“Within this union of feminine and masculine, an intimate space opens – one that is both creative and interpretive. Because in this communal horizon of intermingling, feminine and masculine identities are constantly reinterpreted rather than abolished. Instead, their relation is dialogical, since in their yoking together there is no domination of one over the other. Enmeshed as one in fleeting orgasmic pleasure compels the question ‘Who am I?’ within the bewilderment of sexual ecstasy. Ibn al-‘Arabi emphasises that the pleasure one experiences is the pleasure of encountering the divine.”

I love this is passage so much. I have experienced this kind of psychic change within myself when it comes to sexuality. I’m realizing the channel between the divine and certain kinds of orgasms. Even when stimulating oneself, I can feel the energy in my connection to spirit strengthening or weakening depending on what kind of intentions I set beforehand.

I really enjoyed this read 🤍

Problem 3: Thinking that because there is a problem, it must be fixed. What is a problem for one is a solution for another, and the bold who take action will be better off than their inactive counterparts.

You can't mean people in general, since most people don't seem to be interested in philosophy or philosophers. What do you have in mind, and what do you mean by "glorification"?

> I personally can’t imagine caring about more money past a certain amount, but I think the process of becoming that wealthy weeds out people like us who don’t want it enough.

I’ve known a couple guys who had way more money than you’d think, based on their apparent standard of living. Like, he had a nice car, but you don’t get the first hints until you realize his car has every last bell an whistle and then some custom stuff too.

And then you notice his suits when he’s not wearing random anime and band t-shirts… but you had to be paying attention. Nothing about his attitude or everyday demeanor screamed “independently wealthy for several lifetimes.”

So those people do exist, but yeah I think there’s some sort of critical moral inflection point that 99% of the ultra-rich fail along the way.

> These are addicts, except the damage they cause is global.

That’s probably a pretty damn accurate assessment. At a certain point, the drive that some people have to “accomplish more” just become a drive to “have more.” There’s never a point that’s “enough.” It’s a vicious cycle

Read: rise above the tendency to control the government and law to reflect your version of 'right', and settle for the bits that are either universally agreeable. Then work with others to provide the services you wish to see in the world, without forcing them down others' throats.

As long as economics and finance are justified by human greed your considerations of helping other humans is worthless. Now you say cultivate but it seems that you will be imposing your reason for your own reward. That reward, perhaps could be nice words of recognition, perhaps a best economist of the year plaque, etc. Your own greed of wanting to help is nothing more than just another flavor of individual greed.

I'm pretty sure imperialism and neoliberalism caused most of our modern problems, not "tribal instincts."

Evil is not a scientific aspect. It’s a religious aspect.

People suck off historical philosophers and glorify them. Glorification of anything is the first step of turning on your humanity. They were just people thinking.

Sure. Why not? The only problem would be when the social welfare chain reaches its end and the young person gets to realize how the system wants it to be chained.

Everyone loves their individuality yet no individual matters in the whole. People are not in this world to help the societal group they live in, they are in this world to exploit their individuality until they reach a point where they are looking down the societal group. You are here to be better than your neighbor you just mask your individuality with different traits that you learned just to reach your individual goal.

Everyone loves their individuality but we fail to see that we aren’t free thinking individuals. Your individuality depends on others and the environment.

You lost your individuality the moment you gain consciousness.

Problem 1: organized religion Problem 2: People not being able to admit they are wrong or made an error and can’t get over themselves.

Anarchism had the answer.

Lol. "Tribal instincts" aka Corporate Capitalism

“ and I would trade it all, for just a little more” Monty Burns

[deleted]

[removed]

Along with many others

I guess the Koch Brothers and Walmart family factor into thiS

Are you making the claim that you can't teach judgement? If so, is judgement and one's capacity for it simply set at birth?

I happen to think judgement is learned, and if it can be learned, it can be taught.

Many professions require their licensees to study a professional code, or go through continuing education on the subject. Even sociopaths understand rules and that following them will keep them out of trouble (i.e. losing their license). This isn't merely blind rule-following, though, because code of conduct rules are not written to account for every ethical scenario.

Ultimately, if it makes sense to teach ethics to licensed professionals, why wouldn't it make sense to teach it to non-licensees?

Just because you inherit wealth doesn't mean you aren't responsible for what you do with it. Take 99% of billionaires for example.

Irony is not lost

Curing all disease, because you're not an incomprehensibly evil moral monster, right? Or at least, you'd spend at least one hour, or perhaps ten minutes, looking up the wikipedia article on what a billionaire is. Right?

If you own 51% of a company, and that company ends up making billions, and the stock is then valued as such, the media will call you "billionaire" - but that money isn't real as long as you don't sell a fraction your ownership.