Rinzai Did Nothing Wrong.

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...

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...

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...

In common usage, “equity” is equal outcome whilst “equality” is equal opportunity, yet these were not supposed to be divorced from one another, since the latter is the end whereas the former is the means.   It’s natural to seek for equal outcome, since we wish for Others to be able to enjoy the same prosperity that we do. Yet demanding this prosperity for all, for it to come immediately, only leads to ruin, so we have to take a longer road to get to that Society which we desire.    So, although it’s natural to wish for equity, it’s logical to seek it by equality. Yet two extremes prevent us from arrival at this goal, both variations on the segregation between ends and means.   On one extreme, those who demand that we have equity, immediately, seek the ends by wrongful means, while those who settle for equality of opportunity but do not *take* this opportunity *for equity* (for that was all that “opportunity” referred to from the start) have taken proper means and tur...

We live within an age wherein the poor oppress the wealthy. How? By force of envy. Only look upon the bygone eras. Up until the 1600's, class was thought synonymous with character, except within the subtlest of dramas Shakespeare wrote. Yet character was of the utmost weight, and class was secondary, though essential to that social order which required character, and character itself required social order. In the centuries that followed, class and character became divorced from one another, and with decent reason. As the matter showed, the world was not without its share of noble-hearted peasants nor of wealthy bastards. Thus, the modern moral play was born as a response to the oppression of the noble poor by poor nobility, and audiences cheered for those whose wealth was in the spirit rather than in moneys, as the protagonists of such a quality upon the stage strove to ascend above the ruin of the slums, in opposition to the vile and perverse aristocrats who lorded over them. The ...

**Dear[est] Grimmi :** I was moved to hear you read about my Sun Sign. Maybe this will help you understand the basic mindset typical of it. The simplest summary of Pisces as perspective is the most self-evident: the interpenetration and interdependence of all beings. I am as responsible for those around me and for their well-being as I am for mine, and, so, “in turn”, the Other is responsible for my well-being every bit as much as I am. If the Other acts in such a way that harms me, I may bear the guilt and shame for that transgression, since I’d rather be inclined to feel the Other’s feelings of revulsion rather than to shut them out. Yet it is not the Truth that this is just, since I am only made to feel this same revulsion since the Other chooses me to be the scapegoat when I’ve been the victim, so as not to recognize his own transgression. This refusal to admit of one’s own moral failings is the source of that “philosophy” that says, “Take care of *your* self first.” It is delusio...

I thought I recognized this jerk and then I found this joke. Let’s read his famous quote, the very definition of a sin, made darker and more blatant by the irony of ignorance and of denial: “I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.” Let us paraphrase that, shall we? “Why’s it murder that I killed those people? It’s the State that’s killing me for doing so!” “Why is it rape I had my way with her? It is the prison system that rapes me!” “Why is it torture that I hurt those people to get what I wanted? What is greater torture than to be denied?” “Why is it crime of war we bombed that country? *Our* country does not recognize their independence!!” Go ahead and tell me, once again, that it’s not *greed* that you are sitting, like a bloated dragon-hoarder, on the wealth you stole — I’m sorry: “earned” — with no intent to benefit your fellows. Go ahead and tell us it is *we* who are r...

There is a bizarre and enigmatic passage in his novel *Nausea* wherein Jean-Paul Sartre, the Marxist-existentialist, describes a man who is revealed to be a pedophile and properly harassed by a librarian. The passage is at first absurd because the narrator, who knows this man to be a pedophile, well in advance, proceeds to beat the poor librarian, as though the latter had no cause to denigrate the pedophile. It is a very odd phenomenon, yet sadly not uncommon; even Sartre’s once friend and rival in philosophy Albert Camus wrote how he would not justify an act of murder given vague, intrinsic feelings of compassion for “the stranger” (who became the subject of a novel by this latter writer). Yet more recently I have discovered *why* it was that Sartre, at least, felt such a vague compassion for a man who, in all other segments of his narrative, he stubbornly refuses to accept as equal, brother, comrade, fellow socialist or humanist, etc.: Sartre’s chief (and laughable) mistake is that h...

[ I’ve written at some length  upon this, yet the message may be muddled, to some minds, by the emotion. Here’s  a summary of why I do not watch *Attack on Titan*. My dedication goes to Pedro/Spyke for being understanding; you inspired me to write this when I woke from nightmares.] In the first place, that first episode remains the single most egregious act of violence I’ve ever seen in any form of media. Considering that animation is supposed to be amusing, (this was made by “Funimation”) I was shocked by just how horrid the depictions were, as if to use the art form to exaggerate and to manipulate all human sensibility and agony. Yet that first episode was not enough to stop me from continuing to watch it. Why?  Because it was effective. All the blood did serve one function: that it drew a thick red line between the black and white. There was no ambiguity, no coming back from what I’d witnessed, and that was the point: I never would be capable of humanizing the aggresso...

"I'll admit: I wanted to support this video . I wanted to support this channel. I have always liked your calm, collected feedback when you worked in groups with Gary, Drinker, AZ, etc. I should have noticed, though, that my approval of your commentary was proportional to just how many people you had shared a stage with. As a group, your Fellowship produces very moving content which inspires hope in people all over the globe. However, that is not your personal agenda, and I see that now.   Don't get me wrong: I too would love to find a critic who could formulate a system which would work for making Art effectively. Yet as I see this wish reflected in your rant, I cannot help but to consider, maybe to conclude, that it's a Faustian temptation. Lived experience within the World requires people to be practical, emotionally self-aware, and open to diverse perspectives. This is why a group or team is often quintessential to success in an artistic enterprise, including so...