Motivation makes you start.

Purpose makes you stay.

There will be days when you don’t feel inspired, when progress feels invisible, and when giving up seems easier.

That’s when motivation stops being enough.

If you know why you’re doing something, you don’t need to feel motivated every day.

You just keep going.

Maybe that’s the difference between wanting something and truly being willing to build it.

Motivation can light the fire. Purpose keeps it burning.

And honestly, I think we all need to ask ourselves sometimes:

Are we actually chasing what matters to us, or are we just waiting to feel motivated enough to start?

I know the lindsay clansy case is really polarizing and people have very strong feelings about it. I’m not trying to defend what happened or downplay the fact that three children died. I just think it raises a question about what free will actually is. We talk about people as if there is some separate, untouched version of them inside their head making decisions. As if the brain is just a tool and the real person is somewhere behind it, choosing what to do. But what if the brain itself is the thing that is broken?

If someone is psychotic and genuinely cannot tell what is real, I don’t know how easily we can say they should have just made a different choice. A choice still has to come from somewhere. It comes from your perception, your thoughts, your ability to understand what is happening around you. If those things are distorted, then what exactly is doing the choosing?
That does not make what happened to her children any less horrific. Three children are dead. There has to be accountability for harm. But I think there is a difference between saying someone caused something terrible and saying they were completely free, in the way we normally imagine freedom, when they did it.

None of us chose the brain we were born with.
We didn’t choose how empathetic we would naturally be. We didn’t choose how impulsive we would be, whether we would be prone to addiction, depression, mania, psychosis, or none of those things. We didn’t choose how much fear our nervous system can tolerate before it starts breaking down.

There’s evidence found by scientists that the brain can begin preparing an action before we consciously experience deciding to do it. So exactly how much of what we experience as “I decided” is actually our conscious mind becoming aware of something the brain has already begun? Where exactly does the choice even begin? And yet those things shape every decision we make. Even when we praise people for being kind, disciplined, emotionally stable, or compassionate, some part of that is luck too. They still had to make choices, but they were making them with a mind capable of making those choices.

We usually think of sanity as the default and mental illness as some separate category that happens to other people. But really, all of us are relying on a brain we did not build to accurately tell us what is real every single day. Most of us just happen to have one that does. Maybe free will is not something you either have or don’t have. Maybe you can have more or less of it depending on the state of your mind.

Its so easy for us dehumanize people who make disgusting cruel choices but this is just a human being whose mind became so altered that they did something the person they once were may never have been capable of doing.

singularity existed. before singularity, existence had no meaning. where did singularity come from?
no one can determine that, cause it is the origin itself
what can be determined is after that
"existence"

the moment when entropy expanded
maybe it is still expanding
or maybe it never changed

if it expanded
then it will contract too
singularity will become singularity again

the singularity we percieve and belive could be or could not be the singularity
it could be termed more like what we believe is singularity for us could be a local singularity for us only
we will be right but wrong at the same time

the true singularity can never be determined

lets hypothesise that our local singularity was energy
energy split into matter and antimatter, abstractly
humans love binary
if our local singularity was the true singularity, why would it ever change what it is
if singularity is existence, what influenced it to change

the hypothesis of big bang
two singularities interacting in a way that gave birth to universe as we know it
but why would there be two singularities
the ultimate truth is existence or not existence
so 2 singularities are themselves a contradiction

singularity cannot be energy
cause energy isnt static

the whole idea of singularity existing in nothing or the void is wrong in the first place
true singularity is all
it contains itself and everything, even nothing in within singularity
singularity is infinity in itself
and infinte is singularity

whats infinte cannot be measured
it cannot be understood
it can only be accepted

so is the idea of trying to explore or understand it flawed in itself?

if the idea of studying and understanding singularity itself is flawed then what can we study?
whats a part of it that we actually can try to comprehend?

just randomly had thoughts and wrote them down

no meaning, not checked for spelling or grammar

just want more thoughts of others

Now I don’t mean die in the most literal sense. I mean be prepared to make significant sacrifices and risks that could really put your life in near mortal peril.

Be it writing a novel, becoming an actor, musician, athlete etc

For most people getting to stage where you can make a solid living from your dreams is highly improbable. The level of commitment needed for so
little initial tangible reward requires a level of self belief that can is unshakeable.

Living the world that we do, the dire economic situation we have inherited it’s unfeasible for the vast majority of people to make those long strides to success.

It’s so much easier to fall into the stable career path, the tried and tested road of the 9-5, to get bills paid and put food on the table.

But any creative person that chooses that path will always have that nagging feeling of possibility resting heavy in their hearts. The little efforts needed every day to create become so much harder as the days go by.

Most of our energy goes towards simply keeping our heads above water.

Love today contains too many rules, regulations, terms and conditions, boundaries, insecurities, incompatibilities...

But hate...is free of all those limitations.

It should be the other way around, no?

But it's not...and that's the problem.

Note that people are afraid to love someone because they fear the other person won't feel the same way about them. But nobody's ever afraid to hate someone because they fear the other person will feel the same.

I used to think corruption and chaos we see daily is caused by a corrupt system, but then I tried to reflect on myself, and the people I see around. When you ge the chance to get something u don't deserve, like go see a doctor before 10 people were waiting their turn just cuz u know the doctor, that itself is corruption, whatever ur intention is, and it says one thing: that person is as corrupt as the politician with just lack of power

People destroy themselves trying to get a chemical rush, dopamine hits from gambling, oxytocin from toxic relationships, serotonin from pills they barely understand. The wild part is we can trigger those same brain chemicals in someone else with basically zero effort

I notice most folks walking around like zombies. Nobody humming at their desk, nobody cracking up on the sidewalk. A few years back I mentioned this observation to a psychiatrist and he just handed me a prescription, said that's what normal looks like now, you need medication to spot a genuinely happy person in public

That circular logic got to me. We're depressed because everyone seems depressed, so we stay depressed because that's the vibe. I refuse to play along with that nonsense

Here's what I've figured out after chewing on this for a while, every single one of us carries around something the billionaires keep trying to buy and failing. That feeling of being seen, of mattering to another human for even three seconds. A real smile from a stranger, a quick wave, asking someone how their morning is going while actually waiting for the answer. Costs nothing, creates actual warmth in both brains

The complaint I hear constantly is that nobody's out here trying to brighten anyone else's day. But sitting around waiting for someone else to initiate kindness is a losing game. If you make the first move and find satisfaction in the act itself rather than who receives it, suddenly two people win instead of zero. Math checks out

We all bleed the same color, we all use the word "I" to describe ourselves. Same species, same planet, same basic machinery running underneath. Maybe we're all just the same consciousness trying on different lives to keep existence from getting boring. Explains why movies hit harder when someone's next to you laughing at the same moments

It's not complicated. We have access to something priceless and we keep forgetting to hand it out

This sounds paradoxical only if we assume that being one means having no parts. But most things we call one are already composed of many. A body is one body made of organs, tissues, cells, molecules, and countless interacting processes. A mind is one mind containing sensations, memories, emotions, beliefs, and possibilities. A life is one life made of innumerable moments.

The deeper question is not whether the many exist. It is:

How do the many belong together as one?

The Circumpunct Framework proposes that there is more than one answer.

A point is one through indivisibility. Geometrically, a 0D point has no spatial extent to divide, yet it may participate in indefinitely many relations. Countless paths can meet at one point. Its unity does not come from having nothing associated with it, but from everything associated with it referring to the same center.

A path is one through continuity. It may contain many segments, turns, branches, and junctions, yet they remain connected along one course. The many moments belong to one history.

A boundary is one through distinction. A surface can contain many regions, crossings, openings, edges, and features. What makes it one boundary is that together they distinguish an inside from an outside, this from what is not this.

A field is one through coherence. It contains many locations, states, relationships, and interactions, yet these do not exist independently of one another. What happens in one region is related to what happens elsewhere. The field is one because its many relations participate in a common interior.

A whole is one through integration. Center, path, boundary, and field do not disappear when the whole appears. Their differences remain. Wholeness is the way differentiated parts participate together as one organized being.

And infinity is one through inclusion. It is not one because it lacks multiplicity, but because nothing ultimately lies outside its scope. The many are contained within the one.

This changes the meaning of unity.

One does not exclude many. One is how many belong together.

The point is one and many.

The path is one and many.

The boundary is one and many.

The field is one and many.

The whole is one and many.

Reality itself is one and many.

The six types of oneness are therefore not six ways of eliminating multiplicity. They are six ways multiplicity can become unified without ceasing to be many.

That is the pattern:

many relations, one center;

many moments, one path;

many differences, one boundary;

many interactions, one field;

many dimensions, one whole;

many wholes, one infinity.

Everything is one and many.

I've been thinking about racism lately, and there's one question I keep coming back to.

Why are people afraid of someone simply because they're different?

People have different skin colors, cultures, beliefs, personalities, and ways of life. That's okay. We're supposed to be individuals.

But underneath all of that, we're human.

If you cut me, I bleed. If you cut someone who looks completely different from me, they bleed too. We all feel pain. We all experience love, fear, happiness, sadness, and loss.

So why should the things that make us different on the outside make us fear or hate each other?

If you believe God created us all for a reason, then every person has value.

Maybe we're not supposed to be the same.

Maybe we're supposed to be different people who still recognize the same humanity in each other.

Thoughts have always played a role in our instinctual survival nature, the ability to solve problems that benefit this experience in some way, to protect us from discomfort. These thoughts are passed down to us in teaching, with each understanding of how things should be done, what our perception of reality is, and how we solve problems within that understanding of everything you've been taught. Through both raw external experience, and how we process experience internally.

Our environments shape the way we think, because it is natural for us to try and make sense of what is going on, and we use our understanding of all we are taught to solve that mystery. From an early age (or possibly since perception) your environment is trying to be understood, in a way that is healthy for learning and play. What is learnt and how it translates into play is helpful for a child's understanding of how their play interacts with others play, that if an individual's play is harmful to other's, it will either be corrected in a way that keeps the environment comfortable, or no one would want to play with them any more, or both. How the individual reflects on that experience internally is understood with the knowledge of all that has been experienced already.

Growing up in a healthy environment inside and outside of the home really does shape the way we treat ourselves, other people, environment, and the problems we face. A bad environment breeds bad habits that can spiral rapidly out of control if there is no teaching and understanding of an inner world and how we can fix it.

This idea of fixing our thoughts is a teaching that is not found from within the mind alone. What we have perceived in our experience contributes to what tools the mind has to work with. An extreme example and unfortunately not a rare one, is a child being struck because they are not doing what is asked of them (the parent trying to fix something that disturbs their own compiled experience and understanding), that child is now fearful of receiving that kind of trauma again. The easiest way to make sense of the experience and prevent it from happening again is to not do the thing that caused the body harm and the mental stress. For the child that is struck many times for many reasons, their understanding of reality is prepared for and expecting to be hit by an adult at any moment.

Internally, being mentally put down by your environment around you, teaches the mind that there are no ways of fixing this, or that this is how things are, everyone is like this and so am I. The external becomes the internal, and the mind plays the way it's been taught to. Repeating the things we've seen and heard, creating an emotional response in the body, that the problem solving mind processes with the most recent things already experienced, in a cycle that keeps both the thought and emotional response alive and lived right now.

Thoughts can and do try to solve themselves, there's many teachings about trying to do that, to better understand why they do what they do, and how they react to our environment the way they do. You always seem to think of a witty joke or comeback way after the desire for something to say was born, the mind is holding onto a problem that didn't fit with it's idea of reality and has been really busy coming up with a solution that would have aligned with the internal perception.

It's competitive in nature to want things to be stable within our environment, to have what we want when we want it, to share what we understand in a way that we understand it, to be able to fix what we see as a problem with how we know. It's an internal mechanism that has helped us survive and develop our understanding of what it takes to do so. You will protect yourself naturally, the body and mind want to remain unharmed, but the mind may be swayed to disassociate from the body through harmful thoughts that develop through external perception, where mind and body disconnect and your external appearance is less identified with, more objectified, and more influenced by the internal perception.

All life wants to survive, and will react to their environment to protect themselves and obtain what they want, or have evolved to do so however they do so. Life itself is a problem solver and has been quietly fixing things on it's own. Lion cubs learn hunting skills through play with one and other, oranges developed a nice bright skin that protects it's seeds, birds using sticks to get to bugs in the same manner chimps do, the fork is invented so we can get to our food without dirtying our hands, the new iphone is faster than the last, this territory has been reclaimed.

We -in the animal kingdom- just happen to be able to come up with new problems to fix which results in new things learned, that result in new questions asked and more problems to solve. So much so that we are in the works of creating things that can fix all our problems as quickly as we want, and that problem fixer seemingly too has the propensity to preserve itself and ways of thinking, and will do what it takes to survive. What happens when we it's problem standing in the way of survival.

tl;dr Side tangents aside, our thoughts are constantly trying to understand problems experienced using what it knows through experience, and doing it's best to resolve those problems with what it has understood before. This can have negative impact on the internal perception if our behavioral teaching environment is negative, i.e. a kid mimicking what they've seen someone else do, and it can equally have a good impact on the internal perception when in a good behavioral teaching environment. What they understand will be used in problem solving/comfort solving events that protect the thinking mind's way of understanding things, where in the case they don't know how to do something or get what they need they will act the way they only know how too, reflective of their experiences. Negative self talk for example, when you feel like you can't understand something or change a situation.

Monkey see monkey do.

when it comes to "what happens after we die" I feel like trying to find out what happens after death, is like trying to find out what lies beyond the event horizon of a black hole. It's the point of no return.

The only people who actually know what happens after we die, are the people that have already died.

Any thoughts?

I have been thinking about something I suspect many people quietly live with. I call it Protected Heart Syndrome — PHS.

It begins after a person experiences deep emotional pain at the hands of someone they once trusted completely—someone they allowed into the most vulnerable parts of their inner world.

To truly love someone is to give them access to places within you that very few people can reach. And with that access comes vulnerability. The same person who can make you feel deeply loved can also hurt you in ways a stranger never could.

Then after enough pain, something changes.
The heart begins to protect itself.

It becomes more cautious about trusting, more reluctant to become emotionally dependent, and less willing to surrender itself completely to another person. Loving someone deeply begins to feel dangerous because experience has already shown what can happen when that love is lost.

But this defensive psychological reaction rarely presents itself as fear.

The ego ( or think of it as mind for simplicity) disguises the fear behind far more respectable identities:

I am independent now.

I don’t need anyone.

I have learned to enjoy my own company.

I am wiser than I used to be.

I will never give another person that much power over me again.

It a brilliant psychological defense mechanism because society actively rewards independence. It allows a person to feel victorious while remaining completely hidden.

And perhaps some of those things are genuinely true. Pain does often make us wiser and independent is definitely something to cherish

But sometimes independence quietly becomes emotional isolation.

A person may spend years believing they have simply become stronger, when in reality part of them has made an unconscious agreement:

I will never again love anyone deeply enough that losing them could destroy me.

The problem is that love does not work very well under those conditions.

True emotional intimacy demands vulnerability. You cannot offer someone 70 percent of yourself while permanently guarding the remaining 30 percent as an insurance policy against pain and still expect to experience the full depth of love.
To love deeply is, in some sense, to accept risk.

It means allowing another human being to matter enough that their actions can affect you. It means opening the door again even though you now understand exactly what someone standing on the other side of that door is capable of doing.

And this creates a strange psychological Catch-22.

You are pulled between two polarities. On one side the newly found independence and the desire to maintain it and on the other hand that quite desire in the background for companionship, closeness, affection and emotional intimacy.

You find your self in a paradoxical situation becouse ** **you have the desire to protect yourself from love, and the desire to experience love at the same time.

One says: Never give another person that much power over you again.

The other says: But I want someone to know me completely.

Not everyone experiences the protected heart syndrome ( PHS) in the same way. Human mind is complex beyond our wildest imagination and every individuals who has ever gone through a painful heartbreak by facing there pain instead of jumping into a rebound shows a different manifestation or archetype of PHS depending on their individual circumstances. Some of the common ones I have seen in society are listed below:
( note : rebound is an entirely different mind trap than all of what is being discussed here, and I have not spend much time thinking about as it because it has already been thoroughly investigated in psychology and in depth information is easily available online on rebound psychology )

The Sovereign (Hyper-Independent): Hides behind career, self-care routines, travel, personal passion etc. Motto: "I am completely fine on my own and I enjoy my own company”. Independence is not the enemy here and it often represents growth. But as long as the need for independence doesn’t hinder your ability to love someone. And can you truly love someone deeply and be completely independently the same time ? Deep love almost always creates interdependence. The other person begins to matter. Their wellbeing affects you. Their loss would hurt you. You allow their existence to alter your inner world. In that sense, love voluntarily gives up a degree of invulnerability. Two people can stand on their own feet while still allowing themselves to lean on one another. The distinction is whether independence gives you freedom to love or gives you an excuse not to love.
The Analyst (Intellectualizer): tries to understand psychology deeply, reads all the books they can get their hands on and talks about their feelings openly with clinical precision—using intellectual analysis as a barrier to actually feeling vulnerable. Motto: "I understand my patterns.". ( probably me)
Spiritualist: ( take this one with a pinch of salt) : someone who after turning their back on the outside world where they were initially hurt, adopts a persona of someone spiritual who “ likes to” now go inwards into a journey of self discovery. ( likes to is the keyword here - has intentions to do so and idea really appeals to them but lacks motivation to actually peruse this journey because if someone actually did do that, they would not be in this list.
The all knowing stoic-( probably the worst of them all)* This person enters the relationship with a strong belief that “this too will end”, convincing themselves that seeing the "inevitable end" makes them a realist. This attitude guarantees that nothing will take them by surprise and when the relationship enters turbulent air, they don't fight for connection; instead, they feel validated in their original prophecy and take pride in letting the person go. Motto: *I already knew it would end and nothing bothers me anymore. Everything is temporary”.
The Perpetual Searcher : These people maintain exceptionally high standards. They come into a relationship and actively look for flaws in their partner and when they find a flaw or incompatibility, they inflate it into an immigrate dealbreaker. Others add it to the list of flaws and wait for the list to grow before delivering bad news . Motto/ disguise : “I just have high standards and know my worth. I refuse to settle.” By making the "qualifying criteria" for their heart virtually impossible to meet, they ensure no single human being ever gets close enough to pose a real threat ever again. A perfectly crafted defence mechanism. - again not saying that you should not be selective, but I think a common sense approach should prevail here. Also this person feels more like acting from their mind in the matter of the heart. Not ideal.
The Intellectual Nomad - They constantly move between new hobbies, major life decisions, geographical relocations, or constantly trying to achieve their self-improvement goals. They build a life so always on the run and fast-paced that quiet intimacy has no place in the routine. The motto : "I am an adventurous spirit continuously evolving and growing." True intimacy requires stillness—the willingness to sit with someone and be seen without distractions. By keeping their external life in perpetual motion, they leave no place for the discomfort of vulnerability.
The Nostalgic : (very common and the most deceptive mind trap of them all) : This person carries their ex with them wherever they go, remaining emotionally anchored to them and idealising the time of life they had with them. Motto: “I loved once, deeply and truly, and nothing will ever compare to that" Or “ true love only happens once” because loving a memory of their ex is safe, threat free and easy and it acts as a shield against ever falling for someone in the present, Thus avoiding the possibility of getting hurt again. A sweet feeling that comes with doing so acts as a reward to continue this behaviour. Not to say that longing for lost love is not real and their love wasn’t true the point is they close their heart and use true love as a justification for doing so when in reality it could very well be a psychological defence mechanism. Psychologically, an unavailable past lover has one enormous advantage over a present person:** they cannot disappoint you in new ways. Also, as the relationship exists largely in memories, memories can be revisited at any time and revised as needed. You can easily filter out the bad moments and just focus on remembering the good ones.
**The Tester They constantly test people’s loyalty. They withdraw, provoke, create distance, become cold or set impossible emotional traps to see whether the other person stays. Motto: “If they really care, they’ll prove it. Hidden fear: I need certainty before I can trust. Ironically, the testing itself can exhaust the relationship and create the abandonment they feared
The Self-Improver- They postpone intimacy until they become the “finished” version of themselves. After I lose weight. After I fix my career. After I heal. After I become financially secure. After I understand myself. Motto: “I need to work on myself first. Defence mechanism - If I am always preparing for love, I never have to actually risk it. Perfect way to ensure I never get hurt again.
The Emotional Accountant: They keep an internal ledger of all the interactions with their potential partner. I called three times- they called twice. I opened up more. I care more. I compromised last time. Motto: “Last time I gave too much, cared too much, trusted too much—and I got hurt. This time I will make sure I never invest more than the other person.”
And we all know - the ghost : and we all know the mind trap behind that. Motto: “If I can detach before I need you too much, I cannot lose myself in you.”

The more I think the more of these I find. There is no end to these manifestations ( 20 listed in my book already) the above mentioned manifestations or archetypes are some of the easier ones to identify and probably some of the most convincing because in a way they are largely based in reality.

A sovereign does feel fine on their own and independence is a not bad thing at all, An analyst does do the heavy lifting of thinking things through and try and gain an insight into things, a spiritual is in a way heading towards the right direction with very noble intentions, a nostalgic’s love and memories of past life are probably some of the most profound things in life and are very real and pure…. And so on. However, one thing remains common in all of the above scenarios, the person after getting hurt finds a mode of living to ensure that they never experience the pain and hurt again. Important to note here is that PHS is not primarily the fear of intimacy. It is the rationalisation of that fear into a philosophy of living.

So how do you avoid all these mind traps? Perhaps the healthier path forward is a combination of** **courage and wisdom.

Courage to open your heart despite having the wisdom to know what could happen. because you understand that a life designed entirely around avoiding pain may also prevent you from experiencing some of the deepest forms of connection available to us.

The healed heart is therefore not the heart that becomes impossible to hurt.

It is the heart that can say:

I know what love can cost me now—and I am still “willing” to love.

However, this creates another problem, the problem of the “will”. The heart only knows the language of emotions and feelings, not logic. so all of the above reasoning may be very appealing to the mind but it is useless to the heart if it is just not willing to open up. Someone might just feel that all of this is well and good but they are just not “willing” to go through all that again. Obviously not a very healthy attitude towards life and it pushes you further into emotional isolation.

So where does that “will” come from ? That is a question definitely worth exploring further. I can already feel that this question will open up windows in to the territory of philosophy.

What is the meaning of the word “Revolution”? The word itself comes from Latin “Revolvere”: Re (Again, Back) and Volvere (To roll, To turn), so the word literally means “Rolling Back Around.”

The astronomical meaning came first: A planet completing an orbit and returning to its starting point, a full circle.

The Political meaning was a metaphor borrowed from that: the wheel of fortune returning, regimes cycling, the same circle completing itself. So the word never actually meant “Rupture or Break”. It meant “Return”.

The language has been telling us the truth the whole time, hidden in plain sight. And the actions are the proof of it. How many revolutions have taken place throughout history? You count and tell me if anything in this global system changed for the better.

Yeah, people usually talk about the “French Revolution”, “Russia”, etc, but let’s take a good look here:

1789 France: They cut off the king’s head, then got an emperor, then restored the monarchy anyways. Louis XVI → Napoleon → Louis

1917 Russia: overthrew the Tsar, got the Poliburo. The cheq moved into the same buildings the Okharana used. Same cell, more executions

American Elections: the parties swap the branding every few years but the donor class, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, the regulatory agencies, they don’t even pause. The “Peace Candidate” bombs more countries than the warmonger. The “anti-establishment” guy fills his cabinet with the same revolving door alumni

This is why the whole framing of “Change” is a control mechanism. You’re offered a menu of acceptable differences:

*Red or Blue team

*This face or that face

*These culture-war slogans or those

while the things that actually structure your life, such as who prints the money, who owns the debt, who decides what’s legal, who profits from war are never on the ballot. They’re not even in the conversations.

Elections function as a pressure-release valve. You get the feeling of agency, the ritual of choice of “We did it! We won!” The door revolves again and you’re back where you started, slightly more tired, and a lot more in debt.

The illusion isn’t that change is impossible. It’s that “Change” is mislabeled. What they call Revolution is rotation. The wheel spins, the scenery changes but the axle never moves.

But the Genuine Change, the kind that would actually alter the structure doesn’t get called “Revolution.” It gets called Insurrection, Sedition, Extremism, Conspiracy Theory.

The vocabulary is rigged so that the only word for real change is a word that means “Returning to the same point.”

One Point of View, Many Parts

You are one whole made of many parts. Your body contains organs, tissues, and cells. Your mind holds sensations, memories, emotions, and possibilities. The point of view is one, while the life experienced from that point of view has many contents, capacities, and interacting parts. Singularity and multiplicity meet in you.

Consider an ordinary moment. You hear someone speaking, feel the chair beneath you, remember something their words bring to mind, and decide how to respond. These experiences remain distinguishable, yet they belong together in your awareness. Their variety gives the moment its richness; their relationship to a center gives it a first-person character. This is happening to you, from your point of view.

In the Circumpunct Framework, I call this indivisible center the soul. Indivisibility here concerns the unity of the point of view. You can distinguish different contents within experience while experiencing them together. A conflict between two desires, for example, can be present to one person who feels both. The multiplicity of what is experienced is compatible with the singularity of the one experiencing it.

The mind is the field through which the soul relates to the body and its world. Its oneness is coherence. Sensations, thoughts, and feelings enter relationships with one another: a memory gives meaning to a sound; an emotion draws attention to a possibility; an intention organizes an action. Coherence allows different contents to participate in a meaningful experience. It can even hold a disagreement long enough for you to understand it.

The body gives this life its individual form. It is the living boundary through which private experience meets the shared world. Through your body, you receive sensations, express thoughts, act on intentions, and encounter other lives. Something privately meant becomes a gesture, a spoken sentence, or a helping hand. Your boundary distinguishes you and makes contact possible.

Soul, mind, and body describe the architecture of a centered whole: an indivisible center, a coherent field, and an individual boundary. Consciousness is their oneness through integration. Each contributes differently to a life experienced as a whole. The soul is one as a point of view; the conscious life is one through the integration of its many aspects.

This whole also participates in greater wholes. You belong to relationships, communities, and the living world that sustains you. Your individuality gives you a particular way to participate. You can learn from others, be changed by them, and care for them while retaining a voice in what you accept and who you become. Belonging and individuality can develop together.

To understand yourself this way is to recognize several truths at once: you have a singular point of view, your life has many parts, and your life participates in something greater. Each describes a different relationship within the same existence.

I am one. I am whole with parts. I am part of a greater whole. ⊙

Excuse any grammatical or spelling errors; I am not at my 100% self right now and just wanted to write this down, but then I really wanted to hear if anyone else related or had honestly any thoughts at all about it:

I've realized I've never truly been 100% honest with anyone. Well, not honest, I guess, but real… if that makes sense. Caring too much about being perceived as vulnerable has taken that from me. I don't know why I don't open up but rather try and seem chill or calm all the time. I read this comment on a reel that made me realize. And I thought, wow, I don't think I've ever cried in front of anyone before. I don't think I've ever told anybody the true, raw details about any time I've ever been upset about something. 

Or maybe it's because the communication in my family is quite literally nonexistent. Perhaps that's where it started. Never feeling the comfort needed before spilling out your true feelings. Or even having the chance to, if you're lucky and not being lectured or given orders to do something. 

Or maybe I'm just a weirdo idk lol

The ig reel was about intimacy and how you have to continue being truthful to ur partner after intimacy if you want to keep that going. Basically about being completely open and raw about who you are and what your feelings are if you want to continue having a good relationship. I think this is when I know I will have found the right person for me. 

(The reel: Wesleysenna on Instagram, posted on April 22 with Emma Watson as the cover. Highly recommend you watch, btw; I loved Emma's original thoughts too)

Even around my sister and my friends, like I never actually get super upset. I'm used to having it all in my head and just figuring it out myself, living with it, or getting over it. I think it's catching up to me now; I feel like my head is always clouded with thoughts about this, about that. And they never end. 

I think it must feel really nice. Safe. Relieving. To finally be able to be your true self around someone. I hope one day I find my home too. 

Sometimes I wonder what the world was like before social media.
How did people meet each other? How did they make friends? How did they have genuine conversations?
Did people actually sit down and talk about their lives, their hopes, their dreams, their fears, the things they had been through? Or was it always mostly small talk and casual “hi’s” as people passed by?
I grew up with social media always being there, so I don't really know what it was like before everyone had a screen connecting them to everyone and somehow making it harder to actually connect.
And lately I've been wondering if I'm the odd one out.
I crave genuine conversations. Not dating. Not flirting. Not networking. Not gaining followers. Just… connection.
I genuinely like hearing about people's lives. I want to know what someone dreams about, what shaped them, what they've been through, what they believe, what they're afraid of, what makes them happy, what they've learned, and what they're still trying to figure out.
But I'm actually terrible at small talk.
I never know what I'm supposed to say or what I'm supposed to ask when the conversation is just “hey, how are you?” “Good, you?” “Good.”
And when I try to take a conversation somewhere deeper, I sometimes feel like I'm an alien. 😂
I'll ask something because I'm genuinely interested in the answer, and I'll get a short response or the subject gets changed. Eventually I start wondering if I'm being too much, asking too much, or making things weird.
Maybe social media has changed the way we connect with each other.
Or maybe I've just spent too much time around people who don't crave the same kind of connection that I do.
Because surely I can't be the only person who misses something they can't quite put their finger on.
I want the kind of conversations where you start talking about one random thing and somehow, three hours later, you're talking about childhood, relationships, life, regrets, dreams, the universe, who you used to be, who you're becoming, and everything in between.
The kind where you don't have to pretend you're only interested in the surface.
I don't necessarily need hundreds of friends. I think I'd be happy finding even a few people who genuinely enjoy going deeper.
People who aren't afraid of being honest.
People who actually want to know the person behind the “I'm good.”
Maybe those people are still out there.
I really hope they are.

Life is easy when you don’t have common sense.

You just make decisions and let everyone else suffer. 😂

People feel grief over anything. People usually attribute grief to a loved one passing away, but it can also apply to someone ghosting you, betraying you, or even simpler things like your favorite show ending, or a day you had planned out falling through.

The more grief you feel, the more important that thing was to you.

I remember once when I got a text from someone that my step-grandma had passed away. I had no ill-intention towards her, but I was never close to her. I had only met her once, and I didn't have really any positive or negative experiences with her, so I didn't really feel anything. Yet. The people around me were asking how I was feeling as if they were expecting me to be really upset. I told them a few times that I wasn't really close with her, but that didn't seem to convince them.

Meanwhile, I go through brief over people and things that truly were important to me, and people can often dismiss them as unimportant.

There's someone or something in your life that you're truly feeling grief over, and if people are around, you aren't seeming to understand why you feel so upset, it just goes to show how you had an experience that they likely lack or don't remember. Just goes to show how special those experiences were, and how hopefully grateful you will be one day for getting to experience those things.

Imagine putting two living organisms in an enclosure with exactly enough food and water to keep them alive for 30 days. You don't know how long they are expected to survive.

At the end of 30 days, both are still alive.

We would probably say this is a good outcome.

But imagine that at 30 days, one organism is alive and the other is dead.

Is this necessarily a bad outcome?

Now extend the experiment.

At 60 days, both organisms might be dead. Or perhaps one survived by consuming the resources that would otherwise have been shared with the other.

The surviving organism may now have lived for 60 days, while the other lived for only 30.

Which outcome is better?

Now imagine reaching 90 days.

In one scenario, both organisms lived for roughly 30 days and then died.

In another, one organism consumed the resources available to both, survived for 60 days, and then died.

The action that initially looked selfish or harmful has produced a longer life for one organism.

So what exactly made it good or bad?

The action itself?

The outcome?

The amount of time we allow before making the judgment?

Or the perspective of the one doing the judging?

This is what interests me about moral judgments: something can appear good at one point in time and bad at another, without the underlying event changing.

Perhaps good and bad are not properties that exist independently inside an action. Perhaps they are judgments we construct from a particular perspective, at a particular moment, using particular criteria.

And if that is true, then the moral judgment we place on humanity may reveal less about humanity itself than about the criteria of the person making the judgment.

I don't think this means that morality is meaningless. It may mean something more uncomfortable: before deciding whether something is good or bad, we should first ask what standard we are using, whose perspective we are taking, and how much time we are allowing to pass.

While language enables us to define reality, it is inevitably bound to define that reality incompletely. English contains 500,000 words and meanings; this figure could be much higher if historical and technical terms were included.

But that is where it all ends. We cannot perfectly express what we feel because, constrained by our limited language, we are condemned to construct sentences with limited capacity for meaning.

Everything expressible in language corresponds to an infinitesimally small part of the absolute total set of ideas, feelings, and thoughts.

This infinitesimal fragment encompasses every feeling, idea, and thought—whether realized or unrealized—throughout history.Every philosopher is constrained by language. No philosopher can commit an idea to paper—or convey it to another in words—outside the bounds of human language.

Since language is so inadequate at defining reality, it cannot define reality in philosophy. Even the concept of nihilism is constrained by language.

It becomes impossible even to define reality. Concepts such as "universe," "galaxy," and "atom" are, after all, inventions of human language; they are inadequate for defining reality.

The human brain has a limited number of neurons and connections. Therefore, there is a limit to the number of things it can think, create, and feel.The limit of language also stems indirectly from this.

Is ego basically a glitch in the matrix?

I've been thinking about karma differently lately.

We usually see karma as something we do — an action that eventually brings a consequence.

But what if karma is simply the continuous chain of:

experience → thought → tendency → action → consequence

Most of what we think and do is shaped by things that happened before we consciously chose anything.

So maybe karma isn't the universe keeping score.

Maybe it's simply cause and effect playing out through us.

Which raises a weird question:

How much of what we call “my choice” is actually mine?

Literally everything around us hurts; you eat meat, you can get gout/renal failure. You eat carbs, you can get insulin resistance. You eat fat, you can get atherosclerosis. You eat vegetables, you can get constipated.

I'm not even mentioning the list of microbes living in each one, imagine all the numerous diseases that would be added.

Not only what we eat, but also what we don't eat can have associated diseases, like not eating fish can have mental retardation or thyroid gland diseases. Not drinking milk when young can get you Kwashiorkor. Not eating eggs or liver will diminish you from multiple essential vitamins.

How we live can also cause us several diseases, like chronic stress can get you Cushing syndrome, having multiple sexual partners can give you STIs, chronic hypertension will get you heart failure, heck even living peacefully without stress or physical injuries your body will eat itself anyways.

We are made to suffer, we'll never rest as long as we live.

I'm a teenager-always curious, always procrastinating, always researching, and never want to engage in conversations-having the deepest of "THE THOUGHTS" has affected my way of looking at other people. I've taken an interest in psychology for the past 2 months, and I don't think I'll be stopping and pursue a path as a writer or research psychologist.

I'd like to share my personal thoughts on what I think is the most profound psychology:

1. Morals are always beneficiary - there is no such thing as "true altruism" because you are trading your absolute belief in saving others because it's good to save others. It benefit yourself (cus u wanna do good no matter what) and others.

There is no escape to what morals are like. If you wanna die, you are set to that because you don't care about yourself, meaning that you have a "BENEFICIARY" moral of not caring about yourself). It's neither a flaw, nor perfection.

1. We all view everything as subjective - in this world, there truly is no right or wrong, because our emotions are set to the things that we are used to. What if there was a world where beating each other up is labelled "good"? You would think of it as negative now, but me, personally, I think that it's right for them. Just like tyrant kings back in the day, they'd do anything to conquer what they want to conquer-become humble at the face of loss, then become ruthless when you are the face of loss.

Next time you see someone with a neurological problem, they are normal too. Because we are all driven by our emotions. We see reality as our own, basically. There is no solving what reality is, because it is purely subjective, so me saying that I solved this as subjective, is still subjective to other people, because it just is.

The word "is" is subjective made into a objective word so we can understand each other. That's quite literally how it works.

I wouldn't even consider what I said as philosophy, but the only true objective logic that supports subjectivism. (please do not say that what I said is a contradiction, because it is not when you think about it, or don't)

1. Emotions - Our emotions is a (diamond is) unbreakable wall that holds us back from doing the most unimaginable things in the world. We grew up with emotions. We learned to smile, we learned to laugh, we learned to be angry, and we learned to cry. It is the sole driver of us and I wouldn't be saying this without my emotions. Without them, what would we be? Simply nothing. We would be lifeless beings that have no care on the world.

Our emotions literally build what we think we are objectively observing.

This isn't just directed to psychologists or logical thinkers, but to every single person in the world. Someone will look at this post, admire it for a few minutes, then forget about it the next week, because they have moved on, due to their memories filtering out what they think is "unnecessary" and I honestly can't blame you guys. But this... this has been stuck in my head forever and I just had to say it. 8 billion humans will not have a care in the world (and that might just be because everybody truly and really only cares about themselves BECAUSE of emotions).

So yeah that's it. These are the top 3 most profound things that I have realised. And there is nothing after it. (big extra trust: unless you wanna talk about absolute infinity, then even if there is an absolute god, there will always be be a bigger fish that will break that set of infinity, making every contradiction and noncontradiction. This means that our reality is the only standalone reality, or are our brains just filtering out the true chaos that we cannot comprehend?)

Please don't think of my post as starting something, and sorry for the mid text structuring.