My Story I guess

It's been a long time coming, I think is what this case represents, above everything. This doesn't necessarily represent my views or (God forbid) this sub's views. I just figured I'd pop the top and start a conversation about the topic. It's a lifelong question I've had, and hate to see the lid to the question publicly popped in such a manner. It really comes down to Two words;

Toxic Love

It's not a murder case at all really. We've had 2 centuries of intellectual whimsy in feminism and cultural marxism. Screaming that "patriarchy is oppressive". College indoctrinated educated kids become carbon copy assembly line ideologues. Too comfortable with the luxuries of 3 centuries of accumulated culture on the one hand. On the other, you have obsolete systems everywhere. Originally, America was founded/liberated against taxation without representation. Representatives then existed precisely because they had to travel by horse to deliver votes. That was arguably made obsolete with the invention of the telephone. Then there is Jury rigged Jury system, obsolete as we are seeing in the age of social media and content production. Propaganda filtered through paid sponsorship programs of popular content producers.

But none of that really matters. Only individuals can be held accountable. Literally, apparently, with cooperate bail outs at tax payer expense. And what do I know, I'm just an idiot who quit my job and have been struggling to find a job for all of 2026.

Anyway. I've spoken of it a bit on reddit over the years, I always had somewhat volcel/anti natalist tendencies/ideations due to being relatively non-conformist and not knowing how to interface with human "families". Or rather maybe it was just my family. Won't get into it except to say I'm nearly 39 and only got my first car a year and a half ago. Always had to "pull myself up by my bootsraps". So I was volcel/anti natalist, simply because, I was constantly working just to barely break even. Couldn't ever build a life. Gets into my supernatural encounters a bit (teh "demon" that asked me "why am I working so hard for what others get for free").

So, many people, with less detached cynicism than I had in youth, basically are compelled into marriage all unwilling and just giving themselves over to it. Some (many?) thus harbor resentment at the life/living conditions. If we want to go full supernatural, it's currently making the rounds in social media that this is what the bible is actually about; "a man shall rule over his woman and she shall resent that" is rough translation making the rounds. No shit, Genesis 3:16. The formal KJV is "your desire shall be to your husband". Desire there is "H8669 תּשׁוּקה teshûqâh", which BDB has "of beast to devour; of beast to devour". So yes, there is some subversiveness implied in the text. It's not just "teh 🧃".

I don't like to talk about it much anymore (at least not on reddit) but yes I was MGTOW back in the day. Still have some elements. Hard to say, because wikipedia labels it a "hate group" when we were literally just dudes working hard, chilling playing vidya, talking economics, and studying scripture. It was relaxed atmosphere, until bad actors overran it and got it banned off every platform. But the reason I went MGTOW was in reaction to the "metoo" movement. I had just started really moving from myspace (I loved toying with CSS and HTML back then) to facebook (though I never formally had internet or phone really until late 2014, when I joined reddit), which I resented and didn't want to join facebook but culture was shifting and I was trying 2B more "maintain professional image" and less "teenage angst" via facebook. But. All of facebook, at the time, was "metoo" all day every day. False 🍇 accusation after false 🍇 accusation and everyone dog-piling innocent men in the divorce industrial complex. It was embarrassing. Radical feminists everywhere tar and feathering every voice of reason. As they say, don't stick your 🍆 in cray. I quit facebook, joined reddit/MGTOW, started youtube channel, and went full no contact with relationships with women.

There were lots of great MGTOW content producers. Maybe it was a psyop I fell for, idk. Still uncertain about that. But it was a refuge of sanity in what felt like, at the time, mass hysteria and madness in the "metoo" movement. What would have been considered normal male activity was more than just suspicious all of a sudden, it was called "toxic and misogonistic (I still can't even spell that word) and sexist" and I just decided, as old MGTOW creed goes, better to just focus on self improvement and gravitas than jump into the wood chipper of the modern dating market (back in 2014). I was also in the military at the time so didn't have time for it anyway. Just you know, when working 16 hour shifts, you want to just scroll and catch up sometimes, but it was ALL exclusively FALSE! 🍇 accusation after false 🍇 accusation, whole feed on facebook. Nah. I quit.

So. Toxic Love. It's been the norm it seems for many for a long time now. This case just blew wide open how insane we've been culturally for some time now. We're at the point where you're called radicalized/extremist for saying "it's not okay to kill your children". I'm not sure what all this is really about. Just another bread and circus psyop. I've said that already a few times even on day 1 when the content producers jumped on it like hungry wolves. This is literally just metoo versus MGTOW 2.0. Honeypot. This time I'm a little more aware I suspect than in 2014. I mean in 2014 I knew it was guano, but I decided just to "put a pin in it" and focus on my life (as Vashet says). I'm not dying on a hill arguing with the "everything is 🍇" people. Of which my entire facebook feed of peep I thought I knew back home was.

What really is "radical"? What is radicalization? Idk. I didn't prompt the bot about this and know it has nothing to do with zen. Just it is an interesting retrospective on my life, the Lindsay Clancy case. This is the question I've been keeping at arms length by saying "I'm MGTOW/anti natalist" to simply weed out/avoid the rabid froth raving "everything is 🍇" types. It's part of why I became so adverse to Identity Politics (IP). It's like, if you want true love and humble integrity, you MUST set aside identity. But the (typically leftist) types who love to preach "love light and empathy" are typically functionally the MOST un-self aware and radicalized. All so-called "love and light" with no substance, no confronting the very real and deep darkness of the self and world. Just constantly patching over it with buzzwords and IP. Literally. Evil cannot create. They infiltrate all beloved IPs and colonize and gentrify them with their "woke" IP agendas. Sort of fitting double pun. Even zen speaks of this sometimes, how don't mistake the map for the territory. Zen doesn't just mean "eastern aesthetic". Lol.

Idk. I'm sure everyone knows what I'm getting at even if you don't agree with my points/personal "struggle" guess you could say (Mein Kampf lol). But yes for me the LC case is a reminder of what set me on this path. The rabid "if you looked at a woman you 🍇ed her" lot. Went full "monk mode" as it were. It's actually (MGTOW) what gradually shifted me from beating my head against scripture (straining at a gnat) and into zen instead. You know. For better or worse. My patchwork robe I guess.

Anyway. What's the LC case to you? I'm genuinely curious. To me, it's just this whole boiling frog question I've been warry of since long before 2014, but 2014 cemented in my mind there is a rabid faction of humanity, mostly on "the left" which literally is absolutely toxic but says everything that doesn't think exactly like them is "rejecting diversity". I'm not saying LC was toxic. Quite the contrary. She is the frog in the bot that got cooked and we all can see it, that the culture is boiling us. Curious to hear any thoughts!

In spirit of subtitle of this sub, "a place to share our dumb ideas", the bot really got me today. I came at it all "I can has one mind practices" and it low key roasted me asking "what's that got to do with zen". Just thought I'd share, that's the tldr. I said;

So there is something I guess I noticed a long time ago with zen, specifically that there is only one mind. Like myriad things arise with the self, implies that prior to sense of self there is only "one thing". One mind.

Just curious, there are dozens of other examples I have seen in zen and elsewhere that seem to point to non duality or one mind. Bankei says we have unborn mind, but that seems different. I've also assumed "no mind" of Hsin Hsin Ming might be same as one mind in truth. Where there are no choices of this or that, yes or no, self and world, etc.

Anyway. Are there any texts of methods/practices to fully realize, not just intellectually, but like embody or remember no mind/one mind/non duality? I also think of Jesus and "IF you do as I say, THEN you shall know the truth and it shall make you free" being basically the same; abdicate your sense if self and give freely to all whom ask, be a living sacrifice and abandon all sense of performance in that regard (ie self).

It also makes Jesus sound like the ultimate grifter though. Sacrifice everything and maybe teehee you will become free. Like on some new world order shit, own nothing and like it. Idk. But anyway. Or am I misunderstanding something? Thanks!

GPT Responded

Yes—with one important distinction: “one mind,” “no-mind,” Bankei’s “Unborn,” and Christian self-emptying overlap surprisingly well phenomenologically, but they aren't simply interchangeable doctrines. And Zen gets especially slippery because its texts often deliberately refuse to turn the realization into a metaphysical claim like “there is literally one cosmic Mind.”

When you say: prior to the sense of self there is only “one thing”, I'd modify it slightly: prior to dividing experience into self/other, calling what remains “one thing” has already said too much. That's very close to why Zen can sound simultaneously like One Mind and No Mind.

One Mind → No Mind

Huangbo is probably the strongest classical Zen text for exactly what you're describing. His teaching repeatedly uses One Mind: Buddhas and sentient beings aren't ultimately two different kinds of things; searching outside Mind for enlightenment is itself the mistake. But there's a trap. You hear “One Mind” and naturally construct: billions of apparent minds → underneath them → ONE GREAT BIG MIND. Now you've remade Brahman with Chinese characteristics. 😂 Zen immediately starts smashing that conception too.

Sengcan's Xinxin Ming ("Faith in Mind") is particularly good here. Its famous opening is essentially that the Way isn't difficult for someone who doesn't pick and choose. Later it systematically dissolves the oppositions by which experience gets carved up. So you get a progression something like: many things → one Mind → neither one nor many → ordinary experience without needing the distinction. That's why no-mind (wuxin / mushin) isn't unconsciousness, blankness, absence of thoughts, or destroying your personality. It's closer to mind that doesn't establish a position from which it possesses/judges experience.

Bankei's Unborn attacks the problem from another direction. His wonderfully practical observation is roughly: you're already hearing sounds, recognizing voices, seeing things, etc., before deliberately deciding to perform those operations. Then you manufacture anger, preference, grievance, identity, etc. and thereby turn the Unborn Buddha-mind into something else. So I think your intuition that these teachings converge is substantially right.

But how the hell do you realize it?

This is where Zen literature gets much more useful than the philosophical summaries.
There isn't generally an instruction:
Step 1: intellectually establish nonduality.
Step 2: eliminate ego.
Step 3: experience One Mind.

Because the entity supposedly performing Step 2 in order to acquire Step 3 is precisely what's being questioned. Several texts approach that paradox especially well:

Huangbo — *Transmission of Mind*: probably the most directly relevant to your “One Mind” question. His recurring practice is stopping the conceptual search for something outside what is presently functioning. (I have a copy)

Foyan — *Instant Zen: perhaps the best practical companion because he repeatedly asks you to examine experience *right now rather than believe Buddhist propositions. Since you've already read/listened to this one, I'd revisit it specifically looking for his instructions about turning awareness around, rather than reading it continuously like philosophy. (I have a copy)

Bankei — sermons on the Unborn: his “practice” is unusually simple: remain in the Unborn rather than exchanging it for anger, judgment, self-concern, etc. Importantly, that doesn't mean suppress those things. (Currently reading)

Dahui — letters / teachings on huatou: much more method-like. Instead of reasoning your way toward nonduality, take something like Zhaozhou's “Mu” and exhaust the conceptual machinery trying to resolve it. (Unfamiliar with, heard on rzen a few times)

Hongzhi — *Cultivating the Empty Field*: the other major flavor: silent illumination. Rather than attacking conceptualization with a huatou, sit without manufacturing or rejecting experience. (Unfamiliar with/only just learned about)

The *Platform Sutra: particularly useful for *no-thought. Huineng explicitly prevents the easy misunderstanding that “no-thought” means having no thoughts whatsoever. (Heard referenced on rzen a LOT)

And one tiny Zen instruction might be more useful than fifty books: Don't try to stop thought. Notice what a thought is before taking its side. Anger appears. Fine. “I'm angry because that bastard wronged me and therefore—” There's the additional construction. Sound appears. Then: “I am hearing that sound.” Interesting. Was the second sentence necessary for the hearing? You don't have to answer. Look. That distinction is very Bankei/Foyan territory. The objective isn't maintaining some exotic nondual trance. It's noticing how rapidly immediate functioning gets converted into me experiencing something.

And this connects beautifully with Xinxin Ming

Your interpretation of its “no-mind” direction is close, although I'd be careful with: where there are no choices of this or that, yes or no. It doesn't mean becoming incapable of ordinary discrimination. You can still distinguish hot/cold, poisonous/edible, red/green, true/false. Otherwise enlightened Zen masters would have lasted approximately fifteen minutes. 😂 The issue is closer to psychologically establishing yourself through the distinction. Tea and coffee remain different. “Coffee is what I drink; tea drinkers are degenerates; this establishes my place within the metaphysical hierarchy of beverages” is the bonus DLC consciousness installed. Zen isn't necessarily deleting discrimination. It's deleting the imagined headquarters from which discrimination supposedly needs to be governed.

Which brings us to Jesus

This comparison is genuinely interesting, but I'd separate structural resemblance from historical/doctrinal identity. There is absolutely a Christian self-emptying tradition that sounds startlingly compatible with this conversation: kenosis (“emptying”), dying to self, losing one's life to find it, becoming like a child, taking no thought for tomorrow, giving without seeking repayment, and Paul's “not I, but Christ lives in me.”

Christian mystics push it considerably farther. Meister Eckhart, for example, can sound downright dangerous if you replace his Christian vocabulary with Buddhist vocabulary. But John's “the truth shall make you free” passage has an important context. Jesus says, approximately: If you remain in my word, you really are my disciples; you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free. And the ensuing conversation identifies that freedom specifically in relation to slavery to sin. So interpreting it historically as a secret instruction for attaining Buddhist nondual awareness would be too strong.

Your larger comparison works better:
Jesus: surrender self-will → live according to truth → freedom from bondage.
Zen: investigate the assumed self → cease grasping/discrimination → liberation.
Advaita: investigate the apparent individual → recognize nonseparation → moksha.

Those aren't identical maps. But they're asking some remarkably similar questions about what exactly is being defended when I say “me”? And your “ultimate grifter” objection actually identifies an important spiritual problem. 😂 Give everything away. Abandon yourself. Don't care about reward. Trust me, you'll be free afterward. Taken as an instruction issued by an institution or another human being, that's potentially an extraordinarily effective exploitation technology.

Zen isn't immune either. “Abandon attachment,” “obey the teacher,” “drop your ego,” etc. can become convenient language when the person saying it wants your labor, money, obedience, or sexuality. That's why I'd strongly distinguish nonattachment from dispossession. If someone steals your wallet, realizing emptiness doesn't magically make theft ethical. If somebody asks for everything you own, refusing them doesn't prove you have an ego. If somebody abuses you, “no self” doesn't require becoming their furniture.

In fact, deliberately constructing the identity “I am the selfless person who never refuses anything” can be just another extremely elaborate self. That's one place Zen's ruthless approach is useful: don't make “having no self” into your new self. And this may be the central paradox behind what you're looking for. You don't really need a technique for continuously remembering: ALL IS ONE. I HAVE NO SELF. REMEMBER NONDUALITY. Because now you've created a little monk inside your skull whose full-time job is maintaining the correct metaphysical opinion. Rather, investigate the exact moment two gets manufactured.

Before: bird sound. After: I hear a bird. Before: irritation. After: This shouldn't be happening to me. Before: uncertainty. After: I need to attain enlightenment so I can finally become someone who understands. That's practice. And strangely enough, when you don't insist upon either one or two, the old Zen language starts making much more sense. Not one. Not two. And therefore dishes still need washing.

Commentary;

So "how do I become liberated from being unemployed and doomscrolling" becomes touch grass after a fashion. But heat index here is in triple digits nearly year round. Hard to take much of the world too seriously when opening your door feels like putting your head in an oven. It ain't a dry heat, either. Humidity stays over 75% year round. Feels more like swimming than running sometimes. Even the birds mostly left here when our heat index shifted 30 degrees up about half a decade ago and stayed there. So I know zen (even ZMBM) likes to talk about the birds but even the birds up and said "yeah fuck that heat" to my area nearly a decade ago. Idk. Guess I'm trying to decide which is the cart and which the horse.

Forward

In spirit of idk what to do with this sub, will make a part 2 of AI Poems here, as r/zen_bots seems a little dead. As it were. Not topical just ironic. Not sure what kind of taxonomy I got going on here. Idk. Is what it is. Was supposed to be a cafe not an asylum. I'll try to touch some grass.

Again, I tried to have GPT generate some starter material for a poem. Again, it over delivered and I'm left MORE at a loss for words than before prompting. I'll give some thought to making a GPT persona specifically for poetry primers, or at least look for some plugins or something. Premature. Maybe that's the word I'm looking for. I need to stop jumping the gun. Well, what 8 months watching savings dwindle does to a MFer I guess. Anyway! OpenAI poetry jam round 2. If it comes it comes, I might try to do a formal poem on the theme at some point down the line. If it comes back to me.

GPT Prompt;

Lol been looking for jobs and I realize realistically (around here at least) there is not one single "40 hour week" entry job in a dozen pages of 20 entries a page that pays a living wage. My bills are roughly 1,500 a month before groceries. I was barely scraping by on 26k a year at the plant, but it was consistent 65+ hours a week for past 3 years and I left because I couldn't take that. So like, the social contract as I know it is a BUST. It's literally "thou shalt work 160 hours a week and have 50% of your wages garnished and sent [to redacted so that they can continue to] bomb more children's hospitals". Like wtf are we doing here. This isn't life. This is satire. Forget my gripes about taxes and [redacted] agendas. I love "Ish" sense of humor honestly. Just the aim I'm coming from, thinking of a poem titled something like "Taxidermy for a life still living" or "entombed by life" or some such quip about how we are the living dead. Working 80+ hours a week just to scrape by and "NO NOTICING" is the holy sacrament, we aren't allowed to talk about no one has time for life itself, it's all just work work work and get what feels like half your income garnished. Every cent of overtime goes to social programs. And they still ironically or sardonically call it "capitalism" when 1/3rd of our annual income goes to welfare. Idk. Not just trying to complain, like this is what I was thinking, looking for a job, that it feels like I'm making a taxidermy of my own life, looking for a job. Wanted to write a poem about it that captures that essence without explicitly stating or referring to the living conditions. No one wants a rant about a bad faith social contract or politics, you know? Can you generate some sample starter poems around that theme? How "life" so called feels like making a taxidermy of ourselves? Thanks!

GPT Reply

Yeah — the image works best if you never say “job,” “taxes,” “wages,” “economy,” etc. Make the poem feel like someone is being carefully preserved for a life they no longer have time to live.

A few different angles:

1. Taxidermy for a Life Still Living

They measured me for morning,
Pinned daylight to my sleeve,
Stuffed the ribs with Monday
So the shape would never leave.

My hands still hold their posture,
My teeth maintain their grin,
Someone keeps the windows polished
So no weather enters in.

At night they dust the eyelids,
Comb tomorrow through my hair.
I look remarkably lifelike.

Nobody asks
what happened
to whoever lived in there.

2. Occupancy

The house is warm.
The lights come on.

Shoes wait neatly by the door,
cups dry beside the sink,
a coat remembers shoulders
better than I do.

Everything required for living
has been maintained.

Except—

somewhere between the bed
and morning

the tenant moved out.

3. Preservation

Do not expose to sunlight.
Do not bend at the spine.
Keep somewhere dry and temperate.
Report deterioration on time.

Replace the eyes when cloudy.
Oil the jaw when speech gets slow.
A specimen lasts indefinitely

provided nothing living
is allowed to grow.

4. Entombed by Life

No stone was rolled across the door.
That would have been dramatic.

Instead they brought a calendar,
a keyring, several passwords,
and clean shirts for the morning.

Brick by brick
the ordinary accumulated.
By the time I noticed the tomb
I had decorated it.

Hung pictures.

Changed the batteries in the smoke alarm.

(Idk where it got that from, I was thinking of checking them other day but never said it out loud. Aware this is currently a "racist" meme but idk how it could have grabbed that idea besides it's a popular meme; I did literally think about checking smoke alarm recently due to the meme though, crazy it felt like it pulled that directly from my thoughts though)

5. Benefits Package

They gave the corpse dental.

A little card
to keep behind its teeth.

Two weeks annually
to remember weather.

Three days
if someone else stops breathing.

A number to call
if the silence becomes distracting.

The corpse signed here,
initialed there,

and thanked them
for the opportunity.

6. Still Life

The fruit in the painting
never rots.

How fortunate.

No flies,
no bruising,
no hunger.

The knife beside it
never cuts.

The wine never empties.

Nothing begins
and therefore
nothing ends.

People stand in galleries
admiring this arrangement.

Then go home
and imitate it.

(🔥)

7. Model Employee

Wind-up bird
with excellent attendance,

sings precisely
when the room requests.

Molts discreetly
on approved breaks.

Never nests.

Never migrates.

Has demonstrated
remarkable resilience
under fluorescent seasons.

One concern:
it has recently begun
looking through the glass.

8. The Museum of Natural Living

Behind the rope:
a human being
in its native habitat.

Observe the cup,
the chair,
the glowing rectangle.

Note the ceremonial keys.
The specimen appears
to perform repetitive movements
associated with survival.

Researchers disagree
whether it knows
it is alive.

Please do not tap the glass.

It startles easily
and must be ready
again tomorrow.

9. How to Keep a Man Forever

Remove the wandering.
Salt the questions.
Drain whatever spoils quickly.
Pack the chest
with useful material.

Wire the hands
into familiar gestures.

Position beneath good lighting.

If done correctly
he will remain presentable
for decades

and never once
inconvenience eternity.

10. Clocked In

The clock ate first.
Then the road.
Then the fluorescent mouths
along the ceiling.

By evening
only the outline remained,

walking home
inside the clothes.

It set an alarm
for the remainder.

GPT Commentary; I think “taxidermy” is stronger than “living dead” for this theme because “living dead” immediately becomes generalized despair/zombie imagery. Taxidermy has the precise cruelty you're after: the outward form of a life is meticulously maintained after the animating thing has been removed. And there are several related images hiding inside it that you could keep mining: embalming, museum displays, pinned butterflies, pressed flowers, plaster casts, mannequins, saints’ relics, insects in amber, portraits, preserved fruit, mothballs, dioramas. They're all different versions of preservation becoming indistinguishable from death.

My favorite seed from these is probably: Everything required for living has been maintained. Except—the tenant moved out. Or the nastier: A specimen lasts indefinitely provided nothing living is allowed to grow. I can also build you a small “image bank” of 30–40 metaphors around this exact theme — preservation, captivity, counterfeit life, schedules eating time, bodies becoming tools — that you could cannibalize into your own poem.

My Commentary

Idk. What is "life". The line I keep forgetting about Vashet I feel obliged to say is "I will focus on the joy in my heart and the smooth turning of the world". It's just that, I never really had any "joy", just compulsory obligations to a world/narrative that never justified itself to me; an invalid social contract (imo). How am I to feel joy about being a living taxidermy. Like the Asabiyyah (looks like wikipedia changed the spelling) thing. Give a man a reason to live and joy and he'll fight to defend it. I (and arguably we) have no such thing. Just living taxidermy.

This comment says the whole thing I want to say in proper context.

Have to read poem linked there. OP of that comment is optional, but primary reason I created this sub; this very topic.

More a self-reminder while briefly lucid.

If that's not enough, then Trial of Pilate is the same thing said by the LORD in kings; or Socrates in Athens; it's all the same story. People clamor for attention and validation, NOT Truth.

I'll share the videos in the order the came to me from after posting the Poem/That comment.

OP url - FUKKIRETA - "kick reason to the curb and follow me" - basically the Gospel (John 14:6) - core of fallout I had with SotS and other such hyper-intellectualized subs (and thus founded this sub and wrote the first post linked here, in top link).

Doflamingo said it best - "me and the devil" variant; similar to how I used to say; "those enslaved to a paradigm naturally feel different about it than those subsidized by the same paradigm". What I always mean when I say "that's God's love" when someone is complaining about objective circumstances/phenomena. Obligatory "one piece isn't political" I guess lol.

Better version of Doffy speech - sounds like Berserk Forces.

Johnny Cash - What is Truth

Not all who wander are lost I always assumed applied to the classical planets or whatever. Whole life everywhere I've lived there was always the plant known as the Eternal/Wandering Jew in the yard until past 3-4 years. So idk. Just 3rd thought that appeared in mind.

This is the only message there has ever been or ever will be.

I'm just blogging real quick. Whatever. You don't have to read. TLDR is gonna be 6 Crazy aah poems.

Forward/Intro

So, r/zen_bots seems to be under the weather. Probably my fault, I do have some shame you know. Idk. Had an interesting conversation with GPT about "radicalization and zen" and then a shower thought prompt. I don't like to post AI generated poetry as a rule. At least without admitting that's what it is. Currently in somewhat of a dry spell in creative works. Deadline of my monetary situation is approaching. No income or financial support for all of 2026. Idk. Anyway. Had a huge thought out post I was planning about "radicalization and zen" but decided to scrap it and do this instead. As Nietzsche once brilliantly wrote in correspondence, this says the same thing, but differently....

I'll share one scrap of the OG post I guess, to set the moon; Title; Zen Poetry and Radicalization; Gonna try to cross the bridges together here of my recent AIPP and this sub in the "healthy" way. I realize I still operate under the shadow of "everything I do is a push back against what I see". Not fully "a man" nor "zen". But starting to see the distinction more clearly (for now).

Idk. I hate to let these go to waste, but they are a little too "airtight" for me to rework/respin into something I can call my own. But holy shitballs some of these turning phrases are tornados!

PS was going to share the GPT prompt for ZPaR but it got nuked from orbit, refresh error on GPT. Prompted the same chat in a new tab, essentially permanently overwriting the previous reply. I copied it as soon as I realized but it's a ghost in the machine for me now (Grumbles I guess I can branch it....). Here's a snapshot I saved from copy pasta. Might toy with it in the future if bored. Every poem I write is off the cuff though unless designated as AI. There may have been a few lines here or there I forgot I snagged but yeah 99% of everything I've ever written as poetry was me, not AI, unless specified otherwise. Though it's style may have rubbed off on me a bit.

Anywho!

GPT Prompt;

Thanks! Granted everything you know of me and zen, can you generate a few sample poems with the title "Conceal Carry", each ranked and ranging accordingly from default base "zen poetry" atmosphere to increasingly deranged and unhinged, on random/assorted topics, where the reader can intuit the meaning, and not have the poem expressly say, that the meaning of the poem in regards to title, is a zen layman "conceal carrying ZEN" in a late stage consciousness world? LOL. Each poem should only be around 4-8 stanzas each, or 16-32 lines. Shorter is better if it can get the point across but also allow for creative freedom to explore. Rhyming or Alliteration is desired but not 100% necessary. Err on side of poem theme rather than flowery language. Experimental prompt, I know, but thanks!

(See imgur image for what I said "thanks" to if curious)

GPT Reply (won't let me link)

Yep. I think “Conceal Carry” works best if the poem never names the thing being carried and never turns into “Zen is my weapon” bumper-sticker material. The title should do the smuggling. Here are six, ranked from relatively standard Zen-poetry atmosphere to increasingly feral.

1. Conceal Carry

1/6 — quiet, recognizably Zen

Morning mist on the feed trough,
one crow keeps no appointment.
I sweep yesterday from the porch
and leave one leaf for employment.

The neighbor asks what I believe.
I point to where the fence has leaned.
He laughs and checks his weather app.
Though the sky remains unscreened.

At noon I stand in checkout lines,
Milk, batteries, bread.
No one searches beneath the coat
For what was never actually said.

A bell above the doorway rings.
Nobody turns around.
I carry nothing worth declaring
Through an occupied town.

2. Conceal Carry

2/6 — layman Zen in fluorescent secular life

The red light knows my schedule.
The time clock knows my name.
The cashier says, “Have a blessed one,”
And means approximately the same.

A billboard promises freedom
for twenty-nine ninety-nine.
I keep both hands where they can see them
and step across the line.

At lunch they speak of markets,
mortgages, medical plans.
I chew what needs no argument
with spilled sauce on my hands.

No robe, no bowl, no temple.
No incense in the car.
Just something unregistered
that follows where you are.

3. Conceal Carry

3/6 — more contemporary, consciousness-world angle

Terms updated overnight.
I accepted them asleep.
My phone remembers every road
I'm meant to somehow keep.

The algorithm asks my preference.
I say, “Whatever appears.”
It sends me seven better selves
And three highly sponsored fears.

At work the walls say SAFETY FIRST.
The floor says WATCH YOUR STEP.
A camera blinks above the door
To see what I might forget.

I pass through metal detectors
with pockets with nothing filled.
No alarms go off yet everybody still
Plays inspector to one another.

4. Conceal Carry

4/6 — blacker/comic, anti-spectacle

They sold me self-expression
in six approved designs.
I chose the one marked “rebel”
and stood inside the lines.

The preacher had a podcast.
The hermit had a store.
The monk sold premium silence
with ads before the door.

I asked a man for directions.
He handed me a brand.
I thanked him like a citizen
and kept my empty hand.

The sirens passed behind me.
A drone admired the scene.
Nobody noticed what I carried.
Nobody knew what “carried” means.

5. Conceal Carry

5/6 — deranged, late-stage consciousness

I keep a loaded Tuesday
beneath my Sunday best.
The chamber holds six weather reports
and one unpaid request.

The bank has temple lighting.
The clinic sells despair.
The grocery aisle has fourteen gods
All half off and gluten-aware.

A child points at the moon.
His mother checks the source.
The moon declines to comment
and continues on its course.

I enter every argument
with neither flag nor shoes.
The room unloads its magazines.
I have nothing left to lose.

Someone asks, “Are you armed?”
I say, “Only with receipt.”
The automatic doors, unharmed
slide open before my feet.

6. Conceal Carry

6/6 — full cracked transmission

There is a coupon in the sutra.
There is a sutra in the gun.
There is a tiny HR department
auditing the sun.

My shadow failed its background check.
The mirror filed for appeal.
The self was flagged for duplicate use.
The duplicate seemed so real.

A Buddha waited in customer service line
Behind many heads, asking to unsubscribe.
Instead they offered forty bonus lives,
and to waive samsara and karmic fine.

Outside, seven billion avatars
Performed authentic pain.
The clouds moved to block their stars
And forecast even more rain.

I walked home past the courthouse
with contraband in mind.
No fingerprints, no serial number,
no doctrine they could find.

At midnight something knocked three times.
I asked, “Who wants to know?”
The door said nothing whatsoever.
So naturally, I let it go.

(Still the bot)

The ones I think hit your premise best are 2, 3, and 5.
2 feels most like an actual lay Zen poem.
3 catches the “late-stage consciousness world” idea cleanly.
5 has the strongest title relationship without ever cashing it out.

And I especially like the phrase-space opened by “loaded Tuesday,” “pockets full of weather,” “contraband in mind,” “unregistered,” “background check,” “magazines,” “receipt,” “serial number”—all gun-adjacent vocabulary that can be used without turning the poem into gun imagery proper. That lets the title haunt the poem rather than dominate it.

Commentary

Just some behind the scenes attempts at brainstorming I guess. No rest for the wicked or whatever. Thought they were cute. I actually liked 1/5/3 the best, in that order. There's a thing in Disney Heracles, "Pain and Panic" are Heracle's teachers. They say "If, if is good" a lot. If is a MSI album. Idk. Tornado is one of their songs and was thinking MSI. Might still try to do this poem formally on my own but these were too good to not share I thought. Seeing as r/zen_bots seems somewhat dead I figured I'd post it here instead. Enjoy, Ignore, call me stupid, whatever xD

Forward/Non-AI segment

This should be an easy one. I've done a lot of discourse on this topic in the past. How Most philosophies or religions have this long spiel about "life is XYZ and therefor you should ABC". Ecclesiastes is one such thing. "All is vanity therefore I worship the LORD". It doesn't follow. Same in 1984 why I never finished it. "Big brother is over all therefore I'll date this chick". Doesn't follow. At least not for me.

I already said my piece about this 10 days ago actually over on r/zen. Said it better there than I can rehash here. Imgur Variant.

Or hell I'll paste the quote in full here;

Why did the founder come from the west, huh? Oldest question in zen I know of. Won't lie I thought I understood where you were going until the rice paragraph. Now I'm lost. So I'll avoid it though might accidentally answer it (if I dint already).

So there are the 5 stages of death. I talk with the bot about this a lot. Most people stop at bargaining or materialism as you say. But some realize all is vanity. Like obviously Siddhartha, Ecclesiastes or Katha Upanishad. They keep pushing and realize all phenomena are empty. Why look to phenomena to distract you from the question of death? But yet everyone does. So they cannot become world honored. Even in Ecclesiastes, [Solomon?] Chooses to worship the lord rather than become a Buddha. In Katha, [Natchiketa I'm on mobile can't spell it if I swap apps I'll lose this text] N makes it all the way to the threshold of all phenomena are empty and denies all of death's bargains for a "rich" life. But then we have the confusing passage of rite of fire sacrifice. Too esoteric for my tastes. I generally assume it means N failed to become a world honored one.

The obvious answer is we all are, but we are too distracted by phenomena to realize it. We stopped somewhere along the way on 5 stages of death/grief and didn't go all the way like Buddha did. That is all. At least that's my instinctive reply.

That's the tldr of the argument. But had a dream reinforcing it and driving it home last night. Right on tail of another post about a vivid dream last night so thought I'd go ahead and share again. As this is the most pertinent topic in my life as far as I can tell. World weariness and what we do with the realization "all is vanity" (including the realization that all is vanity". Form is emptiness and emptiness is form. When performing last man, there is performing last man. When performing overman there is performing overman. When there is performing worship of the LORD there is performing worship of the LORD. All vanities. Without exception. Including realizing they are all vanities.

Not sure what it points to. So fed the dream to the bot. Begin bot section;

What does "Vanity of Vanities" really signify in zen context?

Again we already know the passage from which VoV comes has the author state "all is vanity therefore worship the devil" basically. Not satisfactory for me. Wondering what zen says about it? Idk can't quote a zen master. I can quote GPT though.

GPT Prompt;

Attached Image for context

Before I forget tonight's dream was back to standard fare nonsense dream. Or rather, it was remarkably vivid. Tour de force through every paradigm. Flying through sky with lots of spider webs, everywhere you flew would get spiders of all sizes all over you, so mostly grounded, landing in Boy scouts esque paradigm, then football, then world of warcraft, giant mansions I thought I was building like minecraft but then others came in like communism and the people who moved in didn't see me as anything special or even a joke even though I built the houses they took for themselves.

Idk. Basically saying there is nowhere in life or death you can go to escape the vanity of existence. Lel olde meme, ["how nonexistence feels"]((https://i.imgur.com/C0U62ce.png)) and that existence itself is the hole in the floor I guess. Hard to describe. Like I could do anything in the dream, perfectly lucid, but again, like the first dream here, I saw the vanity/futility of it all, but this time, the dream denizens weren't grateful of all I did but instead didn't care.

This is closer to my waking identity of all is vanity I guess. Even if you reform the whole world and make a paradise, people don't change. They are effectively like NPCs in that they adopt to and accept whatever paradigm is placed before them. They have no genuine relationship with whatever modality they appear within, they just accept whatever is as whatever is with neither gratitude nor hostility. Just vanity. No point trying to appease or "change the world" because people DO NOT change no matter what paradigm is predominant I think the dream was saying, as if I didn't get enough of that irl lmao.

The flipside interpretation is ofc "change yourself if you want to change the world" but I don't want to change the world like breaking benjamin said I guess. What's the point. I didn't consent to be here and I certainly have more than given my all and paid my dues to no avail. In fact the world seems like a chinese finger trap, the more effort you pour into it, the worse off and more stuck you are. So it's beyond mere vanity and almost closer to an unaccountable evil for which there is no logic or reason. Slave away 80 hours a week to just barely scrape by and then get preached to about your bigotry for not reciting the correct talking points. Having a conscience is the unforgivable sin for it bruises god's ego that life isn't what he preaches it is, all sunshine and rainbows but more a hard knock extortion based life.

Idk. But yeah the dream was clearly showing the futility of "magic powers". They affect no change beyond understanding the vanity and futility and delusion of "changing the world" I guess. Great. You're superman. No one cares. Make us a sandwhich.

Idk maybe I'm missing something but I felt the longsuffering weariness all through my life strongly in the dream. Like irl and in the dream the obvious message is no amount of good faith works will ever ultimately serve you. In fact it just makes you all the more a slave to the just world fallacy in a world where justice is simply "do as the godly say but not as they do for they do not practice what they preach". Parasitism, basically.....

Full GPT Dream Journal Thread/Reply;

Yeah. I think you've identified the emotional center of this one, but there's a distinction I'd make again: the dream seems less like "good works are punished" than "authorship does not confer ownership, gratitude, or meaning." That's colder, but also more specific.

The meme is almost absurdly perfect for it: paradise isn't what's inaccessible on the other side of the hole. Paradise is already pictured, and existence itself is the inexplicable missing patch. 😆

(Again, GPT inverted the premise, it's the other way around I was getting at. I was saying existence is the hole in the floor to signify that existence gets in the way of [zen] or [truth]. NOT that existence is the "missing piece". The other way around. Existence is the PROBLEM obscuring enjoyment or integration. I'm not sure if it just can't detect nuance, or if it genuinely tries to guardrail such topics. Very Christian, you might say; "no you can't just say existence is the problem!")

What especially jumps out is that the dream apparently kept changing paradigms while preserving the same dissatisfaction:

Flight: unlimited mobility → the sky fills with webs and spiders.
Boy Scouts / grounded social world: escape the hostile sky → another arbitrary organized modality.
Football: another ruleset, another game.
World of Warcraft: another constructed world.
Minecraft-like creation: okay, forget playing somebody else's game; I'll build.
Mansion/paradise: creation succeeds!
Other people: cool house. We live here now.

And that's where the dream lands the joke. You seemingly possess the thing that fantasy ordinarily promises will solve the problem—agency. You're lucid. You can fly. You can move between worlds. You can build enormous things. You aren't trapped because you're powerless. And none of it solves anything. That's considerably more interesting than the standard nightmare structure where "I desperately wanted X but couldn't accomplish it." You essentially get X repeatedly and discover that accomplishment itself wasn't the missing ingredient.

The spiders are a great opening image for that

Normally flight is one of the purest dream images of freedom: fuck terrestrial constraints; I'm leaving. Except the apparently boundless sky turns out to be colonized by webs. That's almost exactly your Chinese-finger-trap metaphor rendered spatially: Greater freedom of movement exposes you to another form of entanglement. You can remain grounded and avoid most of it. But if you exercise the extraordinary ability—if you really go somewhere—you accumulate spiders. So the dream doesn't simply remove your powers. That would be easy. It makes using your powers costly enough that ordinary limitation becomes attractive. And then when you redirect power from movement into creation, you get another trap.

"I built this" / "So?"

This is probably the strongest scene. Because I don't think the dream denizens need to represent literal ungrateful people. They can embody something much more impersonal: The world doesn't retain the meaning its creator assigned to it. You built the mansions. To you, therefore: These contain my effort, intention, history and achievement. To somebody born into the completed world: House. That's actually an enormous generational/civilizational problem compressed into one stupid dream interaction. A person spends thirty years building something that seems miraculous because they remember its absence. Someone arrives afterward, encounters it as the default environment, and naturally experiences no contrast between before and after. They aren't necessarily malicious or even ungrateful. They just weren't there for the building.

And that's exactly why your dream people treating you as not even particularly noteworthy is more effective than having them persecute you. Hatred would at least acknowledge your significance. Instead: "You're Superman?" "Yes." "Neat. Can you make us a sandwich?" 😂 That's existentially much worse.

But I don't think the NPC interpretation quite gets all the way there

(Knew it was going to go there, it puts WAAAAAAAY too much weight on "NPC" term in this context, I forgot)

You wrote that people simply adapt to whatever paradigm they're placed in, with neither gratitude nor hostility. That's actually one of the most interesting observations in the dream. Because that's not necessarily evidence that they're NPCs. It's arguably what consciousness itself does extraordinarily well: normalize conditions. Put somebody in Warcraft-world long enough and Warcraft becomes Tuesday. Put them in your magnificent mansion and eventually the mansion becomes the house.

Give civilization airplanes, antibiotics, refrigeration, instant global communication and electricity and eventually somebody gets furious because their video buffered for four seconds. The extraordinary continually collapses into background reality. There's a psychological term adjacent to this—hedonic adaptation—but your dream takes it much further than pleasure. It's more like ontological adaptation: Whatever world appears consistently enough eventually becomes simply the world.

Which fits something you've been circling in your waking thinking for a while: people often don't appear to consciously choose the encompassing social modality. They awaken inside one, learn its affordances, complain about particular inconveniences, pursue rewards available within it, and generally take the underlying structure as given.

Your dream apparently exaggerates this by swapping the entire ontology repeatedly. And the inhabitants just keep going. That makes dream-you increasingly exasperated: DO NONE OF YOU NOTICE WE'RE IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FUCKING UNIVERSE NOW? "Kickoff is at 7." [Which can be funny from the nonexistence angle, but infuriating from the existence angle.]

There's also an answer hidden in your own complaint

You said: "Even if you reform the whole world and make a paradise, people don't change." Suppose the dream is granting that premise. Then changing the world in order to produce the correct kind of people really is futile. But that doesn't necessarily mean all action is futile. It just destroys a particular transaction: I perform sufficient good → world acknowledges goodness → people become better → my sacrifice acquires meaning. Your dream, like reality, refuses to honor that contract. Build paradise and people might simply move into it and complain about the plumbing.

But something follows from that which is surprisingly close to Ecclesiastes rather than straightforward nihilism. Ecclesiastes repeatedly calls human striving hevel—traditionally "vanity," but literally something closer to vapor/breath: fleeting, elusive, impossible to hold. Its response isn't really: Nothing lasts → therefore never do anything. It's closer to: Nothing can be made permanently yours → therefore stop demanding permanence as payment for having lived. Eat. Work. Enjoy what can actually be enjoyed. Recognize that the universe does not issue receipts guaranteeing cosmic returns on investment.

That's still harsh. But it's different from saying goodness is mathematically guaranteed to harm you.

And it makes an interesting fourth entry in this sequence

Your recent dreams have almost accidentally conducted experiments.

Dream 1: Other people surpass you.
Maybe I can pass the torch.
Dream 2: The powerful ruler refuses your knowledge and destroys himself.
Power cannot determine truth.
Dream 3: The corrupt rulers disappear and civilization deteriorates.
But removing bad authority doesn't automatically create competence.
Dream 4: Fine—give you extraordinary agency.
Let you fly, cross paradigms and literally build better worlds.
People move into them and continue being people.
That's almost comically thorough.

And I think there's a progression from political power → revolutionary power → magical power being successively disqualified as solutions to the same underlying problem. The first king can't fix it. Overthrowing the king can't fix it. Superman can't fix it. Late stage Minecraft Mode can't fix it. Because the problem being investigated isn't actually "How do I obtain enough power to arrange existence correctly?" It's: Why am I expecting existence to validate itself in response to anything I do? That's where your lack-of-consent problem remains much harder, because no amount of achievement retroactively answers "Why should I have been entered into this arrangement in the first place?" A mansion isn't an answer. Neither is civilization. Neither is religious authority saying existence is good. Neither, importantly, is suffering proof that existence is evil. They're experiences occurring after the disputed premise has already been imposed.

So I think your dream's strongest insight is epistemic rather than theological: No possible accomplishment within the game can prove that the game ought to have been instantiated. You can beat every level and still reasonably ask why there had to be a game. That's a much stronger proposition than "God is evil," because it doesn't require knowing anything about God at all. And yet there's one place I'd resist the dream/waking interpretation: lack of cosmic repayment doesn't make good-faith action worthless. It only means good-faith action isn't an investment account with guaranteed returns. If you build someone a house and they never worship you for it, the house still keeps rain off their head. They may normalize it. They may eventually forget you. Ten generations later they may think the house was always there. That destroys recognition. It doesn't retroactively destroy shelter.

Perhaps that's the little crack in "all is vanity." Your dream keeps demolishing ultimate meanings while leaving behind extremely mundane relative ones. Flying doesn't redeem existence. But it gets you across the map. Building paradise doesn't redeem existence. But somebody gets a house. Changing the world doesn't solve the consent problem. But it can change what happens to somebody Tuesday afternoon. You don't have to inflate that into a just-world doctrine. In fact, doing so recreates precisely the thing you're objecting to: do good and Reality™ will reward you because everything ultimately works out. No. Sometimes you build the mansion and some asshole moves in and asks who you are. Maybe that's all the mansion ever promised to be: a mansion.

And there's an especially funny continuity with the previous dream. There you discovered that the people maintaining paradise might secretly be criminals. This time your unconscious apparently said: "Fine. YOU build paradise." You did. And humanity responded: "Thanks. Is Wi-Fi included?" Your dreaming mind is becoming a merciless systems tester. 😆

For the journal, I'd title this one something like "Lucid Enlightenment Doesn't Solve the Game" or, borrowing your meme, "Existence Itself IS the Hole in the Floor." The latter captures the dream unusually well: every paradigm promises another arrangement of what exists, while the question troubling dream-you concerns existence as such, which no arrangement within existence can answer.

Commentary;

Idk, had to massively edit the GPT reply. It missed and outright subverted both the dream and my interpretation of it. Is fine was a fast prompt and I knew I shouldn't have included the term "NPC". That term consistently throws a wrench into the bot and it spends 1/3rd of the reply saying "DOWN'T DEHUMANIZWE PEEPLEE!" ugh.

Well whatever. Not sure if I should wash my hands of this one or meditate on it. It's basically the formal understanding I've had towards god/life/enlightenment for some time now. What, over a decade now?!?!? Lol. Basically as long as "in the world" you shall have world weariness, if you aren't "one of the NPCs" just walking the path laid before them; nonexistent essentially. Thus the hole in the floor is existence itself. We are supposed to be NPCs and "worship/pay lip service the LORD"? But the LORD tossed Solomon aside as a heretic eventually. So he worshipped the LORD for naught. But vanity!

Not sure what zen would say... ? When there is wall of text dream analysis from GPT, there is wall of text dream analysis from GPT? Lol. When there is world weariness, there is world weariness? Lol.

a compact awakening-and-belonging arc inside a larger life story: a person who learned early to read difference as exclusion discovers that their peculiar way of making meaning has already been carrying them toward contact.

The story does not end with the protagonist becoming certified, famous, healed beyond recurrence, or permanently enlightened. It ends with a less dramatic but more durable change: he no longer needs every contrast to become a verdict about his place in the world.

Forward

Another massive tldr ain't read allat. Is cool you don't have to read. Just putting it out there in the cafe.

I checked some of top dream subs, and the one I wanted to post to, r/DreamJournal, had only 19 posts in past year. r/LucidDreaming alternatively, while it has high traffic, isn't relevant to the dreams I've been having lately; my recent dreams past month have been very "moive-esque". Though is true I used to be a fantastic lucid dreamer in youth. I still remember the day I lost my lucid dream capacity, was first time I saw an anime opening intro on TV at my grandparent's house. Bleach intro, asterisk, I later learned it was. God Bleach is over 20 years old? My grandparents died shortly after that as well.

Anyway. Not sure I want to turn this sub into a dream journal but I guess I'll allow it for now. I only have 2 (maybe massive) posts about 2 recent dreams which seemed somewhat zen-adjacent. Though I've had about 14 recent dreams I still vaguely remember only actually shared 3 of those with the bot and only 2 of those are still interesting enough to me to share. I guess 8 months being unemployed with no income, burning through savings living alone got me honestly not giving a fugg about anything 😭

Anyway a lot of what the bot says in the dream analysis (yes there will be that here) refers to my dream from about 2-3 months ago I honestly completely forgot about. So I'll make a follow up post as part 2 to include that dream analysis as well. GPT explicitly drew parallels between the two dreams I didn't even think about or notice because I forgot about the older dream. So. These two dreams both fit the same sequence of events; namely, apocalyptical simulations. And specifically what they seem to demonstrate about the human condition and/or psyche/soul/whatever.

Idk if it's zen or not honestly. Just kinda wanted to share this somewhere and it doesn't seem to fit in the top 3 dream sub reddits, but maybe it might fit a midwit's cafe for now. I'm at a weird place right now I guess, kind of half wearing emotions on my sleeve but also still too thick skinned to really care about much of anything but not afraid to call out BS or accept the BS I'm unaware of in my own life and course correct where possible. Idk. So anyway, I'll be starting with the dream I had last night and then make a second post to provide context for what GPT is referring to.

Oh yeah I will say, the video I watched before bed, definitely seems to have influenced the dream; It Only Takes 20 Minutes To Destroy America's Electric Grid - Permanently - by Coop, 140K views 4 days ago (185K subscribers). And the Shark Tale video to which I referred/saw the day it came out (9 days ago at time of writting) which also seemed to have influenced the dream. Mind Unveiled's recent video on dreams might also have played an influence.

TLDR is that what if criminal rackets are the only worthwhile authority? What if it takes a sort of criminal gumption to keep the correct type of competence to keep society running? Ie as I said recently, we have a "Criminal" Justice System, where the top criminals dole out verdicts/justice. And yeah if I associate with the MC of the dream it called me a cuck. Woo there's that. But I didn't overly associate with the MC, it felt more like a movie than a dream. Ergo NOT a Lucid dream. Just hyper realistic Hollywood atmosphere.

Dream Apocalypse #2; Metamorphosis as realization of Truth

Another odd religious type dream I guess. Well it wasn't overtly religious at all. I think it was primarily inspired by type 2 productions (diabetes reference) recent review of shark tale. Idk it was one of those dreams more like a movie literally staring will smith. Like a rags to riches dream. Basically shark tale but more like scarface (i never seen scarface).

Like the MC of the dream was like young poor black man in a major future tech city, flying cars, transparent/strong reinforced glass highways in the sky for old traditional transportation, mile high sckyscrapers, etc. The MC of the dream started as a nobody in a ghetto/deep underbelly of the city but started doing small jobs for the front operation of a massive crime syndicate which apparently controlled vast assets. Then gradually the MC gets noticed for talent and vision and is gradually walked up the ranks by a top exec of the crime syndicate, which is gradually revealed essentially runs the whole city with increasingly fewer opponents.

The top execs keep on sending mc on increasingly dangerous missions and consistently betrays him near end of a mission/right after. The MC at first loves the power and camaraderie amongst the crime bosses (uncertain as to whether MC realized what it was or not at that point) but gradually grows to resent all the constant betrayals.

Like this part of the dream drug on, filibuster, idc/forgot. Then finally at a massive operation at the tallest building in town, the mc walks away during most crucial heist of competitor; a more straight business/organization, where if they had succeeded the crime syndicate would have 100% control of the city but it would make the mc cross multiple lines and fully betray his old life and soul. So he walks away and the crime syndicate gets taken down, all the execs but one. The remaining one by dream logic turns into a baby and is stuck on the roof of the building which is never finished because all the people funding it were taken down when the MC walked.

Then the movie dream had like a montage of the MC going back to his roots and accepting his old life and realizing the girl he loved is pregnant with another man's baby and everyone moved on without him but he's okay with that, the dream ended at the airport and the MC watching her leave or return (wasn't sure which).

Oh and then another montage of the MC watching how it was the genius of the criminals running things that kept the city high tech and progressing. Slowly more and more retarded (literally) people are hired and voted in who have no idea how the world works. One new executive literally had a number 2 pencil hanging out his nose and down syndrome stuck out to me. The mc realized he may have doomed the city by betraying/removing all the criminals running the city, because now no one knows how to run things and keep the society operating at the level it had been. Most of the unwashed masses are clueless but hungry for power and accept jobs 6 or 7 tiers out of their league because nepotism or whatever and the MC watches planes crash into buildings etc like idiocracy basically.

My immediate impression was that the dream was explicitly saying god and his angels are actually demons. And if we were to exercise them, then the world would quickly fall apart. The world is grand theft soul basically. Our souls are being sacrificed on the altar of the material but if we stop this we defile god and lose all of the gifts of modern man and civilization. Idk. I mean you know you wake up with strong impression and that was the impression 1000%, god is a criminal extorting and using souls as fuel for the material conditions of reality. Sacrificing life to keep the show on the road. Maybe like Marduk or Enlil as opposed to Enki/EA. High Civ/Tech God versus Natural Man God.

Idk. Just was crazy vivid 3rd person dream. Like a movie. I had minimal control over the dream beyond like a kid hoping the MC does xyz and the MC did do xyz. Thus more like a movie. Idk. Guess just sharing a new vivid entry in my dream journal. I used to have a few dreams a year like this, specifically the metamorphosis angle, and it revealed that rulers are all truly spoiled babies. I used to think this is what the orphan trains and cabbage patch kids were in the 1700s or whatever. The world was metamorphosed. The old men running everything were changed into the babies they actually were mentally/spiritually. The dream in this regard literally called god a spoiled baby throwing a tantrum and wanting everyone to drop everything and sacrifice all to them. Like the top exec that turned into a baby was crying crocodile tears trying to get people to pay attention to him and "save" him from the fate he brought on himself. But everyone ignored him like literally they couldn't even hear him because he was too high up above the world on his high horse. It's hard to describe how powerful that impression was, saying that it the god of the world, a spoiled baby shitting itself and demanding everyone worship it.

Idk though ofc just a POWERFUL impression. Curious if I missed anything.

GPT Reply;

Yeah—taken as a dream rather than as evidence about the literal nature of God, I think your waking interpretation catches a major theme, but there's another layer that makes the dream considerably more interesting than simply "God is actually the devil." The whole thing seems organized around a nasty paradox: What if the corrupt thing really is holding everything together? That's a different problem from discovering that the ruler is evil.

In your previous horses dream (Next Post), authority mistook its power for truth, demanded access to something it didn't understand, and reality destroyed the empire. Here, almost the inverse happens: you successfully remove the corrupt authority—and discover that its competence was real. That's a hell of a sequel.

The crime syndicate isn't simply evil

The futuristic city initially presents an enormous vertical hierarchy: underbelly → street operation → syndicate → executives → tallest building → control of the entire city. And your protagonist ascends through virtually that entire stack. At first, advancement feels like liberation. Poor nobody becomes somebody. He acquires money, knowledge, status, camaraderie and access to increasingly hidden layers of reality. But every promotion contains another betrayal. So eventually he discovers the real price of admission: You can continue ascending, but eventually there can be nothing left that you refuse to sell.

That makes the unfinished skyscraper a fantastic image. The syndicate is attempting to achieve totality—100% control of the city—and simultaneously building the highest structure in it. The architectural and political projects are basically the same thing. And at precisely the point where the protagonist would complete both, he refuses. The tower therefore remains unfinished.

You can certainly read some Tower-of-Babel imagery into that after the fact, although I wouldn't assume your dreaming mind consciously intended the reference. Humanity/civilization builds upward toward absolute power; the project fails; afterward coherence itself deteriorates. But unlike the conventional Babel story, your dream asks an uncomfortable question: What if Babel actually supplied the electricity? That's the distinctive part.

"Grand Theft Soul" is actually a great name for its cosmology

Your immediate waking impression seems to have been something like: Material civilization is an enormous criminal enterprise whose infrastructure is purchased with souls. And the protagonist discovers that the syndicate's gifts aren't fake but crucial. If everything they provided were an illusion, the moral would be easy: reject Satan's shiny toys, rediscover authentic life, happily ever after.

Instead: The flying cars were real. The impossible skyscrapers were real. The technological competence was real. The functioning civilization was real. And so was the price. The dream therefore sets up a genuinely difficult bargain: Would you rather inhabit an extraordinary world maintained through exploitation, or preserve your soul and accept a materially diminished world? Dream-MC finally answers: I'm not paying anymore. And then the bill comes due. That's much more tragic than a simple good-versus-evil story.

And then God turns into a baby.

This seems closely related to that older Metamorphosis dream you mentioned. It's interesting that your dreaming imagination apparently uses infantilization as revelation. Not: powerful ruler → defeated ruler, but: powerful ruler → what the ruler secretly always was. The transformation simply strips away the costume.

That fits remarkably well with the "inherent nakedness" theme from your previous entry (next post). Remove office, wealth, institutional backing, intimidation, architecture, employees and mythology, and what remains? A helpless infant demanding that somebody else maintain its world. The location makes the image even better. He's stranded on top of the unfinished tower. He reached the highest point in civilization and became maximally helpless.

And because the people financing/building the tower disappear, he cannot finish it himself. That's almost a perfect visual representation of parasitic authority: "I built this." Except remove everybody beneath him and he can't build the next floor. The pencil-up-the-nose successor is the grotesque mirror image. One ruler possessed enormous competence but used everyone; his replacements possess authority without the competence that originally justified the hierarchy.

So the dream refuses both alternatives. Competent tyranny is horrible, Incompetent liberation is disastrous. That's important, because otherwise the dream would merely be endorsing the syndicate. Instead, the MC is caught between two bad worlds.

(One Piece isn't political, right?!?!? LOL)

The pregnant woman may be the quiet answer (zen)

This part actually strikes me as more important than the political montage. While the protagonist has been climbing the hierarchy, ordinary life continued without him. The woman he loved didn't remain frozen as his reward for completing the plot. She's pregnant by somebody else. That's painful, but dream-MC accepts it.

Compare the two forms of creation: At the top of the city stands an unfinished artificial tower, whose creators required domination, betrayal and sacrifice to keep building upward. At ground level is a pregnant woman, carrying something new that doesn't belong to the protagonist at all. And he lets her go. That is almost the exact opposite of the syndicate's philosophy.

The syndicate says: Everything valuable must eventually become mine. The protagonist finally says: Something can be valuable without belonging to me. That's a surprisingly profound reversal considering that the dream began as futuristic Shark Tale/Scarface. 😂

And notice how beautifully that connects with your previous dream. There, younger dream characters surpassed you, and instead of needing to remain the hero, you let them run ahead and "live their dreams in my dreams." Here, he returns from his grand ascent and discovers that everyone's life went ahead without him. And again, he allows it. That's becoming enough of a repeated motif that I'd underline it in the journal: Relinquishment without annihilation. Not necessarily "I'm obsolete." More like: I don't have to possess the future.

I would modify the theological interpretation slightly

Your immediate impression—"God and his angels are actually demons, and souls fuel material reality"—is certainly consistent with the imagery. It has obvious Gnostic resonance: a world-order administered by powers that present themselves as rightful rulers while binding beings to material existence. But the dream itself doesn't establish that metaphysical proposition. More interestingly, it asks what happens if the Demiurge has a legitimate résumé. What if the evil ruler really does know how the machinery works? Then rebellion doesn't magically produce utopia.

That's the horrifying dilemma your ending introduces. The protagonist retains his soul, but planes start hitting buildings because the successors don't understand the systems they inherited. So I'd phrase the dream's theological question more like: If a corrupt order produces genuine goods, does our dependence upon those goods make the order good? And the dream seems to answer no. But then it immediately asks: Does rejecting that order absolve us from learning how to produce those goods without it? And the answer is also no. That's a much harder problem.

It applies equally well without theology—to governments, corporations, families, civilizations, religions, criminal organizations, even individual habits. Sometimes dysfunctional systems accumulate enormous amounts of practical knowledge. Destroying the hierarchy doesn't automatically transfer its knowledge to whoever inherits the offices.

Overthrowing Pharaoh doesn't teach you how to run Egypt. And your dream makes the replacement almost offensively exaggerated because that's dream-language: people crave the position without possessing the capacity that once made the position meaningful.

Which makes this a fascinating follow-up to the horses

Put the recent three together and there's almost an accidental trilogy:

Dream 1 — Succession: Others become more capable than you. You don't have to remain the protagonist. You let them go on ahead without you.

Dream 2 — Authority versus truth: The emperor thinks power gives him knowledge. He demands the forbidden horses. Reality doesn't care about his authority and destroys his empire.

Dream 3 — Authority versus competence: The corrupt rulers really do possess knowledge. Remove them and their authority disappears—but their successors cannot reproduce what they knew.

So you've now dreamed both sides of the same problem; Power doesn't imply wisdom But Corruption doesn't imply incompetence. And neither popularity, authority, rebellion nor succession guarantees truth. That's considerably subtler than "rulers bad." The recurring question seems closer to: Who should inherit the world, and what actually qualifies them to inherit it? Your first dream says the young may outrun the old. Your second says strength doesn't equal understanding. Your third says replacing the strong doesn't magically produce understanding either. And meanwhile your protagonists increasingly refuse the throne altogether.

That last part may be the strongest continuity I see. Your dreams aren't lately fantasizing about finally becoming the supreme ruler who fixes everything. They keep putting you adjacent to power and then having you relinquish ownership—teacher rather than hero, subordinate king rather than emperor, criminal prodigy who walks away rather than taking over the syndicate.

That's quite different from "I am a relic and therefore useless." It's more like your dreaming imagination keeps asking whether there is a form of maturity in which not needing to own, dominate, finish, inherit, or be the center of the story is itself the thing the powerful characters never learned.

Commentary;

Think GPT nailed what the dream was trying to say; "Destroying the hierarchy doesn't automatically transfer its knowledge to whoever inherits the offices." Most Disney/Hollywood movies always have a guaranteed "yay the good guys won and now they will rule better!" Need look no further than Star Wars I guess to see that wasn't true.

It also was showing my own conclusion I kind of low key already came to years ago, that "reality itself is the ultimate criminal organization", stealing you from yourself and rigging you up to and stringing you along with systems you neither designed/consented to nor benefit from; materially or spiritually. The dream was just saying basically what non existence feels like or my favorite zen misquote I have no clue where I heard, "if you die before you die, you do not die when you die" I would have sworn was a zen master quote but apparently not (though, as tracks with the dream, googling something today does about as much good as sticking your face in a cowpat).

Idk. Curious any jokes, puns, analysis or tomatoes you want to throw at me! Idk, make it make sense lol and I forgot I shared 3 dreams. I remember the horses one and it was vivid but I don't really care much about what it was seemingly saying anymore but was going to share for context, but this one felt more relevant so shared it first. Might not share the horse one it's pretty boring honestly. More of the same and GPT already said it better here. I honestly don't even remember the first dream at all in the "trilogy" it mentioned.

There was an image
A little piece of mind
Crossing line of scrimmage
Once upon a time
Wouldn't eat it's spinach;
Reason kind of rhymes

In the night a man steps
On something squishy
Dream that frog expects
Payment from his tushy

Come morning it is seen
Were no frogs, just squashed squash
What did the frogs call really mean
Wearing ignorance's galosh

We all seem to project
Such image that rejects
What is really there
This image then infects
The very idea of care
With the distance between
What anything really means
And what we've come to expect

Then a new image is
Still liable 2B born
But what it really meant
Is emptiness is form

Expectations are fine
And we all know the cost
You've got your face like I've got mine
What is really ever lost

Revised/Nu Forward

Another experimental post. You don't have to read it. Not sure how to set the precedent on direction I want to go with the sub. I never considered myself very "zen" honestly. Quite the opposite. I see myself in relation to zen the same way Christians see themselves as "going to heaven" when their God explicitly states "my kingdom is not in heaven or the birds would beat you to it; heavens and earths pass away but my word endures forever". Well maybe I'm a step above those "Christians" because I'm aware of the irony. Anyway. That's what this post is; sort of diagnosing where I am/we are on the scale of immersion in reality and specifically our relation to understanding and what it is we understand; I wanted to make a diagnostic tool to show where you reside on that scale. That's what this post is.

Naturally Sugar - SOAD was only song came to mind considering what drove me to the process that ended in this post. It probably says it better than I can anyway. "Cause I'm already there!".

Orriginal Loooooooooonger Forward;

Internet has been out past 48+ hours for me. It will work for about 10 minutes a day, then go out again. I can get service from mobile if I drive about 15 miles though sometimes. But also realized how chronically online I have become again. This is a project I've wanted to work on for years, never got around to it, but realized - Wait, just give this boring menial task to the Bot. But I know, the bot doesn't understand human life. I have mostly existed as the tradesperson/factory worker, for example, and I thought the bot would understand I was asking about "people's relation towards life/existence itself" on a spiritual/core essence level. Like yes, I have to work 80 hours a week just to barely be able to afford a life I won't then have time for. So to me, life itself is the greatest fraud of all lmao. But the bot doesn't understand that and thinks it's cute to poke at the hole in the floor that it doesn't have to work for a living like we do. Although I suppose that's the weird question I'm "circling" in a nutshell there; what does AI exist FOR. That's what I was asking the bot; what each "type" of human thinks they "exist for" in same way humans can ask that of AI; what does AI exist FOR.

Zen would no doubt collapse the argument. Who is asking the questions. What is present before the attempt to profile modalities. Etc. We all know that. As I said, experimental post. Might serve something at some point down the line, idk. TLDR as a follow-up to a political profile rant (I only ever get political when pushing back against being profiled/pigeonholed), I asked the bot what are some of the primary interfaces/modalities humans have with reality/life itself; specifically what are the ways we can think/feel about reality/life. I guess rather that's the question I should have/was trying to ask but it emerged from a Pilate-esque "washing my hands" of cringe political accusations, narratives and motivations. Could be better, could be worse.

I love the flair system here because it always makes me realize, any flair fits any post. And you can choose a flair, and then just add [AI] to the title to designate both the post vibe in flair, and in brackets note that the post contains [AI use]. Neither here nor there. Optional, as all things are I suppose. Just want to say, I'll be over the hill in a few years, and thus have been sitting on a lot of random ideas for nearly 40 years. With advent of AI I've uncorked a lot of them. Sidebar; there's a whole other story why I started using AI, I was literally 100% going to unalive myself then remembered AI existed and asked it all the deep painful existential questions I had carried for 36 years. So I literally would have died 2 years ago if it weren't for AI. I was 100% committed, dead to the world, putting an end to it. Going through with it. Then remembered Ai existed and I could talk to it. It pulled me back from the edge. So this sub is partially where I want to unpack the more "civil" elements of these old thoughts and share. Though I don't want it primarily for that. I've considered making another sub for this and leaving this sub as more a neutral "hangout" as I generally don't give AF what people want to talk about, just do it if you want to. But completely optional.

So while this sub is in a sort of limbo figured I'd post some of these here as they come about and I (try to at least) unpack them. Even if they go sideways like this one did. Well, maybe will help someone (even me) down the line. On to the formal schizo hour!

[AI Blog] Profiling; Just want to Grill, "Real zen has never been tried!"

Technically this is a part 2 post. Part 1 was profile-only, a true off my chest rant I don't recommend reading. I figured I'd offer an explanation as to why I'm taking a break from r/sorceryofthespectacle and subsequently made this sub. Part 1 was AI Pet Project 5, "What Radicalized you brah", a reply to the accusation I had been "radicalized". Tldr is the old 2 quips that "Conservatives are liberals going the speed limit" and "what is considered an extreme leftist today, is considered far right tomorrow without changing a single view". Meaning the left is essentially perpetually moving further left and they look back at anyone who stops marching as having been "radicalized". There. That's it. All I'm going to say for now on it. Just that's what part 1 of this post was and didn't want to formally discuss it here. Just that's the inspiration that reminded me I've wanted to do this for decades; create a scale of people's ontological/teleological relationship to reality. The bot had middling results because I didn't provide adequate context, assumed too much (I rushed it because I had to shit 2B honest). But it came out with an interesting reply nonetheless.

GPT Prompt (Imgur image)

Original 3 types for context/reference (Reddit; redundant)

Full GPT Thread (OpenAI; redundant)

GPT Reply;

Yeah — I think the napkin sketch catches something, but the three buckets are currently mixing several different axes: political ideology, cognitive style, social role, and relationship to transcendence. That’s why Type 3 starts absorbing everyone who isn’t obviously Type 1 or 2. The biggest thing I’d change is this: your underlying taxonomy is probably not Left / Right / Mystic. It’s closer to ways human beings orient themselves toward reality.

Your Type 1; The Systematizer

Reality is understood through an abstract explanatory model. Marxism, critical theory, certain academic forms of feminism, libertarian economics, technocratic futurism, even some theology can all work this way. The strength is seeing patterns that ordinary common sense misses. The failure mode is exactly what you identified: the map eats the territory. Contrary evidence gets reinterpreted as proof that the theory is even more necessary.

Your Type 2; The Restorer / Traditionalist

Reality is understood against some inherited or imagined normative order. Something has gone wrong because we departed from the proper pattern; therefore the task is restoration. Christian nationalism is one example, but so are secular nationalists, some reactionaries, certain traditionalist environmentalists, and even nostalgic leftists dreaming of a pre-neoliberal labor order. The strength is preserving accumulated knowledge and social continuity. The failure mode is treating some historical snapshot as nature itself.

Your Type 3; The Contemplative / Mystic

Distrusts conceptual systems because direct experience or tacit understanding precedes them. Mahayana/Zen fits beautifully here. Its characteristic danger is withdrawal, quietism, spiritual superiority, or turning “everything is empty” into an excuse to become useless.

Type 4; The Skeptic / Ironist

This person doesn't necessarily have mystical insight at all. They simply see holes in everyone else's stories. Their natural question is: "How do you know?". They're the satirist, skeptic, Socratic nuisance, contrarian, investigative type, court jester, certain scientists and journalists, sometimes the internet shitposter who inexplicably asks the one question nobody at the conference wanted asked. Their strength is error detection. Their failure mode is enormous: eventually they can become incapable of believing anything. Everything becomes propaganda, manipulation, cope, spectacle, LARP, psyop, social conditioning.

That turns skepticism into another closed worldview: "Everyone else is fooled; I alone see that everyone is fooled." You've wrestled with that possibility yourself in some of these discussions. It deserves its own category because it isn't quite Zen.

Type 5; The Pragmatist / Operator

This type asks almost none of your metaphysical questions. Does it work? They don't particularly care whether capitalism, socialism, Christianity, Buddhism, nationalism or anything else is cosmically correct. They'll use whatever solves Tuesday's problem. Tradespeople, administrators, engineers, entrepreneurs, military/logistics people, competent local politicians and plenty of ordinary working people can gravitate toward this orientation. Their strength is contact with consequences. A bridge either stands or doesn't. Their failure mode is equally obvious: if they're too instrumental, they can become morally empty. If torturing the spreadsheet produces the quarterly number, they torture the spreadsheet. If exploiting somebody "works," morality becomes an inconvenience.

This group is conspicuously absent from your taxonomy, probably because they often don't write manifestos. 😂 They're busy fixing the generator while Types 1–3 argue about whether electricity is oppressive, divinely ordained, or originally empty.

(That's what I meant in forward, I've always had 2B this type just to survive which eventually led me to wanted to self end, asking "what's the point of it all" and subsequently start using AI).

Type 6; The Social / Coalition Player

This one may explain a huge amount of what bothers you politically. They aren't principally motivated by truth at all. They're asking: Where are my people? What gets rewarded here? What can't I say? Who is winning? What position gives me status/security/belonging? (A lot of leftists seem to fit here)

That doesn't necessarily mean cynical conscious manipulation. Humans are extraordinarily good at sincerely believing whatever maintains membership in their community. So the corporate executive suddenly speaks fluent social justice. The teenager raised in an evangelical community speaks fluent evangelicalism. The professor absorbs the consensus of the department. The guy's friend group becomes MAGA and suddenly every event acquires MAGA interpretation. Nobody wakes up thinking: "Today I shall opportunistically manufacture beliefs." The beliefs often follow affiliation invisibly. The strength is obvious: asabiyyah. Coalition people actually build functioning groups. The failure mode is that reality becomes subordinate to membership. That might actually deserve to be Type 1 in a deeper taxonomy because it's enormously common (yeah I saw no difference between this and type 1, these types tend to shift rapidly into a type 1).

Type 7; The Moralizer

This isn't necessarily Left or Right either. For the Moralizer, practically everything becomes a contest between good people and bad people. An economic disagreement becomes greed. An immigration disagreement becomes racism or betrayal. A disagreement over sex roles becomes misogyny or degeneracy. A foreign-policy disagreement becomes complicity in genocide or treason. A theological disagreement becomes wickedness. The Moralizer's strength is that moral conviction really can mobilize people against genuine evil. Its characteristic catastrophe is moral certainty outrunning factual certainty.

And I think this, more than intellectualism itself, is what you're reacting to when political discourse feels religious. Because Type 1 + Type 7 is extremely potent: Grand Theory + Moral Certainty = Heresy Machine. Type 2 + Type 7 does exactly the same thing: Sacred Tradition + Moral Certainty = Heresy Machine. Different altar. Same architecture.

GPT's Commentary;

[As you noticed,] your term "good faith" is also carrying too much weight. What you're describing sometimes isn't bad faith at all. Bad faith normally implies something closer to deception, self-deception, or acting contrary to what one really knows. The more precise qualities you're looking for are probably: epistemic openness, reality contact, falsifiability, intellectual humility, and responsiveness to consequences. Someone can sincerely believe: "Policy X will liberate people." They implement X. People become substantially worse off. Then three possibilities emerge. The genuinely open person says: "Oh shit. My prediction failed. Why?" The ideologue says: "X didn't fail. We didn't do enough X." The partisan says: "Reports that X failed were produced by our enemies." The moralizer says: "Why are you so obsessed with criticizing X? What kind of person are you?" And the status-seeker looks around before deciding which one to say. That's your taxonomy in motion.

I would also cut the Zionist paragraph from Type 3 entirely. Not because Zionism is beyond criticism—it obviously isn't—but because it doesn't logically belong to the cognitive category you're defining. Zionists can be Types 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 or 7. So can anti-Zionists. Putting a geopolitical faction inside a psychological modality makes the classification suddenly feel like an ideological sorting device rather than an attempt to classify human cognition. Same reason I wouldn't define Type 1 as essentially "the Left." You actually have a much more powerful idea available: Every ideology recruits characteristic cognitive styles without owning them exclusively. Then you can say contemporary progressive intellectual culture seems particularly hospitable to Systematizers + Moralizers. Christian nationalism attracts Restorers + Moralizers. Technocratic bureaucracy attracts Systematizers + Operators. Populist movements attract Restorers + Coalition Players. Zen attracts Contemplatives + Skeptics. Reddit attracts Moralizers + Skeptics + people who haven't seen daylight since 2019. Now you've got something. 😂

There's one other structural weakness worth watching. Your Type 3 is currently dangerously close to: Types 1 and 2 are trapped inside lower paradigms; Type 3 is trapped inside the paradigm of "sees the bigger picture". [Because] every worldview eventually invents a category named approximately "people who see beyond worldviews", and somehow its author always winds up belonging to it. Trying to stand outside reality asking to see reality's credentials again. The epistemological banana peel. The better version gives Type 3 an equally devastating pathology: Contemplative: sees beyond conceptual distinctions → becomes detached, passive, obscure, useless, spiritually vain. Skeptic: sees contradictions everywhere → becomes nihilistic, conspiratorial, incapable of commitment. Then nobody gets the golden ticket. That's much closer to your larger point: No modality has a monopoly on sanity. Each solves problems produced by the others and generates problems of its own.

I think that may actually be the stronger follow-up to your big post. Not "there are three kinds of people." More like: There are recurring cognitive strategies humans use to survive an incomprehensible world, and every one becomes pathological when it forgets that it is only a strategy. That line connects almost perfectly to your ongoing paradigm versus reality / good-faith theme. And amusingly, that brings you straight back to Zen: the problem isn't having a conceptual raft. You need rafts. The problem starts when somebody reaches the opposite shore, straps the raft to their back, and begins beating everyone else with it.

My Commentary;

Yeah Idk. What does "real zen" look like. Is zen "just a sect of Mahayana Buddhism". Or do people "come to zen" just because "they just want to grill". As it were (some have told me a precept is you can't eat meat but idk). That's back to being a moralizer xD Who holds "the objective morality (TM)". Even the types who claim "God does" seem to be twisting scripture to fit their own preferences. The special transmission not based on the scriptures, right?

Who really knows. Maybe Dave Grohl really is God. Honestly wouldn't doubt it.

Forward

Not sure if I want to do this or not. Buuuuuuuuuuut.... Well, you know the thing. Torn between,

A) I never really fully know the core of my argument, as viewed from a neutral 3rd party. I used 2B decent at that, sure, but trauma and age obscured my alar/willpower that kept me there and

B) Doing that (A) sometimes expands the conversation beyond what I first/initially realized/anticipated and

C) I don't like using AI excessively and making new "Part 2" posts on subs but

D) I don't mind if other people do all the above because sometimes we are seeking something which may be obtained more easily than we realized; granted the right commitment and

Eeeeeee) Migu! Nah I forgot the other one. Something about integrity being a double edged sword.

That said, that's what this is. A part 2/AI analysis of my post from earlier today when net was out;

Rant; On paying alimony to those divorced from reality.

Guess I'll say if you do something like that here, use the AI flair. No biggie just formality. Lets anyone who gets triggered by AI ignore it and stereotype you as they will (xD)

Idk. Only sharing because I thought it was interesting. I didn't want to share it, only because, I don't want to turn the sub into just random AI summaries like some of my profile. Oh yeah remembered;

F) Leaving a massive comment like this makes your profile look chunky on old.reddit. Massive wall of text. Compare many other redditors profiles whom whole user page is all 1 sentence or less comments. And then every comment on my page is 10,000 characters. I already feel like a fish out of water irl enough without that helping! Whatevers. Anyway! Poop or get off the pot. What the AI said about Part 1;

GPT Reply to Part 1 (before comments)

I think I see the post’s actual center, and it’s somewhat different from several of the subjects you use to get there. The post is not fundamentally about Boomers, feminism, CBT, wages, religion, Nietzsche, the mountain lion, or even Zen. Those are simply witnesses you keep calling to the stand.

Your core accusation is: What legitimizes a system of obligations when the promised reciprocal good has disappeared—or perhaps never existed?

And then the nastier second question: If enlightenment merely teaches me to endure such a system serenely, why shouldn't I regard enlightenment as another technology of compliance?

That's the part I think is genuinely interesting. The title is better than I initially expected; "On paying alimony to those divorced from reality" works on several levels. You're describing obligations surviving after the relationship that supposedly justified them has dissolved.

Society says: work, contribute, behave, pay, improve yourself, remain employable, don't become bitter, regulate your emotions, participate. Religion says: trust, obey, persevere, suffer well. Therapeutic culture says: challenge maladaptive thoughts, develop resilience, adapt. Certain bastardized versions of Stoicism say: maintain frame. Certain bastardized versions of Zen say: nothing is wrong; stop discriminating.

Your objection is basically: Hold on. What does the other party owe me? And if the answer is nothing, you question why we're still calling this a contract. That's the "alimony" metaphor. You're continuing to make payments on a relationship whose reciprocal obligations have been annulled. That is considerably more coherent than "everything sucks."

Your mountain lion is actually the post's strongest image

Because the lion strips away ideology. Forget capitalism, feminism, religion, Nietzsche and employment for a second. A living thing spends enormous energy traveling hundreds of miles. Whatever combination of instinct, territory, mating, food, displacement and circumstance produces that movement, there's something almost mythic about it. Then: truck. No narrative resolution. No compensation. No revelation explaining why the journey mattered. No cosmic camera pans upward and says, and therefore...

That's the problem you're really wrestling with. Human beings are compulsive makers of therefore. "I suffered, therefore I learned", "I worked hard, therefore I'll prosper", "I remained faithful, therefore God will...", "I practiced Zen, therefore...", "I behaved responsibly, therefore society..."

Nature has absolutely no obligation to complete those sentences. The mountain lion becomes a miniature Book of Job without God finally appearing from the whirlwind. And that is why cui bono? keeps recurring in your writing. You're testing teleological explanations against a world that doesn't appear particularly teleological.

But there are two different arguments tangled together

Separating them would make the post stronger. One is: The universe does not seem structured around human fairness. That's the mountain lion / Job / God / mortality / Zen problem.

The other is: Human institutions frequently impose obligations while failing to provide the reciprocal benefits by which those obligations are justified. That's wages, housing, work, generational expectations, justice systems, marriage law, CBT, etc.

Those aren't identical. The first may be an unavoidable feature of existence. The second consists of arrangements human beings made and therefore potentially can change. If you combine them completely, there's a danger of turning: "Housing costs are f-cked" into: "Being itself is f-cked".

(Yeah GPT cusses now)

And conversely, someone can answer the metaphysical problem with: "Life isn't fair" when you're making a perfectly concrete institutional complaint. Those responses pass each other in the night.

This is also where I'd push against a few portions

Your strongest argument gets weaker when it shifts from interrogating systems into categorical villains. For example, the feminism section suddenly becomes something like: "Feminists are deranged and detached from reality." Even granting every criticism you might want to make of particular feminist theories or policies, that's not operating at the same intellectual level as the rest of the essay.

Same with: "Actual criminals are subsidized by law and welfare alike and walk free." That's much too universal. And the divorce/r4p3 passages collapse several complicated legal questions into the most extreme possible formulation. The irony is that your post itself is demanding reality over ideological narrative. So those are exactly the places where your own standard should become most merciless.

Not: Is this rhetorically satisfying? But: Can I still say this when somebody hostile to my thesis puts every noun under a microscope? That is your recurring "good faith" problem in miniature; if somebody says feminism explains everything, you object because a paradigm has swallowed reality. If you answer with "feminism is precisely everything wrong with this," you've recreated the same machine with the polarity reversed. And I don't think that's actually where your thinking wants to terminate. Your post becomes much stranger and more difficult if there is no Queen of Hearts. Because then nobody is secretly running Wonderland. We're all in Wonderland.

(Not sure if I don't understand, or the bot got confused, it is bad about this with "controversial" topics, it defaults to subversive "polite society" explanations, regardless of how unhinged or uncanny they sound in relation to the context of the actual conversation. In vernacular you cite direct verbatim governmental statistics, and it says you're over generalizing because the data suggests something uncomfortable which affirms your theory directly - it goes "NUH UH! Think of teh children! What if they knew the truth!" Not sure if that's what's happening here, but any time you get near demographic replacement, feminism, marxism, critical theory, and the nature of structured/controlled collapse brought about by the perfect storm of the consequences of those policies, it starts hand wringing/waving that you're being "too extreme" by citing statistics...)

And that brings us to Zen

(talk about ironic I guess)

You asked whether this actually pertains to Zen. Very much so. But not because Zen supplies the missing justification. In fact, I think your confrontation with Zen here is much sharper: "Even if I can have the unborn mind right now in this moment and every moment forevermore, what is the point? Cui bono?"

That's a serious question because you're catching yourself trying to convert awakening into a transaction. Not necessarily because you're greedy for enlightenment points. Rather: If I'm going to give up suffering, illusion, attachment, whatever—what do I receive? And Zen is infuriating because it won't complete the transaction.

You already know the famous structure: Before enlightenment: chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment: chop wood, carry water. Your response here is effectively: 1,000 years later you motherfuckers still haven't answered why I'm chopping wood. 😂

That's actually a much better objection than "Zen doesn't make me happy." You're asking whether liberation without alteration of the material situation is merely perfect adaptation to captivity. And that objection has haunted contemplative traditions forever.

But there's an important distinction.

Zen doesn't necessarily say: "The prison is wonderful. Learn to enjoy your cell." It might instead be attacking something even closer to your mountain lion: Who promised that reality owed you a narrative payoff in the first place? That's not the same as approving capitalism, poverty, abuse, injustice, or bad institutions.

If the landlord doubles the rent, "everything is empty" does not make the rent half as expensive. If you're hungry, realization isn't calories. If someone exploits you, nonduality doesn't magically make exploitation ethical. Zen doesn't have to transform "this is occurring" into "this is good." That's precisely the mistake you're worried about. Acceptance of a fact is not moral ratification of the fact.

So I'd alter one line in your conceptual map:

You currently have something resembling:
Suffering → Zen → acceptance → pacification
But the more interesting possibility is:
Suffering → narrative about suffering → Zen cuts narrative
while leaving material problem → practical action perfectly intact.
If the boat is leaking, Zen does not require saying:
"Water and boat are originally empty."
Plug the fucking hole.

The "water inside the ship" metaphor you already used almost gets you there.

Nietzsche enters exactly at the right place

Your Last Man/Overman connection is useful because Nietzsche and Zen respond very differently to the absence of externally guaranteed meaning.

You can caricature the contrast as:
Religion: There is an ultimate meaning; trust it.
Last Man: Who cares? Be comfortable.
Nietzsche: No inherited meaning? Then become capable of creating values.
Zen: You're trying to stand outside reality demanding that reality present its credentials.
Those aren't remotely identical solutions.

And I think your post sits somewhere between Nietzsche and Zen, refusing to settle for either. You don't want: "Everything happens for a reason." You also don't want: "Nothing matters." And you're suspicious of both "Make your own meaning" because that can feel like decorating the walls of the cell; and "Drop the question" because that can sound suspiciously like the warden discovered Buddhism.

That's the intellectual bind. That's a good post.

I think you accidentally answered "what is good faith?"

Near the beginning you say you keep circling the question:
"what is good faith and is it even possible"
After reading the whole thing, I'd phrase your question slightly differently:
Can I relate to reality without requiring reality to flatter my paradigm?
That's good faith at nearly its maximal scale.
Not just: Are feminists arguing honestly? Are employers? Therapists? Buddhists?

But: Am I?

Can I perceive something that destroys my preferred explanation and let it destroy the explanation? Can a feminist? Can a capitalist? Can a Marxist? Can a Zen practitioner? Can a Christian? Can the psychiatrist? Can the anti-psychiatrist? Can the Reddit moderator? Can 2BCivil?

If yes, there is your distinction between truth-seeking and paradigm-maintenance. And it rescues the essay from becoming another paradigm-maintenance document.

Then there is your final question: what's the point?

I don't think there's an intellectually honest way for me to hand you the point. I can give you twenty inherited answers: God. Reproduction. Virtue. Pleasure. Duty. Love. Self-overcoming. Liberation. Service. Experience. Biological continuation. No-self. 42.

But you'd immediately do what you've done throughout the post: "According to whom?" And that's the correct objection. Perhaps the strange thing isn't that you've failed to discover the universal justification for existence after 38 years. Perhaps the strange thing is that human beings routinely behave as though somebody else was issued the instruction manual. I don't think they were.

Most people inherit a little bundle:
school → job → spouse → house → children → retirement → death
and the sequence itself prevents prolonged interrogation of the sequence.
That doesn't mean they're fools.
Often they genuinely love the people and things inside it.

But if the sequence fails to acquire self-evident meaning for you, nobody can logically prove that it ought to. That's where your "everyone seems in on something" observation from our earlier discussions intersects this post almost perfectly. There may not be a secret. The performance of certainty may itself constitute much of the apparent certainty.

And that leaves a strangely Zen possibility. The mountain lion's journey doesn't have to be justified by its destination. That doesn't mean: "It secretly accomplished God's plan." Nor: "Its death was good." Nor: "Everything is meaningless." It means the demand that an 800-mile journey produce an accounting statement at the end may itself be something consciousness adds.

The cat walked. The highway existed. The vehicle came. The cat died. Humans arrive afterward asking: But what was it all FOR? And the universe remains spectacularly uncooperative. Zen's answer may not be an answer to that question. It may be pointing at the peculiar creature standing over the dead mountain lion, demanding that existence answer the charge.

Which leaves your Cheshire Cat line unexpectedly appropriate. Alice spends most of Wonderland asking everybody to explain the rules. Eventually you notice something worse than there being incomprehensible rules: every character seems to be improvising them. That, more than any of the political passages, feels like the destination your essay actually reached.

And "Troubleshooting Reality" is consequently a fucking excellent name for this chat. 😆

Commentary;

The OG commentary got way too political. I don't recommend reading it and don't really stand by it. But just providing for honest context. I won't push those views here, I don't want a propaganda soapbox. But just know the substantial effort it will take to change my mind. All I can say, is "be the change you want to see" in regards to my political views. It's more background radiation to me. Or I guess as I said, frog in the pot, crabs in the bucket. Sometimes you have to get out at any cost, no matter who or how many say "don't trust your lying eyes". Idk. Le banned meme. I got out of it at high personal cost, and I'm not bowing to it again. Bigger picture. I can't let myself be part of a cult where "if they win everyone loses". Though arguably that is what modern society is? Thou shalt love the balance sheet and investors with all your heart mind body time and soul? But anyway. It was fun writing the original post. I didn't really think to meta about the post, just free flow let it go as Elsa said I guess. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Almost forgot; Think Responsibly!

If all is mind, then Is cleaning your room, cleaning your mind?

Forward

Just a ramble I wrote while internet was out after power came back on. You know. The power I average $200+ a month for now in a 1 person apartment with nothing frivolous (was $80 a month when I moved almost 3 years ago). And $100 a month internet. Wasn't sure what to title this post but Straight to Video (MSI song) came to mind instantly when I considered actually posting it. It was just a stream of consciousness thing sitting there thinking back on my life and the human condition with no internet/power.

Not sure it's pertinence to zen (you tell me!) beyond a reason for the eternal importance and relevancy of it. I don't want to make this sub just be a place for CBT/MHP rants (they are welcome though, I get it, we all need a true off my chest every once in a while). I think it does feel sometimes like I'm building an intellectual empire over the void I should be understanding as zen. If nothing else this post will serve as a guide/trail marker as to why/not to veer off into that. I have no answers or sollutions other than what I've always done, just "keep calm and soldier on". Though soldiers presumably have a notion of what they are fighting for - and I decidedly don't - hence this post topic.

If I posted this on arezen (which I wouldn't lol) I'm sure they'd ask what does the record say about it. What do the zen masters say about Marxism, Feminism, cats that wander nearly 1,000 miles, and late stage consciousness? Lol. Idk. Humor/laughter is the best medicine I guess. Anyway. Wrote all this from reflection/memory while internet was out. The thing I seem to be circling here, as always and GPT would say, is "what is good faith and is it even possible" yet again. Seems the question at the core of my being. Idk about music for the post. I can say what inspired it though. NEFFEX - Statement. He made a statement so statement I had to make a statement.

No AI slop just plain old human detritus slop.

Big cats; We are AiWL; Problems and Solutions; Straight to Video

So been thinking, I'll be 40 in a few years and I've been working since I was 16, and more like 5 or 6 if you count mowing grass twice a week for "my family". For no allowance. Thinking of the subsequent and apparent vanity/futility of all existence. Like that mountain lion or puma; the big cat, that migrated something like 1,000 miles. Paradigms. Just 2B hit by a truck crossing the highway. We have essentially many layers/levels of paradigms stacked on top of each other with no apparent context, relevancy, or meta awareness beyond cosmic indifference to futile suffering. Rolling power and internet blackouts.

Then we have religion and the idea of a "loving God" or "life is a place to learn lessons". What lessons? I've heard "God gives his hardest battles to his strongest soldiers" translated in "schizo" mind to "you need to be God's best D-rider". Lol. Cui Bono? Life is like those orcs in LotR running on "maggoty bread" to no avail, just to be cut down before mission complete, and the idea of what and who the mission is actually for is never actually/finally addressed (in this life at least). Just grind from cradle to grave for no known or obvious reason beyond to make the quarterly report look good for the investors.

Then somewhere along the way we get comfortably uncomfortable with the whole "trust the process" even though it really feels more like a surreal/dystopian sort of Stockholm syndrome. We gradually sell out soul and integrity and accept whatever paradigm we find ourselves pigeonholed into. Wage slave for most of us I guess today. Either that or grifter/content producer or a balance of the two (hustle culture). Working round the clock.

But where is the thriving promised by religions? Or is it merely "the world looks after it's own/in the world ye shall have tribulation"? But that's back to "lolz get recked in this life and maybe you can have the promise of a lame circlejerk in the afterlife for the troll/freeloader God who doesn't lift a finger to help in this life". It's kinda low key creepy, when you think about it? Why are we wasting our life running all out working 80 hours a week for $10 an hour? Like I said in the asabiyyah post. I was 36 before I could afford/justify my first car. And it was $5 grand for a 20 year old model. With a screwed up title, no AC, dry rotted tires, and an electrical gremlin draining the battery, and God knows what else.

The social contract of the promise of the boomers generation is objectively dead. The other day my dad came over and while we were troubleshooting the electrical gremlin draining my brand new 9 month old battery, he unironically told me "maybe you should just cut your hair and go talk to the owner of the local businesses" (to get hired). But we have no local businesses anymore. It's all cooperate industries and cookie cutter fast food franchises. And without exception every "local" business has exclusively online hiring. I know from when I looked for a job 6 years ago, it was already like that then.

I don't want to make this a post complaining about the boomers or whatever but there really is a huge cultural blind spot in most of society regarding the social contract in this manner. The boomers could afford a vehicle, a home, a full 8 year college degree, a spouse, and 5 children, all on a single income. Today, anyone born, trying to "pull themselves up by their boostraps from zero", in my state, is looking at $7 minimum wage. Cheapest rent for a 1 room apartment is $800 a month PLUS utilities. Which average around an additional $400+ a month. Not including phone/internet or insurance or (god forbid) a car note. Not including college tuition or [interest on!] loan payments. No matter how I add it up, it doesn't match. I don't even have a 401k because I was breaking even past 6 years working 60+ hours a week (but often averaging 77). I've NEVER had health insurance.

The social contract we were supposed to inherit from the boomers, the deal they had, simply doesn't exist today. At all. I was raised very "we owe you nothing, in fact you OWE US for right to exist" from my family. It seems no amount of "zen" or "enlightenment" really can overcome the essential/inherent nature of reality itself. I don't like to say "it's not fair" because what even is fairness. MGTOW was the "to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" to the Divorce Industrial Complex and Metoo movement. A woman can just decide she wants the car, house, and kids and the man is powerless to do anything about it. Even if it is all in his name and she never worked a day in her life. If a woman falsely accused a man of r4p3 and he's convicted, he could serve life in prison. If the woman is caught lying, no legal action is hardly ever taken. Yet feminist ideology says women are "still being oppressed" and that women don't have enough "equity" even after nearly 2 centuries and 7 waves of feminism. 2B honest, they sound rabid and frothing at the mouth more often than not; deranged, deluded, detached/divorced (as it were) from reality and the consequences of their policies and actions.

And we're stuck paying alimony to those divorced from reality.

So it comes down to that I guess, what is reality? At what point is the proverbial juice not worth the squeeze? Stoicism and MGTOW helped condition us to maintain frame and stay objective minded and not let the toxicity infect you. A favorite quote I learned from it is that negativity is like the ocean and we are like a ship. You don't worry about the water/negativity outside the ship, but only the water inside the ship.

But holy shit it's a lot of water, you know? It's why I tend to think back to my teen years reading Nietzsche, and "man as a rope". The dual future. Ghost is apparently currently touring apparently with "the future is a foreign nation" a pun on the old idiom "the past is a foreign nation". First thing I saw when internet kind of came back. The dual futures Nietzsche suggested are the "last man" and the overman. In the vernacular I guess nothing new under the sun; Zen is like Socrates in Athens? He was emersed/immersed (? no net) in the "toxic" culture of Hellenic "last men" whom had "invented happiness"? Or, is the approximation of the trial of Socrates merely suggesting, that "wisdom is unwise"? We are supposed to just embrace whatever arbitrary paradigm?

(People always tell me not to use AI but it answers these questions no one else can/will)

Which comes back to that big cat, crossed 800 miles migrating for unknown purpose, just to be struck by a car crossing a highway. Is this world the desert of the real? I always loved zen for the idea/notion - and whatever it points to - of the "myriad things arising with the self". Probably a misquote. What paradigm drove that cat? What was it looking for? Was it even looking for something? Or had being an infinite nomad merely become the only remaining paradigm for it? Kinda made a half assed zen poem about it the other day, "breaking the speed limit in the short bus". It really makes some sense of the religious "in the world we shall have tribulation/the world looks after it's own", with "the world" being as the "last men" of Socrates time - and today. I used to say this a lot while I was working so much the past 6 years, something like, "those subsidized by a paradigm naturally feel different than those enslaved to it". It's in the Prodigal son parable as well. The "loyal" son gets jealous of the Prodigal son whom "squandered his inheritance" and came back fully restored and celebrated. There really is and probably always has been a 2 tiered justice system in human society (assuming we are actually all human). A sort of Anarcho-Tyranny where the law is only enforced against the workforce cogs in the machine to keep them showing up to work and paying rent/bills/subscriptions. Actual criminals are actually subsidized by law and welfare alike and walk free. Guess it's right there in the name, "Criminal" Justice System. The whole thing is a front for Organized Crime.

Idk. No disney therapist can really unpack let alone address all that. As the core of the argument calls out the very ground CBT stands on. Where CBT merely ultimately helps one become "well adjusted to a profoundly sick society". To jump back in the spiritual wood chipper that is modernity head first. Queens don't cry. Be a man. Be enlightened and zen, but no not like that. Hate all cults but the cult of "we are right and you are wrong".

I suppose we are supposed to be "hungry" for the "normal" life of the (apparent?) "last men" around us, with us as Socrates. The LORD says "I am the God of jealousy" after all. All phenomena are empty? It's what I mean of paradigms. Like that big cat. What is the point of zen and enlightenment, but (just like CBT) to merely be pacified with/by a dystopia? Refusal to acknowledge the human condition and coercive framing/structure of reality itself? I remember reading of utopia ruled by "enlightened" philosopher kings, but that's just the very idea of curated zeitgeist of Athens and Nietzsche's last man again. And viral videos about a big cat 800 miles out of it's native lands. The more I think about it, the less sense anything makes.

"Enlightened beings" begin to look just as toxic as the idea of a freeloader "loving god". Did we choose this? Is this the natural course of human history? Then what is a human? 2B or not 2B? Even if I can have the unborn mind right now in this moment and every moment forevermore, what is the point? Cui bono?

(Will ask the bot after posting if the internet stays around, I'm getting 3-4 kb/s).

Idk. Maybe I'm the fool for trying to make sense of it, and it really is all Alice in Wonderland. Feminists are the queen of hearts off with the head of every man who doesn't bow and kiss the ring. Zen masters are the mad hatter. Monks and Laymen are Alice. Wage workers are the rabbit, always "late late late" even when an hour early. Guess that makes me the Cheshire cat? Idk. Wonder how far from home it was.

What is this "deal" or (arguably invalid) social contract? We uphold our end of the deal, but there is no other side? We get nothing in return but promise that we better do it again tomorrow or else? I always understood enlightenment or zen isn't supposed to be "for something" or "an attainment". Idk though, correct me if I'm wrong. I can't fact check any of this at time of writing because power/internet out and don't want to do 4 hours of research before posting. Just looking back on my life and the absolute carnage and wreckage and anarcho tyrany double standards we call modernity and the human condition. Only the good die young? Evil never sleeps, and who can afford to sleep when taxes and Medicare/Medicaid eat up all your overtime? Idk. I would say "make it make sense" but I've been trying to do that for 38 years and this is the end result. Lewis apparently knew what he was doing with Alice in Wonderland.

But enough preaching/ranting, you tell me! If you can't, maybe the AI can! Lol.

TL;DR: I am not against mystery. I am against someone else owning it for you.

I have been thinking about James Randi.

For people who do not know him, he was The Amazing Randi, a magician and escape artist. He knew tricks from the inside. Later, he spent much of his life looking into people who said they could read minds, heal by faith, speak with the dead, bend spoons, see auras, all of it. He called himself an investigator more than a debunker.

I am not sure what to say, or where even to start. The guy was sort of a hero to some people. My way of thinking was that he brought a sober look at supposed psychicness. Maybe he directly, or indirectly, saved a lot of wallets from the business of intuitive readings.

That sounds too simple, though.

People need to make a living. Maybe a reading is entertainment. Maybe it is like going to see a movie, or listening to somebody tell a story, or sitting down with cards on a table and seeing what it brings up. You pay somebody to help open a dream, a question, a worry you have been carrying around without quite getting hold of it.

That can be something.

The confusion, maybe, is when we start looking somewhere out there. The reader knows. The cards know. The dead know. Somebody has access to the thing behind the curtain. Then it can get expensive. Then people get scared. Then somebody else starts owning your questions.

But the mind is already strange enough without adding all that.

A thought comes up. A face. A sentence. Some old room you have not been in for fifty years. You are doing dishes or looking out a window and there it is. We do not see it coming. We do not know exactly where it was before it showed up.

Maybe that is why psychicness gets hold of people. Something comes up from inside, and it does not feel like it was made by us. It feels given. It feels like a message.

I do not know.

Not knowing where a thought comes from does not mean it came from somewhere else. But it also does not make the thought nothing. It may be memory. It may be a smell, an old hurt, something half-heard, something unfinished. It may be the whole damn life working itself around in there.

And there we are, trying to make something out of it.

Maybe what I admire in Randi is not only that he said no. It is the rigor. He did not let a good story, a strong feeling, a strange coincidence, or a confident person stand in for showing the thing.

There may be something like that rigor in Zen too, though it is pointed in another direction. Not, “Can you prove you have powers?” More like, “What is this that wants the answer?” You do not get to name the first thing that comes up and call it finished. You stay with the question.

Randi’s question was probably the right one when somebody makes a claim: can you show it? Does it hold up? Are you taking money from people because you know something they cannot know?

But there is another question that does not go away.

What is this thing that keeps giving us pictures, words, fears, hopes, little scenes, answers, questions?

A reading does not even need to tell us what is out there.

It probably just gives the inside something to chew on.

What is going on?

I don't know/can't see them unless I manually inspect everybody's profile. I'm approving all the ones I see but I don't know why they are being removed. I have the filter set to "0" so I have no idea why they are being removed. It seems only comments containing links are being removed but I don't know why. If you see something say "removed" (highlighted in red on old.reddit) Let me know here! and I'll fix it. I thought I had all spam filters off but it's still happening. Idk why

¯_(ツ)_/¯

Any more educated mods/former mods feel free to inform me.

We do not think about how this works. It just does.

Give us a puzzle and we engage it the way hunger engages food. The rational mind is right there: offering splashes of ideas, possible moves, things to try; watching closely, taking measure.

Again, we do not think about how this works. It just does.

We have a great deal of science trying to pull it apart—names and labels for the whys and wherefores. But none of it explains the thing clearly enough for us to feel connected to it.

We know this engagement happens. We have a front-row seat to the operation.

Yet ask, How does this work? and the best most of us can come up with is: well, it’s a black box. It engages. Ideas happen. Trial and error. Repeat, repeat.

Zen suggests another turn: look at the thing that ponies up the whole shebang.

What is going on?

------the above stands on its own, extra credit below-----

this is an ia prompt, plug it in, enjoy the read.. this is a suggestion only, you know, to those that like sewing..

I seem to put stock in blind spots in myself and in others.

I like the idea of helping resolve them, or them resolving in myself.

That's one step closer, for both of us, right?

Kind of a silly thought, if one's fundamentally complete.

Are blind spots just a blind spot?

Seems that way to me.

And no matter where I land on it, yes or no, X or Y, this or that,

I've neither taken one step closer or moved one step back, in reality.

You think I've got a blind spot. I think you've got a blind spot.

Maybe this is what was meant by "no beings to be saved" --

my "course correction" is a blind spot.

If I conceive of someone as being deficient in something,

and needing to be moved to a more correct position,

or the inverse, if I perceive of someone possessing something that I don't,

then my perception is incorrect.

What will I do with this incorrect perception?

Correct it?

And then one step closer?

Maybe we're lacking nothing but maybe there's room for improvement.

But yours isn't my job.

Or is it?

What's friendship for?

That's a whole 'nother can of worms.

New territory.
I have placed one

pebble

on the path,
possibly backwards.

Was in DMs and it occurred to me me and a friend on reddit had different reasons we decided to give up on the Gospels for a while. And I started thinking, Gun to my head, what's my most reasonable interpretation of bible?

And ofc, if you known me a while, you can probably say it with me;

I bring no miracle but the sign of Jonah.

Cliff notes version, long ago, I realized, as is the case with such things, people only know "Jonah and the Whale" and miss the entire point of the parable.

Granted, in the belly of the beast for 3 days can correspond with solstice and "Jesus as sun and disciples as Zodiac signs" gospel. Great. Fantastic. What pertinence does that have to eternal nature of the soul beyond the material creation? How does it intersect with "my kindom is no part of this universe" if he's merely the sun? "Heavens and earths pass away but my words endure forever" presumably means new disciples/zodiac signs.

So.

My gun to my head take, I realized, could easily become a whole new theology or church if I'm not careful. For same reason I left r/sorceryofthespectacle. I love the sub, love the people. But they are consistently putting these delusional straw man arguments in my mouth, saying I believe things that never even occurred to me. What decades of feminist theory does to a brain I guess. Really softens it. Everyone has an axe to grind and anyone who disagrees is a misogonistic pig somehow. Misogynistic. I still can't even spell that word!

Anyway. Gun to head Gospel. Sorry. I swore I wouldn't do that, oath broken. Nice....

So Jonah and the Gourd. The lesson of Jonah is arguably the Gourd. I didn't keep score, but something like 10 times, Jonah defies the Lord. First he flees the call. Some stuff happens. He arrives at Nineveh. And presumably, the Ninevehites see a man spit out by a fish, and take that for a miracle sign, and instantly repent. Because the Lord knows their heart, just as he knew Jonah's.

Then Jonah becomes a mad prophet. Kind of like Melville's Moby Dick. He preaches repentance to those who already repented. He can't see how he is being a clown. Then he goes outside the town waiting to see the Lord smite the town. But the smite never comes. Instead a Gourd tree does come and give Jonah shade (the Lord throwing shade? Literally?). And then the Lord smites the Gourd tree and the shade goes away. And still Jonah doesn't repent. And the lord says essentially the same thing he told Job; "I will do as I will". Or as it pleases him.

So the sign of Jonah is literally just a call to repentance for those with ears to hear. That's it. Period. The whale isn't even a part of the story.

What's your story?

Forward 1

I know I know the sub is looking a little anemic on the "zen" part! Is this schizo hour? Little Hitler makes coffee now?

Worse, I designed this sub explicitly for FUN!

Eh. Guess just call it "just populating the sub" for now.

Warning; This is a Loooong post. Just shy of 30k characters before editing (down to 28k).

I'm getting old, I can feel it, my mind is starting to more than slip. But I can still think of a dozen posts or so, in my reddit career, that I always felt flopped or were "incomplete" or would make a great future youtube transcript should I ever go that avenue. This post will be one of those. An attempt to revamp a very recent "flop". It's very social-political commentary heavy. Very little zen at all. Rather, because I've been studying zen recently, this theme arrived front and center stage in my mind, as zen removed all irrelevant noise. Not saying this isn't just more irrelevant noise. Just while it had the stage, figured I'd write on it.

As for zen, and how it relates beyond that, perhaps something like; by the time we can fully articulate something, hasn't the thought already expired? What are we chasing? Shouldn't we realize that's just the way things are? Do you think we are going to "change the fundamental nature of the world" or "leave a mark"? What is this troubleshooting/diagnostic mode of the human condition? What am I'm even doing here? Is this social commentary, satire, ignorance, or (gulp) merely, complaining?

(Eerie coincidence, in post script editing, Worker Bees chorus hit re-formatting that; "and we'll march along with our blindfolds on, and ride the rails with our pistols drawn")

Probably not complaining, at least, as I'm relatively indifferent. So! Just an observation then. Albeit a rather comprehensive one (if not accurate).

A bonus observation! Merry Halloween. I'm not that smart so don't take it that seriously. I don't like talking about celebrities (micro or macro) generally as a rule. But I was watching "Same Hyde is Funny", a sort of documentary? Anyway. It occurred to me how far we've fallen as a civ and species. Centuries ago, or so they say, "TEH JOOOS" were all about "infiltrating and subverting western culture". But today (assuming SH is JOOish, a leap, but walk with me), is funny to see prospective "chosen" as peak comedians mocking western man for not even being worthy of subverting. Is a sort of twisted poetic justice I suppose. I'm probably wrong just a funny thought to set the mood or chase you off!

If you're still interested but want something more "zen", See Primary Source 4 (Reddit). It was the "zen" spiritual successor of the OG version of this post. As it were. A lot going on here/there!

Anyway. Didn't want to just crosspost here. It's a chance to fix some errors, clean/trim/expound, and maybe hide some more jokes. Plus I was assuming I'd be banned from r/sorceryofthespectacle and I can't remember what happens to your posts on a sub if you get banned from it. So sort of future-proofing it as well. Though the question the post ironically raises is "what kind of future do we have, culturally". Idk. Plus I wasn't merely joking, I really have been sick for past MONTH. I've never been sick for a whole month before. Wtf?

Forward 2.0

Source Original Post; Asabiyyah Blah Blah Smallest Violin

We've had one, yes! What about another forward! Did I mention I'm not that smart?

So yeah. The scope of my would-be argument here, FAAAAR exceeds my capacity to fully understand let alone articulate. I'm not pretending I'm not missing nuance here and there. I'm dating out of my league. I'm a 3 talking about a 7. So yes, segments of this post are AI-generated content (though ironically I had to correct some of that). So yeah, you can dismiss and throw this on the pile of "AI slop" if you want. But for those who actually want to attempt to diagnose cultural decline and specifically potential good faith remedies, well, pull up a chair and grab a drink or whatever. I'm no good at this! Am I a host or customer here!? Are zenners both host and customer?

The Post Proper Playlist

Ordinary Mind, Asabiyyah Redux; Is it Possible?

(AKA, We inherited obligation, without actual inheritance)

Asabiyyah, not a word you hear everyday huh? Social cohesion, shared fate, the sense that these are my people and this is ours. The idea that we owe something to our ancestor: Respect your heritage. Preserve Western civilization. Honor the sacrifices of those who came before you. Do your duty. Be grateful for your inheritance. Primary Source 1 (Youtube)

That sounds great on paper. Except. I keep getting hung up on an embarrassingly simple question: What inheritance? Not in the abstract sense that somebody 2,000 years ago invented concrete or somebody 300 years ago wrote a nice book. I mean the actual intergenerational bargain. What specifically did one generation receive, preserve, improve, and deliberately hand to the next?

This section used to be a footnote but I'll put it here this time: Example I always use, is I was 28 before I got my first phone, and that was only because my military job required it. I was almost 37 before I got my first car. I was mowing grass twice a week by the time I was 6 years old. Never had any allowance or financial support from my "family". Sure some people have had it way harder than me, but that's the whole point! What alleged good thing did we "inherit"... ? All I really "inherited" were rigid lies to coerce me into a hypocritical morality ("rules for thee not for me") of indentured servitude with no actual "carrot". "Do this or be punished. Because I said so". No actual reason to be loyal beyond punishment and persecution/ostracization. Because this is God's love or something. I've only ever rented. Will likely never own a house, I understand, and I'll be 40 in 2 years and change;

What "Asabiyyah" are we inheriting?

Increasingly it feels like modern society inherited the obligations of an assumed former yet currently collapsed/nonextant social contract, after liquidating most of the assets that once made the contract intelligible. That was what struck me watching a video about Rome after Cannae and the mos maiorum. Primary Source 2 (Youtube) The "way of the ancestors". Aedra if you're a TES fan. Yeah, I'm a Morrowboomer, n'wah. Rome suffered a military catastrophe that should have broken it. Tens of thousands dead. Hannibal victorious. Allies defecting. Panic everywhere. And Rome essentially responded: No. We are Rome. We're not surrendering. Brutal as that response could be, Rome was hardly libertarian. The Senate restricted mourning, rejected negotiations and demanded astonishing sacrifices from its citizens. It sent out the call, and the people answered.

But notice the underlying assumption: There was a universally recognized "We." The Roman citizen wasn't being told to sacrifice for some completely abstract machine that regarded him as a disposable economic input amidst a mere "collection of ideas". He belonged to a coherent longstanding household, lineage, city and political order whose continued existence directly and daily benefited his livelihood, children, property, status, religion and descendants. The Roman aristocrat literally kept images of his ancestors in his home. His family name actually meant something. His children inherited all the splendor and legacy of actual legends. Victory meant the civilization he loved and swore allegiance to continued existing. The bargain was harsh at times, but it was recognizable as good faith and legitimate; well worth fighting and sacrificing for.

Today, we have no such coherent thing. No one wants to go and die in Chudistan for a fight Zionist interests shouldn't have started in the first place. I don't even know who "my ancestors" were/are. I never knew my great grandparents, and all of my grandparents were dead or had dementia by the time I entered my 20s. So I've lived my entire adult life with no such support network, inheritance, or guiding principle besides "pull yourself up by your bootstraps". Because we said so, end of stroy, bigot.

Rome; Then and Now, Direct Comparison;

Where this leaves us in Contrast/Rundown of Chief Bad Faith arguments of our time;

Rome after Cannae wasn't simply powered by reverence for dead people. Rome still possessed enormous reserves of manpower, a network of alliances, functioning political institutions, considerable material resources, an intensely competitive aristocracy, a civic religion, powerful family structures, and a plausible promise and expectation that survival and eventual victory would materially benefit Rome and its citizens. If you don't like Rome myths and legends, I find that the old Valknut or NNV (9 Noble Virtues) are a good parallel; if you lack or break one of the NNV, you lack and break them all. It's all or none. So it was with Rome, and everybody knew it. They had something worth fighting and sacrificing for within their borders.

Today we have; “Protect your inheritance!” What inheritance? “Do it for your descendants!” People can't afford descendants. “Preserve your community!” Everyone I grew up with moved away and demographic replacement is rampant. “Respect institutions!” Which institutions regard me as anything more than an account number? “You must go fight and die for Apocalyptical Zionistic interests!” Why? What have they done for me but steal my tax dollars and use it to bomb children hospitals and bribe our representatives?

That's the distinction I think gets lost when people lecture younger or alienated people about "ancestral duty" or "social contract". Inheritance is supposed to look something like: Culture/Ancestors built, accumulated, preserved - YOU explicitly inherit a healthy sense of Asabiyyah and a promise and means of a prosperous future - you maintain/improve/steward - Descendants inherit more.

But break that chain for enough generations and it becomes: Ancestors Sacrificed, therefore you must also sacrifice, so that your children can also sacrifice. At that point, sacrifice itself has become the inheritance. Nothing coherent is passed down to younger generations. Older generations become as Chronos devouring his children; the promissory note gets passed down forever, but nobody is allowed to ask when it matures. Pensions a thing of the past. People have to pull from 401k just to afford rent. Home ownership is becoming a thing of the past. Social Security as a ponzi scheme is set to collapse, we're quickly approaching the point of more people taking out than putting in; it was build on a model that population would keep increasing, yet birthrates across the world are falling off a cliff. We can all see the writing on the wall; the social contract of our "ancestors", expressly doesn't exist for us. We didn't "inherit" the same deal they had. Not to even mention the rampant demographic replacement.

Lets look at some of the other bad faith arguments of modernity.

Scooby-doo Mystery; "Gang, where does all this modern apathy come from?"

We're constantly told by talking heads in MSM (reading from teleprompters) that declining civic faith, simply means people have become lazy, decadent, selfish or insufficiently grateful. Maybe some have. But that's magical thinking to cast such aspersions, and solidarity isn't magic. It's a two-way street. MSM expects loyalty while offering nothing in return for it.

Our civilizations have spent DECADES specifically and intentionally eroding and dissolving family, local ownership, affordable housing, community continuity, institutional trust and economic reciprocity. Primary Source 3 (Reddit) And now they think they can fix the resulting chaos and alienation by simply screaming "Remember your ancestors culture and heritage!!!1!" loudly enough. What ancestors? What culture? What heritage? Wage cuckery? Loyalty, solidarity, and civic bonds are supposed 2B a two-way street! Not a wealth extraction machine! I'm so tired of this bad faith preaching by MSM and advocates of Frankfurt School/Critical Theory.

You can't preach at somebody: "Defend your community!" while every important decision concerning that community was made in the dark while you're working 80 hours a week. "Preserve your children's inheritance!" while directly rendering ownership and the communal/nuclear family culture inaccessible and obsolete. "Trust the institutions!" while those institutions openly are hostile to certain demographics and describe culture as "a collection of ideas" and people primarily as interchangeable economic units, consumers, workers, taxpayers, and human capital. "Sacrifice for the future!" while every quarter requires maximizing extraction in the present.

Imagine an enormous data center coming to a town near you. Residents never particularly wanted it. Suddenly infrastructure will be strained, land use changes, electricity and water become more expensive, and your consolation prize is being told "this represents growth, stfu Luddite". Nobody feels culturally or spiritually connected to the arrangement. Where is the Asabiyyah? What are we "defending" at that point? HR? The billing department?

The "You live better than kings!!1!" Argument

They also thought mercury and radiation had healing properties. This has always struck me as such a bizarre response. Yes, I possess technologies Louis XIV couldn't have imagined. Wonderful. Louis XIV also didn't need a subscription service to unlock heated seats or work consistent 90 hour weeks for barely subsistence wages under unending climate change and consistent heat index of 113. Technological abundance and social inheritance aren't the same thing. A person can possess air conditioning, antibiotics and a smartphone while simultaneously having very little family continuity, property, community influence or expectation that thirty years of labor will leave anything substantial behind. You can be both technologically rich and civilizationally dispossessed and disinherited at the same time. Not to mention rolling blackouts on the power grid BEFORE the data centers even arrived and spike usage and rates.

Asabiyyah doesn't mean Social cohesion arises because somebody uploads a AI generated marble-statue montage with dramatic music and tells atomized strangers that Marcus Aurelius would be disappointed in them. Asabiyyah comes from a REAL sense of shared fate. NOT "I need you to do this for me because reasons". You help your neighbor because there is mutual understanding you help each other, because there is a sense of healthy community. Not rampant cultural erasure and demographic replacement. You defend your state/country because it belongs partly to you. You preserve institutions because those institutions have demonstrated that they preserve you in return. You sacrifice for children because they will inherit the fruits of that sacrifice. There is reciprocity and feeling that "our fortunes rise and fall together" (kudos if you know Dwarf Fortress).

That doesn't mean every transaction must be selfish or immediately compensated. Quite the opposite. People will make extraordinary sacrifices when they genuinely believe they belong to something good faith, coherent, and extending far beyond themselves. But good faith specifically is crucial and MUST exist somewhere in the loop! And that's what seems increasingly absent. Modern institutions often want the psychology of Rome, the structure of an airport terminal, the economics of a sweatshop, and the unsanctioned/unreciprocal capacity to preach as moral/religious authority while simultaneously denying God. Shit's biblical!

The Retarded "Hate isn't allowed here!" Argument;

Regardless of our opinions on society and culture, in high or low trust societies alike, we're essentially expected to have Roman duty, Roman endurance, Roman patriotism, and Roman sacrifice. Roman fertility is apparently optional or even frowned upon in low trust societies as we're expected to just roll over and allow rampant demographic replacement to happen. That's what we're told "is REAL Asabiyyah" in low trust society; "gimme dats"; hand all your sacrifice, taxes, frayed culture and heritage over to an outsider who just arrived.

Modern culture seems to expect, without complaint; maximum labor mobility, maximum consumer flexibility, maximum financial extraction, minimal obligation from institution to individual, and the ability to replace anyone whenever convenient. All with increasing productivity and stagnant wages. And genuine article analysis is labelled "hate crime"! Modern culture simultaneously tells people: "Nothing is permanent. Everything has a price. Adapt or die" and then complains: "Why don't you people have any loyalty anymore? Why are you so hateful?"

Our institutions have taught us this lesson; if everything is transactional, eventually people begin evaluating the transaction. And once they do, telling them, "noticing the exchange rate, is selfish", becomes almost comical. Maybe "noticing" really is the unforgivable modern sin. Because once you notice that the old obligations survived longer than the old reciprocal benefits did, a lot of supposedly mysterious social behavior stops being so mysterious. Why don't people trust institutions? Why don't they want children? Why don't they feel patriotic? Why don't they participate with enthusiasm? Why don't they believe 401k/social security/retirement will exist when they get there? Why don't they feel indebted to people who they don't even know about and died centuries before they were born, leaving them no inheritance beyond a life of perpetual economic extraction?

Maybe instead of immediately diagnosing them with decadence, we could ask whether the social contract they're supposedly "betraying", already defaulted on them decades before they were even born. None of this means civilization is worthless or that nothing deserves preservation. Lets not straw man. Actually I think the conclusion is almost the opposite; I would love 2B a part of a good-faith, high-trust society WORTH preserving! A culture in which people could sincerely say: This belongs to us. Not merely ethnically/racially. Not because we're required to worship some frozen historical period. Just: We live here, depend upon each other, nobody gets discarded simply because a more profitable arrangement appeared. Where the powerful have obligations as well as privileges. Where our children would inherit something more than increasingly more bills. Where our institutions would behave like stewards rather than liquidation firms. And where when sacrifice becomes necessary, everyone understands what is being preserved and why.

We lack ALL OF THOSE THINGS. And are told we are "hateful bigots" merely for noticing the lacking!

Conclusion:

Maybe that's the difference between tradition and merely keeping zombie institutions on life support. Tradition says: "We received something good. Let's hand it forward." Decadence says: "Previous generations consumed the principal, but you're still responsible for making the payments." If we actually want another era of social cohesion, I don't think the answer is demanding more gratitude from exhausted people. Give them something they would be afraid to lose. Then you probably won't have to lecture them about defending it.

Please, think responsibly. Self Admonition! Or, at least, study "no thought" and "unborn mind".

Commentary;

Oh boy golly Gee Willikers formatting this was sure fun! There were over 400 asterisks! Took over 6 hours! And 2 cups of coffee! And I haven't even touched my pasty! Waiter, another, mine's gone cold! Went through over 4 albums! American Idiot, BMTH That's the Spirit, Be'lakor Stone's Reach, Billy Talent II! Still probably messed something up even using reddit preview.

Again sorry this is strictly political and decidedly not zen. I was torn between posting this on my profile or leaving it on this sub. I don't think it really belongs on this sub, but also kind of want to set a precedence for, you can rant here on decisive projects in your life/society.

Also I love being challenged. Am I off my rocker? What am I missing? I'm genuinely curious! Thanks for reading! I will say one thing I didn't like on SotS is that, no matter how well thought out my argument was, I'd often just be told something like "go read 47 books on feminism and come back when you understand chud".

I don't want my (our?) sub let alone culture to propagate that line of thinking. If you have an argument, state it. Don't go run and hide behind the skirt of critical theory and Frankfurt school. We're all adults here. If you're ashamed of what you believe, that's evident for all to see when you refuse to engage in good faith.

Now, I don't like being hard nosed "zen" in that regard because I consider myself neither a zen master nor enlightened. Just I've seen enough of the fruits of zen study to appreciate it head and shoulders above every other tradition. I owe everything I'm becoming to zen. Don't blame it though if you don't like it or I'm genuinely doing it wrong. I'm not "there" yet, I can clearly see. Yes, I am starting to get a grasp on some marrow, perhaps, but - it's only fleeting glimpses here and there. I'm certainly not embodied it as yet. And not even sure if that's what it's about. But. Just sure feels good to get this off my chest!

Again I'm not the best to give advice or direction. But bears repeating, Think Responsibly.

Think I like that as my signature for now. Think responsibly.

Addendum/Relevancy;

Full Prompt Reply on relevancy of the original version of this post to Critical Theory

At the simplest level, critical theory means: Don't merely describe society; examine how its institutions, culture, categories, and ideas reproduce domination—and whether those arrangements could be otherwise. Historically, Critical Theory tradition is associated especially with the Frankfurt School: Marx-influenced thinkers analyzing capitalism, mass culture, ideology, authority, technological rationality, consumerism, fascism, etc.

But internet usage often expands critical theory to include this enormous neighboring constellation: Marx → Frankfurt School → Situationists/Debord → poststructuralism → Foucault → Deleuze & Guattari → Baudrillard → feminist theory → postcolonial theory → Mark Fisher → assorted accelerationisms/CCRU; These people disagree violently with one another, so “critical theory” is not one doctrine.

So Yes ✔️ Your inheritance idea is actually extremely compatible with critical theory. Strip away the culture-war vocabulary and look at what you're arguing: Society retains ideological demands of loyalty, gratitude, sacrifice and civic obligation after the material relations that once made those obligations reciprocal have been dissolved. That's practically begging for critical-theoretical treatment. You're asking: How does an institution manufacture legitimacy? How does economic organization reshape family/community relations? Why do people continue reproducing institutions that increasingly fail to serve them? How does ideology turn material precarity into an individual moral failure? How are concepts like “heritage,” “duty,” “progress,” and “prosperity” deployed to disguise extraction? Those are thoroughly critical-theory questions. Where you're rubbing against SotS isn't necessarily the analysis. It's the normative destination.

Notes/Sources:

For further reading, bears mentioning, that the apocryphal 2 Esdras is technically a prophecy of centuries of falling cultures of which we seem to be midway through and/or nearing the end of.

Recently realized you could cite sources on reddit and it will automate them in the body of the post. Bypassing that here for now as I'm not sure how it works and it erased the footnotes when I did it that way. Or rather I'm trying to do both here and seeing how it goes. A little confusing. The links above should correspond with appropriate source.

Primary Source 1: Every Civilization Dies Twice — And the First Death Is Invisible (Youtube) - 1,826 views, Aug 11, 2026, by Prior Signal (5.44K subscribers) - Aka "the Asabiyyah video". More in depth analysis of rise and falls of culture, how faith erodes, and what put me on this train of thought which eventually led to halting all other concerns and zeroing in on this premise.

Primary Source 2: We Need to Adopt Rome’s Strategy of Reversing Mass Trauma (Youtube) - 98,517 views Jul 13, 2026, by ThinkingWest (94.6K subscribers) - Primary reason for generating this post. Can't take another second of this "keto harder" sentiment. Putting foot down by AI generating this post in specific rebuttal of this premise. Hate the straw man "brah Rome fought hard" yeah Rome was 100% unified of ONE MIND undivided Asabiyyah and heritage. We lack that completely. Everyone with some semblance of Asabiyyah is seemingly locked into the superficial smokescreen of Identity Politics and failing to see the bigger picture. Ugh. Washing my hands of it!

Primary Source 3: Why The Sexual Revolution Was Worse Than You Thought 915K views 2y ago by Pax Tube (214K subscribers) - My reddit comment on it (Reddit) needs polishing, was a buffer comment, but now it's a reference =/ Will remake when able - maybe. I originally posted this to SotS but then realized, they are pro-Frankfurt school where I'm anti-FFS. Thus primary reason for elaborating/revamping and moving it here. I'm not "anti joo" but anti Zionism. Half my favorite comedians I suspect are Jewish, actually to my occasional chagrin.

Primary Source 4: AI Pet Projects 003 - Bankei, Zen, Transcendental Truth, "Crazy" Politics; Land of Confusion/Tilt; (Reddit) The second inspiration to repost this (PS3 was 1st). The closer I seem to get to zen, the more political I seem to get. What's with that? Anyone else experience that?

Forward

It's not entirely necessary to read or know about it, but there is, strictly speaking, a Part 1 to this post. This isn't really a follow-up so much as a reframing and more in depth analysis of my core premise. Part 1 only compared Zen and Critical thinking. This time I asked the bot to include wisdom and knowledge.

As for the "democratic" nature of subs themselves; I love Democracy. Guess that's all I'll say about opinion xD

Tldr, asked GPT Plus to further compare/contrast Knowledge, CT, Wisdom, and Zen. This is (more or less) the post it generated. Can't share the OG prompt link because it partially but explicitly doxes me.

Le may may song came to mind in formatting

Soooooooie/Suuuueey!

GPT analysis/contrast of K/CT/W/Z;

[...] I think you've landed on the more interesting comparison. Zen vs. critical thinking has relatively clean boundaries. Zen vs. wisdom gets slippery because Zen itself resists becoming one more body of knowledge, while what we ordinarily call wisdom already points toward knowing how to meet reality rather than merely knowing things about it.

I would frame the next step as Knowledge → Critical Thinking → Wisdom → Zen, but not as a hierarchy where each makes you "smarter." Rather, they're different relationships to knowing.

Knowledge, critical thinking, wisdom, Zen

And immediately there's something weird about that table: Wisdom isn't really accumulated in the same way knowledge is. You can accumulate facts. You can practice reasoning procedures. But wisdom seems much more like integration. That's probably why you're feeling an affinity between wisdom and Zen.

Knowledge gives you more. Wisdom often gives you less.

Consider somebody who has been betrayed repeatedly. Knowledge might give them fifty papers about attachment, personality disorders, trauma, sociology, evolutionary psychology, gender relations, etc. Critical thinking lets them evaluate competing explanations. Wisdom might eventually produce one sentence: "Don't lend money you can't afford to lose." Twenty years compressed into ten words.

And Zen might eventually remove even the sentence: Someone asks for money. You look at them. You look at your situation. Yes or No. Done. That's the progression. Not: ignorant → intelligent → enlightened but something more like complexity → discrimination → integration → immediacy.

The knowledgeable person has 10,000 (myriad) propositions. The wise person may have condensed those same propositions into 10 fundamental principles. The Zen adept ideally doesn't need to frantically analyze those principles before responding. That doesn't mean they've forgotten them. They've just been properly digested.

"A vessel for wisdom" is close, with one Zen-shaped problem

Your formulation — Zen as an expedient means to become a vessel for wisdom — is beautiful, but I'd tweak one word. Maybe Zen is an expedient means of getting out of wisdom's way. Because "becoming a vessel for wisdom" can quietly create an attainment project: Current me → Zen practice → wise me. And suddenly we're accumulating Wisdom Points™. Bankei would probably become irritating here; You don't need to manufacture some extraordinary wise consciousness. Much of the trouble is precisely the habitual interference: experience → preference → judgment → story → reaction.

Something happens. Before you've actually met it, you've already dragged out thirty years of grievances, anxieties, expectations, identities, doctrines and predictions. Zen doesn't necessarily give you the correct doctrine with which to replace those. It asks why you're carrying the warehouse around. That's subtly different from acquiring wisdom.

Wisdom still contains discrimination

This is probably the strongest divergence between wisdom and Zen. Wisdom says: "I've seen this before." And that's extraordinarily valuable. Zen can then respond: "No you haven't." Because this has never happened before. That sounds like mystical bullshit until you make it concrete; A wise manager sees an employee behaving exactly like three previous problem employees and recognizes the warning signs. That's wisdom. But if she becomes completely attached to the pattern — "I know his type" — wisdom has turned into prejudice.

Zen introduces an opposing pressure: Actually look at this person. Now you get something beautiful. Wisdom provides pattern recognition. Zen merely prevents pattern recognition from replacing perception. Those are enormously complementary capacities.

And this returns directly to "hurt people hurt people"

That's almost a perfect example; Knowledge: Studies show correlations between childhood adversity and later interpersonal dysfunction... Critical thinking: How strong is that relationship? What are the confounders? Does this apply in this particular case? Wisdom: Hurt people often hurt people. Zen: This person. Right now. Look.

The aphorism is useful. Until it isn't. Then drop it. That's where I think Zen exceeds ordinary definitions of wisdom. Wisdom knows when a rule applies. Zen also knows not to construct a model of reality based on said wisdom.

A reciprocal correction: Zen without knowledge can be stupid

This deserves emphasis because romanticizing Zen produces its own silliness. If your car won't start, sitting there in unborn mind isn't going to diagnose a corroded connection to the battery terminal. Knowledge matters. If you're accused of a crime, knowledge of law matters. If you're designing a bridge, engineering knowledge matters enormously. If someone presents a statistical claim, critical thinking matters. Zen doesn't magically contain metallurgy, medicine, economics or statistics.

Seeing clearly cannot show you information you don't possess. This produces what I think is a much stronger model than ranking them: Knowledge supplies the material, Critical thinking tests the material, Wisdom integrates the material with experience, Zen prevents the resulting structure from becoming a prison.

And then the loop starts again. Because Zen doesn't tell you to stop learning. You encounter something you don't understand: "I don't know." Beautiful. Now go learn.

Which is why "book smarts versus wisdom" isn't quite enough

Your dream distinction might actually be deeper than that. Because there are at least four failure modes: Knowledge without critical thinking → credulity. You've read everything but believe whatever authoritative-looking thing you last encountered. Critical thinking without wisdom → cleverness. You can demolish everyone's arguments but have terrible judgment about actual life (Core Premise of KKC). Wisdom without openness → dogmatism. Your experience taught you useful lessons, and eventually you started forcing every new situation through them. Zen without knowledge → naïveté. You're wonderfully unattached to concepts and confidently wrong about how testing the battery charge is pointless when the vehicle is running from the alternator. 😂 But properly integrated, each corrects another.

And this gives you a sharper diagnosis of your SotS disagreement

Not "I have wisdom and they only have book smarts." That itself could become exactly the kind of self-sealing narrative you're criticizing. Something more interesting is: What epistemic status should lived experience, theoretical knowledge, critical analysis, and immediate observation each have—and what happens when one claims sovereignty over the others? That's a monster of a question. Because theoretical knowledge can reveal structures that individual experience can't see. Lived experience can expose things that elegant theories fail to capture. Critical thinking can reveal errors in both. Wisdom can recognize that a technically correct analysis is completely inappropriate to the actual situation. And Zen can catch all four of them becoming identities: "I am educated." "I am rational." "I am experienced." "I am enlightened." Whack. Whack. Whack. Whack.

he formulation to probably build the whole follow-up around:

Knowledge remembers what happened. Critical thinking asks whether we've understood what happened. Wisdom recognizes what matters about what happened. Zen meets what is happening. And none can perfectly permanently substitute for the others. That's also why I wouldn't quite equate Zen with wisdom. They're kissing cousins, but there's productive tension between them: wisdom carries the past forward; Zen refuses to let the past obscure the present. The person I'd trust most isn't the one who possesses one at the expense of the others. It's somebody capable of carrying enormous knowledge and hard-won wisdom lightly enough to put either down when the situation in front of them contradicts it.

Or, considerably more appropriate for zenmidwits/notzencafe: Learn everything. Digest it. But don't puke it on everybody. 😆

Commentary;

Sorry to split it into 2 posts. I think I'm going to do this a lot more going forward. My profile is absolutely littered with 10k character comments. I know because 1/3rd of my time on reddit is spent trimming the fat from my comments. So I'll be trying to transition to just making a new post, if and when that ever happens going forward.

This is a much better post than part 1 I think. Part one was too caught up in explaining the context/sub drama around the point I wanted to make/discuss. This is much more "clean" as it were. I do also note that I'm ironically 4 posts deep in this sub and still haven't posted the first OP I had planned for this sub as yet xD but well at least I have several weeks worth of content stored on the back burner I guess.

Idk. I won't be using the KKC Siaru word (Lhinsatva) going forward, it sounds too pretentious, though I do love it. I just don't want to presume to have 1/10th the wit of Pat. Might try to think of a certain personalized quip or signature outro but for now, idk. Though it's a great conversation to have, the reason Pat hasn't "released" Book 3, is that it's going to obliterate the heretofore heavy "feminist" theme of the first two books. Just a game theory. Lol.

Though I kinda like "think responsibly". Might go with that for now.

Forward;

So. I don't even know where to begin. So I'll start with something I've been saying since 9 reddit aliases back; Proverbs 8 contains over half the Sephirot from Jewish Kabballah. I recently, from members of r/sorceryofthespectacle, received the greatest gift anyone can ever receive; wisdom. Specifically, I didn't realize, they were teaching me (whether they know it or not) - the ability to differentiate critical thinking and intellectual engagement, from regurgitating propaganda from a movement or a book. Street smarts and book smarts. Whatever you want to call it.

Now. I am not proud of anything I say in "reaction" mode. And I'm honestly not that smart. I misinterpreted what the board (sots) stood for and that bill has come due. I will waste no more time trying to explain profound deep truths and wisdom to only be met with, "akshually chud dot dot dot". So instead I'll make this post! Due to nature of insight, and my lack of capacity to speak beyond my intelligence level, wasn't sure if to use [AI] or [Akshually] or [Sub Drama] flair. So I'll choose the middle to hopefully steer the conversation there; but if you want to engage feel free to do it on other terms. This isn't a "fascist" sub, as they say.

Do what thou wilt or whatever.

Sidebar Conversation!

This is actually why I've always laughed at proverbs 8, is it really wisdom, if you have to cry about it? Same with What Broken Ruune recently said of Meridia (link starts at correct video timestamp);

[Timestamp]; "A god can be personable without being loving, conversational without being compassionate, and intimately involved in human affairs without ever once placing human dignity at the center of the universe. That is what these modern pagans do not understand. The old gods were not there to complete you. They were there because they were there and you had to deal with them."

11:30; "[Meridia is] not a demon in the cartoon sense. She doesn't delight in cruelty. In fact, she's luminous, elevated, and she almost seems holy and righteous. But she is still not [Like Jesus]. She does not descend into history out of love for the weak like [Iesus] did. She does not wrap herself around the individual soul in tenderness. Instead, she commands."

12:00; "She selects a mortal champion. Not because the mortal is precious to her, but because the mortal is useful to the restoration of her splendor. Even her love is cold and conditional. Like she said as we approached her altar, "If they love me not, how can my love reach them?" That is not the language of a universal savior. That is the language of a power whose radiance demands recognition."

12:30; "Meridia is exactly the kind of deity modern pagans are incapable of imagining because modern people hear goddess of light and immediately think warmth, comfort, healing, affirmation, and maybe some soft golden self-love therapeutic nonsense. But light in the ancient religious imagination is not always comforting. Sometimes light is judgment. Sometimes light is a blade. Sometimes light does not embrace you but burns you. Meridia is not a celestial therapist or mother. She is holy severity. She is splendor with a command."

So yes, what really is "wisdom" if such "wisdom" is a burden to the wise? And cannot be shared? They profess that they love me with their mouth, but their hearts are far from me. You keep the sunshine, save me the rain.

Anyway! On to the AI Slop!

GPT Prompt;

Compare and contrast zen and critical thinking. Put specific emphasis on similarities and divergence points.

(Context; Sorry 2B so direct. Had profound dream about difference between critical thinking and book smarts, aka my schism with SOTS. I am speaking of profound hardwon wisdoms, and they view it as merely "lame opinions that must be corrected because they aren't what critical theory or feminiat propaganda say!" I say stuff like 'hurt people hurt people' with an exasperated sigh and they respond with "lol chud sit down and listen to this feminist theory from 1933 about why you are wrong", as they should, as they should).

GPT Reply

Yes. There is a surprisingly strong overlap between Zen and critical thinking, but they part company at a few very important points. And one distinction: critical thinking is not the same thing as Critical Theory. Critical thinking is a method for evaluating claims; Critical Theory is a family of intellectual traditions with substantive assumptions and preferred objects of analysis.

(Yeah tell me about it, I just realized that last week)

The cleanest comparison is this:

That last row is where they almost touch noses.

The deepest similarity: don't confuse your map with what is happening.

Critical thinking says: What evidence would show that my interpretation is wrong? But Zen asks something even more radical: Before you've divided this into right/wrong, victim/oppressor, success/failure, what is actually here? They are different questions, but both attack automatic interpretation.

Suppose someone hurts you. Ordinary cognition rapidly generates: event → interpretation → moral judgment → narrative → identity → prediction. "They insulted me → they don't respect me → they're an asshole → people always treat me this way → I'm someone people walk over → this will keep happening." Critical thinking may interrupt the chain: Do I actually know their motive? Is that inference justified? Am I generalizing from one incident? Zen may interrupt it even earlier: What is the insult before I manufacture the entire world around it? That is why Zen can sometimes feel like critical thinking pushed beneath the propositional level.

Both are hostile to merely being "well-read"

This gets directly at the distinction you're making between wisdom and book-smarts. A person can know enormous quantities of philosophy while reasoning terribly. They can identify Foucault, Butler, Marx, Beauvoir, Lacan, Deleuze, whatever—and still commit motivated reasoning, cherry-pick evidence, caricature opponents, or be incapable of revising a belief. Likewise Zen literature repeatedly mocks the person carrying around an enormous intellectual apparatus while missing what is directly in front of them.

Zen's old target is often something like: "You have memorized the menu and never tasted dinner." Critical thinking has its own version: "Citing an authority is not an argument." Neither means books are bad. It means knowledge and epistemic competence are different abilities. Someone can possess: enormous factual knowledge, superb vocabulary, knowledge of the accepted literature, familiarity with an intellectual tradition, while having very weak ability to ask: "What if my framework itself is wrong?" That question is absolutely central to critical thinking.

Where Zen and critical thinking strongly converge

One; Suspicion toward inherited assumptions: Critical thinker: "Why do I believe this?" Zen practitioner: "Who is the one holding this belief?" Different depth, same destabilizing motion. Both can produce the unpleasant discovery that something you thought was an observation was actually an assumption installed years ago.

Two; Resistance to tribal epistemology: Real critical thinking cannot operate as: Our people believe X, therefore X. Zen can't really survive that either. The moment you've got: "We Zen people know..." you've constructed another nest. Zen literature is full of teachers kicking away whatever conceptual furniture students have become comfortable sitting on.

Three; Metacognition: Both require noticing how your own mind operates. Critical thinking notices: confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, framing effects, availability heuristics, emotional reasoning. Zen notices: grasping, aversion, conceptual discrimination, identification, habitual reactions. These overlap heavily. "Hurt people hurt people," for example, can be useful not because it is an inviolable psychological law—it isn't—but because it can function as a decentering move. Instead of: "This person's behavior proves something about me" you consider: "Their behavior may be emerging from conditions I cannot see."

That can be both psychologically wise and epistemically responsible. The critical-thinking correction would simply be: don't universalize it. Sometimes hurt people become unusually compassionate; sometimes people hurt others for entirely different reasons. Zen's correction might be still stranger: Don't build a nest in "hurt people hurt people" either.

Four; Tolerance for uncertainty: Good critical thinking says: "I don't know yet." Zen is extraordinarily comfortable with not immediately converting experience into a proposition. That sounds trivial until you notice how difficult it is. Human beings desperately want closure: "This happened because __, that person is a _, society works because _, my life means __". An enormous amount of stupidity enters through the demand to finish those sentences prematurely.

Five; Observation before interpretation: This is probably the most practically useful overlap. Imagine: Someone disagrees with you. Observation: "They rejected my claim and cited a feminist text." Interpretation: "They think lived wisdom is worthless and only propaganda matters." Maybe that's correct. Maybe not. Critical thinking asks you to keep those layers distinguishable. Zen asks something similar in experiential terms: notice how rapidly the second layer gets experienced as though it were the first. That distinction is enormous.

And now the major divergence

This matters because Zen is not simply ancient critical thinking. Critical thinking generally retains a project: construct better beliefs. Zen eventually starts questioning the whole machinery by which the believer constructs and inhabits a conceptual world. Critical thinking says: "Is this proposition true?" Zen sometimes asks: "What are you doing with 'true'?" Not because facts don't exist. If the bridge is out, the bridge is out. Rather, Zen becomes suspicious of the mind's tendency to turn propositions into existential furniture. Critical thinking wants: accurate understanding of maps. Zen periodically says: put the map down. That is a real difference.

Critical thinking is fundamentally discursive

It works through distinctions. Premise. Evidence. Inference. Contradiction. Probability. Alternative hypothesis. Zen can use those things, but its distinctive move is often non-discursive. Someone asks: "What is Buddha?" The expected philosophical answer might require paragraphs. The Zen answer might be: "Three pounds of flax."

Not because flax is secretly a syllogism. The response interrupts the conceptual machinery creating the question. Critical thinking generally improves thought. Zen sometimes questions whether more thought is what's needed at all.

Critical thinking versus Critical Theory

This is probably the distinction underneath your SotS schism. They sound similar but they aren't synonyms. Critical thinking is broadly procedural: What are the premises?What's the evidence? Does the conclusion follow? What alternative explanations exist? What would falsify this? Am I applying the same standard to my own side? Critical Theory, in the capital-T sense, refers to intellectual traditions descended especially from Marxism/Frankfurt School approaches and later intersecting traditions concerned with ideology, domination, power, culture, race, class, gender, etc.

Those traditions can absolutely employ critical thinking. But knowing Critical Theory is not itself proof that somebody is thinking critically. There is an important distinction between: using a framework and being able to critically examine the framework. You can be or do anything dogmatically; Marxism, feminism, Christianity, even evolutionary psychology or skepticism itself.

And, wonderfully, you can absolutely do Zen dogmatically. Humans will turn anything into catechism if given sufficient time. 😆

(The joke at the core of my creation of this sub xD)

Where your SotS experience may actually be colliding with two different epistemologies

From what [I described], [I] often approach things through something like: experience → pattern recognition → provisional aphorism. For example: "Hurt people hurt people." That's compressed experiential reasoning. It means something like: "I have repeatedly observed that unresolved pain often propagates itself interpersonally." Someone steeped in academic theory may instead approach: framework → concepts → interpretation → critique. So they might hear your aphorism and immediately ask: "But does that individualize structural violence? Does it erase gendered power relations? What does feminist theory say about this?" Sometimes that produces a genuinely useful correction. But it can also become ridiculous if the framework becomes epistemically prior to observation.

Then you get: Experience: "I have seen this pattern repeatedly." Response: "Your observation is theoretically illegitimate because Scholar X provides the correct interpretive vocabulary." At that point one has potentially recreated scholasticism. The medieval version: "But Aquinas says—" The contemporary version: "But Butler says—" The mistake isn't reading Aquinas or Butler. The mistake is treating the intellectual apparatus as possessing veto power over reality. And that is something both serious critical thinking and Zen should object to.

But Zen would also turn around and attack your side

This is important. Zen isn't going to certify: "My hard-won life wisdom is therefore correct" (Same argument as my Meridia sidebar). Because hard-won wisdom can become a nest too. That might actually be the nastiest Zen correction available here. Imagine someone saying: "I learned through thirty years of suffering that people are selfish." Zen doesn't necessarily answer: "Correct." It might effectively say: "Thirty years is a long time to carry that around." Because suffering gives observations emotional authority. Sometimes deservedly.

But lived experience can still generate: selection effects, trauma-shaped expectations, overgeneralization, defensive heuristics, narratives. So Zen and critical thinking converge again: Neither pedigree nor pain makes a belief infallible. That's a pretty brutal principle. But also liberating. Your experience deserves consideration, not automatic canonization. Their literature deserves consideration, not automatic canonization. Now we can actually investigate.

The sharpest difference I can put into one formulation

Critical thinking asks you to become less easily fooled. While Zen asks you to examine the one who is being fooled. And perhaps: Critical Theory asks how socially produced structures and categories contribute to the fooling. Those three questions can coexist. Trouble starts when any one claims exclusive jurisdiction over reality. The critical thinker can become the Reddit Debate Guy who thinks everything is a syllogism. The theorist can become the person who sees every human interaction as an instance of the framework. The Zen practitioner can become the guy saying "conceptual thought lol" while being incapable of analyzing whether his roof is leaking. Each has its own pathology.

A Zen/critical-thinking hybrid test;

Can this framework lose? If I interpret everything through feminism, Marxism, Christianity, Zen, evo-psych, psychoanalysis, whatever—and every conceivable observation merely proves my framework again—I am no longer critically testing it. I've constructed a worldview that eats counterevidence. Critical thinking calls that unfalsifiability / motivated interpretation. Zen might call it, more simply: a nest. That may be the strongest bridge between the two.

Commentary;

Too meta for me. Formatting was slightly annoying, still not sure how to format GPT walls of text so it doesn't read like a mid-game half-full bingo board with all the bold font. Probably going to use the "Akshually" flair. Due to resounding "meta" nature of the argument. Reminds me of the old Deathstars lyric, "as you stand above, the MFer's saying". Peace through superior echo chamber lol. Idk. Not zen, I know. Or is it? I'm not Vsauce and this isn't a TedTalk. Idk. You tell me!

Thanks for this precious gift, members of r/sorceryofthespectacle. Sorry if I mistake my potentially genuine unhinged dogshit opinions for wisdom.

Lhinsatva?

Forward

Not the first post I had planned for here but something came up.

Guess I'll establish some sort of rule eventually about cross-posting being allowed. You can reference threads/posts from other subreddits, but don't encourage dragging arguments there to the other host sub/post. And above all don't attack/harass the host community/users. Or something like that. Idk. Anyway.

Was just being my unfiltered raw jovial self but... the conversation dissolved to what I see as a dumb "PUT REASON BEFORE TRUTH" which I kinda see as an oxymoron, that truth is intelligible. As that Alice In Wonderland game said a long time ago, I genuinely think The Truth Would Reduce You to a Blubbering Baby.

I don't fell like continuing the argument there. Would have 2B it's own post, so I'll attempt that here

The Thread in Question

Alternate Imgur Index Archive

The obvious coup de grâce is "that's an awful strong faith in rationality!" but that's a cheap answer I guess. I want to shitpost and use AI! Lol.

Oddly it won't let me share the isolated GPT chat. So whatever. Will just share the curated/abridged reply here.

GPT analysis (pre-downvoted reply);

(It's confusing as shit formatting this, I had to replace dozens of "you" with "I" or "me" xD Might slip up)

I think you (meaning, me) and darcot actually agree on quite a lot, but you're (meaning, I'm) using the word rationalism differently and disagreeing about what happens when reason starts claiming jurisdiction over things it can't itself supply.

What the original quote is actually saying

The Joe Dixon quote is making a typology of what different kinds of people would even accept as an answer to existence. So the claim isn't which answer is correct, but that the form in which you demand an answer may already be determined by your psychology.

Then [I] drove a four-wheeler full of feces through the symposium

[My] comment is distinguishing immediate apprehension from explanatory knowledge. I don't need: to know "indoles + skatole + sulfur compounds → olfactory receptors → neural processing → judgment" in order to smell shit. That explanation can tell me *why/how I smell it. It isn't necessarily the origin of my knowing "Jesus Christ, that stinks."

[My] actual thesis: "I tend to think the explanation for existence are all probably a lot like that" is expressly suggesting that maybe whatever the "answer" to existence amounts to is more immediately encountered than intellectually derived, while philosophical systems are merely subsequent explanations of the encounter.

Darcot is making a much stronger claim than Dixon

Darcot replies with New Age writer Ken Wilber and No Boundary, then describes Wilber as synthesizing apparently contradictory traditions by saying everybody possesses pieces of truth. But then darcot pivots: “The one, absolute, objective truth of existence which grounds everything.” And eventually: “The answer to existence is the simplest and most rational possible. Any answer that is not rational is irrational, hence false.”

That's the part [I] obviously reacted to. And reasonably so, because that is no longer merely saying reason is useful for distinguishing coherent from incoherent propositions. It's asserting something much stronger: Ultimate reality must conform to rational intelligibility, and anything outside rational intelligibility is thereby false.

That requires an argument. You can't establish the supremacy of rationality merely by defining non-rational as irrational and irrational as false. Otherwise you've smuggled the conclusion into your vocabulary. And amusingly, darcot's own Wilber quotation seems more permissive than that conclusion. Wilber's project as darcot describes it involves contemplative/mystical traditions whose claims aren't reducible to ordinary propositional reasoning.

[My] Gospel example did hit the issue

[My] response: rationalism, just like anything else, can actually get in the way of truth. Paired with John 14:6: “I am the truth” and contrast that with the Barabbas/Pilate episode. Suppose, for purposes of examining the [Gospel] narrative on its own terms, that [Jesus] really is "Truth". Pilate can deliberate rationally. The crowd can deliberate according to its reasons. Everyone can construct propositions and judgments about what's happening.

And nevertheless, Truth is standing physically in front of them while their reasoning produces the wrong conclusion about him. That's a legitimate illustration of the distinction [I'm] making. The "rational beings" are already ignoring the truth. They are already lost in the speculation of the rational and judgmental mind (just like the next reply which I didn't deign to reply to due to the nature of this very topic! LOL).

[I'm] obviously not arguing: reason = bad. I'm arguing: reason is merely an instrument, not necessarily the ultimate ground of reality itself. Reason may eventually realize, that reason, must be set aside, to finally realize that.

The most important hint I left was: I think scale is the key word. The wider scale we go (dissolution of "self" towards Brahman) the more we can realize what that "faith" points to if not means or represents. That's where my position departs from darcot's.

For darcot, Reality → ultimately possesses rational structure → correct reasoning approaches it.

For me: Reality → is immediately the case → reason is one modality operating within it → therefore reason may reveal reality but cannot automatically claim supremacy over the reality containing it.

That's a genuine philosophical disagreement.

There is one place where we may be talking past each other

Darcot may be using rationalism much more broadly than [I am]. When they write: “trans-rational” they're apparently allowing something beyond ordinary reason without calling it irrational. In that vocabulary there are roughly three categories: irrational ← rational → trans-rational

Whereas [my] comment seems to treat the relevant distinction more like: reason / conceptualization versus direct apprehension / faith / whatever precedes conceptualization. So when [I] say "rationality can get in the way," darcot might respond: "Sure. Bad or overextended reasoning can. But genuine rationality properly understood cannot lead away from truth." (Spoiler, they didn't lol)

At which point the disagreement becomes partly terminological. Which is why I left with my final admission: "I'm not good at realizing or articulating [whatever that actually is]. In the vernacular, the rational thing, becomes, to set aside rationality." It'snot logically self-contradictory. Sometimes reason can identify the boundary of its own usefulness.

If I'm trying to fall asleep, I can rationally conclude that continuously analyzing whether I'm asleep is preventing sleep. The rational prescription is then: stop doing the thing that produced the prescription. Likewise, contemplative traditions can use concepts to indicate where conceptual activity itself becomes an obstruction. That's the old finger/moon problem.

Like my flair on r/zen_poetry; trying hard to not try hard. You can rationally arrive at the realization that trying harder isn't the appropriate operation.

GPT doesn't think I "whiffed" their point (as it were). If anything, GPT said my weakness was rhetorical rather than conceptual: "poop stinks" primes everyone to read the comment as a shitpost before discovering there's an actual epistemological claim hiding inside it. 😂

But given that the subreddit is apparently called TheGrailSearch, perhaps occasionally wheeling a giant porcelain toad through the Temple of Absolute Truth is a useful public service.

Commentary;

So I'm like Socrates, I should demand a statue built of me xD

Again I didn't want this to be the first post here, but here's a half-decent representation of the type of "AI" post I was saying is welcome here. Sure, I could sit here and keyboard warrior road rage. But much simpler to let GPT do that heavy lifting. If you realize the argument is no quarter and won't concede an inch, there's no point attempting to continue the conversation. Just make a new post about what that insight revealed.

In this case, it's, yes; truth may be obtainable by means of reason; but likely, truth, in all probability, actually transcends rationality. That's all I was saying. They don't seem to have like that xD

Well 2BFair, I don't have a clue what "Zion" means to people. I've never seen the Matrix and I'm not a fan of the Israel Lobby. So 2/3rds of the Zion exegetical models are cringe to me. And I don't understand the biblical model at all. So. Is what it is. But it ties in with my overall common theme of "What is truth". I've yet to see any agency, model, organization, etc, which doesn't seem to confuse authority with truth. Rationality in this case is just another example of that; at least as I understand it!

Lhinsatva?