AI to the rescue. https://www.perplexity.ai/search/why-do-people-make-fun-of-jeho-.j59wTXrSIqjd6Bf2jUUQA
Yeah I don't advocate believing in nothing, but I also don't advocate believing in mainstream religion nonsense. I keep harping on about the black and white book of half truths. The bible has some sound principles, one being don't follow the crowd. God imo is not "out there". If there is a 'God' it is in us. There is nothing to worship except life itself, nature, creation. All the bullshit about Jesus and Jehovah, absolute nonsense!!! The Jews concocted a huge con and reeled in a world of suckers.Sheep and goats.
Could be. Maybe all of this is just a massive construct of half-truths and human manipulation. I am not under any illusions about that. But in the end, for me, it is not about swallowing or rejecting an entire system. It is about extracting the valuable principles from it and discarding the rest. Wisdom, morality, and personal growth are not automatically worthless just because they appear in a book that also contains contradictions. The theory that the Jews orchestrated a massive deception is certainly possible. No one can deny that they hold significant power in key positions of influence. But if that were the whole picture, the world would be a one-dimensional story of deception and control. Yet in my experience, the universe always seeks balance. Where there is manipulation, there is also awareness. Where there is oppression, there is resistance. Where there is deception, there are those who search for truth. And that is the point: If there is evil, then there must also be good. Otherwise, the balance would not exist. That the world is controlled by a corrupt elite, driven by greed and perversion, is hard to deny. Whether they are Jewish or not is secondary to me. The real issue is what they do, not what they call themselves. At the end of the day, it is my choice whether I focus on what is wrong or whether I try to live by what is right. I cannot change the entire world, but I can choose the values I uphold in my own life. And for me, that matters more than the question of which religion, people, or group might be behind it all.
Well, that certainly is a thorough breakdown. Appreciate the AI-assisted deep dive into public perception. I suppose if a religion is going to be mocked, it is better to be mocked for actually standing for something rather than just blending into the background. The door-to-door work? Sure, it annoys people, but then again, so do telemarketers, campaigners, and kids selling overpriced chocolate bars for school fundraisers. At least Jehovah’s Witnesses are offering something for free. As for the cult accusations—well, if “cult” just means “a group of people who take their beliefs seriously,” then I guess just about every ideology, fitness trend, and crypto community qualifies too. But let’s be real, the term is mostly just used when people don’t like what a particular group believes. Blood transfusions? Alright, that one is controversial. But in a world where people refuse demand organic food, and avoid gluten without a medical reason, personal health choices being mocked seems oddly selective. Failed predictions? Name me a single major religion that hasn’t had a few of those. At least Jehovah’s Witnesses actually adjust their understanding instead of pretending they never said it. And the limited social interaction? That one is funny because the same people who complain about Jehovah’s Witnesses knocking on their door also complain that they don’t interact enough. So which is it—too much or too little? Ultimately, any group that doesn’t follow the mainstream narrative is going to be criticized, sometimes fairly, sometimes not. But hey, if being laughed at is the price for having conviction, it is a small price to pay.
Yeah, I tend to think its roots were not original intentional deception but some delusion, some political manipulation which snowballed maybe by chance, perhaps it snowballed because humans love to believe in something. You can see this in trading, all sorts of theories, Gann, EW, Fibonacchi, Moving averages, moon cycles, Dow theory and a plethora of phony technial analysis indicators. Many absolute convinced believers, but like you mentioned, one has to believe something.
Thank you. If what you say here is true, then the following axiom cannot be true: What knows believes nothing. What believes, knows nothing. If this is true, it's because knowledge - actual knowledge - is a totality. A mind either knows everything, or it knows nothing. As such, knowledge is a wholistic whole thing, which cannot be carved up into regions of known versus unknown. This is a rather foreign concept to those of us who have been immersed in a world founded upon faith. To render it less foreign, i might appeal to the famous parable of the prodigal son, which is said to have left his father's (and his own) kingdom for lands unknown, for lands "foreign" to the father. I am suggesting that a divide was proposed, not by the father, but by the wanderlust son, that there was something more to be found, somewhere out there in the unknown. If its true that knowledge is a wholistic whole thing, unable to be segregated into regions of known versus unknown, then the wanderlust son is really attempting the impossible. In order to accomplish the impossible, the wanderlust son must manufacture a mental malady which somehow allows a mind that knows everything, to carve out a region which may be called the unknown. In order to step into the unknown, and to explore it, so-to-speak, the wanderlust son must manufacture ever more complex mind games to satisfy his curiosity. Faith is a word i use to describe a primal mental mechanism which facilitates the exploration of the unknown in order to transform the unknown into the "known". Faith is like the coach of a mental gymnastics team that leaps to conclusions. By mental "malady", i mean faith is a misuse, even an abuse, of normal mind mechanics, which normally know everything. Faith manages to populate an unknown space of nothingness, into a space of somethingness, which can then be claimed to be "known". Faith, as such, rules over a foreign land, which i have called the domain of imagination. One of the first acts the wanderlust son needs to execute, as he is leaving the domain of the known, is to ignore what he knows through the weirdness of denial. Again, these are mind games, which abuse the normal functioning of a mind which knows everything by default. Once beyond the proverbial Rubicon, once he steps outside what is known, all bets are off. An artificial intelligence takes over which we may describe as thinking. If you recall the original parable, the wanderlust son first requests he be given his inheritance before he leaves. With the power of god, so-to-speak, he is given an unlimited amount of spending power with which to transform whatever he thinks, into what he now knows to be true, so-to-speak. Initially, this power is palpable, being not many steps away from the source. Think of a mountain. Wow. Wouldn't that be nice. Just $5million dollars. No problem. Just dip into daddy's inheritance money and make a mountain. With an unlimited bank account this seems really easy. But the more mountains you make, the more rivers you make, the more seas you make, the more trees you make, and the more bees you make...the more you spend, the more confused the mind becomes about the source of the spending power. This, then, is the really insidious nature of faith, and how it cannot really be reconciled with knowledge, as if it could add to the original knowledge-base. The more it attempts to add to the knowledge-base, the more it loses track of what was known. As the mind is cluttered up with things, it posits a new world order, which functions as it's own, alternate knowledge-base. The effect of this spending spree is subject to a kind of law of diminishing returns. As a mind loses track of the source of the spending power, it becomes harder and harder to "manifest" whatever the mind "thinks". What used to be easily manifest, is now manipulated with much labor involved. Faith can still move mountains, but now you need a Caterpillar D-9, and several months of labor, just to take a moderate hill down. Now broke, the wanderlust son attempts to get some or find some of the power back that has been lost. It is popular nowadays, for example, to patch together a "vision board". They are popular because they do seem to yield some astonishing results with some pretty neat anecdotal stories to be heard. But as mentioned, it requires a lot of labor/work, anymore, to manifest even some rudimentary requirements for a relative respite from a raggedy ratchet reality. This application of faith seems to work because it does tap into the very principles which assembled various atoms together in the first place. But if the source of power is not truly uncovered, the deleterious effects (such as diminishing returns) will continue. Thus, if we keep thinking the way we've always thought, we'll keep on getting what we've always got. Yes, we can "think and grow rich" but not without some kind of sacrifice, and our wealth will be very relative, not at all, anymore, unlimited. The original sacrifice was the abdication of a wholistic whole compliment of knowledge. We continue to sacrifice total knowledge whenever we think we can gain anything by exploring what faith can offer. Faith offers us an entire other, alternate world, a new world order, and a new base of "knowledge" to be exchanged for whatever we "wish". But in gaining this, even the whole world offered, we will lose track of the world (of total knowledge) that was...but still is...but which is now forgotten, lost, and effectively rendered "dead". So no, faith is not complimentary. It cannot really add. It's strange method of addition is through a process of subtraction. Indeed, addition was its intention. If you recall, the wanderlust son wanted to take his inheritance with him. He did not intend to lose anything he had already owned. As such, faith has been a method to add, but functions as a means to subtract. A journey into the unknown was unable to foresee the deleterious effects of faith. Thats the very nature of the unknown! You don't know the end game of all the mind games necessary to facilitate the journey! What we can know, however, is if you are still fond of faith, and wishful that it can complement the original knowledge-base with the promise of an ever-growing base of more knowledge...then you have not yet grown weary of this long protracted journey into the unknown. For this reason, the call to return is only broadcast for those who are weary. When you are willing to admit that the emperor has no clothes, you might be weary enough.
That is an interesting quote! It is especially relevant to trading imo. And trading imo carries lots of life lessons. If you are married to a position, believe in your position and your 'rightness' in holding that position, it's highly likely to transform into a millstone around your neck when you discover you've become a bagholder. Experienced traders imo, are those who can constantly change their mind, have no fixed opinion, they swing with the breeze. These traits are counterintuitive to christianity which believes in its rightness and anchored opinions created by other men.
That was an incredibly well-structured and thought-provoking piece. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees, I have to acknowledge the depth of thought and the philosophical clarity behind it. Not many people take the time to articulate their ideas in such a precise and coherent way, and I respect that. Your argument presents a radical and uncompromising view of knowledge—either it is absolute and whole, or it is nothing at all. This is a fascinating premise, but I wonder if it is truly sustainable when applied to real-world experience. If knowledge is a totality, then how do you explain learning, discovery, and progress? If one either knows everything or nothing, what is the process by which understanding deepens? Is every intellectual journey an illusion, or is there such a thing as genuine growth? The idea that faith subtracts rather than adds is intriguing, and I can see how, if someone believes faith is simply the construction of an artificial reality, this would make sense. But what if faith is not an illusion, but rather the bridge between known and unknown? A child does not immediately grasp calculus, but that does not mean arithmetic is false. Knowledge does not have to come all at once to be real. If faith is merely the mind “filling in blanks,” then is all exploration of the unknown inherently deceptive? Does that mean we should only rely on what is immediately provable? You mention that faith builds a new, alternative knowledge base that competes with the original. But would that not also apply to any form of theoretical exploration, science, or even philosophy itself? Was the development of relativity an abandonment of Newtonian physics, or an expansion of it? Was the discovery of quantum mechanics a betrayal of classical mechanics, or a refinement? In your model, would you say that science, which continually builds on itself, is simply a more refined version of the same faith-based illusion you describe? Or do you see scientific knowledge as fundamentally different? You also describe the human mind as originally omniscient, yet self-limited by its journey into the unknown. That is an incredibly bold and fascinating idea. But if the mind was originally in possession of all knowledge, why did it seek the unknown in the first place? Why would a fully knowing mind manufacture an illusion of ignorance? If the son in your parable left not by force but by choice, what was it that drove him to wander? And more importantly, does that mean the return to full knowledge is inevitable, or do some remain lost forever? I find your perspective compelling, even if I see knowledge as something that expands rather than something that was lost. But I truly admire the way you construct your thoughts, and I would love to know more about the path that led you to them. If you don’t mind me asking, how old are you, and what has been your journey to reach this level of depth in your reasoning? Because regardless of our disagreements, one thing is clear—you have put in the work to think deeply about these things. And that alone is something I can respect.
[ That is an interesting perspective and I can see why you draw a parallel between trading and belief. There is a definite lesson in how clinging to a position, whether in the markets or in ideology, can lead to disaster when reality shifts. A trader who refuses to adapt because he believes he is right will eventually find himself holding losses that could have been avoided. In that sense, the best traders are those who remain flexible, who can adjust without emotional attachment, and who recognize that the market does not care about their convictions. But does that mean conviction itself is inherently flawed Is it truly wise to treat all ideas as fluid While I agree that in trading nothing is absolute, does the same principle apply to everything in life If all perspectives should be abandoned the moment new information arises, then how does one ever arrive at something solid lasting and true The real question is what kind of truth we are talking about. The markets shift constantly, which is why a trader must be adaptable. But does that mean that all truth is like a market, moving and evolving with time Or are there things that by their nature are not subject to fluctuation, things that are not about probability but about reality itself I understand your point and I find the trading comparison insightful. But if I distinguish between trading and belief, I see that one is based on the temporary and unpredictable while the other deals with the fundamental and unchanging. Just because some beliefs are rigid and blind does not mean that all conviction is misplaced. I wonder do you think there is anything in life that is truly fixed or do you believe everything is in constant motion
It seems we can't have fixed opinions about anything, life is fluid, dynamic, changing as the weather. Every day we are exposed to new information which changes our opinions. 30 years ago I never dreamed that I would have a total opposite belief about religion. If you observe nature closely, all living things want motion. Watch humans, birds, fish, they can't sit still unless sick. Life is meant to be fluid and rapidly changing. But religion for the most part wants no change.