If you’re trying to come across as sane, safe, reasonable and trustworthy in the future, my advice would be to try to write a little more normally. It’s fine if you want to become a dragon in the future, really. I just don’t see why it’s relevant to the topics at hand. Another example, and this is a little mean to say, but I don’t see why it’s necessary to go on for multiple paragraphs of purple prose describing your hopes and aspirations for humanity.
I’m sorry if the reason you brought these things up is that they are very important to your identity. But many people entertain transhumanist fantasies of body modification or have utopian hopes for the future of the world. The impression I am getting from this post is of someone who is lost in their own head, someone who has adopted a very insular frame and doesn’t feel comfortable stepping outside of it. Writing in a more ordinary fashion would go a little ways to put people like me at ease that you’re grounded in reality.
I would also try to avoid unnecessary jargon and references, especially to works of fanfiction. Yes, it’s true that intellectual communities often develop these ways of marking members of an ingroup. But if people are constantly mistaking you for a cultist, it’s probably best to lay off the esotericism.
And what I said is proof-of-work of an aspect of my mental health, and of a small part of my philosophical divergence from Ziz.
I am quite interested in a wide variety of classical mystic work, such as Buddhism, Hermeticism, neoplatonism, and Wiccan thought. One of the things I think is worth talking about is the existence of compatibility layers for projecting some of this work into a rationalist frame. While there’s a lot of low-quality work, there are also some useful things that I engage with in a similar way to how I engage with major philosophers. (I wouldn’t expect you to judge the quality of this contribution until I publish it.)
This interest happened after I parted ways with Ziz.
I am, and have always been, weird, and it would be a useless charade to pretend otherwise. Much of my strength as a thinker comes from my originality and ability to ground strange ideas in useful ways. If you aren’t up for work that is original and challenges existing frames, you’re not going to like my work, but I hope you can accept its existence and utility.
I’m not going to apologize for being different and pretend to be neurotypical. I further reject the implication that neurodivergence is a bad thing worth apologizing for.
And, uh, interest in the thousands of years of history of classical mystic philosophy does not imply the existence of or inclusion in a modern ‘murder cult’ which has philosophical commitments directly in contradiction to that classical work.
In my immediate physical vicinity right now, I have books by Bertrand Russell and Immanuel Kant next to the Corpus Hermeticum and a Tibetan Buddhist book. I know rationalists by default consider the latter two disreputable—but I’ve found them insightful and (with some work) compatible with a rationalist frame.
I don’t want to be known by the horrible events that I am responding to / commenting on. The post is meant to be an introduction first and foremost, since I was never very socially active before and most people know nothing about me as a person.
Vision is necessarily grounded in potentiality—any talk about vision will either be pretty distant from the present, or woefully underwhelming. You have formed an incorrect impression about me, but it isn’t especially important for me to correct it.
If you’re trying to come across as sane, safe, reasonable and trustworthy in the future, my advice would be to try to write a little more normally. It’s fine if you want to become a dragon in the future, really. I just don’t see why it’s relevant to the topics at hand. Another example, and this is a little mean to say, but I don’t see why it’s necessary to go on for multiple paragraphs of purple prose describing your hopes and aspirations for humanity.
I’m sorry if the reason you brought these things up is that they are very important to your identity. But many people entertain transhumanist fantasies of body modification or have utopian hopes for the future of the world. The impression I am getting from this post is of someone who is lost in their own head, someone who has adopted a very insular frame and doesn’t feel comfortable stepping outside of it. Writing in a more ordinary fashion would go a little ways to put people like me at ease that you’re grounded in reality.
I would also try to avoid unnecessary jargon and references, especially to works of fanfiction. Yes, it’s true that intellectual communities often develop these ways of marking members of an ingroup. But if people are constantly mistaking you for a cultist, it’s probably best to lay off the esotericism.
I prefer authenticity over rhetoric.
And what I said is proof-of-work of an aspect of my mental health, and of a small part of my philosophical divergence from Ziz.
I am quite interested in a wide variety of classical mystic work, such as Buddhism, Hermeticism, neoplatonism, and Wiccan thought. One of the things I think is worth talking about is the existence of compatibility layers for projecting some of this work into a rationalist frame. While there’s a lot of low-quality work, there are also some useful things that I engage with in a similar way to how I engage with major philosophers. (I wouldn’t expect you to judge the quality of this contribution until I publish it.)
This interest happened after I parted ways with Ziz.
I am, and have always been, weird, and it would be a useless charade to pretend otherwise. Much of my strength as a thinker comes from my originality and ability to ground strange ideas in useful ways. If you aren’t up for work that is original and challenges existing frames, you’re not going to like my work, but I hope you can accept its existence and utility.
I’m not going to apologize for being different and pretend to be neurotypical. I further reject the implication that neurodivergence is a bad thing worth apologizing for.
And, uh, interest in the thousands of years of history of classical mystic philosophy does not imply the existence of or inclusion in a modern ‘murder cult’ which has philosophical commitments directly in contradiction to that classical work.
In my immediate physical vicinity right now, I have books by Bertrand Russell and Immanuel Kant next to the Corpus Hermeticum and a Tibetan Buddhist book. I know rationalists by default consider the latter two disreputable—but I’ve found them insightful and (with some work) compatible with a rationalist frame.
I don’t want to be known by the horrible events that I am responding to / commenting on. The post is meant to be an introduction first and foremost, since I was never very socially active before and most people know nothing about me as a person.
Vision is necessarily grounded in potentiality—any talk about vision will either be pretty distant from the present, or woefully underwhelming. You have formed an incorrect impression about me, but it isn’t especially important for me to correct it.