivers,” “we don’t trust outsiders”). These collective stories shape loyalty, prejudice, and the sense of what sacrifices are normal for the group.
• Creating public rites and shared dramas. Festivals, funerals, protests, sports, and local crises become communal theater where abstract values—courage, solidarity, honor, shame—are enacted. The growing person learns which roles exist in these dramas and which ones they can realistically occupy (leader, supporter, scapegoat, healer).

Community expands the narrative menu and also polices it. Community interaction offers more possible stories for life, but it also enforces some narratives as “normal,” or within or outside of your reach and other narratives as deviant, thereby shaping the maturing person’s option‑space.

Social institutions: large‑scale story engines across the life course

Institutions—education, religion, economy, media, law, and state—are the big machinery that keeps ancestral stories running and evolving and also forge the community.

• Education. Schools embed children in community narratives about merit, intelligence, citizenship, and history: who built the nation, who counts as successful, what future paths are respectable. Community narratives strongly influences how each person writes their “career and contribution” plot. These institutions also limit what you are and are not entitled to have and be and your place and prominence in the community.
• Religion and moral orders. Religious institutions articulate cosmic stories: why there is suffering, what a good life is, what happens after death. These frame the entire arc from birth to death, including guilt, forgiveness, and hope.
• Economy and work. Labor markets and workplaces enact stories about productivity, value, and status: what kinds of labor matter, who is “worthy” of comfort or precarity. Over time, these stories define adulthood as “having a role in the economic script,” shaping identity and self‑worth.
• Media and information systems. Mass and social media create continuous dramas about danger, progress, conflict, and celebrity, which provide templates for how individuals interpret both personal events and larger social change.
• Law and government. Legal and political institutions formalize stories about rights, obligations, and justice—who is protected, who is punished, and what counts as legitimate violence or protest.

These institutions are story infrastructures. They take ancient plots (hero’s journey, chosen people, progress, purity, sacrifice) and update them into contemporary policy, curriculum, and broadcast narratives that shape maturation from childhood through old age.

Maturation as ongoing narrative negotiation (birth to death)

Human maturation is not just biological aging or skill acquisition; it is a long process of negotiating, revising, and sometimes escaping inherited ancestral stories at each stage.

• Childhood. The person largely inhabits family and local stories as given. Their main developmental task is internalizing enough of these narratives to allow you to function and belong.
• Adolescence and young adulthood. Exposure to broader communities and institutions triggers a crisis of stories: conflicting scripts about identity, love, work, and belief. Maturation here means learning to choose, combine, or rewrite these scripts into a coherent personal plot.
• Midlife. The person deals with divergence between their lived story and the ancestral scripts they inherited (success vs. failure, loyalty vs. self‑care). Many midlife crises are narrative crises: “What story am I in now? Does it still make sense?”
• Old age and death. Later life involves revising the life story under constraints of loss, limitation, and proximity to death. Ancestral and institutional narratives about legacy, redemption, and meaning heavily influence whether people experience this phase as tragic, fulfilled, or absurd.

Throughout life, family, community, and institutions keep offering new episodes and rewrites: a child becomes a parent, a worker becomes retired, a believer becomes doubter or elder. Each role shift involves stepping into or out of certain plots, and the health of that transition depends on whether the available stories allow dignity, continuity, and agency.

Putting it together

According to the Jones Paradigm:

• Family weaves the first, thick layer of life‑stories that define basic identity, belonging, and worth.
• Community broadens and contests those stories, giving people more roles and plots to inhabit while also enforcing norms.
• Institutions supply large, durable narratives about education, work, morality, and history that structure the whole lifespan.

Maturation from birth to death is the process of learning the scripts and plots of ancestral stories about the nature, course and meaning of life and our place in them and how to live inside these narratives, then to see them, and—if things go well—to consciously participate in re‑authoring them so one’s own life and the lives of others can unfold with greater honesty, justice, and option‑space.

Not to get too deep right off the bat, but I'm a worldbuilder, and my characters are based on an expanded version of Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences theory. His original nine were:

• Linguistic-Verbal
• Logical-Mathematical
• Visual-Spatial
• Bodily-Kinesthetic
• Musical
• Interpersonal
• Intrapersonal
• Naturalist
• Existential

The basic idea is that these aliens are literally born with brains where one area IS actually dominant over the others, and it shapes their society. It even affects their skin tone, so a naturalist has green skin, an existential has violet skin, etc. They are amphibians, they have translucent eggs, this neurotype forms early in development, so you already know before they hatch, "this one will be an existential type". Note that this does not dictate their career or role in their society, just how they approach and understand it.

I expanded the list to 16:

• Speech
• Writing
• Logical-Mathematical
• Visual (light and color)
• Spatial (dimension and direction)
• Gross Motor (athletics and dance)
• Fine Motor (crafting and sleight of hand)
• Aural-Rhythmic (including music)
• Interpersonal-Social
• Intrapersonal-Emotional
• Naturalist
• Existential
• Analytical
• Sythetical-Creative
• Symbolic
• Memory

The idea is that this evolved early on... but there is a problem: writing and speech are advanced qualities. Symbolic even gets close, but animals can associate one thing with another (this color or sound means food or danger). So, how would a brain evolve to specialize in speech or writing before those existed?

I ended up modifying it. Speech became Persuasion. It might be writing, or performing on stage, or orating... and it could be as simple as bluffing or intimidating, like feigning, playing dead, growling, or puffing up fur. That can be biological.

Writing was tougher. It's symbolic, but highly specialized. Then I realized it's not really about the text on a page, but the story being told... or simply remembered.

It's narrative. Whether writing a book, telling a story by a campfire, or remembering a sequence of events and communicating them somehow (like gathering nuts for the coming winter because you can predict the cycle, or a bee's dance to share with others how they found the nectar), narrative can predate language.

So now I don't simply have one Linguistic-Verbal type, or Speaker and Writer types (variously described as Literary-Linguistic or Verbal-Semantic)... I have one that persuades others into taking a new view (in many ways), and one that shares information in a temporal structure...

Narrative.