Rinzai Did Nothing Wrong.

I want to make this clear, as well: when I debate with someone, I do play to win, but it is not for some ulterior reward, but for the love of the debate, as is the virtue of the sportsman in all games. It is a “win-win” situation, truly, since the one who “loses” a debate and is converted wins the greater boon, the prize of growth and knowledge, while the one who “wins” receives the lesser prize: the comfort of a confirmation.   Most of what I say I say for argument. I do not “hold” these arguments as “my own views”, as though they were extensions of my person and to damage them is to do injury to me. In short, I’m not a lunatic, and I would love to meet someone who’d prove me wrong consistently in such a way that I believe in spite of foregone biases. In seeking to convert, I know that I may be converted, and I run exactly the same risk as Others. That is the extent of moral obligation in this matter; all else follows from this *a priori* principle.   So long as risk is mutual, it’s f

I am not here to ask you for permission to communicate. That’s not my burden; rather, I feel obligated to explain why you were wrong to ban me in the first place.   I was NOT in violation either of your rules nor of my ethical imperatives. You were engaged in a debate regarding matters of great, even universal, import to the human psyche. I contributed what arguments I could, engaging with the other members of the Chat and disconfirming their positions for the sake of argument. I did NOT push the matter to extremes; I merely answered those points which were raised and made the necessary counterpoints according to my frame of reference.   You had no reason to suspect me of ulterior ambitions; nor do you do now. My comments could have only been of benefit both to the conversation and to those involved. I did not even hold my arguments to be my personal beliefs, but simply valid possibilities. Assuming that the Truth was our common aim, I recognized a harmless situation, one wherein my in

I just want for you to know that, while you won the sympathies of Zanmek, you have not won mine. I have agreed no longer to engage in philosophical debate with you nor any other members of his server nor his channel. That is well; you’ve demonstrated why it is a waste of time. Yet just know this: I offered you my point of view as I would intimate it to my closest friends, not out of some presumption that you cared for *me*, but rather the belief that you were virtuous and would consider the position as an opportunity to learn, to criticize, and to improve together as a species. I had tried to treat you “as a human being”, by my definition, but you clearly had another definition. Though you’re legally entitled to this definition, there is something that you have to know, however: that I gifted you a sub to Zanmek’s channel, one which had not processed by the time we had this little “argument”. I thought you’d have the basic decency to join in that debate with gratitude, and this was wha

There is a song called “Most Girls” by the artist Hailee Steinfeld, and it’s honestly an awful song, because it is a toxic, spiteful answer to a common compliment. The compliment, in its generic form, is “you’re not like most girls”, to which the artist answers with the claim, “I want to be.” It’s like the sort of people who take issue with the thought that parents would, say, raise their children properly and lovingly by telling them that they are special. If I had to guess at why so many people fall for self-destructive tendencies, it’s not because they think they’re special but because they’re taught they’re “normal” and expendable “like everybody else”. Yet this is utter poison and the most depraved of narcissistic tendencies, since it implies not only that the child has absolutely nothing to contribute to an ailing populace, but also that *nobody* does and no one *ever has*. “Equality”, expressed in such a lifeless form, is death, since it is only “special” people who break out of

I promised to abstain from talking about pickup artistry, however I must nonetheless address the implications of this Sartrean philosophy on *interpersonal relationships*, which are the part of his philosophy which seems most painfully self-evident:   Because there is no human nature, no authentic self, and nothing which is hidden “just beneath the surface”, there are just three words regarding all your hopes and dreams of finding love which best describe your situation: **“No one cares.”** It only takes a couple years of personal experience to learn this fact, though people may deny for decades. No one cares about your Soul, its beauty, your ideals and principles, your bleeding heart, your passion, your good will, your virtue, nor your goals and interests… *except for you*.   Yet this is why the existentialists are optimists. If you alone must champion the things that “truly matter” in your life, then no one but yourself can stop you. When you walk into a bar and see somebody beautifu

I want to say that, without any irony, this Grimmi stream remains one of my favourites to date, no pun intended, and I aim to buy *Super Seducer* and to play it to completion, while before I only had the worst impression of it, given secondhand by someone whose opinion I have no cause to trust. I honestly believe that Richard is intelligent, a decent and inspired human being with a loving wife and plenty of experience in fields I've always wanted to explore but struggled to make sense of. While I feel a pang of sympathy for Grimmi's idealistic worldview, I am much too weary of the world to place much faith in such a rosy point of view, though I can only hope it works for her. There is, however, one thing I have left to say: it's time that we stop saying "talk to them like they are humans." We are living in the year of 2023. There is no "human nature". There is no "authentic self", no "higher self", and very little "inner beauty&q

I hope you read this, Grimmi, though I shall abstain from "pinging" you. I just want you to know that I appreciate your kindness since it seems authentic, well-informed, and wise. My criticism rather was for those who grow *dependent* on that sort of sentiment. They either seek to emulate it as a form of flattery or try to go so far as to enforce it as a substitute for policy. They lack discretion and don't recognize those situations wherein "meanness" is appropriate instead, as though there were not countless errors worse than being "mean", such errors that can*not* be solved by kindness. They do not use kindness as a form of social currency or merit, but instead demand it unconditionally, which of course is a barbaric tendency. When others treat them less than kindly, they do not observe the error in themselves but rather in the critic; they assume that "harshness" is no more than "failure to be kind", instead of recognizing harsh

Last year, my resolution was, quite simply: "No excuses." This year, it is: "No regrets." I let my conscious will take front and center, yet it never could be master of subconscious forces. Now, my aim is mastery, but also to be mastered by the better part of me. That which should pass my conscious knowledge and control may be accounted for by other forces. I'll have faith that I would not create a cause for my regret, and so I will remember not to give regret to situations with no cause. Let's make this a redemptive and cathartic year. **[({R.G.)}]**