(26.09.2025)
Investigations & Notes
Contents
C. What and for whom is this Book?
8.1. Philosophy of Mathematics
---
[1] This book is called “記 – Investigations & Notes”, where “記” is pronounced /ji/ and is a placeholder for the idea of a “note”, “commentary”, “record”, “reflection”, “explanation”, “writing down”, etc. This is thus a little book on philosophical reflections, akin to a diary or an exposition of thoughts.
[2] In order to fully enjoy the book, the following sections/chapters will be added. Please navigate the book using the internal structure as found below; or use the table of contents at the very beginning of the book.
1. First Part: Preparations
a. Preface
b. Dedication
c. What and for whom is this Book?
d. Why is this Book?
e. Context
f. Motivation of the Writer
g. Motivation of the Reader
h. Prerequisites
i. Acknowledgements
j. Disclaimers
k. Terminology and Syntax
2. Second Part: Corpus
[1] This work is lovingly dedicated to all the beings.
[1] This book is a collection of short thoughts.
[2] This book is meant for everyone and anyone. Particularly those interested in exploring reality.
[3] The book is written as short notes and ideas. This means that some are more personal (e.g., “I think (…)”), whereas others are more impersonal (e.g., “It is the case that (…)”).
[4] The book is highly interconnected. E.g., an entry on “life” might feature elements from “ethics” and “ontology”, too.
[5] Some thoughts are more finished than others.
[1] This book came to be in order to help and assist people.
[2] It should also help to foster dialogue within oneself, and between people.
[3] It can also assist in creating connections between people.
[4] And it can be used to help in thinking and in the exploration of reality.
[1] This book was first written in the year 2025 CE.
[2] The original authoring language is English.
[3] The aim of the book is to discuss universal truths, not current-day situations.
[4] There is one individual author behind this book.
[1] The writer sought to inspire new thoughts and ideas in people which may advance their own thinking.
[1] The reader might have various motivations that led to reading this book.
[2] Amongst them might be: intellectual thirst, seeking new ways of seeing things, training the mind, expanding knowledge, gain means to help others, etc.
[1] Any person may be able to read this book.
[2] However, certain elementary familiarity with philosophy might be helpful.
[1] We thank the following for making this book possible:
[2] To family and friends, for their love and support.
[3] To the many schools, learning institutions and teachers.
[4] To those who developed the tools by which learning and writing was made easier.
[5] To the reader, without whom this book were vacuous.
[6] To everyone who enabled the right conditions for this book to have been written.
[1] A few disclaimers have to be made.
[2] This book is not to be read as answers, but inspirational ideas.
[3] Not every topic can be covered, due to various reasons.
[4] Certain passages might involve simplification in idea and language to be more readable.
[5] The personal identity features of entities are to be understood in an open way, i.e. while there may be gender, age, language, etc., these can largely be replaced by an alternative.
[6] In matters of criticism (e.g. on religion etc.), the stance should be seen as constructive and supportive, not malicious or confrontational.
[1] This book uses a terminology and syntax standard that is shared with other projects across the greater “P-Project”.
[2] Referencing individual parts of this book can be done as follows:
[3] The book itself has the ID “A.22”.
[4] The book is followed by the chapter in this format: “A.22:#”, where “#” is the ID of the chapter, e.g. “1” for “Metaphilosophy”.
[5] The chapter is followed by the entry. This is written in this format: “A.22:1:#”, where “#” is the ID of the entry, e.g. “1” for the first entry in “Metaphilosophy”.
[6] Therefore, to reference the first entry of the first chapter of this book, we can write: “A.22:1:1”.
[7] The syntax “(: S)” means something like: “This entry was either entirely original to, or inspired by another thinker.”
[8] The date format is in the pattern “Day/Month/Year” and signifies when the entry was written.
[9] The date is of the record/entry is written as “(##.##.####)”, e.g., “01.10.2025”, prior to the entries.
[10] Quotes are written centred, italic and on a yellow background.
[11] The ID “A.2” refers to the work “P-Entries” – a collection of short philosophical propositions, questions and phrases.
[12] The entry itself is numbered as “[#]”, e.g., “[1]” is the entry with ID “1”.
---
(27.09.2025)
[1] In order to do philosophy, we need concepts, which at first get synthesised from smaller parts (e.g. from experience and from logic). But philosophy not only creates a web of beliefs, but also the methods by which we traverse it.
[2] What is the “goal” of philosophy? Is it within philosophy or outside of it? Is it to no longer need philosophy, or is it, maybe, philosophy itself?
[3] And might it not be that all of philosophy is about simplification and summarisation? To draw rules and laws where formerly individual things were?
[4] There may be beautiful ideals, perfect solutions, but if those aren’t possible to apply to the real world (e.g. what real people can accommodate), then it is futile to try (e.g. such thoughts as the “philosopher king”).
(01.10.2025)
[5] Philosophy produces a thought, but also the thinking which produces the thought.
[6] In a changing world, philosophy must exist for us to adapt. Furthermore, does philosophy question power as a mechanism? (: S)
[7] As humans we have infinite capability to come up with new thoughts, which fuels philosophy as an endeavour and will always be possible to philosophise about some thought, some concept, some creation.
[8] Since we can come up with new problems, we need philosophy, in order to solve such problems.
[9] Others will come up with thoughts and we need philosophy in order to answer them.
[10] It is boredom which leads to problems, which in turn need solutions, which rely on philosophy.
[11] There may be the subjective end of philosophy, when we as humanity think “It is done.”. But there might also be the objective end of philosophy, which is when by some kind of logic, it is determined that it cannot proceed any further. Also, there may be the end within one individual, and the end of all of humanity’s philosophy.
[12] Everyone needs to do philosophy instead of just learn the results of philosophy, i.e. they need to learn the steps and process. Thus, as long as there are people, there will be philosophy.
[13] Cannot every question be philosophical if our attitude is correct and/or we approach it properly to ask with depth and in depth etc.?
[14] Can there be philosophy about fiction? That is, about things where the result does not lead to realistic philosophy. For instance, if we philosophise about a centaur, while it may be fictitious, many things about it (e.g. form, telos, ethics) might end up in realistic attributes (e.g. we philosophise about things that belong to this world, not the fictious world, such as “matter” or “to eat” etc.). Can there be pure fiction and philosophy thereof?
[15] It seems that philosophy is a necessary therapy for our drives. Not for any and/or all drives, although that might also work, but for specific drives: the drive to curiosity, for example, is probably best solved within philosophy as a mechanism to calm and still it.
[16] There may be “still” answers, i.e. answers that do not let us proceed in philosophy and appear to be “solved”. Those might be deceptive, however, and maybe more of a problem than an actual solution. Maybe the questions weren’t asked correctly, there.
(02.10.2025)
[17] In philosophy, to be philosophy, there has to be internal honesty in the philosopher.
(04.10.2025)
[18] If we only had one mode of thinking (e.g. the “Greek” mode of thought), we’d quickly end up in a fixed, rigid and closed system. But there are multiple modes (e.g. also the “Indian” mode of thought etc.), and thus the systems give rise to variations and to changing, moving, living structures.
(08.10.2025)
[19] When everyone has different meanings for a word, philosophy is mismatched.
(11.10.2025)
[20] Why do we find the things we find in things, such as e.g. “A is the B of C.”?
[21] If a function/mechanism has been tested within a working other function/mechanism, it might be verified and can get applied other places.
(18.10.2025)
[22] In order to know what we should do, we need to think philosophically. Thus, the beginning of any great endeavour – unless sparked from impulse and feeling – is philosophical.
(19.10.2025)
[23] If people don’t disagree on language, their minds are the only thing differing maybe. (: S)
(30.11.2025)
[24] We live life through philosophy without really living it.
(08.12.2025)
[25] One can explore things by calling them with propositions and observing one’s mind. For instance, if one thinks: “This tree is tall.” and observes a short tree, a feeling of dissonance emerges.
(14.12.2025)
[26] The mental manner in which we ask questions might determine what philosophy is.
[27] Is “What is Philosophy?” a descriptive or prescriptive endeavour?
[28] Do we impose things onto reality when we do philosophy and/or do we discover what imposes itself onto us?
[29] What is the methodology of philosophy that differs it from mysticism and from science, from art etc.?
(18.12.2025)
[30] We live. We can make decisions. In order to make a decision, we need an "ought". How to decide? This is a philosophical question. Thus, philosophy is within everything and is the beginning of thought, of reason, of deciding and doing.
(26.12.2025)
[31] The artist creates, the scientist discovers. Is philosophy, is religion, etc. more like the former or the latter?
(29.12.2025)
[32] Maybe there ought to be two kinds of philosophies: one esoteric, “true”, which is used in philosophy and academic settings, and is more difficult to live with, and one exoteric, “practical”, which is used in everyday life and is maybe not necessarily true but is helpful and intuitive.
(30.12.2025)
[33] The question is also: why do we sometimes treat ideas and concepts philosophically (rigorous) and sometimes with a methodology that allows for less “rationally justifiable” results? For instance, there seem to be “taboo concepts”, which we never dare to question, change or abandon – these, rather than being tested seriously, are avoided and “immunised” through (sometimes rhetoric) means that render them immortal as a patchwork of apologies, rather than having the same status as all the other concepts. (E.g. “God”, “love”, “self”, “parents”, “freedom”, “meaning”, “reality”, etc.)
[34] It might be argued, that philosophy, rather than merely seeking truth, also tries to preserve concepts. (: S)
(31.12.2025)
[35] If philosophy and discourse were to synchronise minds, then, in order to have community and a functioning society, we might require more philosophy.
(27.09.2025)
[1] Isn’t it so, that in order for anything to occur, there has to be time? For any action might be a difference in time, no?
[2] The wind, water, everything works in balances. We might think that human thought is the one thing that can challenge balances. But maybe even this is always flowing towards the lowest place.
[3] The interesting thing is, that only in the absence of thought can we be in reality. Things just are. But only with thought can we be in a world – that is, there are individual things. And what differs here, substantially, is that in the former, the invisible remains invisible, but in the latter, the invisible becomes visible, yet only speculative as the phenomenon (i.e. inferences etc.).
[4] If we only had one thing, there’d be no meaning nor identity, nothing that we can do with it.
[5] Thus, because of A.22:2:4, only once we have two things can we say anything meaningful about anything.
[6] The idea now (from A.22:2:5) is: there might not be any properties that are closed-in-themselves. It might be that every property, everything we can say about something, is in itself a duality. For example: “A is up” because “B is down”. Because we hold those two things in our mind, we can see their difference. But the difference cannot be across different properties. The difference must always be within one shared property, but different valuations of it (e.g. “brightness” and “bright” vs “dark”).
[7] It is not quite obvious to me if things can exist “in a moment”. The moment, being infinitesimally short in time, might even be illusory to begin with. The interesting thing, of course, is, that we – typically – only operate on static things in the mind, whereas we only ever experience dynamic things in the external world. Thus, is there such a thing as “being”? Or is all just “becoming”, even if infinitesimally short?
[8] Because the moment should be infinitesimally short, but our experience of the moment is more than just that, and we cannot live in the future, we live mostly in the past and to a very tiny degree, maybe, in the present. Though I doubt the latter.
(28.09.2025)
[9] How do the following two statements differ in terms of their realness: (a) “John is in the room.”, (b) “John exists.” – The latter seems to be a substantial truth, in that it talks about an object (“John”) that is associated with reality in a way of “existing”. The former, however, requires us to have a conception of a “room”, and if our conceptions were different, could be false. Thus it is a “conventional truth” (not to be mistaken with Buddhist “conventional truths”), in that it works by conventions.
(29.09.2025)
[10] When we say: “The sky is crying.” as for describing rain, clearly in a literal sense, this is false. But in a metaphorical or poetic sense, it is true. Is it because we first need to translate into literal logic, or because metaphorical logic exists in a different realm of reasoning?
(30.09.2025)
[11] For two things might have something in common to a certain degree, but it could still be entirely a different thing and not a universal: for let us think that both A and B appear to be “red”, but in reality, A’s redness is slightly darker than B’s redness, thus there is no universal, but our minds and instruments perceive them to be the same value.
[12] Does everything require to be its own potential and actual in order to be, or at least in order to change? Can there be something that is not containing either or any of them?
(01.10.2025)
[13] Is it possible to ask a question without wanting its answer? Is it possible to take a walk without having a goal in mind? If there is no goal, no endpoint of movement, how can it emerge? Maybe, it is thus that we can infinitesimally shorten the steps and goals to make it be the step itself as the goal.
[14] Are there such things as e.g. “normal people”? Is it maybe a paradox, for to be “normal” means to be “like everyone”, but looking more deeply, nobody is like everyone, thus maybe they cannot exist?
(02.10.2025)
[15] What doesn't relate to any universe categories such as matter etc., is fiction (e.g. a transcendental being).
(03.10.2025)
[16] Since we need to talk about this world’s properties and at best can invent some – most likely based on other “real” properties –, the things of our fiction are, in a sense, only fiction insofar as their full set of details and properties doesn’t seem to exist in our world, but is still just reducible to “real” properties. Thus, philosophising about those fictitious things might, after all, result in “conventional” philosophy.
[17] As for A.22:2:2: a balance might be when two (or more) things interact and cancel each other out. But what is it that cancels out the human mind? Maybe the human mind itself?
(04.10.2025)
[18] If we only had one thing, one pole, one value, nothing would emerge. It is thus only in the presence of a second, conflicting thing that any action can occur. The tension, broken, is the origin of any movement – it is when an imbalance between two tries to reach an equilibrium. But is this always destruction? For if we have A and B (which is non-A), and we balance towards A, at its peak B will vanish. Thus, it might be the quest for “being” which leads to destruction. For A wants to be, B must not be.
[19] It is only in the balance between “Yin” and “Yang” that anything “lives”. What do I mean with this? “Yin” is the dark, flowing, relational; “Yang” is the bright, still, absolute. Where the weather is Yin, so the structures, building we engineer, are Yang. If everything we maximally fluid, nothing could emerge such as societies, buildings, stable thoughts. If everything were maximally rigid, nothing could emerge either, since only in change, difference and relationality do things “become”.
[20] Do things only have tension between each other (e.g., two particles that attract or repel each other), or also within themselves (e.g., a thing that can change states without any outside influence)? If only the former, everything is relational; if the latter, too, then everything is “tension”, “contradiction” and “paradox”.
[21] If between A and B there is a pull from A on B, then, if the pull is strong enough, A disappears, but with it the pull, so A might reappear again. This might explain infinite cycles and “cosmoses”.
[22] At the deepest level, do things both “will to exist” and “will to not-exist”? That is, is it from within a particle that it appears into the universe, and also that it can spontaneously disappear again from within itself? Or is “non-existing” due to competition and conflict?
[23] It seems that complexity gives rise to more potential to “fail”. More complex systems have more vectors of failure than simple systems, it seems.
[24] Either limitation is built-in into the cosmos (e.g., “Only n amount of particles can exist.”) and/or limitation is due to the division of the cosmos into “things”.
(06.10.2025)
[25] Why is it that the minor (“Yin”) is sometimes more powerful than the major (“Yang”)? It might be that they’re of equal power, but that suppression leads to (a) a stronger reactionary effect, and (b) perpetual “seeping” effects from within.
(20.10.2025)
[26] Is the “for” (e.g. our conscious world is for us) in non-conscious things for the entire world and/or is it truly not there at all?
(29.10.2025)
[27] We have a mental order, which we can be certain of, but can we say the same of the world external to us?
[28] Order is a mental category, i.e. whether a mind will find patterns behind something; thus it seems to be mind-dependent.
[29] What if we impose order onto the universe, e.g. in order to fit things into our mental categories?
[30] We might have evolved to see patterns of the universe by that universe, thus it is self-fulfilling.
[31] What might be complex and meaningless to us might be simple, orderly and meaningful to another mind.
[32] “Order” and “whether things conform to the mind’s rules”?
[33] Order presupposes patterns, and those presuppose repeatability and multiplicity, i.e. composition.
[34] Everything follows patterns. The question is if it’s an interesting pattern for our mind.
[35] Is a rule/law only one if it has repetition?
[36] On the human-scale, things seem chaotic, and on the quantum physical scale, too. In-between seems to be orderly to us.
(16.11.2025)
[37] Those who do not yet exist may “exist” in a “potential”, e.g. “the heir to a throne”, around which living people organise themselves.
[38] What does it mean to “need” something? E.g., to have an ought that gets necessarily fulfilled?
(17.11.2025)
[39] Is truth merely what resonates with most people’s intuitions? E.g., any proposition that strikes a feeling of “You’re right.” might be considered to be true, but not due to its correspondence or anything like it, but due to its mental effect it has on a listener and/or thinker. Therefore, “truth” might be a function of accessing some hidden correspondence of proposition with the mind’s “knowledge”.
(26.11.2025)
[40] Is necessity that which fulfils an “ought”?
(27.11.2025)
[41] Does the future count retroactively for the past?
(28.11.2025)
[42] Time as a measure of experiences of the past memories compared to our current experience.
(30.11.2025)
[43] Time is a measure of differences across the object itself, which stretches out and multiplies its properties without violating logical rules.
[44] Every manifestation chooses one over the other, thus it is limited as it can’t be everything at once. (E.g., what bodies we have)
(02.12.2025)
[45] Does a no-thing or un-thing exist or not exist? A thing can exist or not exist, but what about its opposite?
[46] Why multiple truths exist at once, e.g. “A is B.” and “Looking more closely, A is C and B is D.” etc.?
(07.12.2025)
[47] Can humans ever do anything objective if we’re subjects?
[48] In order to know whether values etc. are mind-independent, we’d need to either be non-existent and measure, which is a contradiction, or we’d need to create a means of measuring values with something that is not a human, maybe.
(10.12.2025)
[49] There might be “objective” things such as an atom, but the measurement and the choosing of it as a standard etc. might be subjective.
[50] Does the one who does something have the authority to define it, add value to it, describe it, etc.?
[51] Were we created by something consciously, would we not be merely a subservient product, a piece of quasi-art instead of our own miracle?
(14.12.2025)
[52] The “supernatural” and the rare, but also that which goes against established rules.
[53] What if there was never a first mover, but everything has always been moving?
[54] Randomness as a new causal chain. (: S)
[55] If we know any counterfactual combination, this isn’t knowledge, as that’s what we already do. It is only knowledge if it fixes reality in place.
[56] The doing of one thing means the not-doing of all other things.
(16.12.2025)
[57] Mental objects can trigger physics and vice versa.
(17.12.2025)
[58] Does the world always fluctuate between “imbalance” and “balance”? What does it mean that it is “balanced”?
(18.12.2025)
[59] We not only have material things (e.g. signs), not only their immediate mental layer (e.g. meaning), but layers upon layers (e.g. speech acts and then social constructs upon acts, etc.).
[60] The abstract propositions vs embodying them in a person, context and story
[61] The embodied proposition might also include personal social dynamics, e.g. biases due to our relationship to that person.
(19.12.2025)
[62] The situation and the casuality of the situation.
[63] What has only one option cannot have an ought. What has options needs an ought.
[64] Is the button being pushed part of the action or consequence of pushing the button?
[65] Can an event be one moment? If not, it has to be the sum of multiple moments.
(21.12.2025)
[66] What if maybe the perceived reality is the more crucial part of reality, since we can actually live in it as opposed to not living in it, and since our subjective reality has mental constructs that reality doesn’t have and we need to live in?
[67] We may live in a subjective reality and it can work, e.g. we may construct this or that idea and live in them, thus maybe the subjective side of reality is even more significant than the “real” reality?
[68] The subjective reality, perception, etc., may tell us things about our mind-body that seep into the interpretation.
[69] What is the boundary between reality and perception? E.g., is time objective or a mental thing?
[70] Reality is always constructed from experience, i.e. mental objects, e.g. “colour”, etc.
[71] The body isn’t “objective”, since it is not mind-independent, i.e. it gets affected by thoughts.
[72] Is the mind body-independent? And what would that be?
[73] Objective reality as we experience it or talk about it is always behind our subjective constructs, e.g. colours, etc. and thus is a model.
[74] We cannot easily know what is mind-independent, as often, in dreams, we may not be able to control everything, either.
[75] How many more things such as colour are there that we can’t verify if they’re mind-created since we might share that with all other humans?
[76] Are there things that are in-between objective and subjective? E.g., a relation between two atoms might be mental, but also independent of the mind.
[77] Is objective identity one that behaves expectedly similarly as if the parts belong together when operated on?
[78] What is the advantage and disadvantage of idealism vs realism? Maybe the former can give credit to mystical experiences as “escaping idealism”, and/or ethics could change how we relate to each other if we’re all mind?
[79] What would it change if everything were mind, or if there were a classical “mind vs matter” world?
(22.12.2025)
[80] If elements of the mind, e.g. logical reasoning, semantics, etc., are so fundamental, does it mean that they universe itself is - in some sense - mental?
(22.12.2025)
[81] Reason comes from a mind thinking and acting, and generating reason. If the ground of the universe isn't a mind, there's no reason to our lives. Even if there were a reason to the universe, we don't have a reason as we aren't the universe but a consequence of it.
[82] What if our logic and intuition of identity (such as the one established by the "Ship of Theseus" thought experiment) comes from the way physics works? What if, for example, identity works differently but we cannot grasp it because our intuitions we develop for thinking about identity comes from analysing physical situations of this universe's physics? What if it could be different?
[83] When A creates B, the purpose etc. that A adds to B is an internal, mental idea that A holds for itself about B, not something objective nor something in B.
(24.12.2025)
[84] What is this that is the metaphysical dimension of the “mind” vs the one of the “body”? How is it possible to have separate dimensions?
(29.12.2025)
[85] How can we know whether we are ever without consciousness? What if the time when we're seemingly unconscious, we aren't unconscious but conscious time is stretched or we simply don't remember or "are elsewhere", similar to a dream?
(02.01.2026)
[86] Is the question of “What is reality made up of?” one that can be correct or not? Is it not so that in a string of e.g. “ABC”, we can analyse it as saying “1x A, 1x B, 1x C”, or as saying “1x ABC” or any other combination of symbols? Thus, depending on how we split reality into things, maybe the metaphysics will look very differently.
[87] How is it possible for things to become different? For instance, how is it that in one moment, something is A and in another, B? That is, how do light-waves change, how does anything change or become?
[88] Since the world is changing, just by keeping up with the world we engage in some kind of “progress”, which, in a sense, is not really progress but merely keeping the status quo. Regardless, we need to change in a changing world, and this may or may not be “progress”. Thus, maybe a “progressive idea” is merely “to keep up with the world”?
(05.01.2026)
[89] What does it mean to be "real"? Would it behave differently, be interactable, possible to think of, in a different realm, ...?
(06.01.2026)
[90] To talk about anything, we need to pick out something in reality and relate other things to it. What if this first step is already the problem?
(08.01.2026)
[91] There may be the “real”, e.g. the real tree in the world. There then may be the experience of the tree. There then needs to be the “idea” of a tree based on this experience. This idea then gets filled with other propositions. There might then be “ideas about ideas” (maybe an “abstracted idea”?), or “mental fiction about mental concepts”, which talk about these concepts/ideas, in the sense that we then begin “to do” something with them.
[92] In order to see e.g. a flashing light as a light and not as two separate things (“darkness” and “light”), we require identity across time. What it cannot be is that we say “The lightness turned into darkness.”, as there’d be no overarching thing to contain both lightness and darkness, i.e. “the light”. Thus, we have the “thing”, or maybe the “object”, which is a container for ontology. Does this require the idea of a substance, is it the substance or does it employ a substance, and if so, necessarily or not?
[1] If we want to “perfect” something, there may be a problem: Where do we put the “imperfection” which makes things real? E.g., if we want to have the perfect person, how do we create the imperfections within him or her?
[2] The perfect is that which is abstract and thus alien to the external, physical world. It is also therefore that e.g. some people appear “unnatural” when they attempt to reach “perfection”.
[3] Can a thing be recursive, or is it that its instrument goes against its owner? E.g., my hand may strike me, yes, but it cannot strike itself, nor can my Self strike itself. It is my instrument, the hand, which strikes at e.g. my head.
[4] Can anything be that is not made up of parts in some or another sense? That is, even the tiniest particles in physics seem to consist of “properties”. But here is the thought: In order to understand my body, I observe the interactions between its parts, e.g. organs. In order to understand each organ, I observe the interactions between its parts, e.g. molecules. And so on. But in order to understand a thing without parts, can I even say anything about it? (It is clear that we may observe its interactions with other things, but the issue remains.)
[5] Some disagreement in matters of philosophy comes from saying that “A is B.” and “A is C.”, while really not recognising that both are true and false: For one aspect of “A” is “B” and “C”, but the totality of “A” is neither.
(27.09.2025)
[6] To say that A has this or that identity means to establish its place within our mental web of beliefs and propositions, nothing more nor less. There is no such thing as identity in the external world, the numinous. This is all about how a thing’s representation relates to other mental things within our mind. The wooden pole “isn’t a stick” nor “is it a cane”. This is in our mind. (Even it being “wood” is in our mind.)
(29.09.2025)
[7] Are there variables that are, with or without some advanced operations, “null” in identity? For instance, we say “A”, which is no truth, or “A = A”, which seems true, but once we connect A to something non-A, it gets interesting. Aside from double negation (e.g. “A is not not-A”), how do we connect A to anything without leading to falsity?
[8] Identities are only meaningful or useful if they show a relation between two (or more) things. It means nothing to say: “Tree.” and a world with only a tree in it might be at best, uninteresting. It is only when we relate two things to each other that thought becomes useful. Some may say it is the difference between things that we express, but I would say it is also the similarity (which is a negative difference, of course).
[9] It appears that we always split reality into discretes and never into continuous things (with exceptions). And there is usually no middle of opposites: e.g., we may say “tall” or “short”, but there is no real word for that which is neither or both at the same time. (: S)
[10] In any thing of analysis, we can observe the following categories of results: (a) all examples have the factor X, (b) none of the examples have the factor X, (c) some examples have the factor X. “C” can be further sub-divided.
[11] Is the continuous (e.g., the curve of a river) a symptom of mystery (i.e. not having full knowledge of e.g. the smaller parts of water that constitute the curve), or is maybe the discrete (e.g., the clear numeral division into “four apples”) a symptom of mystery (e.g. because we simplify into discrete mathematics and ontology instead of seeing an underlying continuous metaphysics)?
[12] Let us imagine that we only have the sensation of blackness (e.g. in a dark room, with closed eyes). This, in and of itself, does not yet give rise to “discrimination”, maybe even thought itself. But the very next thing that can happen, might: we remember the previous blackness. Maybe we still can’t “do” anything at this point, as there is no difference, no multiplicity, nothing, and we cannot operate on “A = A”, maybe not even recognise it.
[13] Thus (A.22:2.1:12), what needs to happen, is to (a) capture two or more mental objects in the mind simultaneously (if we were to remember one and hold the other, this still results in holding two at the same time), and (b) have them be of at least two kinds (e.g., a black and a white patch). This, then, gives rise to many new phenomena: (A) properties (insofar as they didn’t exist before), (B) “complexes” (i.e. that which occurs when two things get connected in the mind), (C) operations (e.g. “X and Y are not equal.”), (D) names (especially meaningful names, i.e. that which lets us distinguish one from another thing), (E) hierarchy, etc.
[14] We may say that every property exists in the following manner: The property itself (e.g. “colour”) has values, or actualisations (e.g. “red”, “blue”, etc.). But these – maybe necessarily – emerge as tuples from contrast and difference. For “black” to be, we need “non-black”; for “non-black” to be, we need “black”. Only in the comparison of “black” and “non-black” emerges each of them, as two variants of the same species.
[15] Moreover, there are trivial properties, such as those where we need the “negative prefix” for in language: “red”, “blue” etc. have their own words, but “existence” and “non-existence” have no unique word, and require to be expressed using one of them using the “non-“-prefix.
[16] Is “existence” a unary or binary property? We said that unary property might not exist, so let us explore: I cannot say that anything exists if I don’t have an understanding of non-existence. If something can only exist, can we even talk about its existence? But where does non-existence lie in our reality? Nothing simply “disappears”. Everything is merely transformation. Thus, whence does “non-existence” come from? It is precisely in the mental operation of a comparison: When I think of “black” and then of “white”, I recognise that “black” is “non-existent” and thus, as an inversion, “white” is “existent”. Thus, maybe it is that “existence” is that which follows non-existence and should be secondary.
[17] Of course, we can also say that there are unary properties and it is merely a logical operation on them that produces their second counterpart, i.e. the negated property.
[18] Is a degree of a property one value (e.g. “tallness”) or is it actually two values (e.g. “tallness” vs “shortness”) with a continuous metre between them?
[19] If we have a property P1 which has three values x, y and z, then the rule: “Every P must have values a and non-a.” turns into the values “x, y, z, non-x, non-y, non-z” of which “non-x” can be “y” or “z” and so on, thus is fulfilled.
[20] For “existence” and “non-existence”, the latter might be a logical operation on a unary “existence” property. But for “red, blue, green” we cannot say “non-red = some mystical colour that’s not defined”, but “non-red = either blue or green” in this colour spectrum. Thus it is my belief that the operation for “non-A” is not merely an operation but a selection from amongst the alternatives in the space of a property (e.g. “non-existence” or “blue”, “green”).
(30.09.2025)
[21] Might the thing that emerges from comparing different things not be what they all have in common, but what none of them have in common or something else entirely (i.e. metaphysically speaking)?
[22] If A and B are only identical, there is not much we can say about their relation(s). If A and B are only different, we cannot even conceive of them in one statement. Thus, only when A and B have at least one similarity and one difference, can we do anything sensible with them (in thought).
[23] In all of our scientific endeavours, are we not looking at patterns? Thus, at what is similar but also different. That is, we observe how similar things express their differences in different ways.
[24] In an analysis, we look at the “real” thing and its parts. But also at the abstractions and syntheses therefrom. Is there something else aside from this that seeps into analysis?
[25] When two things are different, e.g. “A” and “B”, then seeing B we say “A isn’t.” – this means that “non-existence” is the differential between things. (: S)
[26] Is a thing basically like a mathematical set, with its properties being the members of the set (or at least possible to express in this way)?
[27] Do relations depend on elements, i.e. only once we have two or more elements can there be a relation?
(03.10.2025)
[28] Because of A.22:2:6 and A.22:2.1:16, we may postulate that every property is to be thought of as requiring its opposite.
(04.10.2025)
[29] If we have two systems, A and B, and they begin to influence one another, how should we think about this? If B influences A, it might do so in two ways at least: (a) it triggers a movement inside of A, (b) it introduces or removes a part of A. In the former case, parts of B are indirectly within A as an effect – e.g., a friend might prompt us to rearrange our house, without actually ever adding or removing any furniture. In the latter case, parts of B are directly within A as a constituent – e.g., a friend might bring over furniture or borrow some of ours. When do we speak of “fusions” and when not?
(06.10.2025)
[30] In order to work with anything, we need to define things. And defining means to limit. Thus, in order to work with anything, we need to limit.
(09.10.2025)
[31] If we know the “negative” (i.e. “not-A”), we know the “positive” (“A”) by inference.
[32] Is it maybe that the extremes are always clearly pronounced, but the balance(s) can be manifold, thus is never clear and has less supporters?
[33] If we have two villages, A and B, that is, the red and the blue villages, but there are people in both that want to move to the other, a “problem” emerges: Either the migrants are unhappy in their new village, or the village has to adapt to them. If the blue village turns red due to this, the blue will be unhappy; if it stays blue, the red will be unhappy. If it turns purple, the question is: (a) will it be good for everyone (“optimism”), or (b) will it be bad for everyone (“pessimism”)?
(10.10.2025)
[34] How many things may be confused due to temporal errors, such as retroactively interpreting things and seeing a completely different image than what has originally happened? (: S)
(11.10.2025)
[35] Two dualities that are connected over one of their poles, i.e. interconnected and entangled dualities.
[36] The lack in something invites the mind, thus expands the wholeness of the thing.
(12.10.2025)
[37] The absolute thing that is in itself its own ground as opposed to being grounded in other things of which it is a “symptom”.
(14.10.2025)
[38] Is “more of A” still “A”? Or is quantification already a difference in ontology?
(19.10.2025)
[39] The Nothing as a placeholder that reveals things about the things that exist and their relations to each other, but isn’t a thing itself.
(23.10.2025)
[40] To express something with only itself is no “meaning”. “Meaning” comes from expressing a thing with other things. (?)
(26.11.2025)
[41] The necessary and the sufficient may not be clear as a term etc. may change over time and never have a static nature.
[42] With logical and ontological fixing of things into place, we gain clarity and precision, but also lose flexibility, ambiguity and “life”.
(30.11.2025)
[43] What something is and how it manifests and expresses itself in terms of e.g. “What is X?”-questions.
(05.12.2025)
[44] The “perfect, symmetric, impersonal, universal, flawless, ...” avv in terms of the one that belongs to everyone yet none, and the one that is personalised and takes on a manifestation, is thus asymmetric but “more perfect” due to that.
(07.12.2025)
[45] What is the opposite of something? Is it in the same category a different thing, or is it a no-thing, or something else?
(08.12.2025)
[46] There may be infinitely many things, but sometimes, they are of such little difference to one another that having one of the things amounts to practically having all of them.
(10.12.2025)
[47] Everything is only what other things are, e.g. “A tree is leaves, branches, roots, ...” but no “tree” exists. The same goes for those constituents or things we relate to the tree.
(13.12.2025)
[48] What are the minimals of ontology? Having just one thing is not enough. We need at least difference, i.e. two things. But they must have something in common. And they must be able to get grouped, etc. (?)
(14.12.2025)
[49] The way a discussion is not continued over the same topics, but tied together across different topics interwoven, so too, is a human a continuation of different things interwoven.
(21.12.2025)
[50] Are most of our objects hollow, i.e. if asked we couldn't properly define them?
[51] Is something of size 0 "small"? For something to be small or big, it needs size.
(22.12.2025)
[52] The things that behave the same under labelling, naming and in propositions but, when experienced, described etc. show nuances, e.g. "the other as mundane".
(23.12.2025)
[53] "Perfect" means something relative to a value standard.
(03.01.2026)
[54] Can a factual thing ever be mixed with normativity? E.g., if knowledge requires moral justification, we mix an “is” with an “ought” in its ontology. Can this be? (And what about medicinal diagnoses?)
(08.01.2026)
[55] Is there a “should” in mental objects? E.g., why do we group properties the way we do into things?
(22.12.2025)
[1] What are the minimal rules for a system to do anything?
[2] What makes a rule "true"?
[3] How do I know whether a system is right or not? (E.g. is explosion "bad"?)
[4] Are axioms the ones that can only be written in their way? – Or are they axioms because they “feel correct”? – Or because they and their results don’t create explosion, absurdity or contradictions?
[1] Are we the external world, e.g. the tree we observe? Clearly not. Are we our deeper drives, instincts and physiological responses? Clearly not. But we consider the former “outside” and the latter “inside”, i.e. further in front and further behind “us”. We might, therefore, be a horizon between the external and internal worlds, a kind of filter or lens that operates at the junction between “out” and “in”.
[2] Can we choose our wants? Can I choose that I will be wanting a cup of tea later? Maybe not. Can I choose that I just wanted to think of this? Maybe not. Thus, what I am is in-between the prior and future wants. I am that which mediates wants, that which continues wants, the thought that processes wants into more wants. I am the servant of wants, and ultimately, of life itself.
(29.09.2025)
[3] To follow means to give up one’s agency, to subordinate one’s will to another’s will. Thus, we no longer truly live, but become a vessel for another’s will; and they live through us, as an extension of their power. – It is to be drunk.
[4] Are we the same consciousness as a moment ago? Or does consciousness flicker into existence? And what about during the night: Does a new consciousness emerge and is born, or is the old one merely dormant for a while? Is deep sleep the same as or different from death?
(30.09.2025)
[5] Is anything we do co-authored by more internal and/or external forces (e.g. our instincts, drives, or the weather, other people, etc.)? What does it mean to “author our own life”?
[6] Are we the degree of conscious control we have over things? E.g., we might have more control over faculties and parts of the mind as we become more “conscious”, thus expanding our “influence” and “become more” (i.e. as opposed to being e.g. intoxicated etc.).
(01.10.2025)
[7] Are we fragmented into different faculties, parts, sub-selves etc.? Or are we a whole, whether indivisible or not?
[8] If we weren’t ourselves, does consciousness matter more than identity? E.g., if I were to be in “Heaven”, and were to lose my identity in favour of pure happiness, would the trade-off be worth it or not? And why or why not?
(06.10.2025)
[9] There seems to be more than one voice of the “Self”. Some “we” disagree with. But how is this possible? Maybe “we” are meta-values that get attributed onto more direct values and propositions from other parts of the mind?
[10] Maybe “we” don’t have “felt propositions” or emotions, but only channel them through a web of rational evaluation.
(08.10.2025)
[11] To see oneself, there must be the other.
(09.10.2025)
[12] It might be that no single property of ours – i.e. primary properties – is not found in others, but it is the combination of those, and their emergent properties and things, which others do not share with us.
(11.10.2025)
[13] The self-objectification by making oneself a project, e.g. in “wellbeing” and in economics etc.
[14] The dream of another is stronger than what we experience of ourselves. Thus, we can live through another and feel like we benefit from it, i.e. “distancing ourselves from ourselves”.
(12.10.2025)
[15] Is the “Self” that which holds all “real” things together but isn’t a thing itself?
[16] If behaviour is not the person, but personality gives rise to behaviour, and biology to personality etc., then can we really separate one part from the Self?
(19.10.2025)
[17] The universe is us, but we only access ourselves?
(23.10.2025)
[18] Does non-being belong to anyone or is it shared?
(05.11.2025)
[19] Gender not as a feeling maybe but as an observation of others from the outside?
(10.11.2025)
[20] Whatever we define, e.g. a “chair”, that which satisfies the definition under physical transformation might be its “Self”. – Given that 1) almost anything about us can change in theory, 2) even the continuum of consciousness gets interrupted in sleep, it may indicate that our Self is not purely mind, but must be body, too. Otherwise, we have many Selves, one each day anew. – We tend to identity this with consciousness, but really, it is the layer beneath it that is our “Self”, no? Maybe the brain’s structure? - Since, of course, even that can change, I believe it is the tendency for being somewhat similar across time to constitute a "Self". Since the brain changes, the question is: How much can it change and still be the same brain? - So, really, that what "we" are is essentially a kind of similarity of things that are not necessarily the same thing (i.e. different instances of consciousness across days).
(16.11.2025)
[21] We are what we experience ourselves as, and others the same for them; but they also are what we experience them as, etc.
[22] The pure realm of ideas and logical units, and how that one might be below or behind the way we experience what we are. (Or it is added.)
(06.12.2025)
[23] Is the experience, the living, of having a certain type of body a prerequisite of being a certain type of person?
(19.12.2025)
[24] If one has a technologically modified body, is that part of the body or not? And is it part of the Self or not? What if that part is connected to further structures, e.g. a building? (E.g. when electrically charging an artificial body part)
(21.12.2025)
[25] We can’t be the region of our body, since there are constantly foreign things (e.g. atoms) going in and out of this region.
[26] We might not be consciousness, but the process behind it – therefore, upon bodily death, it is not that “we” are not because no consciousness or mind exists, but because the processes cease?
(23.12.2025)
[27] If we are what we can influence, but we can influence an apple, we cannot be the apple, thus we are not what we can influence (directly).
(26.12.2025)
[28] Is what we are something we have gained?
(04.01.2026)
[29] Is there something about the intuition that “we are our mind” which conflicts with ethical intuitions about whether it’d be right to harm, kill or otherwise mistreat the body etc. irrespective of the mind if that were not to be affected? Or, if we are only the mind, might there be ethical concerns that regard the body as its own entity worth of moral worth?
[30] There is very much a person already here even prior to conception: it is the hypothetical person. This is similar to the hypothetical person after their death. This construct, insofar as maybe all - even living - persons are but that, serves our navigation in life, e.g. by being able to plan and promise.
[31] What "we" are is a label for a sub-set of mental processes, which however seem interdependent with other parts of the mind, which seems dependent on the body, thus, either we "are" the body and mind, or we "are" a functional part of our mind.
[32] What if we are not a clean-cut thing that has precise boundaries where you could amputate parts and are left off with "ourselves"? What if instead we are a continuum, where, if e.g. we amputated a limb, we'd no longer be the same "us", and so on, but never with a clear-cut boundary?
(05.01.2026)
[33] Have we “worked to get the face we have”? If we are our body, then this body did the work in developing the face we have.
[34] If we are a part of the mind and the mind is body, we are a part of the body. Why ought we think that we are just one part of the body if there isn't a clear division in the body to begin with?
(06.01.2026)
[35] The physical self is connected to and interdependent with other physical selves, maybe even a continuous one. Are the minds the same but dissociated or are they truly distinct, split, separated things?
(07.12.2025)
[1] If “free will” were “to be able to do otherwise”, then randomness would mean free will.
(12.12.2025)
[2] Of course, if we are free, then at some point our freedom might conflict with observable laws or the freedom of others. So maybe it's impossible to be free as we all need to get coordinated by common laws?
(14.12.2025)
[3] What we are free to do is our free will, but it is not the way we would hope it to be. Thus, both is “correct”.
[4] Free Will and multiple different origins of logic and rules.
[5] Can we make decisions and/or are we the original cause of this decision? (: S)
[6] Difference between probabilistic and deterministic (in Free Will etc.).
[7] Our valuing, evaluation etc. may restrict us to exactly one outcome.
[8] It might be the “algorithmic object” that has to cause a physical law’s modification to be able to be “free”. But whence does this come from?
[9] We do things. These things come from reasons. If we can modify the reasons, are we free? If we can’t, are we free? What if the reason is deterministic vs probabilistic?
[10] What even is “choice”? Is it a kind of selection of one over the other where the cause originates in a mind? – Do we align our want with a calculation and a situation?
[11] If other forces (e.g. desires, fears, ...) can impact our will, does it mean that our will is a type of force, too?
[12] If we modify ourselves to be “free”, we did so based on who we were, not on any arbitrary possibility. Thus, we would then be a different kind of “free” than if we were a different person, and therefore, we cannot be “ultimately free”.
[13] We need to be something. And something decides/selects from between the possible variations. Therefore, we cannot be everything.
[14] Wants can only come from a being. If something is everything, it wouldn’t be, as it didn’t choose between the variations of being it should be. Thus it would have no “will” or “wants”.
[1] My wanting to drink tea is a consequence of life, because it unfolds within life (in myself). My wanting to live is a consequence of life, likewise. And even me wanting to end my life would be a consequence of life. Thus, maybe paradoxically, even a desire against life is a consequence and a product of life.
[2] Whatever we think of life, whether we like or dislike it, we are and we use life to do so. Thus, life is the absolute frame within which all unfolds (for us).
[3] The fear of death is what inhibits our living; we become inanimate. Yet, without it, we’d meet death sooner.
[4] Life is a tragic struggle of avoiding the inevitable. A fleeting melody, a blooming blossom that soon withers, and that is perfectly apparent to all.
[5] We wish for life; that much is clear. But when wishing for e.g. an afterlife we become convinced of it, now we have much more life: this life and the afterlife. Thus, mathematically, this life loses value.
[6] To some, the fear of death is too much and they might need afterlife hope. To others, the desire for the afterlife is too much and they will neglect this life.
(28.09.2025)
[7] What is life? It is movement, doing, change. But change means the death of one and the birth of another. Thus, life is a continual process of dying. (: S)
(04.10.2025)
[8] Our life is a balance of balances. Too much of one force would destroy it. And interestingly, it seems that we want to “become”, not just “be”. Maybe this is an instinct, a drive, a will that is here because other things also “are” and “do”. We need to keep up with other things in order to “remain”.
(10.10.2025)
[9] To live such that one’s death becomes a tragedy.
(19.10.2025)
[10] Is the survival of the mind’s “DNA” more primary than the body’s, in that we can still exist in others if their minds adapt to our ideas?
[11] Maybe we have to distract ourselves from being alive to stay alive?
(04.12.2025)
[12] Is life only valuable for a living being, while being alive? If not, then we might have an imperative to procreate, as infinitely many beings are “in bad” who aren’t yet alive.
(18.12.2025)
[13] What constitutes an illness?
(27.09.2025)
[1] The enemy of the oppression will, in a sense, have to become the oppressor and inherit power to free themselves.
[2] A simple analysis of power could be: A holds arms, B doesn’t. Thus, A holds power over B.
[3] A more interesting situation is: If there are three people (A, B, C), and A and B are allied, then each of them holds power over C. But even more than that, if none are allied, but C thinks that A and B are allied, then A and B hold power over C.
(01.10.2025)
[4] When we give up our authority by delegating it to another’s authority, we do so by our authority – thus, we are responsible for what follows, to some degree.
(02.10.2025)
[5] Is it not also an exercise of power by not harming something? For instance, if we were to refrain from killing animals for food, is this not also a demonstration of power – we refrain, and refrain goes against a force, our power, thus proves this power.
(03.10.2025)
[6] Does power aim for a higher quantity that can never be perfected?
(05.10.2025)
[7] “Health”-culture and obeying in masochism to the authority of a sub-culture.
[8] It is when we perform masochistic, self-disciplinary rituals outwardly, that others are satisfied. For to them, then, we become docile, domesticated, harmless.
[9] Others engage in masochistic rituals to internalise power structures, so, if another does not do that and rebels, it can feel as unfair – “Why should you be free if I enslave myself?”
[10] Is it not so that society has built-in structures of “morality”, such as for example: “You ought to discipline yourself in ways A in order to attain the good B.” Discipline, order, structures like that are ingrained and work as a social code, a game, a language. We have preestablished axioms, e.g., “You ought to be healthy.” and preestablished rules for the game of how to achieve these results, e.g. “To take walks leads to being healthy.” – The latter being disciplinary structures. But is it not so that those disciplinary structures might be enjoyed for their own sake, without their original intent and their results?
[11] Does the friend who urges us to tidy up our room really want our best, or do they merely want to uphold and establish power structures and “tidy up the world”? Is it maybe that they enforce a structure they barely believe in, thus practice “sadism” and “masochism” in conjunction, by being a tool for another power, yet also gaining gratification from exercising power?
[12] How can we be sure that we selflessly, lovingly and altruistically “advice others” and not sneak in (a) self-gratification, (b) power enforcement, (c) Schadenfreude at others’ conformity, etc.?
[13] Modern man, instead of being judged by a judge and sent to prison, is judged by a psychiatrist and sent to the hospital.
[14] Maybe the authentic act is that which occurs in shame – for shame is the other’s exercise of power gone wrong.
[15] Wherever fear (of shame, guilt, blame, etc.) surfaces, domination and power structures are at play.
[16] Power may be more about what is perceived rather than an objective fact of the matter, e.g. to fear that someone could shame us.
[17] Power is always a relational property. There might not be just “power”, only “power to do A”.
[18] Is the defiance of suffering a pleasure stemming from the experience of power?
(06.10.2025)
[19] Might there be a kind of “perverse enjoyment” in becoming a subject of surveillance?
[20] We may imagine that at its maximal extent, all we want is to be perfectly mighty, alone on a throne over our own lives, without bothering others. But is this the case? Or might we actually (then) want to further extend this power over others?
[21] In how we “correct” ourselves, we “give” to society in a ritualistic act of loyalty and submission. Insofar as we have “flaws”, we can give. Thus, they who are most flawed can give most and show their loyalty best.
[22] Power, much like freedom, is a currency we cannot hold as its end-goal, but as a means for other goals.
[23] Weakness – i.e. the absence of power – may lead to neurotic strategies, which harm. But is it not a matter of reality that much of life is unbearable for one’s power alone? It might thus be only in the power of community that life itself can be dealt with without neurosis. And some things, we may never have the power for, not even collectively. Which are these neuroses of mankind?
(09.10.2025)
[24] The power of the drive of e.g. “eros” might be an escape, a venting that exists because oppression exists.
[25] The dilemma of the world is: Do we have states that battle each other, or do we have a desert in which we starve?
(15.10.2025)
[26] Is power always mediated through threats and fears?
[27] We need communication to spread power.
[28] Hard vs soft power and speech, e.g. arms and threats vs speech and etiquette (and is all power based on speech?).
(27.11.2025)
[29] Power is everywhere. It is displayed and communicated. Even in relationships, we need to be stronger or at ease with the other’s communication of their power.
(30.11.2025)
[30] If we want power, we want potentiality for something else (i.e. the state of being able to overcome what we don’t want). But this is one step shy of wanting what we really want, i.e. that for which we need power.
(21.12.2025)
[31] We all grow up into being instruments of established power.
(02.10.2025)
[1] Because we’re free, we’re lonely. Freedom is the absence of restrictions. Love and togetherness restrict us. Thus, loneliness it the ultimate end of freedom.
(03.10.2025)
[2] If we were to lead the idea of freedom to an extreme, a society would disintegrate, for freedom means “no bonds”, and a society is defined by bonds.
(04.10.2025)
[3] By completely liberating the individual they also lose what liberty was here for: in a vacuum, the given freedom cannot be exchanged for anything anymore and becomes void of any meaning.
[4] People don’t want to be “completely free”; they want to be “free from what they don’t want”, but they want the shackles of “what they want”. (E.g., a person will not want to be in isolation and be free from responsibilities, but will want to be free from “undesired bonds” and that in others which offends them.)
[5] Freedom spells nihilism. As freedom is the absence of certain things, it has to disintegrate values to be called “freedom”. – The paradox is: Freedom is desirable because some values want to manifest and actualise themselves. But in turn, they have to rid themselves of the very objects of their endeavour, i.e. that which they want to exercise power over. (I.e., “freedom stems from value”, “values want to manifest themselves”, “values manifest through power”.)
[6] Of course, freedom as the aim for “lack of limitations” must, in turn, limit other things to be that. (: S)
[7] If now, freedom as an absolute is pure tyranny and nihilism, how should we think about it? When people seek “liberty”, they might mean to say: “I seek to dominate.” – In focusing on one’s own “passive, pacifist” freedom, in the inverse, on the other side, reactively, the other gets oppressed and controlled. It is not direct oppression, but indirect – as if we were to lower our end of a seesaw to elevate the others’.
[8] If my freedom is your oppression and vice versa, this leaves us with two options: (a) a conflict through power, (b) the establishment of a relationship, i.e. to communicate, learn about the other and result in a balanced compromise.
(05.10.2025)
[9] Both the positive command (“Do A!”) and the negative prohibition (“Don’t do A!”) inhibit freedom.
(06.10.2025)
[10] Freedom as absence of restrictions (e.g., “no limits to one’s own power”) is no power, but freedom as presence of assistance (e.g., “interference in other people’s freedom”) is an exercise of power, specifically against the freedom of others.
(10.10.2025)
[11] Since we need to care for our freedom when we have it, we’re unfree in doing so.
(02.11.2025)
[12] Is the “freedom to X” really just “power”?
[13] Truth is limiting, insofar as once we know it, we cannot fantasise anymore or hope.
[14] Care for others restricts our freedom.
[15] By virtue of having to coordinate a group, one gives away freedom.
(30.11.2025)
[16] If we have the power to overcome obstacles, is this the same as not having obstacles?
[17] Is it freedom to do what we want or should we do what we don’t want?
[18] Is freedom the absence of what constraints our will to be expressed?
[19] Does freedom proportionally mean responsibility? Since, what we can choose, we need to deal with in its consequences.
[20] Our freedom is others’ use of power. I.e., if I’m free to do something, it means others use their power to allow me to do this. (To some extent.)
[21] Is it “freedom from the bad” or “freedom from what we don’t want”?
[22] Is abandonment and neglect a type of forced freedom unto someone?
[1] There seems to be a kind of “knowing” that is beyond propositions. At least superficially. For consider what the difference is in knowing that “I am myself.” and “I am myself.” Propositionally, they’re the same, but experientially, phenomenologically, in one we can say that we have a kind of technical and linguistic understanding of a fact, in the other we deeply feel and dive into the fact. There is a “feeling” dimension to knowledge.
(29.09.2025)
[2] It is said that we can know what we do, but is this really the case? Maybe it is inevitable, but only the initial impulse in the mind – not the entirety of what we do, especially not that which is subconscious or not fully conscious.
(01.10.2025)
[3] To learn the solution is not the same as going through the process of discovering the solution for oneself.
(04.10.2025)
[4] Even if we merely observe or learn some proposition(s), we don’t passively “absorb” truth, but actively (co-)create it. To learn means to create the learnt. To experience reality (to some extent) means to create reality.
(23.10.2025)
[5] If at the extreme a belief etc. feels absurd and thus is “false”, why should it at the most minimal feeling of absurdity not already be “false”, too?
(09.11.2025)
[6] Does trust create belief (e.g. trust in the source of information)?
[7] To treat something as “true” is not equal to “to believe”.
(26.11.2025)
[8] The curiosity of today is the practice of tomorrow. I.e., what we find interesting today and learn about but don’t implement in daily life, might lead to a technological change tomorrow.
(30.11.2025)
[9] To know what is good we must first establish whether it is truth, and then how does this epistemology work? Is it based on simply one intuition?
(03.12.2025)
[10] Are there universal truths or are they divided into infinitely many discrete truths?
[11] Whence does knowledge come from, e.g. empiricism or language?
[12] Are only mechanics à priori but all our beliefs based in empiricism?
(07.12.2025)
[13] Why do we even think about something being possibly so? E.g., why do we even think of objective reality in the first place, as an option?
(08.12.2025)
[14] When a thing cannot be analysed from another, i.e. appears together with another, one cannot study it. When a thing is beyond a horizon of interaction, one cannot study it.
(10.12.2025)
[15] For a statement to be true, must it be honest or not?
(16.12.2025)
[16] In language we cannot know what the world is, thus we present our own inner ideas about a world, but never truly test them against a real world.
(18.12.2025)
[17] Can we know things by themselves, or do we always know them by a process of testing? E.g. "The fire is hot because when I touch it, it burns." requires not only "The fire is hot." but also "I touch the fire.".
[18] We can know what could happen, but not what something is (or maybe what it does, has, etc.).
[19] We have internal models of things out there, which have rules, and based on tests we can infer whether the rules get satisfied or not and thus if it is likely that the model's ontology is fulfilled and thus whether such an actual thing might exist or not.
[20] We know by interaction. Either the other thing or us, or both, have to act and meet our mind to give us information.
(21.12.2025)
[21] Would a model of reality and a way of thinking that is congruent with reality even be the most useful?
[22] External reality has things that we observe. We may see similarities amongst them. We carve out boundaries amongst them to create things. Then we add operations on them, e.g. relations.
[23] We carve out things from reality by geometry, but in order for that we already need to have an idea of similarity, which might presuppose things that can get related to create a geometry.
(22.12.2025)
[24] An epistemology requires a world, thought, language, systems and (possibly) action, revision.
[25] The stories we tell as explanations might be fictitious, e.g. there being something that ignites the fire might just be the rules of atoms.
(26.12.2025)
[26] Investigating reality and not truth but the boundaries of how things behave and what seems possible.
(27.12.2025)
[27] Is, when we imagine ourselves in a situation (e.g. through empathy), more subjective and thus fallible, but at the same time, some things aren't possible objectively, e.g. subjective experience or ethical situations?
(28.12.2025)
[28] The skeptic as an attitude towards their beliefs, e.g. "I believe A but I don't believe that I know A.".
[29] Can we be sceptical about our skepsis, e.g. "I don't know if I don't know."?
(29.12.2025)
[30] Should it be more intuitive to think that rigorous, systematic and well-formed study arrives at truth, or instinctual intuitions?
(31.12.2025)
[31] Does knowledge of anything presuppose knowledge of oneself and the epistemic process, i.e. in order to understand biases etc.?
[32] Wisdom and “wisdom propositions” are, in some sense, a poetic and didactic way to invoke and provoke an intuition, feeling or understanding that isn’t strictly propositional itself.
[33] Is wisdom something like “the greatest and right kind of knowledge”?
(02.01.2026)
[34] Maybe it is that metaphysical questions require us to experiment with properties or entities that we cannot manipulate, e.g. we cannot play with “time” but we can do so with an “apple”.
[35] Can we even test whether something is real or not? Maybe we can test whether something is mind-independent or not, but not whether it is real or not.
(05.01.2026)
[36] Does our epistemology result in subjectivism? E.g., if we say that "There is a green tree.", the "tree" is our subjective classification, the "green" is a subjective experience etc.
(06.01.2026)
[37] What justifies the introduction of a new concept and is it really necessary?
(07.01.2026)
[38] "This sentence exists." as an alternative to the "I think, I am."
(26.10.2025)
[1] Is the intuition the evaluation of something or ...
(30.11.2025)
[2] If atomic logic and intuitions satisfy a complex object A, but A as a whole gives a different intuition than the assembled, synthesised intuition, is the atomic logic maybe false or the complex intuition? That is, is “rationality” maybe false to begin with?
[3] We have an intuition for something based on an implicit, subconscious examples, an instance, a manifestation thereof. E.g., “Lying is bad.” because of a situation in which the lying leads to something bad?
(14.12.2025)
[4] What is it that there are intuitions for e.g. binary logic, but “none” for e.g. fantasy logics and “impossible”, “magical” constructs? Maybe the things we have “clear” intuitions for are those that we know how to loop back onto each other and create coherent systems?
(19.12.2025)
[5] Might necessity lead to a change in intuitions? E.g. if we become dependent on technology to be a body, will we start to see these parts as if they were ourself?
(21.12.2025)
[6] Why are some situations the basis for our intuitions that we carry into other situations and not vice versa?
(22.12.2025)
[7] The intuition for a situation etc. might depend on another situation we connect it to, subconsciously.
(05.01.2026)
[8] What if our intuitions in ethics etc. were never meant to take to these extremes, e.g. across species etc. but have always been about insular situations?
[9] Is the specialist sensitised or desensitised? That is, e.g. a medical doctor, are they more apt to make judgements about medicine or less, since they might be more sensitised to the topics from exposure, but also desensitised from overexposure.
(30.09.2025)
[1] When uttering a belief, is it because we believe it or because we doubt it and thus need to reinforce our faith in it?
[2] In uttering a belief, do we impose it onto others or onto ourselves (primarily)?
(07.10.2025)
[3] Statements that we believe in due to the preparation in our minds before we encounter the statement.
(09.10.2025)
[4] Do we speak beliefs to test them and to want affirmation, or maybe rather conflict? I.e., if others agree, it may satisfy us briefly, but feels “empty” and “unsuccessful” in our meaning.
(20.10.2025)
[5] “I believe A.” vs “I don’t believe A.” and the latter is not “I believe non-A.” – Is the latter “I believe B.”?
(26.10.2025)
[6] What should have precedence: feeling vs reason?
[7] Can we ever be offended about our beliefs being wrong? Are beliefs the thing that aren’t “us” anyways, and whatever is true we’ll believe anyways?
(19.12.2025)
[8] A public belief is one that is shared and agreed on by multiple.
(04.10.2025)
[1] When people speak of “my truth”, one way in which they might mean this is: “This is my manner of relating to the world.”
(21.12.2025)
[2] Truth is a relationship between thought and something.
[3] What is convincing needn't be true and vice versa.
(22.12.2025)
[4] What is truth if it needs to satisfy both the system's consistency yet also congrue to a world?
[5] What is the truth behind "A = A"?
[6] Is truth collapsable to "whatever gives rise to humanly helpful systems"?
(27.09.2025)
[1] There is always a part of ourselves in whatever we observe, I think, and thus what appears beautiful might be about ourselves, too. (: S)
(01.10.2025)
[2] When A is beautiful to us, this means that we judge it to be so and it “fulfils us”. By our authority and our worth, A now has been praised to be good for others. Thus, in a sense, A is good for itself if A can be beautiful, for now it has “justified” itself in the face of other things, insofar as we can say that.
(10.12.2025)
[3] The readiness to be moved by an art piece may be what constitutes something as art as opposed to not art.
[4] Do we enjoy art because others enjoy it? E.g., if there is a famous artist, we might enjoy them even though the only reason might be because we’ve heard they’re famous.
[5] Difficulty?, skill, effort, history, collective experience, worth in an economy, what the art piece does, aesthetic effect on senses, see the mind of the artist, message, creativity, reference and expression of a context?, innovation, surprise, provokes thought and feeling or doing, uniqueness, intentional triggering of emotions and thoughts, what someone is looking for (e.g. to get inspired), fulfilling own preferences and tendencies, something that we value is seen in the art piece, therapy (e.g. horror), ...
[6] If art creates effects that aren’t possible to consciously realise, how can we evaluate the art? (E.g., subconscious effects and influences)
[7] Art may be good not only because of what really went into it, but what we fantasise went into it.
[8] Is art the bit of meaning that we may not otherwise get in philosophy etc.?
[9] The kind of asymmetry-symmetry balance that is indicative of humanity might be the coefficient we desire, also in art.
[1] We think about the goals in life and ask ourselves: “Is happiness the goal?” As I have found,
[A.2:3:2151] What gives us happiness might be the goal, and happiness is but its smoke.
As smoke is to fire, so happiness is to the real goal. But what is this real goal?
[2] If I praise you, with which authority do I do this? Is praise not a kind of power dynamic, where the more powerful is thus he who confers upon the inferior their boon, which that one has deserved? Who am I to say that you’re good or bad? Do I not position myself into a god’s shoes?
[3] And is not a statement such as “You are bad!” a strike of the tongue, a mental whipping, a type of power display and violence? But to say "You're good!" still upholds abuse, since we say: "Normally I'd punish you, but you have satisfied me, so I let it slide." By saying "You're good!" I say: "I am superior to you. Because I have more power and authority, I can dictate your worth. And I declare that you're good."
[4] We may never know what is “right” or “wrong”. How could we? But we can prove what is successful. What if some course of action is completely unsuccessful but we consider it “right”? What is to be done?
[5] Happiness is the offence to the suffering. That is, those who enjoy life are like salt to the wound of those who are tormented by life.
[6] What is “oppression”? Is not the restriction of theft “oppression” to the thief? How then can we truly know what restricts us fairly and unfairly? Will not everyone cry “Oppression!”?
[7] Let us say that someone does something wrong and is unfamiliar to us. Often we can be harsh and condemn them strongly. Now, if it were our own sibling doing the same thing, would we not be more understanding and lenient in our judgement? Thus, the more a fragment of ourselves seeps into the being of the other, the less ethically consistent we might remain.
[8] How do we determine what people need? They can always say: “I need this or that.” but lie to us, in order to gain more than they really require. Or maybe we should measure what each needs at the most excessive demand’s level?
[9] Maybe progress is not about which thought or proposition is lived, but how or how well it is lived. E.g., we may live “peacefully” in varying degrees of success.
[10] Once the mental realm has become too strong, the bodily realm collapses. E.g., if we care about feelings to the degree of sacrificing wealth, health and power, everything falls apart.
[11] The person who goes to a priest to ask for advice has not thought that they could answer their own question. Clearly, there is no ethical elite, no priest of philosophy, or such, and those that claim to be (e.g. the priest) have often not seriously studied the matter at hand, but inherited dogmata.
(27.09.2025)
[12] Where there is good, there is bad. This must be like that. For it is a dual concept. And when something does, it should be able to do more than one thing, no? For otherwise, what meaning is there in doing if there are no options? (We can, of course, imagine a world with only one possible state or sequence of states; but this is not our world.) And, what one does towards the good, its opposite option would have been the doing towards the bad. If I can either lift or lower my arm, one of which must be good, the other must be bad. Thus, because the world has multiple options, and because good and bad come in a pair, it is impossible to have a world with only good or bad. A world of options, thus, necessitates both good and bad. What this means, is, that any world of options is a world of good and bad.
[13] Is it really so “good” to teach love and peace? Is it not too simple, deceptively so, if nothing else?
[14] Since the “good” stems from a need to make decisions, if we are in an inanimate state of non-doing, have we attained the good? Or is any state a state of doing, since we “do to not do”, e.g. in lying?
[15] The naturalist says: “Ideals are here for the body.” The romantic says: “The body is here for ideals.”
[16] Indeed, it may not be a problem for a proposition to be “false”. If it is useful, even falsity is “good”.
[17] What happens when we strive towards an ideal? What if the ideal is, as we should assume, not realistic, i.e. ideal? Or can we only strive towards such things as ideals, never towards realistic things? How should we think about it and what should we do?
[18] What is the use of freedom? To be empty. But life needs fulfilment. Thus, any freedom once acquired should be used to become shackled. Shackled to a good. So, for instance, would accumulating gold be useless, but translating it into e.g. food, is useful. Therefore, freedom is no goal in and of itself, but a currency we use to obtain the good.
(28.09.2025)
[19] Is objectification and instrumentalisation of people really bad? Let us say that we die, but our death could be an instrument of great good – would some of us not want to be used in this way and become an object of good?
(29.09.2025)
[20] For something to be good or bad, does it have to be an authoritative voice other than our own that tells us: “Do it! / Don’t do it!”? (E.g., intuitions.)
[21] As for A.22:9.3:9: If we delegate our maturity to someone and merely execute their will, can we ever be properly worth of praise or blame? And if we merely live as someone else’s shadow, their arm, their instrument, then is maybe us trusting the wrong person the only fault we can be blamed for? For the process of decision-making is no longer in us, but has been externalised.
[22] When there is a dilemma and we try to solve it using either e.g., “rights” or thought experiments, but they offer two contradictory answers, which should “win”: the rule-based logic or the thought experiment? Maybe we can have an intuition for a though experiment that shouldn’t be followed, or we might arrive at rules that shouldn’t be followed.
(30.09.2025)
[23] There is a problem in determining whether ethics is subjective or objective: I have no access to others’ minds to determine what is going on there when ethical propositions are evaluated. We might try to measure effects in sciences and research, but can we really talk about the almost ineffable grounds of moral intuitions?
(01.10.2025)
[24] Do we have a claim to our desires? Is there any obligation on others to accept and allow our desires to be fulfilled? Or is this what turns society into a battleground to begin with? Maybe, once a group is formed, a relationship emerges, then do we play the game of “claims”. (: S)
[25] If we ground ethics, rights, etc. in something fundamental, maybe even transcendental, we might risk going into dogmatism and give rise to abuse of power.
[26] Is the goal to keep doing, e.g. keep asking questions, keep thinking, and never find “true” happiness?
[27] In being bad, or cruel, to someone, there is also an element of enacting a personal history within oneself that is taking place. It may be accidental whether the other did something deserving of badness, and is more about fulfilling an internal desire of violence etc.
[28] If we treat one side of a coin well, it becomes suspicious why we focus on that side and not its counterpart, too. This is unequal treatment and leads to conflicts, jealousy, envy, hatred and so on.
(02.10.2025)
[29] Defeating symptoms keeps the system alive, for the cause doesn't change and if it symptom got stronger, the system might collapse.
[30] Is there dissatisfaction that is illegitimate? For instance, if a people were to complain to their authorities about “lack of freedom to steal”, how should we address their unhappiness and suffering that stems from this?
[31] If our happiness points at different things as “good” in different moments, can there ever be a static, eternal “good”?
(04.10.2025)
[32] When we motivate someone to do bad as a step in an action (e.g. lead to the death of an animal for their products), is this also bad or not?
[33] The thought that “punishment rectifies things” can turn into “My life isn’t going the way I want it to, thus I should suffer.”
(05.10.2025)
[34] If we were to say: “Do not do unto others what you don’t want to have done unto yourself.”, and thus exclude e.g. imprisonment or other judicial actions, we are ethically coherent but still violate other “rules”.
[35] We are a sub-set of life, thus cannot judge life or anything larger than life?
[36] Indeed, to invite the gaze of the “other”, of society, of the disciplinary, into oneself, is an almost self-denying act. It illuminates oneself; it strips the mind of its clothing and embarrasses in a masochistic manner to the “other” (e.g., “confession”).
[37] The prohibition (e.g., “Don’t steal!”) might only prohibit one thing (e.g. stealing), but the command (e.g., “Help others!”) clearly prohibits every possibility except for one (i.e. to help others).
(06.10.2025)
[38] Is it always fear, e.g. fear of punishment, which creates obedient behaviour?
[39] Is all of ethics twofold? That is, one part is to figure out one’s own intuitions, the other part is to convince others? I.e., as for the latter, what if we are convinced of something that the majority isn’t convinced of? Does it thus result in a “tyranny of the majority”?
(08.10.2025)
[40] Trade-things vs “absolute” things, e.g. “rules restrict but also give” thus good and bad. Is everything such a “trade-thing” that is always both good and bad?
(09.10.2025)
[41] If discussion leads to a compromise, and one is “right”, then one ought not to discuss.
(10.10.2025)
[42] The ethical feeling of “right/wrong” might be a companion of a sensationless voice.
(17.10.2025)
[43] Ethics might be subjective also due to the fact that often, what we ought to do depends on what we value, and values can be subjective.
(19.10.2025)
[44] Is the opposite of the good always the bad and vice versa?
[45] Ethics ties directly to emotion, thus is also fiery for discussions.
[46] Can it ever be a bad thing to have a stable, clear and calm mind? – What about maybe when one ought to feel guilty for a mistake they did?
[47] The reasons and their weights etc. behind ethical arguments, e.g. how much “wrong” things are or how “certain” we are that they’re wrong or how we know that they’re wrong etc.
[48] What are things that “are”, e.g. “theft” is analysed into giving something to the thief and taking something from the one who is stolen from, but what “is” really?
[49] Ethics and analysing what a situation really is?
[50] What’s the purpose of the good if it doesn’t tie to survival etc.?
[51] Overpopulation and the instinct that “murder is wrong”.
(21.10.2025)
[52] The reasons for choosing a ground might in itself also be ethical.
[53] Is the default to permit everything or to prohibit everything? I.e., is it that we ought to think about “Should I do this?” or about “Should I not do this?”?
(23.10.2025)
[54] If factual intuitions can be so unreliable, why not also ethical intuitions?
(11.11.2025)
[55] The unfair vs the fair and how much harm it does in addition to other effects.
[56] The bad that does not aim to solve the bad that was done is, simply, bad. E.g., if a thief gets beaten and this does not resolve in the reparation of the theft, but simply done because of guilt as a mark, the beating is not justified, as it does not advance the reparation of theft.
(16.11.2025)
[57] If something has an accidental chance of something bad, is it bad or not?
[58] Is “good” always “better than X”? And/or is it always that we split two things into “good/bad”?
(19.11.2025)
[59] To tolerate something means that we give something, as we receive some bad without giving back bad. Thus, if we require balance, we will need something back.
[60] If someone wants a bad (e.g. “harm”), is that really bad and/or “harm”?
[61] Is a mistake something bad or, because it wasn’t voluntary, good or neutral?
[62] We need ethics because reality isn’t like our ideal that we envision. (: S)
(30.11.2025)
[63] Our ethical intuitions might be different from other intuitions, i.e. they are shaming from others based in the historical past of our genetics.
[64] Is the “good” always “that which we want”?
(04.12.2025)
[65] Moral behaviour that gets rewarded/punished avv.
(06.12.2025)
[66] If an action has been committed with reasoning and knowledge A, but later is revisited an updated to reasoning and knowledge B, was the action right or wrong then?
[67] Can there be a difference made in the same action if the background is different, e.g. whether a tall or a short person does this or that?
(07.12.2025)
[68] Our ethics might point to sustaining a good life. Thus, only that which is alive would hold these same values and ethics, as those only aim at something for life.
[69] Could another species or lifeform have different values?
[70] What if a situation doesn’t have a simple analysis, but is either infinite, recursive/cyclical or otherwise unsolvable at the bottom level?
[71] Is breaking wrong rules, right?
[72] Why should we make ethical virtues universal and absolute, e.g., why should the care for the weak be always applied? Might it be a case where this was originally only useful for a specific case?
[73] Why should we obey the voices of ethics, wherever they might originate from (e.g. ourselves, biology, the universe, God, ...)? Can we even disobey them?
(08.12.2025)
[74] What is a problem? That is, is it due to the world being wrong or our mind being wrong about it?
(10.12.2025)
[75] Is something bad if we have a bad feeling about it? And if someone doesn’t have a bad feeling about it, is it not bad?
(11.12.2025)
[76] To go to a deeper ontological level of analysis and thus make different moral reasoning, e.g. “marriage as marriage” vs “marriage as atoms bouncing around”.
[77] The physical description is not an ethical description, i.e. why should e.g. “cannibalism” be “bad”?
[78] Are ethical intuitions based on an experience of a situation or on rational thought of a situation?
(14.12.2025)
[79] Is “moral guilt” like the reverse of the currency of “moral reward”?
[80] Where is the boundary between a responsibility to be safe and doing things that shouldn’t be necessary to be done and when, when not done, one isn’t guilty for not having done them?
[81] The “should” as a value is always that which is not, and which must be. Thus, it is a pain because it isn’t, and it is a pain because it requires work to achieve. And it can also not be, thus the fear of losing it exists, as well.
(16.12.2025)
[82] The trend towards wanting to change things behind a certain curtain, e.g. biology and the natural instincts of humanity.
(18.12.2025)
[83] Does moral progress amount to a reduction of freedoms in how to behave by condensing every action to what feels right?
[84] Is a mental opinion to be judged as good or bad, if it never were to physically change anything? (E.g. to gain pleasure from someone's pain)
[85] Should modifications be allowed in competitions, e.g. preformance-increasing drugs?
[86] At what point should something that isn't per se bad (e.g. speech) be illegalised to protect from "per se bad" (e.g. violence)?
(19.12.2025)
[87] Can community be forced? Is it maybe fundamental?
[88] Is any form of forced doing a kind of slavery?
[89] The difference between choosing someone vs signing up to be chosen vs signing up to be at risk of being chosen.
[90] Does what a have and/or what we've gotten cause a debt to others?
[91] Advantages create the next generation of advantages, thus differences increase generationally.
[92] Does our luck belong to us or should it be shared?
[93] "Natural Law" issues as supposing something that we cannot test, assuming no politics even though any social context is political, assuming a mystical entity called "nature", picking what we like but ignoring what we don't like, romantic idealistic, etc.
[94] If we have something, can we give it away? I.e., is it still ours if we give it away or is it even more ours then? (: S)
[95] A right is a contract, thus always social. Any idea of a right is always presupposing society, never an isolated self.
[96] Escalation and stepping into a higher violence layer may be impermissible (e.g. fists against words). But what counts as a higher layer? Are they vertically stacked to begin with? What if x amount of lower layer equals y amount of a higher layer? What if a higher layer is needed to prevent something?
[97] If neutral resources can be taken at will, what if then there won't be enough anymore for others? (: S)
[98] Could we leave society?
[99] We are born into silently consenting to a society we don't understand.
[100] If someone leaves a society, commits a crime elsewhere, then returns, should they be charged? They might be a threat, but they didn't disobey the rules.
[101] Does every rule have to come from one set of rules or can it be mixed, i.e. so long as something can be done, it is good?
[102] To own as "to be able to decide over it" and/or "to be associated with one".
(20.12.2025)
[103] The end of a gain might not be the end of one's life, but rather either a special end or - more likely - infinity.
(21.12.2025)
[104] Is the objectification-subjectification a continuum and always happening?
[105] The ethics of doing ethics.
(22.12.2025)
[106] Can we even change our ethical feelings, i.e. the fundamental ones?
[107] Does explaining the authority or cause for a rule explain the object itself? E.g., "X says this is wrong." (: S)
[108] What is there aside from the different kinds of feelings and emotions that can tell us whether something is good or bad?
(23.12.2025)
[109] Is it morally right to expose oneself to danger? E.g. to situate oneself in a dangerous environment, with or without knowing the danger.
[110] Should it be permitted to make deals that are reversible or are flawed, e.g. where information is lacking or where a reversal would be permitted but cause great costs?
[111] Why should a thing be impossible to be a market object, e.g. impermissible to be bought or sold? Is it due to sentimental value?
[112] Is the good doing to be connected to the good object, e.g. something that is valuable has to get treated well?
[113] When we act out of duty, we submit ourselves as a slave to a higher voice. Is there a way to do ethics that follows our own voice? Maybe when we follow love?
[114] Could we even want to be morally good without a motive to want to satisfy our egoistic desires, e.g. "I want to be morally good because it feels right."?
[115] Can any situation, doing etc. be felt as good/bad, if we only think about it enough in a particular way?
[116] How should we act when someone is suffering from a good, e.g. from just punishment?
[117] How is freedom a good worth imperfection? Freedom implies a lack, since it is the space allowed for things to seek what they still need.
(25.12.2025)
[118] If we posit that e.g. the outcome should be A, but the steps thereto lead to collateral effects B, how should we think about this?
(27.12.2025)
[119] Can one discriminate against religious identity? As it is freely choosable, but deeply valued.
[120] What are the differences between a hero and a victim, if both might suffer and/or sacrifice?
(28.12.2025)
[121] Our view on worth might be related to our view on sacrifice, which is tied to how much we can subordinate ourselves to a higher goal or voice.
[122] If someone does something that requires reparation, others will be incentivised to be more careful to not let this happen anymore if they have to bear the collective cost. This, however, might only work in one moment. If we have to pay for our ancestors' wrongdoings, can we still be incentivised to be more careful if it's already too late and we couldn't have prevented things?
[123] There might be an obligation towards one's kin also due to the higher chance of success in treating each other well, since one is more similar and has spent more time with each other.
[124] Should one disavow genetic solidarity? E.g. to treat everyone equally? What about oneself as the most genetically similar? And what about one's wish to continue to exist in one's genes in children and kin?
[125] Community is based on bonds. Can one be in a bond they don't choose? And if so, are there moral obligations?
[126] Are bonds also risk-bearing investment, where, even in the absence of reciprocity, obligations exist due to insurance for the future?
[127] At what point do any feelings get mixed with moral feelings?
[128] Loyalty and how bonds are costly and thus need to be protected. Bonds secure everything about life and society.
[129] Ethics as relative can mean that not "A can't criticise B.", but "What's good for B may not be good for A."
[130] Ethics as relative can also be thought of as being relative to a point of view, and even if we tried to be objective, that is a point of view that ethics is relative to.
[131] Conditional good, e.g. "It is good to be happy, only if others are also happy.".
[132] A calm mind might not be good if one needs to be agitated to act.
[133] To only be attached to things that are good for oneself.
[134] What if there are no general, universal, absolute laws and rules? What if it is a balance between them, or a switching between them relative to e.g. a situation?
[135] It is not only what would ideally be good and lead to it that we ought to think about, but what humans would realistically do, and thus maybe have to resolve to “pragmatism”.
[136] If there were absolute, maybe objective, ethics, and we achieve the standard, would there still be any moral progress?
(29.12.2025)
[137] If we circumvent sexual activity for reproduction, do we not fail to take into account the instincts' voices for who is attractive?
[138] Is consequentialism all based on contingent empiricism? (: S)
[139] What makes a proposal immoral?
[140] If A leads to X and B picks up from X and leads to Y, and e.g. A is good but X is bad and B is good etc., how should we calculate this?
[141] Should we honour the "will" of the egg and the sperm by letting the process select naturally?
[142] If "naturally", A is being disadvantaged but B is at an advantage, then, by discriminating for A, B is discriminated against.
[143] Is our instinct, our feeling, intuition for a sexual partner about their genes and/or their qualities as a partner?
[144] If only the rich could afford A, is this a problem? Does it depend on what A is?
(01.01.2026)
[145] Egoism preserves the individual. Altruism etc. preserve others. Might it be that altruism etc. are only insofar useful as they preserve the egoistic individual in ways that simple egoism couldn’t arrive at, intellectually? E.g. over the long run, the egoist will be happy to have helped others to benefit from them. Might any altruistic (i.e. non-egoistic) ethics be essentially that?
[146] Can the so-called “non-identity problem” be solved, if it is an equation with one unknown variable, i.e. the value of “not being born”? We cannot collapse that value into “better/worse/equal” as being born, as we cannot know it, but thus the entire formula holds an unknown value that never gets eliminated or calculated.
[147] If a person is not yet born but e.g. the genetic material is selected intentionally for some traits, is this like “taking a human prototypical average as a standard and modifying that”? If so, would it be equivalent to saying that we “modify the living human” based on such a standard and judge the selection similarly? E.g., if one were to intentionally select for a disability gene for a child, would it be similar to intentionally handicapping the child upon conception or birth?
No action may be taken in order to “provide a better life for a person” in reproduction prior to conception, as any such action would result in a different person?
[148] Is the person the material of egg and sperm and/or the genetic code? (I.e., if we alter the genetic code during or after conception, did we create a different person or merely alter who they might anyways be?)
[149] Is it morally right to have coital intercourse if one could instead artificially conceive a person without risks associated?
[150] Similar people find similar people, e.g. through attending similar schools, classes, works, etc. – ought we mix up populations more?
[151] If we are philosophically honest and rigorous, shouldn’t we assume that we can’t know what happens after death and treat it similar to the non-identity problem? Therefore, “Why is death bad?”
[152] Is there a degree of harm to one’s dignity if one’s conception etc. is artificial?
(02.01.2026)
[153] Is maybe the ethical importance of a being relative to one’s kinship and closeness? And this, in turn, might relate to the closeness in terms of “contracts” and interactions that one has with other beings?
[154] If justification depends on intuition (e.g. “This feels wrong.”), and intuition seems to hold aesthetic criteria (e.g. “Something about this mathematical distribution feels off.” / “This philosophical reasoning feels unsatisfying.”), does ethics contain aesthetic components or is reducible to it? (And also maybe epistemology.)
[155] Is happiness the definitional good as being the “word” of “good” by our biology, or is it evaluated as and interpreted as good by our minds?
(03.01.2026)
[156] In moral reasoning, each step of depth of reasoning might flip one’s evaluation and opinion in the opposite direction. Thus, can we say that only the last step, i.e. the “perfect solution to a problem”, is valid? But how can we know what counts as perfectly solving a problem? How many steps might there be? If we cannot know this, we must assume that each step might be followed by another which we didn’t discover yet. And since we postulated that each step might flip our intuition, we might reason that we can never know if not another step may exist which flips our intuition. Thus, we may always come to believe that we are wrong and right to a similar degree of 50%, each. But does this not almost indicate that it is arbitrary, which choice we make?
[157] Should it be mandatory, possible or prohibited to disclose one’s genetic background, i.e. whether someone was conceived under donation or not?
[158] If one says: “You ought to build your own opinion on this issue.” and let them hear arguments, what do we test? Is it that the intuition and/or feeling of the person is tested? Does this not resolve into ethical subjectivism and relativism? And if not, is it that we test their knowledge? If so, what does this say about what ethics really is and does?
[159] Is the purpose of a sports competition not exactly the discrimination based on “genetic luck”? And if we were to even out the conditions of one’s biology, wouldn’t we be all the same, anyways? What do we select for in competition – maybe effort? But is effort not a product of a biological trait, such as personality etc.?
(04.01.2026)
[160] There may be such situations that one can only evaluate in their empirical effect by committing a bad, e.g. to test whether a child conceived under bad conditions would report suffering later on or not. Thus it may be that one can never know if that ever was a bad, if we cannot risk the testing in case it were a bad.
[161] Can it be expected of someone to be constantly under self-control to the extent – if this is even possible – to never get emotionally offended?
[162] Ought we be individual, isolated, self-contained beings with non-shared resources of mind and body etc.? If so, whence does the intuition come from and how can we prove this?
[163] If we manipulate the genetics of a conceived child, we impose our will and its aesthetics etc. onto the child's identity. The natural will, the randomness and the chance to mutate away from our will is thus stifled. Much like genetic mutation is helpful to give rise to new elements, so too might it be unhelpful if we overcame this by judging what ought or not ought to be, thus eternalising the status quo.
[164] If we ought to be concerned with autonomy, then we ought to find genetic alteration highly immoral, as it completely dictates how even the will of a future person will take shape, let alone what they can will later on.
[165] Where is the boundary of eugenics? If one kills a born human, if one kills an unborn human, if one selects gametes, if one selects one's sexual partner, etc.?
[166] Ethical rules that emerge from a feeling of fairness, right/wrong, good/bad, "utility", empathy and love, etc.
[167] If someone thinks they did something bad and agree with it, is this - and not whether they actually did it - the reason for punishment? (: S)
(05.01.2026)
[168] In conflicts, which concept, situation, etc. is more likely to have been thought about wrongly in the past and needs rethinking? I.e. “What is it?”, “What is it its value, meaning, worth?”, “How should we look at it?”
[169] Is there a point of "want" in the "ought" at the point where we decide which ought to fulfil etc.?
[170] Why do we sometimes go from situation to rule and sometimes vice versa? And why do we sometimes derive qualities from an entity and sometimes entities from qualities? (E.g. "Humans are good, therefore rationality etc. are good." vs "Rationality etc. are good, therefore these species are good.")
(07.01.2026)
[171] Rules may be relative to a setting, e.g. what counts for a ruler doesn't count for a citizen.
[172] Why do people feel like the immaterial is “better”?
[173] Why ought we obey and follow the objective good?
[174] Are goods situational? E.g., something is good depending on the situation, the world and maybe some systems?
[175] Is the goal and method of ethics to establish rigorous truth or to change feelings and motivate through emotion?
[176] If a negative force such as a threat can influence morality, can a positive force such as temptation do the same, e.g. justify immoral actions?
(08.01.2026)
[177] The strong don’t need agreements and bargains. The weak need them. A system that gives the unempathetic strength will deny the weak any help, as a strong would only make deals with others through empathy. This gives rise to a unidirectional dependency system.
[178] Are there such things as “detached” vs “attached” actions, e.g. “theft in and of itself” vs “to donate blood” (requiring a donor, blood, recipient, maybe staff, etc.)? And if so, are they such that each detached action can have multiple modifications in contexts (i.e. once they become “attached”), or how do the two relate to one another? And what does it mean for our intuitions, e.g. that detached actions are “à priori” intuitions vs attached actions require an analysis?
[179] Ethics might be about caring for a valued thing, e.g. life. What this means is that something has to make the judgement for what a thing ought to care for. This, only sentient beings might be able to do. As it is in the sentient being’s interest to live etc., it might be biased towards proclaiming “life” as the goal to care for. Humans, thus, declare such things as “life” and “happiness” as the goal of ethics, because it is our bias to do so. But what would a rock do?
[180] Is a “good” person someone who does all the right things? Should everyone be like him/her? If so, does it not depend on context, e.g. a farmer shouldn’t imitate a merchant literally?
[181] Is it really helpful to engage in a so-called “reflective equilibrium”, or does it not lead to “neither A nor B” and wash out concrete, strong rules?
[182] Is it that anything we do is wrong if we harm someone, except for e.g. when our feelings change, e.g. to leave a bond of trust? And does it mean that we are being selfish, i.e. not accepting the feeling’s pain and instead inflicting pain on others? Or is there a rule to be authentic and clean within oneself, even if it means harming others?
[183] To know the good means to effectively have “no free will”, as we are obliged to do what we know to be good.
(29.09.2025)
[1] When someone says: “You are like A!”, comparing you with e.g. a famous person in a praising manner, of course we accept this as a good valuation. But, in another sense, it claims that one’s own value (of e.g. being a “good” person) is at best a shadow of the “real” person they compare us to.
(01.10.2025)
[2] Do we value ourselves, or maybe, do we value anything other than ourselves? Is any value merely an extension of our own value?
[3] How we see things relates to their accidental, current state, maybe moreso than any intrinsic essence. For instance, the enemy is an enemy only while their thoughts make them behave in an enemy-manner. (: S)
[4] If we have values and cling to them, they might stifle life. (I.e. value seems to be that which predicts a decision.) Should we therefore try to change our values and keep them flexible?
[5] What is the value of a question? Is it not in what it does for anything other-than-itself? That is, its effects on the world?
[6] If it is good to be A, then it means that this A is a relevant category for worth. For example, if we say that “It is good to be a man.”, then “manliness” (or gender more broadly) is considered a relevant attribution for “goodness”.
(05.10.2025)
[7] In order to treat something in any way, it must have a value, no? For example, if I were to disregard something, needn’t it have a negative value? Thus, nihilism, in a strict sense, is impossible.
(08.10.2025)
[8] If we give something value, does this mean we take it from something else, e.g. ourselves?
(12.10.2025)
[9] Certain good things can be bad in that they retroactively make another good less valuable.
(15.10.2025)
[10] Values that demand something of others vs those that only demand of ourselves.
(16.10.2025)
[11] If consciousness has a positive value because of how it feels to us, why should non-consciousness not also have a positive value because of how it “is” for itself? Maybe non-consciousness “tells” itself that it is “good”, too? And why should the subjective notion of “good” be important anyways? Doesn’t it lead to selecting for things-like-itself, e.g. other consciousnesses? Isn’t this “consciousness-centric”?
(17.10.2025)
[12] Perfection is the fulfilment of a standard.
(19.10.2025)
[13] Everyone wants some things, thus those things matter? – Why should wants create value?
(22.10.2025)
[14] Do we have values onto values, e.g. “fairness is good”?
[15] If a voice tells us that it is valuable, is that objective or subjective; i.e. is the voice a subject or not?
[16] Values also good/bad because of what we experience them doing in reality, and what their parts and analysis leads to in reasoning to core values.
[17] The valued thing is not the value it holds, e.g. “fairness” as “good”.
[18] We might create propositional values, but why do we value them?
[19] Can we look at every value and see it in different ways and see it as more/less “good”?
[20] If the ontological analysis and reasoning for a “value” differs, is there a stable thing such as a “value” or not?
[21] Do we value everything (e.g. life) always through an indirect process of e.g. valuing “meaning” etc. first?
[22] Maybe all values stem from primitives, similar to logic itself, which stems from necessity, which stems from biology, which stems from the physical universe, etc.?
(05.11.2025)
[23] The Good and that which we would choose again?
(16.11.2025)
[24] Whence do values and meaning come from? What does it mean for there to be a “purpose” etc.? Is it our subconscious mind, maybe?
(26.11.2025)
[25] The “good” is a kind of tautological value, as it always redirects to itself; only other values can get linked to it or not.
(06.12.2025)
[26] What is the problem with nihilism? In a sense, nihilism can mean that there are no values. This, however, seems impossible. As doing anything requires making decisions, and this happens based on values. What then, is the nihilism people speak of? Is it merely a kind of lack of values that we value? Thus, we demonise the nihilist?
(02.10.2025)
[1] A statement like “2 + 2 = 4” isn’t “true” in that sense, but “coherent”, as there might not be any fact it corresponds to, only a system it fulfils.
(03.10.2025)
[2] A statement that depends on optimism/pessimism or other sentiments and perspective, is, in a sense, unhelpful and might not be verified. For example, I can say: “Plato’s philosophy was sufficient. The rest, we can derive from it alone.” With enough optimism, yes, we only ever needed his philosophy. But with enough pessimism, no, we need more than only his philosophy. (This type of reasoning is common in religious discussions, too.)
(04.10.2025)
[3] A statement holds implicit effects and meaning from the person who speaks, e.g., “You should do A.” holds different implications and causes when spoken by a physician vs a non-physician.
(05.10.2025)
[4] Due to the reason of undecidability etc., a meta-level statement probably has to be absolute, even if it captures relative sub-statements.
[5] There are propositions that span over more immediate than abstracted objects, e.g. “This tree is tall.” vs “The statement about trees being tall is true.”
[6] A discussion with simplifications isn’t a discussion (e.g., “A is B!”).
(08.10.2025)
[7] Propositions might be the arms and legs of webs of beliefs.
(10.10.2025)
[8] If we manage to keep consistent in e.g. finding essences in definitions etc., do we maybe falsely shift hidden background standards while doing this to accommodate for the paradoxical manner in which things really might behave?
(11.10.2025)
[9] If we say that “A = abc” (i.e. a definition of “A”) and then infer things based on this A, but find that there are errors emerging, then maybe “abc” wasn’t complete, e.g. the sequence ought to have gone on as “abcd” etc. (Also: the minimal errors in measurement in geometry that have bigger consequences down the line.)
[10] (A.22:5:9): And, since definitions cannot (?) ever be perfect, there is always an element of error that carries over to the next term etc.
(12.10.2025)
[11] When does the chain of logic fail? E.g., “A leads to B leads to C” etc., and maybe the rules that gave rise to the first consequence don’t apply anymore to the n-th consequence.
(20.10.2025)
[12] Static vs moving elements in logic, e.g. things that simply describe vs those that put things in motion?
(03.11.2025)
[13] Something being true when others agree with it, e.g. in ethical agreement.
(26.11.2025)
[14] What is the relationship between the opposite and the inverse? (e.g., “not A” vs flipping the order of “A” and “B” in a formula)
(30.11.2025)
[15] To talk of general, abstract things which lead to tautologies and trivial truths may require a different ontological layer of truths than truths that can be false and more specific.
(07.12.2025)
[16] If we observe the opposite of something, invert it etc., do we always get at the right solution?
(13.12.2025)
[17] In any (?) system, there is always the amount and the movement, e.g., “A” is the amount, “A à B” is the movement. There has to be the thing that/how it is (amount) and the way things change between them (movement).
(19.12.2025)
[18] The essence is always approximate. Thus, working with essences, we need to make sure that the results aren't skewed or distorted. E.g. the essence of a text in one word does never fully capture the entire text.
(21.12.2025)
[19] What is the formal definition of an incomplete, living system?
[20] Logic as the mind's operations and the symbols as the mind's representations.
(06.01.2026)
[21] Is the reason we give in e.g. justification the reason we employ etc.?
(07.01.2026)
[22] Can a premise and a conclusion give rise to yet another conclusion?
[1] Does hope not cling to something and tranquilise our faculties? In hope, we take things not as seriously as they could be. E.g., if my hope of salvation and eternal afterlife is strong, I may discard this very life. Clearly, this is a danger.
[2] What happens, when aggression cannot get let out? Is there not this mechanism by which it turns inwards? And is not one of the variations of this, that perform a self-sacrificial, self-abusive action on myself, to show my loyalty to the group? Thus, in some sense, there is the “moral self-harm”, an aggression that (maybe in excess) becomes instrumental to establish a certain hierarchy in society.
[3] The mind has this unique capability to create ideals, perfect things. This might just be fantasy, fiction, but is real to us, nonetheless. As we only observe balances (I claim) and not extremes (e.g. perfect happiness), an inner tension makes us create such ideals in fiction, e.g. “paradise”.
[4] The human mind seems to be “centric”, i.e. it requires a centre around which it thinks. It is difficult if not impossible to treat all objects as equal, symmetric or relational. We need a staring point and a standard.
(27.09.2025)
[5] There is an interesting effect: We may think a sequence of “A, B, C” such that we confuse A and B as “B, A” instead of “A, B”. While thinking “C”, we remember “A”, but since C is after B, A now is after B and we confuse the order.
[6] In writing letters, it quickly becomes clear that we do so to a fictitious partner, akin to the figures in our dreams. But this goes even a step further: Even when talking in person, the other carries such dreamlike realities within them.
(28.09.2025)
[7] We go through the world with our concepts, and try to force new phenomena into existing concepts. This creates a bias that does not see things for what they are, but as variants of concepts we’ve already defined and structured.
[8] An expectation is a reality that we have, however hypothetical it might be, and thus, when not fulfilled, we have lost something.
[9] We require emotions, feelings. This might be why we exaggerate things, e.g. by thinking in absolutes and extremes, in order to arrive at a feeling. In this sense, a “truth”, sometimes, might be less about a correspondence between things etc., but more about an emotional reaction.
[10] In hope, the future must look better than the present moment. Thus, the present moment isn’t fully enjoyed, and we’re not present and attentive, but escape into a fantasy. (: S)
[11] When perceiving time, it stretches, at times becoming unbearably wide.
[12] As for
[A.2:3:2177] In the unfamiliar we allow ourselves aggression.
This shows that “good behaviour” might be rooted in empathy, and empathy might be nothing else than us projecting ourselves into the other. Once this no longer functions, and there is no “us” in “them”, we can destroy “them”, as our own instinct for survival doesn’t exist in them.
(30.09.2025)
[13] When considering something as humourful, might it contain a taboo that is in the object of humour and which we signal as a kind of shyness, embarrassment or admittance and apology in our laughter?
(01.10.2025)
[14] The drive to live (maybe also “will to live”) is what sparks curiosity.
(02.10.2025)
[15] There is the tendency of us to go towards comfort, e.g. to retreat “to the womb” and “feel at home”, e.g. in adopting old, familiar thoughts and behaviours.
(03.10.2025)
[16] Once we recognise the bad, we (can) increase in motivation, unless the insight paralyses us. For instance, I may remember that I’m mortal and thus gain the strength to do my best.
(04.10.2025)
[17] Are motivations part of us or “behind us”? That is, for something to motivate us, doesn’t it have to be something other than us? Or can a thing motivate “itself”?
[18] In the very act of designating a part of our experience as a “thing”, we introduce a bias. For, let us say, I behold a tree: Who is to say that what I see as a “stem” is its own thing, or that the one thing isn’t more like what we call “stem + branch”?
[19] Is every image we see a recombination of older images and never just the “new” image? (Also by extension, any thought or experience.)
[20] Might it be that by saying: “Your identity is flexible. You can be anything you want.” we actually do a disservice to people? What if we (a) don’t know what we want, (b) don’t want to decide, (c) cannot decide, (d) our identity is not our making to begin with?
(06.10.2025)
[21] It is the self-disciplinary act of “putting oneself in order” and “imposing order onto oneself” that establishes the Ego as the primary force over the others in the mind’s hierarchy.
[22] The person who enjoys their riches is, in a sense, bathing in a fantasy. For they enjoy the (possibly true) proposition “I am wealthy.” But this is no sense-experience. It is a mental exercise, a fantasy, a kind of imaginative process around a proposition.
(08.10.2025)
[23] When living out the drives, do we condone those or do we merely condone “to accept drives”?
(09.10.2025)
[24] Can our mind fantasise the external world’s logic or does it always only fantasise its own world’s logic and impose it onto the external world? That is also, is our mind “made” for the external world?
(11.10.2025)
[25] We may not only have personae/masks that we wear over our “Self” and which change always, but maybe the “Self” itself is not really existent or always a recombination of smaller parts, too. Thus, in some sense, the “persona” is more “accurate” than what is behind it. (: S)
[26] Things such as plans or dreams of the future might be the pure “dream”, in that they happen in the present but deal with something that doesn’t exist and fix every further moment onto a memory (i.e. the plan) with discipline.
(12.10.2025)
[27] To deal with something by dealing with a representation or delegation of it, e.g. “charity”.
[28] To observe from the outside, to explore analytically, maybe to add concepts, ...
[29] (A.22:6:28): Maybe the concepts and propositional elements are already within the fantasy.
[30] Are we free in our minds or do we suppress certain fantasies even there?
(18.10.2025)
[31] Can there be an ironic enjoyment of violence, but not with sexuality maybe?
(19.10.2025)
[32] The second layer of imagination behind the sensational imagination in the mind, e.g. that which we think “looks” like something, but doesn’t really produce “visible” effects?
(02.11.2025)
[33] Do feelings say that they’re right and/or does reason and/or intuition say what is right (e.g. feelings being false sometimes)?
(12.11.2025)
[34] Is doubt, wonder, etc. something we can provoke or do we get overwhelmed by it subconsciously?
(19.11.2025)
[35] The “physics” of the mind and whether a thought “can work” or not.
(30.11.2025)
[36] Do we really want and then do that?
[37] We may be the process that evaluates voices, but are we one of the voices or is the voice most closely associated with us an illusion to be our voice?
(05.12.2025)
[38] We see something and think what we see, then see it again as what we should see based on our mind.
(10.12.2025)
[39] Do we need to relate an impression to a context, a situation, history, symbol, etc. in order for us to “feel” anything?
(12.12.2025)
[40] When thinking something, there may be a feeling, a mental object, which is not linguistic. In thinking with words, we should thus try to find such combinations of words that they produce and/or “solve” the entire original feeling and mental object in a substitution.
(14.12.2025)
[41] When we regret, are we different than we used to be, i.e. our desires have changed?
(17.12.2025)
[42] Is there such a thing as other ways of conceptual thought that doesn’t use reason? Isn’t all propositional thought reason? And what else is there – maybe emotion, intuition, impulse?
[43] Is mere self-control a type of reasoning or can we also stop ourselves without reasoning?
[44] Inner exploration and “listening” to one’s mind is neither reason nor emotion.
[45] What are the faculties or functions of the mind? There are feeling, intuition, reason, impulse, sensing/seeing, “thought”?, memory, intention?, other sensations?, force of thought/motivation of doing anything, ...
[46] What is reason? Is it the attentive, conscious, orderly and systematic thinking and making of decisions and of discriminating?
[47] Is reason always the step that differs following impulse from deliberate action?
[48] Which instincts, intuitions, feelings etc. do and/or should we replace using others and/or reason, and which not?
[49] Emotions don’t correct themselves. Reason corrects itself.
[50] What is the difference between the feeling of e.g., “good” and the emotion of e.g., “fear”?
[51] Can we ever change, modify or alter emotions, feelings, etc., or do we merely suppress them, not listen to them, etc.?
[52] What do we change when we think and change something, then feelings etc. emerge differently due to that “something” having been changed? Maybe our “knowledge-map”? Or our “soil of sedentary thoughts”?
[53] Is the moment of reasoning a moment where we silence, arrest, stop other faculties?
[54] Is reasoning a continuum, from subconscious to conscious, from implicit to explicit, “silent” to “loud”, ...?
[55] There is the stopping, tight, controlling reasoning and the automatic, semi-conscious, relaxed reasoning.
[56] Is reason merely the process of comparison between intuitions, feelings, other thought-objects, etc.?
[57] What is that “soil of thoughts”? Is it the current state of the mind, the substratum, the subconscious mind? Does it hold our last, most recent thoughts? Is it the sum, solution, consequence of all our life’s thoughts?
[58] Is the exploration, weighing and going back and forth with emotions etc. a type of reasoning or what is it?
(18.12.2025)
[59] Only reasoning, possibly, seems to be the thing that can change history, for otherwise we follow our impulses.
[60] Is judgment the perception of a normative property? (: S)
(19.12.2025)
[61] Thought that uses a system, e.g. the physical, geometry, language, logic, etc. vs that does not, maybe not even "ontology"?
[62] Thoughts that are about mental things and never apply to physical things avv
[63] Emotions are not from ourselves. They inform?
(19.12.2025)
[64] Do we always take in reality through an indirect manner, through a filter and through an ironic distance?
(20.12.2025)
[65] Does the analytical thought dispel the feeling thought?
[66] The feeling thought is probably accompanying the main thought.
(21.12.2025)
[67] An experience is built from smaller parts.
[68] The "momentary feeling of being" and the associations clusters.
[69] If anything can feel like it makes sense under mind-altering situations, then how can we know what really makes sense?
[70] There might be the intuition for a mental operation, the feeling about it, the operation and so on.
(23.12.2025)
[71] If we act by laws that we give ourselves, but the laws follow a reason which is of an intuition that does not come from ourselves, can we even act by our own laws? (: S)
(24.12.2025)
[72] If we were to create a robot that cannot lie, could it reveal to us whether it is conscious or not?
[73] For a non-conscious being: How would you even explain to it what being conscious is? Maybe it thinks it is conscious but interprets "consciousness" differently.
[74] Subjectivity means logically, that it inhabits a subject. One subject. Therefore, it cannot cross subjects. Therefore, we cannot know others, almost by definition.
[75] Is that which is consciousness maybe minimally meaningful and almost nothing that is added to reality? Thus, is it even “important enough”, or is it almost tautological, or does it even (meaningfully) exist?
(28.12.2025)
[76] The analytical mind will always tend towards minimalism, as they do not treat the whole and larger things but always their most minimal atoms.
(29.12.2025)
[77] There seems to be the mental "work of the Ego", which, if done, provides stability. (?)
(31.12.2025)
[78] If a person grows up in an “ill” society, represents and embodies it, but doesn’t suffer from it, are they themselves “ill” or not?
(01.01.2026)
[79] What is the goal and/or the logical conclusion to different feelings, e.g. love?
(04.01.2026)
[80] Is a feeling provoked by a thought or does it exist pre-thought? That is, if someone does something, do we cause the feeling by thinking and interpreting the action, or do feelings emerge before and without interpretation and thought?
(07.01.2026)
[81] That which is the mental “body” for any thing in experience maybe, e.g. that which makes “blood” not just a cellular fluid with this or that function, but “blood”; which cannot or might not be an “archetype” nor a “concept”, but something else.
(08.01.2026)
[82] When we see something, e.g. a tree, do we first create the object (e.g. “this part of my experience is called a ‘tree’”) and/or recognise it as one (e.g. “I see that within my experience, there is a tree”)? If we assume the latter, then how come that there ever was a recognition if we never created the object first, to begin with?
[83] The memory might be more beautiful than the past itself, sometimes.
(27.09.2025)
[1] What happens when we see things in a pessimistic way? Maybe it is the rebellion against a conflict, against a tragedy. It is defiance. For the pessimist says: “I see the bad and I will not let life get away with it.” Whereas the optimist says: “I see the bad, but choose to ignore or even excuse it.”
(01.10.2025)
[2] The intelligent sees himself as unintelligent in order to grow.
(04.10.2025)
[3] One of the dangerous acts of the mind is to be afraid of truth. When we feel pain in the face of truth, we build “neurotic structures” that aid us in escaping the pain (e.g., cognitive dissonance, ideologies, etc.). These structures do not change reality, and often harm us and others in the process. Thus, how we look at things can be more serious than we might at first believe.
(06.10.2025)
[4] In a situation concerning A and B, there are three possible perspectives: (a) from A’s side, (b) from B’s side, (c) from a separate, virtual, “C”’s side.
[5] We ought to remember that in everything we observe, we observe it as a being observing the observation. Even when we see “John and Mary”, we – possibly – see “I observe John and Mary.”, thus our point of reference might not be in “us” as we might think it usually does.
[6] For A to be wealthy, B has to be poor (relatively speaking). Thus, to bathe in happiness over wealth (especially by analogy: any kind of “wealth” in a metaphorical sense) means to bathe in the misery of others. – For example, if I get the last seat in a theatre, someone else must not be getting it instead.
[7] It might be that the proposition and the view “Happiness is good.” must already be present in order for e.g. advertisement with happy actors to work.
[8] In order for a view to fail, it (possibly) has to be shown to run against other views we hold on to. I.e., it has to reveal an internal inconsistency in one’s web of views.
(08.10.2025)
[9] We see ourselves from a created self of an other that gazes upon us.
(06.12.2025)
[10] What is a perspective, logically speaking? What is the same across perspectives, and what mutates? (E.g., “the man is tall” vs “the man is short”)
(04.01.2026)
[11] In thinking, one may have a broad lens vs. a narrow lens. Either view misses something. The broad may mix up details in various ways, the narrow may miss obvious objects or concepts that only appear at a higher, maybe more holistic, level.
(27.09.2025)
[1] Often it is the case that novelties aren’t discovered when thinking about the concept itself, e.g. “What is power?”, but by thinking of other things and their relation to the concept we’re investigating, e.g. “Why do I behave the way I do? – And how does this relate to power?”.
(29.09.2025)
[2] A thought might be the tension between two mental states. – In only one state, nothing really happens. In the second, it is the same as the first. But between them, a tension can and should arise, for it is a differential between two things; this is potential.
(01.10.2025)
[3] When we think something, what do we concern ourselves with: (a) the direct object (e.g., the tree I see), (b) the secondary object (e.g., its roots which I cannot see), (c) the relation between them? – The direct object is merely raw sense information. We need to create concepts and entities around it. The secondary object is an idea, a fantasy, a fiction. We need a primary object and a relation that leads to the secondary object. The relation might not be something we can ever see or experience and is, thus, derivational, too.
[4] Moreover, there are propositions that stem from experience, e.g. “A is taller than B.”, in which we observe both A and B. This is maybe merely comparison and immediate calculation. Then there are propositions that concern themselves with inference, e.g. “This tree must have roots, for (…).”, where we only observe the tree but not its roots. Then there might be pure speculation and fiction, where we observe neither A nor B, e.g. “This deity has that relationship to such another deity.”.
[5] Is a more complex thought a more “true” thought? For example, if I explain a desire to eat as a simple “They wanted to eat because of a desire to eat.”, is this less true than a complicated manner of explaining it with depth psychology?
(08.10.2025)
[6] The desire to test one’s thoughts against others’ in e.g. speaking.
[1] We say:
[A.2:3:1989] If true happiness could be achieved, life would stop doing.
And what I mean by that, is: Aren’t we motivated by suffering (i.e. the absence of perfect happiness)? Can we really do anything if we’re not driven by this force? Thus, if we were perfectly happy, we’d not have any drive and we’d not do anything – we’d be, in a way, inanimate.
[2] Since life is suffering (as we’ve explained elsewhere), eternal life would be eternal suffering. This is one of the critiques of an eternal afterlife, and is less difficult to imagine in rebirth philosophies.
[3]
[A.2:3:1995] Is happiness a reward for living a good life, and a good life a reward for attaining happiness?
We think about this: When I take care of myself, I am greeted with happiness – thus me living a good life is rewarded by happiness. And when I attain happiness, e.g. I am happy because I have drunk a cup of tea, this means that my life is good – it is happy. In a sense, we speak of two different kinds of “life is good”, maybe. But the point remains: happiness and a good life, in a way, are inextricably linked.
[4] We are forced to avoid death through suffering, day by day, only to be met with death one day. – Life, therefore, is clearly a tragedy. A story that cannot be saved, and which is filled with unfortunate and painful chapters.
(01.10.2025)
[5] Can we ask questions when we’re perfectly happy? Is not happiness the state that requires no improvement, and is a question not a quest for improvement?
[6] In order to keep up with the world, we need to be unhappy. For in happiness, there can be laziness and some complacency, which inhibit our strife for improvement. The other will not cease their striving, thus neither should we, or should we?
(03.10.2025)
[7] Only by seeing a worse situation can we enjoy this situation. (: S)
[8] Because of A.22:6.10:1-2 and A.22:2.9:7 – and other reasons –, we may infer that “life is intertwined with suffering”. This means: because life requires desires and doing, and because those – in turn – (can) lead to suffering, “All is suffering.”
(04.10.2025)
[9] Is it that the moment is best enjoyed using no fantasy or maximal fantasy? For with fantasy, the moment is gone, but without fantasy, what is there of the moment?
(06.10.2025)
[10] Suffering not accepted is a clew of worms ready to fester from within. – Only in looking at it, recognising it, accepting it, is internal authenticity established and “neurosis” prevented. And the worst kind of ignorance towards it, is masking it; for if we were to only suppress it, at least it will boil and it is recognised, but in masking, it seeps into our very actions and being, akin to a poisoned well.
[11] In forcing happiness we bury our truth. And others will have to suffer for it. For their authenticity, their own pain and their speech will sting the wound we’ve covered up.
[12] Thus (A.22:6.4:11) it is better to be of a suffering kind than to deny what ails us. For denial can lead to ignorance, and a treatment consists of knowing and accepting what we aim to treat.
[13] Those with extraordinary amounts of pain will cling to the positive, and risk covering up their suffering. Like a shipwrecked sailor at sea, they float in and out of means to try to stabilise this positivity. But is there float sufficient for this?
(11.10.2025)
[14] Sometimes, desire for more makes us ignore what could be already, i.e. “calm” instead of “excitement”.
[15] The cruel becomes undesirable. The desirable is what hurts.
[16] Is there a kind of pleasure stemming from imagining what others might have, be or do? E.g., because we imagine the other as complete, we enjoy imagining being that other. (: S)
(19.10.2025)
[17] Going directly to happiness may feel meaningless, thus it isn’t happiness itself but meaningful happiness and the path to it maybe?
(02.11.2025)
[18] Do we pursue happiness directly or that which causes it?
[19] Do we want things because they make us happy or for other reasons?
(13.12.2025)
[20] States of stillness may cause happiness, as they are fulfilment. But works of stillness can only be accomplished by processes, which induce some suffering. (?)
[1] As many different types of love as there may be, humans tend to group them together by seeming similarity where they might differ more than we may think. For consider the friend, the romantic partner, and the parent: Each of them says “I love you.” to a respective other, but the meaning behind those words is vastly different!
[2] The friend might be one of the purest forms of love. The parent is coerced, by instincts, to care for their offspring. The child is brought up into love against his or her will. The romantic partner partially desires the other for reproductive success. But a friend, what can be said about the friend? Maybe we merely enjoy the pleasure our friend gives us? But in any case, we are not made to love by our drives or instincts, and more “freely” choose such a love.
[3] But beware of what we call “romantic love”, which turns out to be self-love!
For consider this: A man tells a woman that he “loves” her. “What does he mean?”, we might ask. “I want to be with you.”, will his reply be. But what does he really say here? He says that “being with you is good”, i.e. it gives him pleasure, and thus “I want you to be around me, so that I may feel pleasure.” “How selfish of him!”, we might say. “I cannot be without you!” is exactly the honesty we hear in extreme situations – finally they admit, he admits, that it has been about an addiction to his lover, for his own good, because he loves himself so dearly – not the partner!
[4] Is every romance such a deception? Probably not. For different kinds of love may mix, and genuine love for the other may be experienced besides selfish desires. But the other types of love must be of friendship, for example, to counteract the selfish kind.
(28.09.2025)
[5] When we say: “I miss you.”, what do we want to hear? Probably not “Thank you.”, but “Me too.”. If it were the former, it’d be a sign of “love”, i.e. we want to give. But since it might be about the latter, it is a reciprocal, transactional force, maybe proving that the bond is still intact, and/or a request for love or attention.
(01.10.2025)
[6] We not only want to be in love, but also have others stay in love with us. This is a reason why we are defendant of the idealisation and romanticisation of love. If it weren’t as beautiful and good as we idealise it to be, we’d lose the pleasure from loving and the pleasure from the narcissistic fulfilment by others.
(02.10.2025)
[7] Love is the absence of freedom. When we love, we are in a relationship. And any relationship is a confinement of freedom. Thus, love is the antithesis to freedom. – In a world driven by the desire for freedom, it will be the death of love and the triumph of narcissism.
(03.10.2025)
[8] Because of A.22:2.16:1 and A.22:6.5:7, we can see that perfect freedom completely disintegrates love, and perfect love leads to a complete loss of freedom.
(08.10.2025)
[9] That which anyone can do vs only someone in e.g. love.
(12.10.2025)
[10] Does love say: “This is good the way it is.”?
[11] Do we first love because of attributes and then make love the binding element that stays even when the attributes fall away?
[12] With whom do we have the possibility for “alliance”?
[13] Love might be here involuntarily, but isn’t there one that we can “provoke” to emerge? Is it because we look at someone in a certain way?
[14] Is there also an element of privacy in knowing someone, i.e. a limit to what should be known?
(22.10.2025)
[15] To love despite the discomfort of never truly knowing the other.
(26.10.2025)
[16] How love makes us reevaluate our standard and be in agreement with what exists.
(04.12.2025)
[17] We also love what can happen when we love.
(16.12.2025)
[18] Can we love what we have? (: S)
Love as a force that exists while difference exists (: S)
(31.12.2025)
[19] Is it not that it is the discriminate love that comes first, and which gets gradually replaced by indiscriminate love later, as a bond grows? Is the former unchosen and the latter chosen, or both unchosen?
(01.01.2026)
[20] Is a romantic relationship the power that sustains a child or is the child the power that sustains his/her parents’ romantic relationship?
(04.01.2026)
[21] It is that maybe qualities make us fall in love, but that love is like a lock that cannot easily be undone, even if the qualities disappear or appear in another. (: S)
(06.01.2026)
[22] Is love a kind of story we tell ourselves and/or a structure that occupies a space within us?
[1] It is only in me having a desire and it not being fulfilled that any doing can be possible. Without desire, nothing happens – we are inanimate. With fulfilment, nothing happens, as the desire is no longer. But while I desire and I have not yet fulfilled said desire, do I have motivation and will to do anything.
[2] But because “unfulfilled desire is suffering” and because of A.22:6.10:1, having motivation and will to do, as well as doing, are intrinsically linked to suffering.
(27.09.2025)
[3] If I desire something, clearly I cannot have it yet. Thus, it is revolving around a lack, yes. But the issue is that the lack, while being the difference between “is” and “ought”, is not always about substantial lack (e.g. survival), but often about idealised life (e.g. luxury).
(09.10.2025)
[4] When we don’t do what we want most, do we do it ironically?
[5] Because of such things as tension, desire may spring from what we don’t want. E.g., we may feel a lack of desire once “problems” disappear.
(21.10.2025)
[6] If there were already the perfect “should” state, there’d be no need for desires.
(02.11.2025)
[7] What do we really want? If we want life, but not suffering, and life has suffering, do we want life or not?
(30.11.2025)
[8] What we want in ideas but never in reality.
[9] The desires that are quick, strong and acute vs the ones that are slow, subtle and chronic.
[1]
[A.2:3:2039] We do not use words; words use us.
Is it not thus that especially at some point, it is less that we are that which instrumentally makes use of a word, but that the words themselves have already chosen themselves and impose themselves upon our will, which is powerless in delivering those to the manifest reality they seek?
(27.09.2025)
[2] Arguing over semantics isn’t philosophy, but linguistics. E.g., to say “nothing” as a thing vs “nothing” as the absence of things, is not doing philosophy, but arguing over which words have which meaning.
(28.09.2025)
[3] Is the meaning of a word only ever really understood once its sentence, in which it exists, is understood?
(29.09.2025)
[4] There may be something like “universal” words, as opposed to purely objective (e.g. “round”) or subjective words (e.g. “beautiful”). For instance, if something is “holy” to someone, in a sense, it is “holy” to all of humanity. Though this is, of course, contestable.
[5] A directive word like “do” or “don’t” manifests the target and the subject into a scene where power is exchanged.
[6] We may have two different kinds of words: (a) primitives, (b) synthetic words. “a” is a kind of word that stems directly from experience, e.g. “tree”. It can be defined, of course, but this would actually decrease its meaning – e.g., we could say that it is “a plan with a bark”, but each of those two (“plant”, and “bark”) are themselves less informative than simply showing someone a tree. The latter, “b”, is a word that truly doesn’t come from experience (if this exists), e.g. a “nation” (insofar as this isn’t from experience).
(01.10.2025)
[7] When using a term, the expectations we imagine others to have for our usage of the term will be important in how we use the term. If I say: “I am an artist.” but I know that “artists” ought to produce art in the monetary market, then I better do that in order to call myself an artist.
(02.10.2025)
[8] A word's introduction can happen as a relation between words and/or to experience. – That is, if I point at a tree and call it a “tree”, this is one way of introducing a new word into the vocabulary. The other (one of the others?) is to use words to introduce words, e.g. “A tree is a plant with a bark.”.
(04.10.2025)
[9] What if the word itself holds morphological invisible patterns that only emerge when written in different forms? For instance, it is “liquid” and “liquefy”, so we’d assume “liqu-“ to be the stem; but what if “liquX” is the stem with a value “X” that is indeterminate by definition? (This examples is false, of course, but is used to illustrate an idea.)
(05.10.2025)
[10] With the exception of “thing” (which has anything as its target/object), every word divides the space of things into two. Is there a word that has no targets/objects?
(06.10.2025)
[11] Categories as much shape as they describe reality. E.g., we see similar things and group them, but we also force the similarities, especially later on with added elements to the group.
(08.10.2025)
[12] To take reality as a metaphor into something else. (: S)
(11.10.2025)
[13] We might be able to linguistically ask the question of whether life has meaning or not, but it needn’t be a sensible question.
(22.10.2025)
[14] Can a proposition be turned into a noun and vice versa?
(26.11.2025)
[15] The linguistic meaning vs the mathematical, logical, ontological meaning behind it made up of “atoms”.
(07.12.2025)
[16] Are words but thoughts expressed?
[17] What is the overarching message of a chain of sentences, which is a chain of words, which is a chain of signs?
(10.12.2025)
[18] Are all signs or symbols merely context-relative, even if the context were to be “any situation”?
(17.12.2025)
[19] To know whether we understand someone: We say something that the other agrees with and reacts to in a way that makes us do the same way, etc.? (?)
(21.12.2025)
[20] If a word needs content, e.g. “tree” refers to a real tree out there, but we cannot really know if there is a tree out there, is the word under-populated?
(29.09.2025)
[1] What does “meaning” mean? We have a phenomenon, e.g. the sounds behind the letters “tree”. These sounds are bundled together as what we call a “word” – a piece of “meaning”. But what is this “meaning”? As for the “tree”, maybe it is the mental object “tree” that we envision whenever we utter the word “tree”; stemming from an experience in the world. What about a “unicorn”? It, too, is a mental object that we have synthesised and is referred to. Thus we have an abstract, class-functional object (e.g., the “tree” in our mind), which is the object of a meaning. But what about “this tree” in particular? This relates to the reference theory of meaning: We instantiate our internal tree into the hypothetical external world; this is the claim. But the reference is never to the tree in the “real world”, only as a manifestation and instantiation of a mental tree into a fictional world (e.g. the external world). (Why is it a “fictional world”? Because it requires our mind to create it.)
(10.10.2025)
[2] The remainder that is in tension, ambiguous and ineffable is, what gives meaning. (I.e. a completely solved and transparent world would be without such meaning.)
(19.10.2025)
[3] The purpose of life is outside of life, i.e. life as instrumental.
[4] How should we live, i.e. what goal do we aim at? & One goal or multiple goals after one another?
[5] The subconscious meaning of life that we always follow anyways. Why should we investigate the meaning of life if we act on one anyways?
[6] Does every meaning of life loop back to wanting to be life?
[7] Peace of mind emerges because of the right conditions applying, thus it’s not about the peace of mind but about the conditions?
[8] As a meaning or goal of life, happiness can be deceptive and uneducated and we can be happy with “bad” things.
[9] A meaning in life might be to justify actions and/or not being bored or existentially dreaded.
[10] Meaning of life as: “What do you want to use life for?”
[11] Purpose of life cannot be in others (e.g. procreation) as that is recursive, thus has to be in oneself.
[12] If meaning has to do with instrumentalisation, then our lives are instrumental to either someone else’s life or itself, and the latter is recursive.
[13] “What do we want to do?”, “How should we live?” and “What is the meaning of life?” as similar questions.
[14] Maybe the meaning of life is life, but with a detour into relationships and the “good personal life”?
[15] What could be the reward for fulfilling one’s life’s purpose?
[16] Is a purpose in life also a justification for living it?
[17] Maybe the purpose is a dream that keeps us going?
[18] A purpose in life is a cage.
(21.10.2025)
[19] Minds give meaning. If no mind created humans, then whence should meaning come from?
(17.11.2025)
[20] The “meaning” of life etc. may be useless, as we can attach words to other words freely and thus create a concept of “meaning of life”, even if that may not “really” exist. Due to this vagueness of “pseudo-concepts” like it, it may sound profound and important even though it holds no substance at all.
(23.12.2025)
[21] The meaning from a word might provoke different associations and mental sensations than the definition, thus one should investigate each of them separately.
(01.01.2026)
[1] Is the idea behind a word etc. the same as the definition and/or its meaning?
(01.10.2025)
[1] Is it not so that any “good” philosophy will not take the answer to the initial question as the goal, but merely as a necessary means to derive much more interesting products? That is, we need a goal (the answer) in order to ask questions, but it is the “side-answers” and byproducts of the questioning which are the real fruits of philosophical discourse and analysis. Once we have reached the main answer, the analysis is over and we are outside of philosophy, again.
[2] Does asking a question mean that we already know the answer? I.e., if I ask a question, I have a goal (the answer). But to have the goal, should I know it? (: S)
[3] There are those questions that lead to deceptively comforting answers, which make us stop asking more questions and thus end up in a standstill. Maybe, these we may call “questions that lead to inanimation”.
[4] Does every question ground itself in the desire to know? Or is there sometimes also the desire for asking involved?
[5] It is the surprise that wakes us up into wonder, and which allows us to ask questions. This can happen when we find a problem, when we love something (and desire to know it more fully to be in contact with it), and when we are bored.
[6] Can questions answer whether they are good or not? If we need a question to determine if it is good or not, does this recursiveness lead to a paradox or not?
[7] When presented with a problem, what happens? We notice that something is not “good”. We try to investigate, i.e. ask questions. And ultimately, we wish to arrive at a solution, an answer. But what are those questions?
[8] Is there only a “right” question when there is a problem? What does it mean for a question to be the “right” question? Is it the question that leads to a solution of a problem?
(09.10.2025)
[9] Do questions lead to more clarity or unclarity?
(02.11.2025)
[10] Is a recursive “Why?” questioning limited in its usefulness? (: S)
(17.12.2025)
[11] Do we need to have an assumption to ask questions?
(19.12.2025)
[12] To analyse means to question a sacred whole and rid something of its respect.
(24.12.2025)
[13] Is questioning the same as testing?
[14] Can pure questioning discover truths or do at need affirmations?
(21.12.2025)
[1] Why are the “useful” numbers often complicated ones and not e.g. “1”, “2”, “3” (e.g. Pi)?
(29.09.2025)
[1] Of particular peculiarity is the grave: From early on, mankind must have felt great horrors and fears in the face of death, as well as had to worry about contamination for coming in contact with the deceased. Yet, at least today, this very place is associated with the greatest sanctity and cleanliness, with love abundant and with holy values.
[1] In order to attain the counter-intuitive, something counter-intuitive has to be done. In order to attain paradise, we have to fast and starve ourselves.
[2] Maybe, a reason why we seek an ideal person (e.g. God), is that we desire a metre of the human mind against which to measure all human minds. We may measure body and other things against metres we’ve found (e.g. in the sciences), but have none, no standard, nothing for the human mind.
[3] Can there be a “(insert religion’s name) philosophy”? Is it not that religions tend to revolve around dogmata (absolute truths held by faith), and thus are antithetical to philosophy (which aims to be flexible about grounds of thought)?
[4] The vast majority of all followers of a religion do not know their religion and do not follow it truly. It is more important to forge one’s own religion in one’s head than to research it. Maybe it is just an instrument to justify oneself and one’s wishes.
(28.09.2025)
[5] There is a tendency in the follower of a religion to proselytise in order to gain power. For a thought is as mighty as the number of minds believing it.
[6] Is cultic behaviour maybe an excess of joy, of love for an object? (E.g. of a deity or another sacred object.)
(29.09.2025)
[7] Religions are closed systems; dogmata mustn’t be questioned. The idea of philosophy is to find new ways of thinking and expand the horizon of thought, the idea of a religion is to remain within a system of thought and conserve ways of thinking. Thus, they are antithetical to one another.
[8] Philosophy blended with dogma becomes religion.
[9] It seems that religions have as one of their main motivators the aim of stability: We seek stability, something to hold on to, and religions can provide this. How and why? In that we delegate our thinking to an ideal (e.g. a priest, deity, etc.). This, however, means “Unmündigkeit” (“immaturity”). We give to another (the ideal) a part of our being, which ought to remain with us (i.e. our “Mündigkeit” (“maturity”)). We give up responsibility, agency and both the target for praise and blame – for how can we be judged if we didn’t decide ourselves, but have someone decide how to live, for us?
(02.10.2025)
[10] If there is an afterlife, who gets to be with us there? All humans, including difficult people? Animals, including predators? Bacteria? Viruses – life or not? And if these organisms co-exist, how is conflict prevented? And if it can be prevented there, why not here?
[11] Why would a creator deity create us with ethical intuitions, yet also with the ability to stray from them? If this intuition were divine and absolute, then we’d not have any reason not to follow it. Maybe it is about “strength of the will”?
[12] There is a tendency in the religious to create paradoxes and illogical statements, defending them as “higher truth that escapes our low intelligence” and be satisfied with it. But if we accept this as a methodology, then anything goes and aesthetic judgements of a statement might be the only metre against which we test truthfulness.
[13] It is to be regarded with deep doubt that each religious figure will claim to be the “last” and “perfect enough”. Especially since it has shown that we could really need further guidance.
[14] In everything humanity evolves: new technology, state forms, philosophies, art genres, etc., but in religions we’re still in antiquity.
(04.10.2025)
[15] If life is a test for us, but we will be glorified in the afterlife, then the test was for one person but the result for another person.
(10.10.2025)
[16] When one tries to live a “good” life but isn’t convinced, how could they deserve punishment from a deity?
[17] The subject that is to a deity like the infant to its mother is merged with the deity, unable to hear itself nor move or establish any agency nor autonomy.
[18] Thus (A.22:9.3:17), rebellion is the first step towards a true, loving bond between subject and deity. For only as two equals can they merge in sacred union.
(18.10.2025)
[19] What if one cannot feel guilt? Does redemption work?
(17.12.2025)
[20] If we can make mistakes in an afterlife, it wouldn’t be perfect and there might be suffering. But if we can’t make mistakes, we’d be equal to gods.
(19.12.2025)
[21] Religion is never private, as it is a social phenomenon.
(30.12.2025)
[22] Where philosophy tries to find useful ideas and discards them once they become too “patched” and inelegant, religion tends towards preservation of ideas in patching them, adding ad-hoc elements and stitching them together anew, creating “monsters”.
[1] Is it not so that there is a certain kind of tendency or even desire of one to be objectified and used in romantic love? Maybe it is a form of liberty to be instrumentalised, to be free from subjectivity and fully live in the other.
(27.09.2025)
[2] Might there be some kind of autoeroticism in romantic contact? In that this is the only manner in which we can love ourselves, by being our partner. Only then can we see ourselves, treat ourselves.
(29.09.2025)
[3] Might we be closer to union already if we were to think in relations instead of divisions and discretes? Might this still our hunger for union?
[4] The other might be a window to one of our inner personae, a mask that these wear. It wouldn’t work with our own face, but does so with others’ faces.
[5] In this kind of love, there are a few different ways this may manifest: (a) “I desire to nourish and fulfil you.”, (b) “I desire to merge with you.”, (c) “I desire to become you.”, (d) “I desire to obtain you.”, (e) “I desire to keep you well.”, etc.
(04.10.2025)
[6] In romantic connections, we may ask ourselves what the purpose of such a relationship and its acts are: (a) What does the romantic partner do that a friend does not?, (b) Are words or physical acts (e.g., embracing) more fulfilling?, (c) Might sexuality merely be a side-product and side-effect of it? – As for “a”, there might be two different kinds of “romantic partners”: (A) someone who fulfils an inner ideal and with whom we want to be united (“the beauty”), (B) someone who is an apt “end” for our inner figures that we project into (“the avatar”). As for “b”, both seem to have in common that we seek more than just “love”, “connection”, “protection” etc. The “face of the other” seems important in this, too. (E.g., we can imagine hugging a faceless person.) It would appear that there is an intuition, a wish, to “embrace the other and integrate them into one’s heart”. Maybe a recollection of a missing part of one’s self? – And as for “c”: It would seem that sexuality plays a role insofar as that some people attract us more than others, and this seems to coincide with sexual variables. However, this might be a “façade” of something deeper.
(07.10.2025)
[7] Aren’t there leftover “lacks” in romance even when there is reciprocation? Is it maybe a tragedy, i.e. something that cannot be solved?
(09.10.2025)
[8] Do we really want others to know us, see us, or do we prefer anonymity and privacy?
[9] The other, in romantic love, has a certain familiarity which precedes the meeting.
[10] Is it not sometimes that we do not want to be loved and/or desired, but to love and/or desire? And sometimes, when we do get loved and/or desired, doing the same might be impossible.
[11] The other that is needed for us to speak, e.g. an “avatar”.
(10.10.2025)
[12] The symbolic and abstract (e.g. “God” vs “the Dao”), the dual Ultimate (i.e. “God and Devil united”), within us and not outside, and what to do with the two poles (i.e. should the dark be absorbed into the light?), and whether to have categories of “good/bad” or merely descriptive literals for each concept (e.g. Christianity vs Buddhism).
(11.10.2025)
[13] Only when being in a bond with the other can we be “whole”, i.e. our internal mechanisms and functions can get played out in and through the other.
[14] Is everything in pleasure always a balancing back and forth between the literal and the ineffable, between affirmation and negation, between the positive and a “lack”, i.e. with a kind of “ironic distance”?
(12.10.2025)
[15] The one that is specially made for one.
[16] Romantic love is not a need for ourselves, i.e. we can survive without it. But the species can’t survive without it. Thus, it is the voice of the other, of the collective, that speaks to us.
[17] There might be the “I love you.”/”You love me.”, the “We love each other.” and the “dance” between “I admire you, love me.”/”You admire me, I should love you.”.
[18] Is the sign of love never enough, and thus trust has to come in to bind love? (: S)
[19] The other and the other-than-myself, i.e. the union of other-and-me vs other-and-anti-me.
[20] Knowledge and love: the privacy and mystery, and the interest and truth. – The love that comes from mystery (e.g. “eros”) vs from knowledge and familiarity (e.g. “agape”?).
[21] The Self of the other might be the hope we have for what gives rise to the phenomena of them.
[22] The other that is to know might not even exist.
[23] Maybe “love” as “agape” etc. only comes as a necessary by-product of a desire, e.g. “eros”.
[24] Knowledge is closeness, and closeness tends to lead to “love”.
[25] Maybe we first “fall in love” as a decision and then shape and craft “reasons” around this to justify the action, e.g. “they’re kind, they’re wise” etc.
[26] Love based on knowledge might be conditional, since it depends on the details of what we know. But love prior to knowledge loves anyone, since anyone can fit into the definition.
[28] The “law of attractivity” manifests and embodies in the other?
[29] Whether we want to know and/or be known in a relationship to another.
(20.10.2025)
[30] The other might be minimal, and the experience, story etc. around them maximal instead, and maybe even stemming from us.
(04.11.2025)
[31] The other person as dream vs used for dreams?
[32] Heart open, looking for, inviting, ...
(06.11.2025)
[33] We love, and due to that, the other appears as beautiful and lovable.
(09.11.2025)
[34] One’s complementary, one’s challenge, one’s harmony.
(12.11.2025)
[35] Love comes with one’s own identity shifting.
(14.11.2025)
[36] Eros and “to make the other’s one’s own”.
(18.11.2025)
[37] The person whom we love is an outside, not an inside. We don’t know them from their inside, but only from our own inside towards their outside, which is different than knowing an inside from the inside.
(21.11.2025)
[38] The love we give as a free choice of desires, but also as an expression of a deeper prison of desires we cannot choose.
(22.11.2025)
[39] The one bond vs the most important vs the sexual.
(27.11.2025)
[40] The deep love is timeless, the attraction love is context dependent.
[41] The other once an inner person and a connection to our own person.
(30.11.2025)
[42] The romantic love and an incompleteness, a dependency, a fulfilling.
[43] The romantic “attachment” in which we project and position an “agreement” into the other.
[44] We want the other to be valid for, and/or accepting of, the ideal and the archetype of e.g. the “judge” etc.
(01.12.2025)
[45] To unite together and ascend this realm and unary existence.
[46] The other’s giving instead of them, and the received instead of letting them just be and experiencing them as they are.
(02.12.2025)
[47] The constellation that has to get fulfilled.
(04.12.2025)
[48] The mystical dissolving into the other as a parent-child relationship.
[49] The perfect mirroring and the short circuit of souls.
(08.12.2025)
[50] Non-friction and the familiar.
[51] The “real-as-other”, i.e. the other who is as real as oneself.
(16.12.2025)
[52] The lack is mental in us, but any physical object outside of us can never become a mental, inner object of us.
[53] If we see a lack, we want to fill it. The other is often seen as without lack, thus we develop desire for them instead of compassion. (: S)
(18.12.2025)
[54] When a situation or a story becomes the entirety of a world or reality.
(19.12.2025)
[55] Is a large part of romantic love about fulfilling roles, functions and patterns?
(20.12.2025)
[56] Is the erotic always about the physical and never the mind etc.?
[57] The real is too complex, profound and enigmatic maybe, therefore we need the ideals, fantasies and the archetypes.
(21.12.2025)
[58] Where do people "fit in", what is enhanced by them, what should they be a part of, etc.?
(27.12.2025)
[59] How much do we relate to ideas, properties and so on about a thing vs the thing itself, e.g. in people and their names, etc.?
(28.12.2025)
[60] To open up to become the target of functions, roles, bonds, etc.
(01.01.2026)
[61] Might it be that sexual intercourse is not only about the fitness of genes, nor about the qualities of being a good parent, but something about a union beyond that, since one can imagine doing all the parts of reproduction and parenting without sexual intercourse?
(04.01.2026)
[62] The other's value as the value of self-existing.
(27.09.2025)
[1] If we assume that there is a god, and he is perfect, then his creation must be perfect, no? Thus, he must never intervene in creation, for it would indicate that something went awry. Thus, if he cannot intervene, then how come prayer should be successful?
[2] Regarding A.22:4.2:12: If there is a god and he made this world, for he made it with options, he couldn’t have not created evil. Thus, maybe he was powerless to do so, powerless to create good and evil alike? There might be, thus, laws that go beyond such a god: the laws of necessity.
[3] We must think about whether a god even has a choice in doing anything. For isn’t a choice a response to a stimulus? And what stimuli could there have been prior to the world’s creation? Thus, a god might not ever have had any “thought” or choice, no options, nothing. Creating this world was the only, inevitable, raw course of action that was possible to him.
[4] There is, of course, the issue that we pray to that which has brought us into this situation to begin with.
(28.09.2025)
[5] “Where there is a need, there is a lack.” Thus, if we need a god, we feel a lack of something. In a way, a god is an ideal vessel for our lacks, as he can be anything we imagine him to be. But herein also lies the problem: We become dependent and fill him with ourselves beyond what is necessary. We empty ourselves of our potency and give it all to that god. (E.g., to no longer think for oneself but rely on sacred rules. Thus, belief in a god relates to insecurity.)
[6] If there were a perfect being, wouldn’t this completely devalue our life? For now we stand in the shadow of a teacher whom we can only emulate, but never be; and now the world’s values are all in this being, not in this world or us, for where value appears, other value disappears. (: S)
(29.09.2025)
[7] If there were a perfect being, any of its parts or properties needs to be closed, i.e. have no relations to an outside, for otherwise those would depend on something outside of the being. But if that were the case, then there could be no connection to anything outside of it, i.e. a created world couldn’t co-exist with the perfect being but had to be ontologically split from it entirely. Since we can think of such a being or even claim to interact with it, it follows that it needs to be connected to us, which means it cannot have closed properties or parts and needs to be imperfect.
(01.10.2025)
[8] Why do people invest energy into e.g. “loving a deity” instead of using this energy to love one another? And why not use a deity etc. to live out frustration and energies that may harm others but not a deity, e.g. complaint or aggression?
(02.10.2025)
[9] If a deity is transcendental and connected to this world, it is mundane, not transcendental. For it only escapes this world in some aspects, but not entirely. It might, for example, still be bound to space-time or having a mind.
[10] If the world is connected to transcendental being, it is transcendental, not mundane.
[11] If it (the deity) is transcendental, logically, we cannot know anything about it. For it would escape our very tools of knowledge, such as categories, properties, language, etc.
[12] If there is an original deity that is an “unmoved mover”, then we can’t interact with it as it would otherwise “move the unmoved mover”.
[13] If a deity has to test us in this life, could we really say that they accept us the way we are, and love us unconditionally?
[14] If a god “steers” us – even if temporarily –, we don’t exist in that moment and have lost agency, autonomy and in a sense, “life”.
[15] If there is a god and he is in nature the nature of logic, but logic is limited and limitation itself, then he is limitation himself.
[16] If a deity were to have created logic, it still would’ve had to create logic by some rules, thus isn’t completely free. (Unless the rule is “freedom”, but “freedom” shouldn’t be able to prioritise any option over another, thus results in randomness, possibly.)
[17] Why should a deity have to be “good”? Why “perfect”? What even is “perfect”? Is weakness maybe the “better” pole of “potency”? Does this deity have a voice, i.e. is maximally vocal, or maximally silent – i.e. which is “perfect”?
(05.10.2025)
[18] If there is an original deity that has always been, it hasn’t created itself, thus is not omnipotent.
(06.10.2025)
[19] Maybe "God" is an externalisation of one's own Self into the world to prevent it from being mortal.
(10.10.2025)
[20] The complexity paradox in requiring a creator deity: If we cannot imagine complexity stemming from nothing (e.g. life from nothing), then we posit a deity as a creator-mind. But this deity is complex. Thus the complexity-question remains.
[21] We need rationality to interpret a deity’s words. Thus, a creator-deity must have meant us to use rationality. Thus, why not also to question the deity’s words and derive everything from reason?
(11.10.2025)
[22] If there is a god that is infinitely perfect, but infinity is a process that never ends, does this god not always keep growing and is never maximally perfect?
[23] Did a creator deity create things so that they can be powerful? Since, if there is nothing to apply power to, they don’t have power. (: S)
[24] If an omnipotent deity existed prior to the world, it wouldn’t be omnipotent actually, because there’s nothing to exert power over (except for itself, maybe). Then that deity creates the world. Now it becomes powerful, as it can exert power over the world. Thus it has changed, and part of the deity’s definition is contingent on the world.
(19.10.2025)
[25] Deities as the simplest explanation (i.e. directly extracted from oneself as a human being) that got sophisticated over time (e.g. into the ineffable “One” etc.). – Why not do it the opposite way around and start with the most abstract instead?
(21.10.2025)
[26] Why do we claim to know some things about a deity but meanwhile say that they are unfathomable?
(21.12.2025)
[27] In a deity we can see the people’s psychology best, especially their ideas and wishes about humanity etc. (: S)
[1] A society is, almost by definition, that which translates and sublimates the individual into a collective, i.e. sacrifices parts of “one” to establish the abstract “it”.
[2] The more I become, the less you can be. There is an equilibrium of being, of power, which a society establishes.
[3] As a society cannot keep gods under its wings, it must cripple them into servants.
(02.10.2025)
[4] We may relate to someone in a way, e.g. admire them for their role etc. But is this not nothing about the person and more about society itself? For their role is not about the person itself, but about virtual agreements between people.
(03.10.2025)
[5] Is the neighbour not too close, thus one’s friends should be further away? (: S)
(04.10.2025)
[6] There is a suspicion that sometimes, people practice a virtue due to a sort of “servant mentality” towards an ideology, a system, akin to religious devotion. For instance, “positivity” may be such a phenomenon: If we shatter it, we are seen as heretical. Thus, this might reveal deeper mechanisms of a loyalty to a manner of thinking rather than merely “being virtuous”.
[7] It is observed that there is a trend within society, which we might formulate as follows: People, being their own royalty, are too proud, and also wary of hierarchies and the other. Any elite is seen with suspicion. Any other is seen with suspicion. Thus, they attempt to solve things by themselves. Society’s disintegration lie within this thought. We do not want to “bother” the other nor depend on them.
[8] A society that elevates the individual above all else will face challenges: (a) pressure on oneself, (b) disintegration of bonds, (c) relativisation of things such as truth etc., (d) nihilism and “depression”.
(06.10.2025)
[9] What would happen if we inverted the tendency: what is low becomes high; what is high becomes low? That is to say: What if our mask of positivity were to be turned into the mask of our inner truth, and our subconscious darkness were to surface onto our visage? Could there be a society that can endure this?
[10] Is the poor, the ill, a reminder of our true side in society (i.e. the suppressed and “cleansed”), or is it maybe even a necessary element to uphold the masks, ethics and power structures?
(08.10.2025)
[11] Honour as a currency: something we gain and can also exchange again.
[12] Honour as a virtual self in society that is more or less alive, i.e. a piece on a social chess board or a statue in a shrine.
[13] Honour is a ritualistic act.
[14] Honouring oneself is a social act integrated into oneself.
[15] Honour as a social hierarchical rank: we “position” people on different levels depending on their standing in society based on an “honour-system”.
[16] Honour as a representation of moral obedience.
[17] Honour as a currency also permits transgressions, e.g. one who is honourable may be looked at with mercy when they transgress.
[18] Honour as a social coordinatory function which is openly discussed.
[19] Honour as a determination of how much someone conforms to the morals of society.
[20] Honour as acceptance by others as part of society.
[21] Liberty and individualism don’t judge who belongs to society anymore, e.g., honour, thus honour etc. disappear.
[22] Honour is not in a person but within society’s discourse.
[23] Who has the right to honour others? E.g., who has the authority to confer honour onto someone?
[24] The different meanings of “to honour”, as e.g. “accept”, “tolerate”, “respect”, “give value”, “keep promises”, etc.
[25] To honour confers value, which means that we treat that thing with “respect”, thus subordinate ourselves to it.
[26] Is honour for a third person to know how to interact with the two?
[27] To honour confers power.
[28] By flattering someone, we confer honour in the sense that we gain a social standing by getting such compliments.
[29] When we honour, we exercise societal power as “us vs you”. (I.e. society and the honouring vs the honoured.)
[30] Laughing etc. and signalling that we are in agreement and in support etc.
[31] Respect vs honour in not harming value vs to instil value.
[32] If honouring is a mechanism by which “A honouring B” is to confer power onto B by A, then how could one honour oneself?
[33] Respect as (a) to admire, (b) to “leave alone”.
(09.10.2025)
[34] We’ve become extraordinarily good at dismantling structures, but which alternatives do we build?
[35] Maybe the 21st century should be the century of creating dynamic, facetted, living “grand systems”. Not the abolition of systems (i.e. the 20th century), nor the establishment of rigid, immature systems (i.e. antiquity). But a hybrid model.
[36] We have killed society and it will stay dead. The person has crept into their cave to connect over virtual spaces with like-minded people and establish fantasy there. It is impermissible to have meaning in physical society, thus it has retreated into virtual society.
[37] Today, some can build their own structures. But with it also comes the risk of creating terrible ones. And some follow terrible structures. How can we do it so that these risks are minimised? Especially without being an arbitrary arbiter over what is “good” and “bad”?
[38] Earlier on, meaning was like a blanket across society - everything belonged to it. Today, the web of meaning may not be gone, but it is not geographically spread out, rather, it is as if we overlap blankets over blankets in various shapes and manners. It is no longer that in a family of ten, everyone shares all of their vectors of meaning (e.g. philosophy, art, religion) with everyone else. Rather, two may share one vector, three another, two yet another. Taken to its extreme, since this doesn't allow for geographical overlap in a village anymore (i.e., its participants are scattered across space too much), it is the Internet within which like-minded people will meet, and where new villages emerge, quite literally even.
[39] Because of this (A.22:9.4:38), we have a fragmented identity: A part of us (e.g., our religious self) is shared with some, while another part of us (e.g., our aesthetic self) is shared with others. Nowhere do we truly belong, nowhere do we have our people.
[40] If we will live in a virtual world mainly, then the rules that bind people in geographical physicality will mismatch our virtual lives, which leads to a conflict. Society will have to be minimally there, and virtual realms will have to get enforced maximally as the physical world once was.
(10.10.2025)
[41] If our society’s internalise Abrahamic religious modes of thinking (e.g. “rebellion vs obedience”), and we were to have a different substratum, would society’s struggles also look differently?
(15.10.2025)
[42] The problem of the stranger coming into the family’s vicinity as fundamental to e.g. “civilisation” etc.
[43] The relationship between civilisation and oppression: in how far is “to civilise” also “to oppress”?
[44] Is it the excluded minority that civilises the majority? And what happens when the majority civilises the minority?
[45] When visiting foreign places, we may feel relaxed due to not having switch between formal roles all the time and understand society.
[46] What is the relationship between the visitor and the deviant? Is the tourist the domesticated but not included and the deviant the other?
[47] Who is part of society? E.g. is the hermit part of it?
[48] Everyone is part of a society if they behave a certain way.
[49] Belonging (in society etc.) as how many opportunities someone has, e.g. the prisoner belongs to society less but still a bit as they have some opportunities but not all of them.
[50] The overlapping sub-groups of a society and into which ones we fit in, and which ones are at the centre etc.
(19.10.2025)
[51] Is any system “good” but the people aren’t?
(05.11.2025)
[52] Since bodies make the difference, sex should be the category (?)
[53] We need to coordinate society, and this is done by what “is least changeable”, and “most effective”, i.e. sex.
[54] In order to be one group, it has to invent the counter to the other group’s feature.
[55] Sexuality, attraction, identity, behaviour, social positioning, ...
(12.11.2025)
[56] The other may express what we have suppressed, thus can help us express ourselves.
(16.11.2025)
[57] The dismantling of a structure for the sake of a minority that is unhappy, without proposing an alternative that the whole is behind.
[58] The free choices of others dictate what we can have, e.g. if others don’t want to do sports anymore, we may not be able to do this anymore, either.
(19.11.2025)
[59] Are all relationships functional? That is, when there are no common projects anymore, the relationships lose meaning?
(23.11.2025)
[60] If an outsider A comes into a group B and changes it to their own, there are a few things to consider: If A is larger than B, the majority wins, but if not, the minority wins. If e.g. A and C come into group B and define it instead of getting defined by it, then the new identity is a mixed identity that nobody shares.
[61] Does the host have the privilege to set the rules for their house?
[62] Is it “cultural colonialism” when we migrate and change a culture?
[63] Where do communities begin and end?
(07.12.2025)
[64] We want to be part of a society and thus also adapt our own purposes etc. to the ones of society.
(10.12.2025)
[65] The biggest imperative of our human species is to find ways to balance aggression. It has always been the main problem (?). But what do we do? We demonise people instead of making them a creative solution to the problem.
(16.12.2025)
[66] The norm is enforced through fear etc., without norms there are no standards and thus there is no value?
[67] The demonisation of the norm, the old, the major as a modern alternative to ancient devil imagery.
(26.12.2025)
[68] The more burden is placed on one group in favour of another, the more the other group will not even be desired.
(28.12.2025)
[69] If one is famous, and one’s name is that which is famous, but the name is nothing in particular and only an invention randomly assigned to a person, then is the person even famous?
(31.12.2025)
[70] What is a bond and how does it work? E.g. through knowing that we’re in a bond, through communication, through sharing properties (e.g. also space, time, etc.), ...?
---
Created: 26.09.2025
Updated: 09.01.2025