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 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.