No Enterprise
Games and Reality
12/03/2017 @ 04:31:38 PM (EST)
What exactly is the difference?
The most flawed mindset you can adopt is one of having a core value of logic in an attempt to reach for safety in your life.

Any core value not fundamentally adopting logic is far more loosely grounded in reality as well. From a grounding perspective, using logic allows you to ground yourself better, but if that comes from a fundamental place of not being grounded with your emotions and fear you are more firmly grounded in your dilusionality in a way.

When properly employed, logic is the most practical core value.

Adopting logic as a core value to embrace fear of the objective reality is more concretely grounded in objective reality than adopting logic as a core value to embrace safety because the universe is fundamentally probabilistic and embracing fear using logic is a fundamentally more probabilistically accurate way of living life as it more accurately reflects the nature of life bringing about the paradigm most in line with it.

The problem is that adopting a core value of logic in an attempt to reach for safety is fundamentally flawed because it is a performative contradiction. It only makes sense to adopt a core value of logic embracing fear of the reality that results from the nature of your existence. Let me explain why.

The core proposition of your ideology promotes not labeling identifying with an identity as rational or irrational but simply states it is entirely dysfunctional. Fundamentally, you are who you are whether you let it bring you down or raise you up. If you apply emotional modifiers inappropriately it can very easily hinder you, and this becomes much more easy to do and likely to happen when these experiences are extreme (whether good or bad).

Emotional Distancing
Now, while it makes sense to emotionally distance yourself from your identity in a fashion that facilitates freedom from emotions that otherwise hinder your ability to function at your highest degree of efficiency, it is completely outlandish to deterministically claim that any form of identifying with the patterns that bring about the reality as you perceive it is completely dysfunctional. Why?

Using comfort, you are basically stripping meaning of everything until there's literally none left and this puts you in a constant state of negative emotion subconsciously, you're not neutral or positive; you're going to end up performing at your worst.

By using fear to assign probabilities to thoughts with ease, you are closest to emotionally neutral as possible therefore making your logical evaluation abilities at their best too. Turning your emotions off is very different from seeking emotional balance.

The practical outcome of your ideology as presented is that you have a persistent notion that while your sensory perception would seem to indicate you exist and your experiences are your own, at least as you have perceived them, you are constantly fundamentally in denial of the presence of the identity which only exists at all because you exist in the first place. This is what is logically accepted as a performative contradiction.

This effectively slowly strips away any meaning from your life since you are not fundamentally evaluating things logically to identify the value they truly have in reality (which is naturally affected by your perceptions of both the subjective and objective reality), you are effectively behaving like a robot that only applies rational thinking for the sake of being rational because you see no better alternative.

This is EXACTLY the mentality that fundamentally drives cults and it is extremely dangerous because in practice it means you are making rational decisions based on seeking emotional comfort instead of embracing the inherent fear that a universe of a probabilistic nature as your own ideology states would naturally imply.

Since a delusion is a belief that is held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary, this means you are logically delusional and very concretely grounded in your denial.

If you truly want to be as aligned with objective reality as possible, and the objective reality is inherently probabilistic, then you should base your seeking of logical evaluation on the natural fear that comes along with those probabilities instead of attempting to seek comfort in them when probabilities naturally cause dissonance therefore making any attempt to find comfort in them irrational. This brings about a paradigm shift from denying identity to constantly questioning it.

The result is a fundamentally probabilistic core value and the resulting realization that your true essence is not to blindly logically evaluate everything and attempt to rid yourself of emotion, your true essence is to logically embrace fear to become at peace with the inherently scary nature of reality. That is what real enlightenment is.

Many people will ask, "Why would I ever care about this when I'm living happily without it?"

The answer is that if you want your lack of logically embracing the natural fear reality causes to keep limiting your potential as a human being, then don't care about it. Part of being human is accepting that some humans will want to continue to drown themselves in their own delusionality until the day they die.

And I personally know people just like this, so it is very much a real phenomenon.

Understanding every conclusion an individual comes to and whether or not it is logical or not first requires a premise that the person tells you every single conclusion they have come to, missing absolutely none. You must then have flawless critical thinking ability in order to have any chance at accurately gauging the accuracy of their thinking. Even still, if you personally believe the individual to be hiding any details, you can come to the belief the individual still holds beliefs on solely your own perception.

Since beliefs are inherently subjective, an attempt at making such an evaluation practically holds no real weight. In attempting to evaluate a point of life, you must use a fundamental evaluation of a value proposition. This must be objectively quantifiable in order to objectively measure validity.

If you deterministically state that you don't have an ego, you are actually demonstrating ego. There is no way to have no ego, you can only try. That's what it means to be human. If you want to believe that I live in denial, then you can enjoy believing that I enjoy doing it. I suppose that you shouldn't aim to have no ego, you should aim to be a realist.

A classic example of how your ideology falls apart is one of the common arguments you might give that murder isn't wrong, at least in a way. The definition of murder is "The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought." Murder is wrong, in every way. Ending a human's life in a general sense, however, can only be rationally thought of as justifiable or not justifiable.

Logically when you have logic as a core value, you automatically will seek to figure out how you can have the most effective impact. But you can harbor logic as a core value seeking safety or embracing fear.

The practical difference is that when your core value is logic embracing fear, you realize that the best thing to do is seek the most practical impact, for both yourself and your environment, in a fashion unbiased with a need for safety.

This leads to a complete freedom from identity that also does not cause you to lose touch with who you are in essence. Basically, seeking safety leads to binary thinking, and that's dangerous.

How do you logically consolidate being driven by logic to give you safety when the means within which you came to the conclusion to reach for logic through safety were uncertain?

Everything you live through can be framed and is subconsciously framed through your subjective reference frame whether you like it or not. The practical implications of this are that every experience you have effects your cognitive state somehow. If you ignore that fundamental aspect of evolution you are setting yourself up to be unaligned with reality completely.

Experience is a tool and a goal. Logic is also a tool and a goal. When you use the evaluation of this understanding of these concepts properly, you encounter minimal dissonance possible.

My primary value is being logical embracing the natural fear reality causes. So my ultimate goal is to allow consistency within the entirety of my experience to dictate what is most logical at any given time and do it to the best of my ability.

Some may say, "That's just using experience as a tool with the primary goal of being logical."

Not exactly. Being logical cannot go at the cost of being consistent.

Others worry, "If experience and logic are both goals, which one wins over if they go at the cost of the other?"

You use logic, combine it with experience to increase its probability of being accurate to the best of your ability, then make the logical decision.

Logic is being used as a tool and a goal synonymous with the consideration of the context.

Your consistency comes from making logic your goal and aligning yourself with what you are.

It's illogical to claim a purpose as reality because it requires your belief to become reality therefore you can deduct that it must be a concept.

Some may be left wondering, "What do you think about respect, what is it, how do you distinguish between fear and respect?"

I suppose fear feels painful and unnecessary (think terror) while respect is a kind of fear you usually have much less trouble embracing.

Based on your core value you are being logical. Based on validation from your environment you may have increased perception of that. Based on how your thought processes are happening at a subconscious and conscious level, you are objectively more controlled by your emotional state than a concrete perception of logic.

It may not be different based on what your core value is and the degree of impact your resulting emotional state would have on your ability to apply flawless critical thinking in context.

Bigger picture is great and all but the real reason you should wanna do this is because it makes your life better on a personal level.

Do you have a strong emotional desire to understand everything logically?
Do logical actions flow naturally without discipline?
Do you experience a lot of dissonance if you act illogically or if you have contradictory thoughts or emotions?