The Mentally Lazy Don't Get to Define "Reality"

Lazy thinking is reactionary based thinking. Emotionally-driven unconscious bullshit. The color of someone's skin, their opinion, sexual orientation, or thoughts about president X or sports-ball team Y is enough to set you off?

You're a lazy thinker. You're lazy because you're not thinking. You're reacting. What's more, lazy thinkers try to appear to do more work up front so as to create the facade that they're deep thinkers. They aren't. This is evidenced when you attempt a nuanced conversation that corners them into their own contradictory logic.

Them: GREEDY COMPANIES ARE PAYING WOMEN LESS FOR THE SAME WORK!

Me: So why aren't those greedy companies exclusively hiring women and pocketing the difference as profit?

Them: SHUT UP YOU PRIVILEGED SEXIST WHITE MALE STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT AND SHIFTING VICTIM BLAME!!!

And around we go.

Triggered?

The title of this blog post was meant to "trigger". Don't worry, there's nothing to be offended by...other than the ease with which people can be biased to think that anything that isn't touted as progressive, inclusive, or liberal AF is somehow going backwards.

It's not. People are. People are going backwards. The individual is. The smallest minority is the individual, but everyone conveniently forgets this when it suits their (individual) agenda the most.

"The world" is a clusterfuck of self-imposed human contradiction.

Simply put, most people are full of shit. So full of shit, they don't realize why or how in the first place, and this makes them legit full of shit because they believe their own bullshit unquestioningly. Information-based opinions, which are not knowledge. The average person is a clueless dolt that becomes the perfect pawn for companies, corporations, and governments to extract revenue from. These people actually thinking voting - or asking for permission to vote from their government (contradiction - permission to choose your ruler? Please...) - is an exercise in freedom. Then, those same people complain when either party messes with taxes or social programs in ways that are opposite of what was initially promised. Voters "can't believe it", yet readily line up to assume, consume, and resume business as usual. Those that deny power are the most powerless. Those that deny their own power are truly powerless.

Rational philosophy destroys all of this and leaves it shaking in the dust of its former self.

The world thrives on contradiction.

This obviously goes back to definitions, which goes back to being rational; that is, not allowing contradiction to exist in your definitions, let alone as explanations for phenomena.

Unconscious Insecurity is The Main Ingredient

The real problem is insecurity. Someone working hard reminds people that they themselves are not. Ever wonder why people get pissed about things that have absolutely nothing to do with them? Because you're an individual and "subconsciously' underneath all your bullshit programming you know reality is a function of you. What you feel IS reality. You're being reminded by another that you're merely existing, not actually living.

There's a big difference.

Existing is a static state. You're conscious, but you're unconscious of WHO you actually are - SELF. You then decorate and hide this self to satisfy arbitrary social conventions conceived by other low-conscious humans because bandwagon fallacy coupled with argument from authority.

Living, on the other hand, involves consciously choosing your response to stimuli.

A 9-5 desk job with a two hour commute that leaves you 1 hour a day to yourself is existing.

Being an entrepreneur and eating what you kill is living. Being in the moment and responding - not reacting - to reality and its participants. It's no wonder people in sales positions are generally better off not only financially, but spiritually as well. Maybe those "greedy people" know something we don't; actual human behavior.

It's like they understand that projecting an emotion is like, the entire fucking purpose of this reality experience.

Funny how that works.

Stay rational, stay sane.

-Loaded Shaman

New Decade, New SELF; So Stop "Parsing" "It" (YourSELF)

You can say subconscious, higher self, lower self, chakras, mind, body, spirit, etc.

You're completely free to model your reality this way, using those labels. But realize in the process all you're doing is adding more moving parts in your own consciousness, rather than just letting it be one thing/what it actually is. What that is, IS is. I know that sounds and reads funny but that's the accurate description. It's all of those things when you focus on them individually, but it can never reach its true potential by being approached from a raw, reductionist frame of reference, because that misappropriates, and thus dilutes, the actual efficacy of IS as a rational metaphysical primary. This then causes a whole host of cascading fallacies that carry over and infect all the other points in the Philosophical Chain of Command.

That's kind of the thing. Your entire "reality" is this frame of reference. You're existentially anchored. You're anchored as SELF amongst an infinite variety of finite manifestations of other existentially anchored SELF. That's not a grammatical error. Singular. Not "SELVES". There is no group metaphysic. All of "your" memories, thoughts, fears, and emotional reactions are only ever from the constant unmovable frame of reference that is YOU. YOU ARE YOU, and that's all you can BE(ing). Everything you know is relative to this. You absolutely exist (and you exist absolutely), or you wouldn't be able to formulate an (insanely inane) argument that you don't exist (the ultimate epistemological fallacy).

What "it" is, is IS. The IS-ness of "reality" stems from YOU - the SELF. You IS because you're ABLE to IS. Consciousness/Existence is ABLE to consciousness/existence. Again not a grammatical error. Only after Consciousness/Existence is ABLE, does it IS (notice I didn't say "becomes", "evolves" or "is created into"). I know this sounds like the absolute bat-shit crazy self-referential ramblings of some sort of Ozzy Osbourne tautology (What the fuck is this fucking fuck fucking with?!), but I assure you great care has been taken to make sure people don't think deeply on this shit.

The only "thing" which can be "actually" quantified as "real" is YOU. Everything else is a concept of your consciousness, not the other way around. Everything else is a concept from within your conscious awareness, because that's the function of consciousness; self-awareness as the constant, unmoving, existential anchoring of everything you know and think you know. That's it. To add additional and unnecessary layers of abstraction on top of this existential anchoring - such as subconscious, higher self, lower self, etc. - is to completely destroy your true connection TO yourSELF as it actually exists an experiences "reality".

"Reality" is entirely dependent on you first and foremost. Many love to argue "death is just like before you were born; you didn't exist". This is mostly justified by the lack of memory of experience, etc. Sounds logical. The only thing is the premise is irrational. "You" have always existed because that's all there is. You. SELF. There are also an infinite number of finite copies of this SELF manifesting simultaneously.

"Ego" is just a much a part of this manifestation of consciousness as anything else. To attempt to parse ego away as some sort of lower priority on the totem pole is to fall for the same trap outlined at the start of this article.

All Your Quantification Are Belong to Arbitrary (Because You Say So)

First and foremost, how are you quantifying those concepts?

Notice who's required for those concepts to have any meaning, relevance, or usefulness in daily life in the first place?

YOU.

SELF.

Without SELF CONSCIOUSLY EXISTING (consciousness and existence are the same thing, they are the only true COROLLARY)...are you just creating labels for yourself as a mental bookmark, so you don't have to think a little deeper about how to "touch yourself up" a bit, so to speak? Most of the time when we think of "spirit", it can be inspirational but the word itself can get you hung up on unrealistic and detached concepts that are actually having a negative effect on your reality instead of a positive one. You can't see them as negative effects because you're operating from a contradiction somewhere in your Philosophical Chain of Command.

Everyone IS unique, but not in the way social programming will have you "thinking" (there is no actual thought involved).

There is an "other", but not in the way traditional theologists postulate (and attempt to argue morality from).

The universe is indeed infinite, but not at all in the ways physics proclaims.

Shit is way, way weirder - despite being completely rational.

Appealing to Contradiction is Not The Way Forward in 2020

That's the amazing part. Reality IS weird as hell. We've been programmed with a plethora of lies and distortions that create a sterilized interpretation of "reality", mostly for the convenience of whatever authority figure's plan at that "point in time" (don't get me started with "time is real and is a dimension" bullshit) is.

I drink my coffee black and I eat my oatmeal with no sugar, cinnamon, or sweetener whatsoever. There's never a good argument for just listening to someone, but I assure you I'm probably the last person to allow a bias on an integral level. I shall remain as conscious and vigiliant against my own biases heading into the new decade, and I hope you'll do the same as well. We're far from perfect, but we as humans leave a lot on the table in regards to thinking clearly and rationally. Let's change that heading into 2020.

Stay rational, stay sane.

-Loaded Shaman

Information is NOT Knowledge Part 1

"Information isn't knowledge. Knowledge is information with a commensurate amount of experience to go along with it." -Al Snow

In this day and age, we're drowning in information. The real question is, what's the quality of any said piece of information at any given moment? How can you tell what's "shit" from what's "legit"? 

Who decides? 

Who can you trust? 

What sources aren't trying to deceive people for some sort of gain, be it monetary, political, or both?

The answer is rooted in understanding and reaching a rational EPISTEMOLOGY - HOW you "know what you know" is actually valid. 

The majority of human beings on this planet substitute rational epistemology for arguments rooted in authority (scientists have this all figure out). 

The reason these people have to argue via fallacy is because their root assumptions contain contradictions. Ingredients that don't belong. There is nothing to make sense out of because you have nothing to begin with. Multiply anything by 0 and see what you get.

In general people are going to be clueless that they're either abiding by or violating rational consistency, let alone where in the philosophical chain that actually IS - and how to rectify it rationally:

Metaphysic > Epistemology > Ethic > Politic > Aesthetic.

Let's use baking bread as an example.


What The F#*% Are You "Baking"?!

Could you take the ingredients used to make bread - flour, water, sugar, yeast - eat each one separately, and get the same nutritional value of those ingredients separated, as you would if they were combined into a successful loaf of bread? 

Technically yes, but you're going to have an incredible stomach ache in the process. 

This process is contradictory to health and nutrition despite containing ingredients which should feed you. 

This is an example of the correct information being applied incorrectly due to lack of experience (Part 2 is all about this portion). 

Now this isn't so bad because you already have the correct information, but you just need the experience to put it all together correctly. It's an obvious two-step process that creates a third step that transcends both steps via the genuine Knowledge created by the combination of that initial information, and the proper experience to correct your actions/behaviors accordingly.

The reason I use this example first is this is best case. Most people aren't only NOT using the correct ingredients to bake their bread, they're using foreign objects, then claiming those foreign objects are indeed yeast, flour, and sugar. They are also so programmed by contradiction they eat their own bread and convince themselves that it's bread, instead of the reality of sugar, rusty nails, a little flour, some sawdust, and glue. 

My friends, that information is not only completely irrational, it's nowhere near Knowledge.

Replace "Bread" with "Rational Philosophy"

Instead of flour, sugar, water, yeast, think metaphysic, epistemology, ethic, politic, like the previous section:

Metaphysic > Epistemology > Ethic > Politic > Aesthetic. 

When those ingredients - those "steps"- don't contradict, at all, you have solid philosophical position. 

You're "baking the bread correctly", so to speak. 

You're arguing a RATIONAL PHILOSOPHY (the entire point of this blog)!

Philosophically, many claim to be making bread, but they're actually using completely foreign objects (I.E. contradiction) in place of every correct (rational, I.E. non-contradictory) philosophical ingredient. 

Most people are substituting yeast with rusty nails, and are unable to tell the difference because everything is infinitely relative to them...because they have BOTH a contradiction somewhere in their reasoning...AND they lack the commensurate amount of experience, study, etc. to correct it.

Then, when someone else - someone with experience, and thus genuine Knowledge of this same situation/topic/etc. - bites into their bread and kindly alerts them to the fact that there are rusty nails in their bread, instead of conceding and and thanking you for enlightening them, they double down and instead argue that you don't actually know what you're tasting, and science has used this method and it works, and is thus the most valid, accurate form of information, and thus knowledge. 

Scientists have been baking bread with nails in place of yeast because that's how it is because science says so. 

Circular reasoning city. 

Circular reasoning is the only reasoning because there is no rational reason.

Their metaphysic contradicts, their epistemology is incomplete, and thus their ethic and politic are flawed by extension. 

Start with the wrong ingredients, get the wrong result. 

This is plain as day obvious when baking, but not so much when dealing with the mind. 

So, how the hell do we know what's going on here? 

How do we course correct? 

The first step is understanding and accepting that not all ingredients - information - is/are equal, and then learning how to discern the correct ingredients so you bake an indestructible philosophy that will feed yourself and the masses, for life, in terms of "philosophical nutrition".

Stay tuned for the next several parts of this article series as we delve into just how to combat this bullshit...rationally.

A Rooster Lays an Egg on a Rooftop...

The Premise: 

A rooster sits on a rooftop, facing due east.

Said rooftop is shaped like a pyramid, with four sides coming down from its peak.

The sun is rising slowly, with a south easterly wind of approximately 10 mph/km.

The rooster cries, laying an egg precisely at sunrise.

With the information provided to you, what direction does the egg end up rolling off the pyramid-shaped roof: north, south, east, or west?


The Problem with The Premise:

If you're smart, you should have stopped at the very idea of a rooster laying an egg. 

Roosters don't lay eggs. 

Hens lay eggs.

Roosters are male birds.

The entire premise of the "question" presented - even though a bunch of seemingly pertinent additional information is provided to help you calculate some scientific, deterministic/probabilistic way of predicting which direction the egg will roll - is at its root irrational. 

The definitions contradict the reality of what is observed.

It's an ontological impossibility (a hen is a hen, a rooster is a rooster) before it even leaves the gate. 

The entire point is this: if violating reason is a prerequisite for your theory or claim to make any sense, you have no "leg to stand on" regarding claims to the nature of "just what the hell is going on" regarding consciousness, humanity, and our place and function in the universe we observe. 

Stick around as I explain in plain English just exactly why this is the case.

Happy Winter Solstice 2019!

Happy Winter Solstice to all! 

Trip safe, take notes, correlate data.