Sir Darius the Clairvoyent

I do not like these terms, as i asscociate it with «alpha bros» preying on insecure teen boys trough YouTube, or fake gurus. However, i have been digging my self into a little bit of hole recently, and there are areas that need some… fixing. Do you have any rouitine, methods, practice, authors etc. that you follow and reccomend, and how do you approach these things yourself?

@snowymountains May i ask whats your experience with meditation is, what method you use and so on?

The unwise man is awake all night, and ponders everything over; when morning comes he is weary in mind, and all is a burden as ever. Havamal, stanza 23

Because it is so foreign to me that I dont even have a mental picture of it. Not to mention the lingo; the terms used means absolutley nothing to me, it is just sounds and letters. Thats why it would be helpfull with a brief intro or reccomendation to further readin, as i did not know where to start. And I got that, so thank you all. It is like university: everything you learn in class available online, but you need a proffesor to tell you what to read, where to begin and to clarify. In addition to that, I prefer conversation with humans to wiki articles. Anyway, enough justification now : )

I find it hard to articulate, but i feel convinced that there must be one. I think it is down to two things: 1. fundementally everything is made of the same matter, it only changes form. 2. Conciousness, the largest mystery there is in my opinion. Can you imaging not excisting? We know that the mind can «create» seemingly real experiences, but we do not know that matter can create coinciousness. The word «mattee» is interresting as well. It has its roots from latin mater, meaning mother. The Domain, Not of Matter, but of What Matters Jordan Peterson And if the elements themselves suffer nothing by their perpetual conversion of one into another, that dissolution, and alteration, which is so common unto all, why should it be feared by any? Is not this according to nature? But nothing that is according to nature can be evil. ― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations I do not belive that I, as in the container of flesh and blood people call Mathias, will live on. I definetly hope it doesnt. But i belive councioussnsess is eternal. _________________________________ When you say the philosophers stone, i doubt you are talking about a rock, but rather alchemy. But what do you mean by that?

Sort of a related note. In his writings, he mentions «all-nature,» «cosmic law,» etc. quite a lot. Today, someone might call this the naturalistic falacy, defined as: But is it acctually a fallacy? In my opinion, it has more weight behind then other moral systems, that seems entirely arbitrary to me.

Havent watched this yet, but educated, unbiased guy: shall Watch tommorow morning : )

Havent watched this yet, but educated, unbiased guy: shall Watch tommorow morning : )

Wonder who Yahwe was asking.. his chosen people, the other tribal gods or the supreme ONE.

Wise advice ans beautifull concept «ikigai». appreciate it, @blue eyed snake❤️‍🔥

I am really curious about this. Any thoughts?

Does this excite you?

I made a little summary on a history forum, where i made the same thread. Thought people here might have a little different perspective however. Anyway: Scimmed trough some chapters of "A little history of economics" by Niall Kishtainy in order to add some context and flesh to the conversation: Economics is the study of how societies utilize their resources. Although this is an oversimplification, wealthy societies are successful in producing goods and services, while poorer ones are not. This has nothing to do with laziness, and everything to do with the effective use of resources. Resources are limited, but people's desires are not. Therefore, individuals have to make choices and prioritize their needs based on the costs associated with them. People work for money, in order to afford what they want, and then we have the financial sector aswell as the goverment as fundemental partipicants of the modern economic system. The modern field of economics was born with capitalism. Pre-capitalism, people relied on working the land, either for themself or for a land lord, hunting and gathering as well as trade and reciprocity. With the first civilisations, we saw division of labour and social hierachies. For Plato, the ideal economy was not one of markets, but one where people did what they where "born/meant" to do (the whole bronze, silver and gold souls thing). Society should ideally be a close polis/city state ruled by a philosopher king. Wisdom should be pursuied, the wise should rule and pursuit of wealth was viewed with discust. Kings and soldiers (gold and bronze) should not be allowed private property, in fear that it would corrupt them and lead to competition and distrust. Aristotle agreed with this sentiment, but feared that sharing everything would lead to even more competition. People should exchange goods for goods. Money could be a helpfull tool in this regard, but commerce and wealth herding was in his opinion still dubuous and unatural. Money lending was even more disgusting. "the type of character which results from weath is that of a prosperous fool" Aristotle We see similar sentiments by medival christian thinkers. I am sure everyone here knows why only jews did banking in Europe. Then we have the rise feudalism, where the economy was centered around relationship and hierachy (God - king - land lords/nobility - peasants. But still, it was not about profit and greed was despised. The correct selling price for food was not "how much can i possibly get for this" but rather "what is fair". With developments in technology and a change in attitude, Venice created the first Eruopean, commercial empire since antiquity. At the beggining of the 11th century the pope said that no merchant could ever enter heaven, by the end of it, a merchant with called Homobonus was made a saint. Somewhere around 1500-1800 mercantalism arose. Basic idea is that a country should export more than they export, and this could be done achieved by interventions like tarrifs. This would bring in precious metals, witch was considered the measure of wealth at the time. The state played a significant role in regulating and controlling trade, often granting special privileges and monopolies to certain merchant companies. In return, these merchants supported and financed the state's economic and colonial endeavors. The state would issue charters and grants to merchant companies, giving them exclusive rights to trade in specific regions or commodities. These companies, such as the British East India Company or the Dutch East India Company, were given significant powers and authority to carry out trade, establish colonies, and even wage wars in certain cases. Mercantalism is often considered the precourser of capitalism. The word "physiocrat," translated from French to English, means "rule by nature." They originated in 18th-century France, an authoritarian agricultural society where the third estate was heavily taxed and mercantilism was the prevailing economic policy. Mercantilism regarded the amount of precious metals as a measure of a country's wealth, and trade barriers as a means to maximize it. By ensuring that the country exported more than it imported, they also secured a positive flow of precious metals (favorable trade balance). Therefore, domestic production was also protected from foreign competition. Trading privileges were common. The physiocrats turned this almost upside down. For them, all value stemmed from the harvesting of nature. By increasing the surplus of agriculture, a society became richer. They considered regulations, high taxation of farmers, and trading privileges as an evil, precisely because it ate away at the aforementioned surplus. This "hands-off" idea has been described as "laissez faire," which can be translated to "allow to do." Francois Quesnay described a model where the surplus from agriculture created ripple effects in society at large. The farmers (the productive class) paid rent to landowners. The landowners (the unproductive class) traded with craftsmen (the sterile class), who in turn bought grain from the farmers. The physiocrats are praised for moving away from money and gold as a measure of wealth. However, their view was somewhat narrow, as value was limited to the harvesting of nature, and not the total production of goods and services (GDP) that is often used today. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I havent yet touched upon full out capitalism and marxisim, which would be the natural continuation, but to be honest, I got a little tired. Maybe later.

That wasnt limited to the stoneage my Friend, first coins was taken in use 600bc

Asked ChatGPT If there is reason to belive pagan Europe belived in reincarnation: Here is the translation of the Norwegian text into English: "There is some historical and archaeological evidence suggesting that certain pre-Christian European cultures might have believed in a form of reincarnation. However, these pieces of evidence are often indirect and open to interpretation. Here are some examples: 1. **Celtic Belief**: Some historical sources, such as the works of the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus and the Roman philosopher and historian Julius Caesar, suggest that the Celts might have believed in reincarnation or the immortality of the soul. Julius Caesar wrote that the Celts believed the soul moved from one body to another after death, which can be interpreted as a form of reincarnation. 2. **Nordic Mythology**: There is less direct evidence for reincarnation in pre-Christian Nordic belief. Some interpretations of the Edda poems and other ancient texts suggest a belief in the continuation of the soul after death, but it is unclear if this refers to reincarnation in the traditional sense. 3. **Greek Philosophy**: Although not technically 'pre-Christian European' in the same cultural context as Celtic or Nordic beliefs, ancient Greek philosophers like Pythagoras and later Plato had ideas that can be interpreted as reincarnation. Plato's works, especially 'Phaedo' and 'The Republic', contain references to the immortality of the soul and reincarnation. 4. **Archaeological Findings**: Some archaeological findings, such as burial customs and ritual objects, have been interpreted as indications of a belief in life after death, but there are rarely clear pieces of evidence for reincarnation. It is important to note that much of our understanding of pre-Christian European belief systems comes from secondary sources, often written by outsiders (like Roman historians) or from oral traditions that were recorded after the advent of Christianity. Therefore, interpretations of these sources should be taken with a certain degree of caution." Also asked for relevant articles. Havent read them myself (yet), but If anyone are interrested: https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/hidden-beliefs-covered-church-resurrection-and-reincarnation-early-christianity-006320 https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/afterlife-germanic-concepts edit: allthough distantly related, it is interresting to note that the closest living tradition to the various european pagan once, is hinduism.

Personally, i think reincarnation is the most «logical» stance on the «afterlife.» Nothing disappear or is created from nothing, it only changes form. “From earth you have come, to earth you shall return, and from earth you shall arise.”

Out of curiosity, in pre Christian Europe, belief in reincarnation was common, no?

Weeell… depends on who you Ask haha, and i think it is safer is you Ask @Nungali or @SirPalomides But yes, Yehova is mentioned and Jesus is said to be the son of God.

My doubts overcame me:( any alternatives?

Haha yess, id love to learn more. Maybe with time

What tradition would that be, my friend?

I am afraid to of boring people to death here, as i have posted this chapter (only two pages long) about five times allready, but it reasonates deeply with me. Since i havent bothered you with it yet, and it choose «the child» as the final stage of development, maybe youll find it interresting. Hope so, at least:) https://www.anthologialitt.com/amp/the-three-metamorphoses-by-friedrich-nietzsche

Think you missunderstood, and that the question was more alike: how can two prophets have so different teachings. In christianity, Christ is not reffered to as a prophet, but something much more: God incarnated. Some aspects of biblical Christ are was taboo in the semitic world: the trinity, God having a human form, depictions of God and the idea that God could die. It is by some belived that Muhammed and his people began as a «heathen,» Christian tribe, but wanted reform for some of the reasons mentioned above. As to why their teachings differ so much? Well, I am no Expert at islam at all (nor at christianity, but naturally i have some idea of it), but a few plausible readers: - the cultures that influenced biblical Jesus differed wildley from 7th century arabia - Jesus was somewhat of a pascifist (i think its fair to say), while Mohammed was a war lord.

I shouldnt speak on his behalf, but i feel confident that he didnt intend to imply that hindus are inheirinetly violent