Cloudscape

In some way or other, we perceive everything through some sort of association with something we already know, even if it is but a very basic aspect of it. If this association is too close, it will be so similar that our mind will label the experience as irrelevant, because it is already used to it. If the association is too distant, it will seem so extraneous that our mind will be unable to understand it, because it has never seen anything the like. If there is almost no association whatsoever, the mind will be completely unable to register it, because if it did register such sort of information, it would go mad.

We limit our consciousness to a relatively narrow range because if we did not, we would be overwhelmed by the overflow of information. Schizophrenics are people who fail to filter information in this way. Much of the information processed in our subconscious mind is hallucinatory, because we need this hallucinatory information to be able to project ourselves into future situations. Because the mind cannot tell hallucinations apart from reality in any other way, it simply excludes whatever information that is most alien to it. If we were aware of all the information that is processed in our mind, we would be completely dissociated from reality.

Because we perceive everything through associations with something else, we will also, at least partly, perceive beauty in something by associating it with beauty we already know. The perception of beauty spreads from an original perception thereof and then spreads onto other perceptions as we learn to appreciate variety.

We do not perceive the beauty of things by themselves, but in their context. Beauty is formed through complexity, and therefore through variety. Something can but contribute to the complexity of the whole if it adds to its variety, that is, if it is original. Everything can be infinitely beautiful, but to be perceived as beautiful to us, it must be neither too mundane nor too alien to us.

Something only becomes beautiful through the combination with something else. The smallest possible element of something we can perceive has no substance by itself because it is but uniformly itself. Everything is relative, and so nothing can have any substance without being compared to something else.

Either too much yang or too much yin will break down into nothingness, and so nothing can still be gained from them unless they are recombined with their opposite. Until then, their energy is lost.

If all space is filled, it is empty of space. If all space is empty, it is filled with space. If there is too much of either it destroys both its opposite as itself.

The world is like an infinite drawing of black and white ink. Whether you start from a black paper or a white paper, when you begin, the paper is still empty, and if too little or too much of either is used, it will return to this state of emptiness, whether it be black or white. Too little of either, and there is nothing to begin with at all.

Complexity cannot be achieved except through a combination of either, and without complexity, there is but vacuum. Wherever there is complexity in the universe, this pattern is met, because all complexity comes down to this pattern in some way or other, that is, the pattern of opposites combined into one. There cannot be complexity without this pattern because it is synonymous to complexity. By far the most complex structure in the universe we know is the biosphere, and it constantly interchanges emptiness and fullness, down to the very atomic level of our own bodies.

Too much fullness is like an explosion, too much emptiness is like a vacuum. Both can kill you. If you are in a state of either too much fullness or too much emptiness, seek for its opposite, and only for its opposite. At this point, do not focus on protecting what there was in excess, for as long as it is not combined with its opposite, it will inevitably destroy itself no matter what, and no matter how you focus on protecting it, it will not avail anything. If it is not supported through this combination, it will collapse, and so the only way to retain it is to pay no attention to retaining it and concentrate instead entirely on its opposite. The more excesses are fed, the faster they will destroy itself.

Anything will collapse if there is too little of its opposite. If opposites are not combined, the only way that balance can be restored is through disintegration.

I hypothesize that mythomania is an addiction, similar to alcoholism or other drug addictions. All  addictive drugs increase dopamine, and so, according to my hypothesis, does lying. Lying involves imagination, and imagination involves dopamine. When imagining something, we produce dopamine, because dopamine improves our associative thinking and therefore our creativity.

When we are lying, we produce dopamine, and the better we are able to lie, the more dopamine we produce. The better they become at lying, the more dopamine we produce when lying. By learning to lie, mythomaniacs train themselves to produce more dopamine. Eventually, in training themselves to become better liars to produce more dopamine, they bring themselves so far as to believe their own lies. In trying to produce as much dopamine as possible while lying, they become addicted to lying.

There can be two reasons why we slip into unconsciousness: either because we lack the will to direct our consciousness, or because we lack the gentleness to enjoy it. Whenever you slip into unconsciousness, analyze which of both it is most, so that you can know in what direction to evolve.

Overprotective parenting increases risk of neuroses and psychosis by stinting the development of the ego. Because overprotective parents care too much for their child, they prevent the child from learning how to care for itself. Caring for oneself is not a matter of skills as this does not require any skills at all: it is a matter of self-respect. Without ego, there is no self-respect because it seems that there is then no self to respect.

Compulsive education may have the same effect, because it replaces any innate drive to learn with force. The pupil comes dependent on this force because in its presence, its curiosity cannot grow. The pupil asks the question in the place of the pupil, rather than having them ask the question themselves.

The school must learn the pupil to become their own teacher, for only then can they truly grow afterwards. If the pupil has not learned to teach itself after it has been taught, then the teaching was in vain. Even to remember is to teach, for if we don't think of something we have learned now and then and thereby rehearse it, we will eventually inevitably forget it, be it in a matter of years or decades.

Similarly, the parent must learn the child to be their own parent. In a way, the parent is to transfer their own parenthood into the mind of the child. We all are our own parents: our ego is our internal parent.

The four classical elements, while originally denoting elements from which the world was made, may actually be symbols for the elements of our own mind. Our subconscious may communicate its state of mind in dreams through these four elements. Not only that, but we may also communicate back with our subconscious in the same way, that is, by using the four elements in hypnosis.

Our mind is familiar with the characteristics of each, and so will use these as symbols of its own characteristics, for instance, in dreams. This is why we often describe emotions through comparison with sensations. It is even possible that the philosophers that proposed the four classical elements had actually been influenced by the subconscious awareness of the four elements in their own mind, and projected these onto the world.

For instance, fire will create sensations of warmth, brightness and motion and so arouse impressions thereof, thus whenever it later has the impressions of warmth, brightness and motion, this may elicit the subconscious memory of fire, which may express itself in art, language, dreams and hallucinations or pseudohallucinations. On the other hand, the opposite is also possible. During suggestion or hypnosis, one may arouse the feelings associated with fire through images of fire, causing them to feel more energetic.

For the most part, water symbolizes emotion, air symbolizes cognition, earth symbolizes action, and fire symbolizes volition. However, each element may also symbolize an aspect of another, that is, any of the elements may symbolize feeling, thought, deed or will, but each will do so in their own way, such that their association still hold. For instance, fire may also symbolize emotion, but in this case in the form of desire, that is, emotion that wants something (ie volition).

The killing of a human, even humans of exceptionally low intelligence and therefore of proportionally low sentience, is considered the worst possible crime, yet the killing of other animals which scientists have confirmed to be highly intelligent, and certainly appear to be more sentient than many humans (such as those that are mentally retarded), deserve no trial. Mental retardation can sometimes reduce IQ to below 20. If people who are profoundly mentally retarded are protected by law, it only seems reasonable that dolphins, as well as elephants and some primates, should also be protected by law, yet there is no international law that protects them.

This has nothing to do with ethics. This distinction is made purely out of our instinctive urges to preserve the human race. Animals of near-human sentience should have the same rights as humans, all the more as there are many people whose intelligence is barely above that of some animals. Our need to preserve our own race is so strong that we will keep even people in permanent vegetative state alive, yet most people see the killing of sentient animals as being as innocent as a sport.

We have invented law at least partly to protect ourselves, and not just out of respect for others. Someone who kills humans is a threat to humans and may therefore also be a threat to ourselves, but if someone kills animals, even highly sentient animals, this does not pose a threat to us.

We have no instinct for the preservation of nature as we have an instinct to preserve our own species, and any respect we do show for nature comes forth from our own sentience. A respect, as has been shown, that dolphins, one of the most sentient species in the world, actually share, as evinced in the risk they are willing to take to save humans. The only other species that is known to possess such levels of empathy, high enough to spontaneously save a being of another species, are humans.

We are inclined to underestimate other sentients because, unlike ourselves, they have no civilization. This is not because of their lack of intelligence, however, but rather because of their lack of efficient manipulatory appendages — that is, hands. Aside from our intelligence, our hands are the most important thing that set us apart from other animals, and while they may seem to be less significant than our intelligence, this is actually quite misleading.

One is inclined to assume that our civilization proves our intelligence, but it is important to remember that our neocortex has no longer changed in morphology in the past hundred thousand years, as our civilization, rather than furthering its evolution, made it unnecessary to our survival.

It would not be fair to compare the complexity of dolphins' lives to that of our own, as dolphins have never had the chance of achieving the complexity of environment as that in our civilization. Rather, because our brain as it is now isn't very different from what it was before civilization was formed, we should compare it to how complex our lives were before we formed civilizations. Comparing our own way of hunting with theirs, it would seem that theirs is more complex. It is our ability to use tools that at this point really distinguishes us from dolphins.

Consider how dolphins organize their hunting, surrounding gigantic shoals, dispersing them and driving them to the surface. This isn't as simple as doing the same with a herd of terrestrial animals, a feat that any pack of wolves can manage. The fish in shoals are enormous in number, and in shoals of Atlantic herrons can number up to 3 billion. As a result, shoals act as very complex systems, and it isn't possible to pick fish out of the shoals until they have been dispersed numerous times, neither is a single fish enough. The shoal has to be of just the right size so that it is enough for the entire group, but not so large that it becomes impossible to catch any. If a smaller group escapes, it is lost.

To disperse a shoal as a singleton predator is one thing, but to surround a large shoal in a group is another entirely. Hunting in this way is comparable in complexity (though not in danger) to a high-profile military operation, the significant difference between the two being that this particular operation is in 3D.

This seems like a minor detail, but it multiplies the level of complexity involved. For a pack of hunting wolves, the only directions from which to choose are left and right. To a group of dolphins, it is far more complicated. Every move has to be carefully coordinated, and this requires a high degree of cooperative and language abilities.

Because of the disparity in brain morphology, it is hard to compare dolphin to human intelligence, but the most relevant finding is probably the number of synapses in dolphin cortices: dolphins have 0,87 · 10¹⁴ cortical synapses, compared to 1,3 · 10¹⁴ in the human cortices (Encyclopedia of Marine Animals, page 147). The estimates of the latter cipher vary, however, and the estimates of the cortical synapses in dolphins would likely also vary if more research went into it. However, based on these ciphers, dolphins would have 67% the number of synapses humans have. This does not mean that they would have 67% of our intelligence, but rudimentary as it is, this would probably be the best approximation we have so far.

We seem to be biassed against animal intelligence because out of instinct we want to be special, despite ever more research pointing to the contrary. If our image of the intelligence of animals changes, however, so should our ethics about deciding about their lives. Ethically, the killing of animals of near-human sentience is tantamount to homicide.

Let not your light fear your darkness, and let not your darkness fear your light.

An inclination to lie to others is correlated to an inclination to lie to oneself, that is, bias. Bias is a lie we tell ourselves in order not to hurt ourselves. If one will lie to others not to hurt them, one will also be quicker to lie to oneself in order not to hurt oneself. Both yourself and others deserve to know the truth, even if it hurts you, even if it hurts them. The only excuse for lying is to prevent someone from causing harm to others.

Unless one has either an inferiority complex or a superiority complex, the mind does not make any distinctions between the ego's pain and shared pain, and so, if one avoids others' pain one will also avoid one's own pain. One should not avoid pain, however: one should only avoid harm. Harm isn't always painful, and pain isn't always harmful.

The more complex an organism, the more complex its needs. Many bacteria can grow practically anywhere on practically anything, while humans need to grow in the womb and later with the care of the mother in a stable and nourishing environment, able to live only on a varied diet.
The same is true for mental needs as for physical needs. Why is it, then, that we give more attention to mentally handicapped people than to gifted people, although the support required by the former is far less complex?