QOwnNotes+

This book does not prevent assholes. However, it attempts to optimize for maximum peace to the maximum number of people. And neither does this book impose itself on to anyone, unlike some cult manuals that make use of doublespeak to claim both opinions, to whoever wants it to be so.

• People are so attracted to mystery, so much so that they are willing to make themselves stupid in order to feel dominated by mystery

  • For example, people find a smartphone complicated (hence, smart)
  • At the same time, they disrespect a rat-trap because it’s cheap and easy to make (provided you have the springs made)
  • For the same reason, they’d find a smartphone DIY manual initially relieving, but then boring, because now they know how to make a smartphone.
  • This is the same reason why open sourcing software can be off putting to many people
  • That is, artists often demand attribution and secrecy to their recipes
  • But in reality, a deeper understanding should open the room for more curious wonders rather than limiting our scope of wonder to what little we already know

• Parable of incest

  • With mother
    • Consider two primeval parents
    • If the son claims that the bitches are mad, and tells his mother that she is responsible for him
    • Then the mother and son will have a child, and so on, until the mother dies.
    • So this is no way to sustain a civilization
  • With sister
    • With the sister, if a person only has sex with sister, then children the number of people in the world will remain fairly minimal, as there can only be so many people descending from a single family
    • The first generation will mate with each other
    • If they produce only one male and one female, they will likely continue the cycle
    • If they produce two males and two females, then the two males can still mate with the other two
    • The number of children who descend from that family line will be a multiple of the average children times the number of children in that generation
    • This is mathematically alright, but this problem cannot be addressed just as it is in the patriarchal world, because a sister can be from the father’s side or the mother’s side
    • After a few generations, the family lines still get distant, so it will be just like marrying a stranger
    • That would mean that incest with sisters is not that bad outside of the initial phase
    • The reason this would be bad, would only be to encourage connecting with other humans

• Taylor Swift

  • When rich people face the slightest inconvenience, they throw tantrums
  • Taylor Swift calls herself a tortured poet despite there not being a perceptible scratch to her body or soul
  • This is similar to how American teens think they live under tyranny, not because of the homelessness, but because of the taxes

• Organization of Information

  • Organize each section according to how much someone can digest at a glance
  • Don’t add too many points under one point in an overview
  • Don’t add too many subheadings (use a maximum of 3 levels of headings: H1-H3 or H2-H4)
  • If you need additional subsections, use overviews and bold styling

• About Respect

  • It is best to respect everyone
  • But what is the point at which we should not?
    • When the other party does not respect your rights (Remember my Personal Experience)
    • When the other party disrespects your opinions without a proper reason (according to you)
    • When the other party’s opinion is harmful to them (according to you)
    • When the other party’s opinion is harmful to others (according to you)
    • NOTE:
      • Proper reason means, for example, two unprovable theories can co-exist in harmony
      • But certain unprovable theories are harmful to oneself or the others (subjectively and objectively)
      • And certain unprovable theories can seem harmful to oneself or the others (subjectively, but not objectively)

• Eliminating Self-Control and Choosing to Channel Energy

  • My philosophy posits ideas such as incest is not an evil action, but only a cultural taboo

  • While this is sounds outrageous, I argue that any idea that can fix this will have to be so

  • For example, every person wants to have sex, but they are reluctant to admit it

  • Here, the tradition ends up being the patriarchal model where men own “their women”

  • This way, the stronger gender of men are able to have their desires met by the contract of wedlock

  • Since men are not a monolith, many women have enjoyed harmonious relationships in this model

  • However, many women have also been subject to abuse because of this same model

  • But if any women stands against the issue, due to the patriarchal model, she is labelled as spoiled

  • And if any man stands against this issue, he is labelled as an evil person who want to prey on “our women”

  • Granted, that also comes with the patriarchal idea that “women are intellectually inferior”

  • And the aforementioned women who have enjoyed harmonious relationships will back these claims too

  • So, the traditional society is designed to ensure that any criticism will be seen as outrageous

  • What this results in is a state of existence where clear solutions exist, but everyone is afraid to point it out

  • INSERT MEME: Thomas (The Tank Engine) has never seen such bullshit before

  • To all this, I say, to hell with it

  • Let’s consider the way in which people deal with the problem of rape today

  • People say that rape happens because men don’t control themselves

    • (That is in addition to the stupid opinion that it is because women dress immodestly)
    • (Because women get raped regardless of what they wear, and no good man would rape)
    • (That is, rape happens not because of lust, but because of the inability to satisfy it by watching porn)
    • (This in turn is because the culture views having a girl or wife as what gives worthiness to a man)
    • (Women who present themselves as “prizes for high-value men” are equally blameworthy for this)
    • (Because of this reason, it only insecure men who take validation from society rape women)
    • (In order to fix this, we have to solve the problem of insecurity, by eliminating the root cause of fears)
    • (What women dressing immodestly according to cultural norms really does is just disturb men)

  • But I wouldn’t want to be controlling my “urge to rape someone”, should I?

  • But at the same time, it’s a good thing to do, if you do not have a better idea

  • For this reason, I think it’s better to destroy traditions, and solve the problem

  • It is only because sex is considered taboo that any complete solutions do not emerge

  • Unlike other evil actions, here, everyone wants to do it, but also criticize it

  • But I understand why this is, because sex has several effects on people and society

  • Because of this, those who take the leap to engage in it end up being criticized for it

  • Under this new philosophical framework, sex will not be considered a taboo

  • And at the same time, sexual assault will become an invalid action

  • In this way, sex will also stop being a taboo topic

• The consideration of God (“What Will God Think?“)

  • One of the main principles I believe in is that, if I am wrong, and the traditional ideas of God is right, then I must be able to justify my choices before God, and if he disagrees, I must be willing to accept the punishment for it. But if I am wrong, he will be able to prove to me why I am wrong. And as that is my stance, I have grounded my ideas on an inclination towards the absolute truth, and secondarily, harmony. And as of now, he hasn’t proven to me why I am wrong. But no human should be able to arbitrarily judge me, because as a person who follows the truth, and has also had a wide variety of experiences, I am usually able to see through the arbitrary cultural influences and thusly formed agendas in many people’s opinions. So, I do not feel bad when people of religious traditions criticize my perspectives simply based on their religions, because I have thought this through a lot. However, I do very well welcome criticism that is based on logic, in case you can disprove my views. As for judgement, only God has the authority to judge.
  • HIV
    • This is used as an argument to point out extramarital relationships are immoral
    • I think the presence of HIV has a lot to do with lack of hygiene, and character
    • First of all, one must know the partner very well before sleeping with them
    • Secondly, one should not sleep around, treating human bodies like flesh
    • I believe HIV acts as a deterrent to these issues
    • One must have self discipline, but not to the levels of stressing oneself arbitrarily
    • One must be self-aware, and should use condoms before having casual sex
    • One must be familiar with the conditions of human nature, and get tested for HIV
    • This is not very different from maintaining hygiene and safety from generic health hazards
  • The story of the Tower of Babel
    • I think a problem lay clearly in the level of maturity of the people at the time
    • They thought God was in the sky, and tried to build a large building to overpower him
    • God ended up stopping their stupidity, which would’ve only been a waste of time
    • Story checks out fine
      • But I think God could’ve just told them why it’s a stupid idea
      • But I guess, the world is not a project with a progress bar after all
    • Also, they built the tower in an act of defiance to Adonai’s authority
    • By that reason, the story still checks out fine under the Jewish religious framework

• Resolution of War

  • I’ve understood that war is necessary
  • But however, as a Trekkie, we must be able to resolve wars too
  • Now, the only way to resolve conflicts confidently is to first remember predestination
  • Nextly, the idea is that if truth is always on our side, we will have the best outcome

• Prevention of War

  • We must first remember the factors through which a peaceful society will turn to war
  • Example 1: Growth of Technology without Studies
    • This includes capitalistic societies, where only some people learn technologies
  • Example 2: Forgetting Values and Forgetting to Question Everything
    • The outlined values
    • It can be said that some people may question values to suit their needs
    • But truth is resistant to questioning
    • And if there is a true opinion that conflicts with the social values, then
    • The one who stands for it should work to dismantle all the opinions that defend it
    • To do this when things seem doubtful, one must remember predestination
    • You must be able to defend the truths that you stand for
    • And if the ground truth is not in line with what you believe in, you have to adapt
    • And you adapt by controlling your desires, by knowing the nature, vastness and limits of reality

• Randomness

  • The effect of determinism is seen when you perform some actions
  • That is, you may find certain solutions without even putting the slightest effort into it
  • That is, when you are performing an action that requires you to put in conscious effort, but you came to the result without putting in that effort
  • Examples
    • An example is when I was walking through a road, and I knew that I had to take a turn at some point, but I didn’t remember where that point was. As I was thinking of something and walking, a motorbike honked and it prompted me to look left, and there was my road.
    • Another example is when you want to skip to a specific page number in a book, and you did not even have an idea about the differences between the actual book page and the content page number, and you make a guess and open it directly to the right page, instead of picking one page and going back or forth until you find it.

• Proper Method of Declaring War

  • Condition 1: Establish Levels of Sentience
  • Condition 2: Assess Threat Level (Do they stay in their lane)

• How to Prove or Disprove a Religion

  • Ask Questions
    • Would you kill a girl who believes in fairies, because it’s non-scientific?
    • (The Muslim answer is, yes, if they are post-pubescent)

• The Belief that Holy Texts are Precise

  • Mohammedans say that no one could’ve created a text that does not contradict itself like the Qur’an
  • I believe they simply have not read enough books to begin with, terming everything as Haraam
  • Analyze the Corpus of Major World Religions
    • B’nei Yisra’El
      • Primary Works
        • TaNaKh
          • Torah
          • Navi’im
          • Ketuvim
        • Talmud
          • Divisions

            • 1

            • 2

            • 3

            • 4

            • 5

            • 6
          • Contents
            • Mishnah
            • Gemara
          • Order
      • Secondary Works
    • Hindu
      • Primary Works
        • Veda Pustakas (Nigama)
        • Tantra Pustakas (Aagama)
        • Ithihaasa
          • Bhagawad Geeta
        • Puraana
      • Secondary Works
        • Bhashya
        • Shashtra Pustakas
        • Kavyas
    • Mohammedans of Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l Jama’ah
      • Primary Works
        • Qur’an
        • Ahadeeth
        • Siyar
      • Secondary Works
        • Tafaseer

• The Ethicality of Eating Animals

• The Nature of Our Brain That Allows Cognitive Dissonance

  • Split Arguments used by Islam
  • We do not process all the information at once
    • For example, (my dad came to me, who was awake, and almost asked me if I was awake; he had it in his mind to wake me up)
    • For another example, (-when you hear a new information and you don’t connect it with something else you know-)
    • This is due to the Principle of Causality.

• The problem of Religious Tolerance

• Why must we fight

• Fashion

  • Things go in and out of fashion

• Philosophy of Security

  • Security

• Logic

  • Factors
  • The wages of sin are death

• Philosophy of Religion

  • Philosophy will never be complete, because new factors will come in
  • In the past, we thought that one idea would fit for everyone

• 50/50 of Sankhya Metaphysics

• Use of Ambiguous Words

  • “Muslim”, “Truth Speaker”

• Nations

  • Since logic is based on axioms, and axioms are a subset of reality, a community that adheres to a set of axioms become a nation.

• Infections

  • Since a nation is established by axioms, and peace is established by proper understanding of different axioms, it is possible that peace will be destroyed when we lose such an understanding.
  • This is similar to how disease spreads when the immune system weakens.
  • Infections are a part of reality, in biology, computer viruses, and even ideologies.
  • Since ideological viruses spread by connecting shared ideas, they will always spread to a specific proportion of people in a given area, given that alternative ideas exist, but do not entirely invalidate the first idea.
  • … (Those who bring them in should heal them)

• Why there is only one particle

  • If you imagine a circuit, one may feel that electricity only flows as point charges through the conducting wire
  • But in reality, the drift velocity …todo doesn’t matter much; FILL: Electromagnetic Field and the capacitance of the media, and the wires form an easier path the moment they are connected to each terminal, until they are connected together, and the flow at the two sides connect.

• The Illusion of Prophecy

  • Principles: God, Prophet, Prophecy, Future

• What if all points said “Be” (Laws of Physics)

• Atheists are more honest than believers

  • It is far more easier to lie about god than it is to say I don’t know him
  • If a being is as powerful as god, and they’ve known him, why would they ever reject him?
  • There’s a difference between saying “this is something” and “I think this is something”.
  • If Newton said “this is gravity” instead of “I think this is gravity” and if he was proven wrong, he would be a liar. Or at least someone who was overconfident and preached falsehood.
  • But if he said “I think this is gravity” and if he was proven wrong, he would still be honest.

• Recap

  • “You cannot be moral if you don’t acknowledge God”
    • That’s only true by your axioms of what is defined as morality
    • It’s like saying, you can only be so and so if you do so and so (depends on ethics)
  • Heaven and Hell are abstract ideas
    • todo Give the proper definition
  • “It’s true, only if you’d just read it this way”
    • Of course, if you’re manipulated, you can believe the manipulation
    • (I wrote about this in QOwnNotes, I believe).

• Intro Text (If I was going for prose)

  • Aweha, luckily we have learned to communicate. We have English as our lingua franca, born from the same culture that birthed the Greeks and the Indians.

• Indescribability of Vedas

  • I posit that Vedas are true, however, I do not believe it can be written down
  • Only a fraction of the Vedas can be conveyed by a person
  • For this, I take Jung’s interpretation of the collective unconscious

• Attraction to Sophistry

  • People like to undermine Indian sciences by saying that Newton had produced formulas to perform calculations
  • But for a simple concept like laws of motion, understanding the formulas aren’t completely necessary
  • For example, Feynman explains concepts to the public using a simple language
  • However, he also knows how to describe them using formulas
  • But the point is that, it is not necessary to describe concepts using formulas, unless you are going to do something with it that requires the use of formulas

• Thinking in terms of units and development from it (Rewrite title)

  • Who is God (Vishnu, Shiva, Krishna, Brahman, etc.)
  • Tree Unit Analogy
  • Another Better Idea of Thinkingrough
    • We have A and B
    • We have C = A+B and D = A-B
    • We can have E = (A+B)/2 and F = (A-B)/2
    • A = E+F and B = E-F
    • (But B + C + 2F - 2E = 0)
  • Another Example
    • We start with void space, which consists of 0, -Infinity and +Infinity
    • The entity that transforms the void space is described as Supreme Consciousness in Hinduism
    • If we create something from an unstable configuration of the three principles, then they will have to remain separated, or else, they will collapse into stillness
    • Supreme Consciousness is defined as witnessing the Evolution of Nature with immersion in Sankhya
    • Supreme Consciousness is defined as creating instances of itself in Yoga and Vedanta

• Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny (disproven theory by Ernst Haeckel)

  • Evolution of an individual being describes and continues the evolution of the species
  • Similarly, applied to memetic, the evolution of a person describes and continues the evolution of the society
  • This has been applied to cognitive development.
  • As I’d say: growth shapes mindset, and mindset shapes outlook, and outlook shapes society

• Binding of Morality

  • Morality is motivated by “categorical imperatives” and “hypothetical imperatives”

• Dreams

  • Today I saw a dream in which I was bitten by mosquitoes. That went on for the whole night, until I realized that there were no mosquitoes in my room. But the bites were painful, and I perceived it.

• Not Everyone Who Does the Same Things Do It for The Same Reasons

  • A does X
  • B does X
  • “Therefore A has the same reasons to do X as B” - False
  • A does X because of P
  • B does X because of Q
  • Therefore, one can do X because of P or Q
  • P may be harmful, while Q may not be
  • “But the result is X”
  • No, the result is not one event
  • For example, when a person takes an item from another person, the action does not just end there. It is also dependent on whether the person has consent or not. And the actions will shape future actions, that is, if the person takes an item without consent, then they believe it is right to do so, and will repeat the action elsewhere. But if the judiciary orders something to be taken from someone, it is a different matter.
  • So actions are to be judged by their intents and consequences.
  • The actor however, is only to be judged by his intent.

• About Love, Intimacy, Sex and Procreation

  • Love is something everyone can have to one another
    • This is due to our “ideas” and “ideas of values” about general relationships
  • Now, we have a natural disposition to be attracted to the opposite sex
    • That can be in ways of conduct
      • This is due to our “ideas of values” about life partners
    • That can be in the aesthetics of appearance (hardness / softness)
      • This is due to our “sense” of beauty
    • That can be in the arousing form of appearance (strong abs / strong curves)
      • This is due to the “design” of our sexual system
  • This natural disposition leads to formation of Intimate Relationships
    • This is due to our “ideas” about life partners

  • Intimacy is something that people desire with a loved one, due to our sense of beauty

  • Sex is the fulfilment of the sexual intimacy with a loved one
    • This is due to the “pleasurable aspect” of our sexual system
  • Reproduction is the use of the sexual system for its main intended purpose
    • The rationale for using the sexual system for secondary purposes
      • If the system was only intended to be used for reproduction, then it would not have been active when a person does not intent for it to cause reproduction.
    • Other Examples
      • Example of Sound
        • Sound is said to be used to be used for communications
        • But it can have other uses, like the sound of oceans or the sound of birds
      • Example of Mobile Phones
        • Mobile Phones are said to be used to communicate wirelessly
        • But it can have other uses, like playing video games for leisure
        • One could even use it to
      • Examples of numbers, magnets, etc.
        • todo: add simple example of using them for arbitrary fun purposes
          • todo: establish the legitimacy of “fun” and “wonder”, and then derive it.

• The Muslim Idea of Idol Worship

  • Sophisticated Tool and Monkey Brain
    • When a monkey looks at a sophisticated tool
  • They think everyone worships stones, but when they revolve around the Ka’aba, they worship a formless God

• Muslim Hypocrisy

  • They themselves are hypocritic, but you can’t call them that, because they’ve owned the word hypocrisy
  • That is, their words do not mean anything at all,
  • They make stupid axioms, and if someone does not follow their axioms, they call the hypocrites
  • And if this method is known to them, they’ll come with some other crooked method to justify calling others hypocrites
  • They are masters of deception, and all they wish

• If one does not defend their liberties

• Establishing humanness

  • The levels of sentience is understood by their ability to understand us on a common level
    • That is the way in which anyone should establish relative sentience
  • How long one should converse is dependent on one’s patience
    • This is because some conversations are either intentionally drawn out long (for example, Muslims are not in for an equal negotiation, but one in which they maintain an upper hand, implying, they are not interested in peace, and that the negotiation was always due to a problem they themselves started), or are had with

• Islamophobia vs Homophobia

  • I’m not Islamophobic, because a phobia implies an “irrational fear” of something.
    • But I only have a “rational hatred” and “disgust” of Islam.
    • I do not have a fear, because I myself believe events to be in a state of pre-destination.
    • However, within the state of pre-destination, several events do happen, and Islam is one such disgusting culture that exists within our reality, in our time and age.
  • When we speak of immorality, there’s another group that points fingers at ideas like feminism, pride movement, and so on. The rationale about all of them is the same, but I’ll stick to “homophobia”, since we were talking about phobias.
  • I defend everyone to have their liberties, and homosexuality is an idea that people are free to choose. That is, homosexuals do not impose a universal morality that goes to say that everyone should become just like them.
  • One may say that there are homosexuals that do say something like that. However, there are always a bunch of people in every community calling for extremist ideas, but they are not representatives of the whole community. However, opponents of the ideas like to intentionally misrepresent the premise to break down their concerns using the strawman fallacy. One need not pay any heed to them, as they do not display human levels of sentience.
  • How does one then separatetodo
    • consensus - but only for words that are ambiguous.
      • for words that have a lower semantic range, we’ll choose the words directly
      • for words that have a higher semantic range

• How do we fix and bring up barbaric people

  • Calling them criminals and sidelining them, while is logical, would be less efficient than educating them.
  • There has to be an outlined method of establishing their levels of sentience and educating them.
  • todo : Levels - It’s easy to tell them truths first, then slowly tell them the ambiguous aspects, and soon, you’ll get a distribution of people who believe a portion of it.
  • What are the kinds of terrorists we can fix?
    • We can fix those who do not follow set of axioms that we cannot disprove

• Axioms

  • It is impossible to disprove a religion, because as we go deeper into philosophy, it ends up taking too many words to describe the reality, just as is the case with other sciences.
  • If someone subscribes to a set of axioms that impose laws on to others, it becomes impossible to disprove them for this reason.
  • If someone believes in such a set of axioms that cause harm to others, they may be considered as non-sentient.

• Some terrorists will laugh and have fun

  • They also focus on pretending to be logical, and mocking people
  • They try to wear people down to distract them, or sometimes, they are just brainless
  • They will kill people and still continue to laugh
  • Should they be killed? Yes.

• On boundless Human Rights Activists

  • Some people will say that shedding blood is universally evil
  • But that is also implying that soldiers are evil for killing terrorists
  • These people would also wish that viruses should inhabit human bodies, or that the earth must not have a magnetic field, and should allow all forms of radiation into the atmosphere.
  • The blood of terrorists should be shed.
    • I guess, I can stick to the no-war principle (Have to explore it)

• Sentient and Semi-Sentient Beings

  • Sentient beings do not believe in retributive justice, as they’ve transcended beyond that
  • All beings are born semi-sentient

• The Ideal Woman in Islam is Like Sati

• Dance vs Flow

• A person has as much control over their decisions as a child who plays with a toy steering wheel in the front seat, trying to match how their dad who sits in the driver’s seat turns the real steering wheel.

• People who worship words

  • The Problem
    • I’ve seen people, especially Indians, who think of other people who say tough words they can’t understand as superior
    • But the thing is, anyone who says random nonsense or something with a poor sentence structure is also unintelligible to anyone.
    • This is especially the case when the language used is a foreign language which many people are not familiar with - and especially in the case of India, people would hold those who can speak English to a high status.
    • People could also make up words to mean arbitrary things, and no one would know what they are referring to, and if they
    • The problem is that people are attracted (to mystery)
    • (because they don’t know how sentences work)
  • The Principle
    • Word

• “We should respect all religions”

  • But most people can handle some insults unlike dangerous chickens

• Communism and Cleanliness / Repurposing

  • Navy Seal Advice

• Coherence Theory

  • This is the basal principle on which this system is built
  • Basically, it posits that if a system of belief is consistent with all the propositions made by itself, then it is a valid perspective to hold

• Soft Rationalism

  • It is the form of rationalism that acknowledges the limitations of logic, and therefore only refuses to hold arguments that are irrational.
  • That is, it does not mind holding arguments that are not rational, unless they are proven to be irrational.

• On those who detach from logic

rough (My dad asked me to study Oman road symbols hehe)

• All Signs
  • Order Signs: 2
  • Warning Signs:
  • Prohibition and Limit Signs:
  • Mandatory Direction Signs:
  • Direction & Information Signs: