Interesting and Humour - page 4207
![MQL5 - Language of trade strategies built-in the MetaTrader 5 client terminal](https://c.mql5.com/i/registerlandings/logo-2.png)
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
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.
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.
The apotheosis of permissiveness!
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.
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
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?
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...
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.
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.
What is the fundamental difference between the chirping of grasshoppers and the pounding of wheelsets?
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.
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.