Oddbean

im a wizard. proving things is uninteresting. i just decide and it is so. whether others agree is their problem. the less consensus i get on an idea the more validation. if this idea had consensus i would abandon it too. ideas with consensus are like pimples after they have come to a head. by the time everyone is on the same page, its time is already gone, and its time to squeeze it out. like i say the battle is in the mind. do you control your own mind, or do others control it for you? :wizard_cat: 🪄

which answer is more self contradicting? choose that one. i don't subscribe to consistency. i hold multiple ideas that contradict themselves simultaneously. if you don't contradict yourself, you aren't really seeing clearly. like a bag of marbles, taking an idea out as a tool and putting it back in when done. https://i.poastcdn.org/df16d891ab30fad0b10f04e0401b4c8e7a18646c6b68b259adbb3f0f3bcaf6b4.jfif

i dare you to look deeply into the technology of holography. the idea that a single viewpoint must defeat others and it alone must only be regarded is a false assumption. all viewpoints exist simultaneously, and are reflections of eachother. (if you understand this, you can create new perspectives that affect all others as a primary goal, the primary goal of magic) just like a coin must have a heads and a tails simultaneously, just because you only look at heads, doesn't mean tails stops existing, most perspectives have infinite facets, far more than just the two of a coin. the usual conclusion from this is that it argues for nihilism, but i argue for the opposite. everything is connected. because every perspective is reflected fully within all other perspectives and so on. including those we haven't thought of yet. everything is true and false at the same time. universality of correctness is just one of countless other perspectives. your perception of reality is mixed up with the idea of honor. honor, and loyalty are the original meanings of truth. however correctness has superseded this meaning leading to the confusion. anything can be beneficial as long as the intent is loyal and honorable. you need to view any perspective first from a Racial intent. correctness has no intent. this is its biggest issue. it is universally and purposefully without intent. because loyalty and honor constantly has contradictions. it is only the intent that matters. whether the intent is correct is irrelevant. stealing bread to feed your family in a famine is incorrect, but the intent was loyal and honorable. lying to protect your people is incorrect but the intent is loyal and honorable. INTENT! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra's_net