Interesting and Humour - page 4207

New comment
 
ILNUR777:

There are some downsides to all this. Although this is purely psychological and ideological, but nevertheless. Pelevin has an ancient interview that he gave in Spain or Italy (you can find it on YouTube). In it, by the way, he described the analogy with the Asian beliefs. That there is no good and evil, there is only a perception associated with the experience, which gives these labels to this or that event or phenomenon (process... piedmont... etc). The same river is for one world-opportunity, for another-impossession etc...

The same river, the same opportunity for one world, an impossibility for another, a nostalgia, etc...In essence, the Asiatic teachings are just the size of the event; society decides good or evil, society is people, people use concepts that are pleasant/not pleasant/neutral; labels are pleasant/not pleasant are brain chemistry that has been putting these labels on since birth. It is after someone has usurped the right to decide what is good and evil. There is no one-size-fits-all interpretation of the same thing for everyone. And the notions of good and evil, like any other, are not absolute but relative. And a framework is created only when quantitatively for the majority the same yaal will be considered as evil. At least ideally. Now the framework is defined by a group of individuals, without a majority.


But I found another point interesting in his interview. He highlighted an idea from a song.
"I did it to myself, like a fucking sorcerer. Turned to shit, I don't know how to turn back." ))))))).
I think that the reason is that while you are introspecting, especially when you follow your thoughts, their process of birth and development. Not going into the process emotionally, just contemplating. Then it turns out that "virtue" is caused by other things. This is true for all things. Causal relationships can be seen more clearly. It is clear that certain preferences are caused by the process of obtaining first experiences from birth with certain conditions. In other words, it is conditioned by circumstances no less than by a man himself. And as everyone could fall into any conditions, which further form further perception of the world by the human being, there is no ideal.

Moreover, all those values which are instilled in us are simply turned inside out. All pleasures of any kind are realised and traced, which at this stage makes them meaningless. (By the way, I found similar thoughts in his book Snuff.)Or rather, their true causes emerge. We are not told where they come from when society calls them. They are simply referred to as par value which cannot be questioned. As a consequence, most of them come out in a completely different light. As in Tao, any meaning society gives to the most meaningful thing is rendered meaningless. (even such as Mavrodi likes the phrase "everything has its melting point. It's just that some have a higher one, others a lower one." It is always possible to create conditions where a lover will cheat, a friend will betray, and so on. There is no ideal.) And it is this belief in an ideal that is instilled in us from birth.

It is this loss of meaning previously inculcated values and represents his "did to himself ..." removed the veil from his eyes, after which the old meanings are gone, and the sense of making new syss ly, too, no. And back to the old will not go back, having knowledge (the word experience is better suited).

I do not know if he has passed beyond that stage, but it seems to me that this is an intermediate psychological stage, as if you have turned the river over, the silt will settle down again and the path will move on. I believe that the experience of this stage is followed by a qualitatively new level, but I have not yet reached that. It's like the levels of significance in Asian ones... There is only me...there is no me, but there is something (tat tvam ashi, you are that) .... there's nothing at all, there's not even someone who thinks there's nothing.

I could be wrong though.


Just an apotheosis of permissiveness!

Especially impressive is this passage:

It's afterwards someone has usurped the right to decide what is good and evil. There is no unambiguous interpretation of one and the same for all.

What about the criminal code? After all, since the time of Rome, some 2,000 years? А? It's called Roman law. Even the electric chair is provided for the especially advanced and freedom-loving, who can't be explained to them about good and evil. Last point: this is evil, and with this goes to the other world.

The Bolsheviks tried to implement this plan: they replaced the concept of good and evil with the concept of proletarianism. Now the cousins are trying to throw everything away: people should be free, free of everything, .... like goats in the Sahara.

 
СанСаныч Фоменко:

The apotheosis of permissiveness!


It's not from permissiveness. It's more like withdrawal from rethinking your system of ideals. The veil falls from your eyes and it turns out that the ideals you were forced to blindly believe in do not exist at all. No need to constantly insert the idea that only religion has a moral framework. The rest are all immoral and immoral. It's just that you can't see beyond your view of the world. So you can't see that you can be quite a decent (in the statistical sense) person and without religion. Why do you associate freedom with permissiveness, I do not understand your psychological implications. Why the free person is obliged to want to kill, plunder and other. A religious person can also want to do that.

For the rest, what I wrote about above is just a phase when, like after an illness, one needs to rest. Always, in any topic, when a person's outlook or outlook on something changes radically, they fall into depressive thoughts (psychology, no mysticism). It's like a body's defensive reaction. Then the stirred up new train of thought will settle down and flow in a different direction. Yes, let it take time, perhaps even some will not recover from a completely different picture (I mean a deep introspection), but it's worth it. Do you know how many have gone mad from the effects of religion, even those who have just read the scriptures to the end. So it is possible to argue on humaneness of the way of development even here. Moreover, I have not come across cases where self-development is forced. The same cannot be said about religions. So permissiveness can be created under any slogans, including religious.

By the way, to alleviate such problems after a quick introduction of a different way of looking at things, that is why it is advised (in Hindu teachings) to take this path slowly, after having prepared the body and purified the mind. And Tao says you have to first empty the old vessel of consciousness in order to fill the new one. To remove all psychoblocks. Psychologically, get rid of clamps and phobias.
 
СанСаныч Фоменко:


This passage is particularly impressive:

It is afterwards someone has usurped the right to decide what is good and evil. There is no one-size-fits-all interpolation of the same thing for everyone.

What about the penal code? After all, since the time of Rome, some 2,000 years? А? Roman law is called. Even the electric chair is provided for the especially advanced and freedom-loving, who can't be explained to them about good and evil. Last point: this is evil, and with this goes to the other world.

The Bolsheviks tried to implement this plan: they replaced the concept of good and evil with the concept of proletarianism. Now the cousins are trying to throw everything away: people should be free, free of everything, .... like goats in the Sahara.

I don't understand what exactly you wanted to ask and what exactly you are arguing about in this post. It's not clear what worked or didn't work out. Are you insinuating that the Union collapsed because it was a religion? )))) I always thought it was for completely different socio-economic reasons. And it's not a fact that if it had survived for 300 years that we would even remember the problem of whether it is possible to live without religion or not. There simply were no such experiments. And as a consequence of the inept management policies, the Union collapsed.

Otherwise, law is a consequence of the social contract without a separate religious channel. General rules to which the majority who want to make their lives safer and more planned agree.

Let there be a crowd, it must be managed. At that level in antiquity, to legislate every little thing is impossible. You need something more, something that had the same legislative power, or even higher than that, above it. And with as blurred concepts as possible, so that anything can be put under it. It is undoubtedly a tool in the hands of the usurper. If the usurper would explain why a framework for the society is necessary, and then find this framework by a common decision, it would not be necessary to make part of the elite, but the whole nation educated for the time it is living in. The usurper does not need it, because the educated people will throw down the usurper. But the uneducated need to be ruled, too. But without an explanation of why and who decided what can and what cannot be ruled. The right is not enough in such governance. But it does not mean that the well-developed law cannot be self-sufficient for organizing order within society. There are simply no precedents of "non-caste" society in history. At least in common knowledge history. Maybe there was one, but we are not told about it-the Vedic principles of society building. Or maybe it did not exist. And maybe it could not have existed at all owing to peculiarities of human nature, which cannot build anything for itself except for usurpation of managerial elite. For evolution and survival has the urge to dominance, and dominance does not imply any equality. Well here we can only speculate.
 
ILNUR777:

There are some downsides to all this. Although this is purely psychological and ideological, but nevertheless. There is an ancient interview with Pelevin, which he gave either in Spain or in Italy (there is one on YouTube).

Judging by the fact that the translator speaks Italian, it is more likely in Italy.



In it, by the way, he described the analogy with Asian beliefs. That there is no good and evil, there is only a perception connected with the experience, which assigns these labels to this or that event or phenomenon (process... pied piper... etc.). The same river is for one world-possibility, for another-impossibility, etc...

In Buddhism (as in Taoism) there is no dichotomy of good and evil, and in Hinduism there is no European morality either.

but it has its own different understanding of good and not-good

the attempt to understand Buddhism/Taoism/Hinduism through the prism of "European" notions will not be effective

the way of self-improvement is to reject labels and conventions to perceive as is



That is, in essence, in the Aziite teachings there is only the size of the event, and the fact that it is good or evil is decided by society, society is people, people operate with the concepts pleasant/not pleasant/neutral, the labels pleasant/not pleasant are the brain biochemistry, which has attached these labels from birth. It is after someone has usurped the right to decide what is good and evil. There is no one-size-fits-all interpretation of the same thing for everyone. And the notions of good and evil, like any other, are not absolute but relative. And a framework is created only when quantitatively for the majority the same yaal will be considered as evil. At least ideally. Nowadays the framework is defined by a group of individuals, without a majority.

Labels are a convenient means of manipulating people

Labels of absolute good and evil are the most cynical form of manipulation



But another point I found interesting in his interview. He picked out a thought from a song.
"Did it to myself, like a shitty sorcerer. Turned to shit, I don't know how to turn back." ))))))).

I think that the reason is that while you are introspecting, especially when you follow your thoughts, their process of birth and development. Not going into the process emotionally, just contemplating. Then it turns out that "virtue" is caused by other things. This is true for all things. Causal relationships can be seen more clearly. It is clear that certain preferences are caused by the process of obtaining first experiences from birth with certain conditions. In other words, it is conditioned by circumstances no less than by a man himself. And since everyone could fall into any conditions, which further form the further perception of the human being, there is no ideal.

detachment and emotionlessness are very valuable characteristics

many people cannot do this because of their obscurity and attachment to their fixated ideas



Moreover, all of the values that are instilled in us are turned inside out. Any pleasures are realised and traced, which at this stage makes them meaningless. (By the way, I found similar thoughts in his book Snuff.)Or rather, their true causes emerge. We are not told where they come from when society calls them. They are simply referred to as par value which cannot be questioned. As a consequence, most of them come out in a completely different light. As in Tao, any meaning society gives to the most meaningful thing is rendered meaningless. (even such as Mavrodi likes the phrase "everything has its melting point. It's just that some have a higher one, others a lower one." It is always possible to create conditions where a lover will cheat, a friend will betray, and so on. There is no ideal.) And it's the belief in the ideal that's instilled in us from birth.

usually from a very early age.

social templates are part of the system firmware which is implanted (grafted) to form conformity and controllability

a perfectly wired person doesn't even ask questions, he accepts it as a given

and therefore the path to liberation - re-flashing

one must mercilessly discard templates - like uninstalling imposed software "from the vendor"



It is this loss of the meanings of the previously instilled values-that epitomizes his "did unto himself ..." removed the veil from his eyes, after which the old meanings are gone, and there is no sense of making new meanings, either. And back to the old will not go back, having knowledge (the word experience is better suited).


I do not know if he has gone beyond that stage, but it seems to me that this is an intermediate psychological stage, as if you have turned the river over, the silt will settle down again and the path will move on. I believe that the experience of this stage is followed by a qualitatively new level, but I have not yet reached that. It's like the levels of significance in Asian ones... There is only me...there is no me, but there is something (tat tvam ashi, you are that) .... there's nothing at all, there's not even someone who thinks there's nothing.

I could be wrong, though.

maybe Pelevin has something deeper in mind.

he often resurfaces with melancholic passages about global emptiness

almost all of his texts are about the liberation of the protagonist from one yoke or another

having freed himself from the yoke, the hero doesn't know what to do with his freedom.

I recall a very interesting correspondence between Pelevin and his readers about "The Yellow Arrow".

In a nutshell, the train is an allegory of brutally fast modern life.

the train in the story goes to the destroyed bridge, and universal doom is inevitable, but the passengers (residents) cannot get off the train

people live with the endless clatter of the wheelsets

There's a lot of great comparisons and '90s noir.

the protagonist looks for a way to get off the train and practices forbidden practices like climbing on top of the train

Eventually the hero somehow manages to slow down time and get off the train at slow speed.

he ends up listening to the grasshoppers chirping in the plain

a reader asked an ingenious and infinitely terrifying question:

what is the fundamental difference between the chirping of grasshoppers and the pounding of wheelsets?

 
СанСаныч Фоменко:

The Bolsheviks tried to implement this plan - they replaced the concept of good and evil with proletarian self-awareness - it failed

Good and evil are concepts of divine world, connected with usage of light energy (paradise) or dark energy (hell). In itself the energy itself is neutral, but passing from the source through this or that world gets its shade.

And a man must be able to distinguish it at the level of feelings and thoughts... it means that evolution of consciousness is required.

All other external rules and laws, including invented notions of socialist or religious morality and morality - not to steal people's or church property from the leader-director - is of course a utopian idea ...

To frighten with punishment has little effect in the long run and leads to corruption and decay of society...

 
СанСаныч Фоменко:

The apotheosis of permissiveness!

Especially impressive is this passage:

It is afterwards someone has usurped the right to decide what is good and evil. There is no one-size-fits-all interpolation of the same thing for everyone.

What about the criminal code? After all, since the time of Rome, some 2,000 years? А? It's called Roman law. Even the electric chair is provided for the especially advanced and freedom-loving, who can't be explained to them about good and evil. Last point: this is evil, and with this goes to the other world.

A wonderful burst of emotion ))))) what an expression )))))))

and then it immediately brings up this:

there's the penal code and other laws that generally do a pretty good job

and why else would you impose additional self-limitations coupled with absurd (from the point of view of logic) notions?

Incidentally, the Hammurabi laws, which are considered one of the first comprehensive codes, contain almost no religious norms.


The Bolsheviks tried to implement this plan - they replaced the concept of good and evil with proletarian self-consciousness - it failed, they returned, so to speak, to the bosom of Roman law. Now the cousins are trying to throw everything away: people should be free, free of everything, .... like goats in the Sahara.

It is impossible not to get past 2 historical examples here:

1) at the time of danger, Christianity did nothing to help consolidate against the Mongols and overcome feudal fragmentation

2) By the time of the October revolution Christianity in Russia was more than 1000 years old (since 988, by the way, it was violently imposed).

Orthodoxy in Russia had all the trump cards and ruled practically monopolistically (with some exceptions) for a thousand years

about 15 articles of the penal code kept it holy and canonical.

and with the arrival of the Bolsheviks it did nothing to stop the bloody bacchanalia

and the Bolsheviks aren't some other people from other planets.

they were the same orthodox Christians brought up in the same culture

who have been cleaning up and red terror and smashing churches and other atrocities with gusto.

so a thousand years of orthodoxy hasn't improved "morals" or instilled kindness and all that is proclaimed.

it's a clear example that religion is a useless superstructure.

 
transcendreamer:

so a thousand years of orthodoxy has done nothing to improve "moral qualities" or instil goodness and other things that are declared

it's a prime example that religion is a useless superstructure.

Don't just lump everything together.

It's not about religion, it's about the caveman level of thinking of people who see religion as a set of materialistic myths and fairy tales.

religion has intrinsic meanings that are usually ignored.

 
transcendreamer:

What is the fundamental difference between the chirping of grasshoppers and the pounding of wheelsets?

That's just it. That's what scares you at some point in the journey of self-development. At first you realise the horror of the circumstances in which life/train takes place when you look at it from the outside.

The next stage is when you try to get off that train. Trying to take a different path.

Then you realize that the other path is no better, it's just different. And in principle (globally), getting off the train does not give you anything either.

But choosing a way knowing for sure that it is not better than any other way. It doesn't matter if you get back on the train or not. You increase the quality of the path, or rather the inner reconciliation and hormone. You are not dissipated by regrets that you could have gone another way. You get as much as you can from what you have, the level of "feeling" increases.

I don't know whether Pelevin has remained at the stage of emptiness, having been disappointed by the absence of an ideal path. Or has ceased the search for an ideal way and has embarked on the path of one (not the essence of which), but at a higher level for himself.

I believe there is more to further stages of introspection. But I don't know.

With speedy cognition, there is a risk of getting stuck precisely in the stage of emptiness after "liberation".
That's probably why Eastern teachings take a smooth approach to the process. Stretching out, paying more attention to the preparation stage.
 
Andrei:

Don't just lump everything together.

it's not about religion, it's about the caveman level of thinking of people who view religion as a set of materialistic myths-fairytales.

Religion also has inner meanings, which are usually ignored.

You don't have to be a smart-ass to understand that if you do this or that, they may do the same to you. It is also possible to write a set of rules, even if it does not cover all situations. The main thing is that everyone should be on an equal footing, at this point everything crumbles. The search for inner meanings is a purely individual thing, and by no means an imposed one. What is the task in forcibly tying the search of meanings to state affairs. Even if a group of individuals want to search for meanings together, they will create a society. But why are they put by the state above the other society. They are just like everybody else. I am even silent about the fact that people used to be imprisoned and corporally punished for religious offenses. Apparently, they were literally looking for inner meaning in other people.

As for the fact that it's not about religion, but about the quality of those who use it. So the reason is that there are loopholes in thinking that can be used to their advantage, that is why religion should not have anything to do with public affairs, and its followers are placed higher in the legal system. The framework for society must be specific. Religion does not presuppose specificity of interpretation, which can be successfully used in worldly affairs. There is a darkness of contradictions. So, the search of meanings through religion is not the best.

Because everyone is free to search for inner meanings in his/her own way. It is not known what religion people would choose if it was not imposed from above. And whether they would have chosen it at all.
And if the task of religion was to educate the society (there were some tasks, someone did not write it for nothing). It is not known if it would exist separately from the states.
 
Andrei:

don't just lump everything together

it's not about religion, but about the caveman level of thinking of people who view religion as a set of materialistic myth-tales.

Religion has intrinsic meanings that are usually ignored.

Undoubtedly! - Christianity, Islam and Judaism have valuable legends (it is true that in some places they are considerably changed from the originals), but they are of great cultural importance all the same.

1...420042014202420342044205420642074208420942104211421242134214...4977
New comment