How to Talk to Women

QUESTION: why would intuition only work well with rational numbers?

The symbolism of Tarot and numerology applies to rational numbers but not irrational numbers. If you study these closely and without prejudice you will learn to associate numbers with other meanings that aren't numbers. You can do the same thing with letters, like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Alphabet

With irrational numbers nobody has discovered an opportunity to do anything like that.

QUESTION: But these are of human origin, so that's seeing our pattern-seeking more than it is seeing natural patterns

Since it is possible to teach a dog its name so that the dog understands the name is a reference to him, forms are not of human origin.

But thank you for your question. It just occurred to me that I could add some origins to my unrelated, independent research about the Aldiode.

COMPLAINT: I'm not talking about forms. I'm talking about the patterns collected in Tarot and numerology and their not being natural patterns.

These origins would be for children in the sense that they'd explain the difference between morality for children and morality for adults. But I'm not sure whether I need also origins for animals or whether the female self is good for that. I think the female self should be a good origin for that because the original sex of fauna is female.

Whatever it is you're doing, either you're talking about forms or you don't know what a form is. What are you talking about if not a form?

You only told the patterns in Tarot and numerology aren't natural. So you only know what you're not talking about. Why don't you tell what are you talking about, then?

COMPLAINT: The original sex of fauna being female doesn't mean it's a good representation of female. That's weirdly bidirectional. I'm talking about the poor use of intuition in numerology and Tarot.

I presume the difference between animal and people to be that animals do not choose to change their conditioning upon finding out that they've become mature.

I do not gain anything from hearing about your poor use of intuition in numerology and Tarot because I already know I'm talented and you aren't even asking for help.

Do you know what is synesthesia?

It has been frequently reported in contemporary scientific journals that some people have synethesia. It has also been reported to be more common among children. Perhaps our culture destroys that ability for most people, to reduce them into instruments? But I am still synesthetic, mostly because school was so easy I didn't have to go out of my way to graduate.

Also, just for the record (we're aspiring towards science, after all), my synesthesia is different from what I've read. It also was stronger when I was a child even though I still have it.

When I was a child I didn't associate colors to letters or numbers like most synesthetics do. Instead, I associated pictures to words. I've never ever heard of anyone else have the same ability.

But I can also associate a sentence written by me to an animation if I recall the sentence in my mind.

And I frequently hear music or just some beautiful sounds in my mind.

The music is better than anything I've heard from the physical world but I can't compose it because I don't remember it well enough. Also I don't have absolute pitch, at least not that I know of.

I receive an utilitarian benefit from my interest in spirituality. The benefit is high internal harmony in the mind. But it doesn't mean I can deal with anything. I have had to specialise but that doesn't mean I'm a bad person. If a high standard of living is available, division of labor facilitates some degree of specialisation without losing cultural harmony.

Even if you don't have synesthesia you can perhaps understand that a synesthetic can associate numbers to shapes with straight edges, such as the shapes of Euclidian geometry. That means a synesthetic can resonate information within his introverted sensing function without using any other function.

But if one conditions himself to understand analytic geometry, with curves and circles and such, they will condition themselves against the Euclidian way of thinking. Only Euclidian geometry is in agreement with synesthesia.

This doesn't mean synesthesia only involves shapes with straight edges. It can also involve cloudy shapes or textures. But it seems to never involve trigonometry.

At the very least, the names of trigonometric functions should be changed because currently names such as sin, cos and tan are synesthetically so unappealing that it could be considered an objective fact that the purpose of such names is to degrade whatever they refer to. Since I don't know of other names for functions sin, cos and tan, I don't have empirical evidence for their incompatibility with synesthesia. But I believe they were named that way so that I wouldn't waste my time trying to understand them.

This attitude has been a great strategic advantage in life if I may tell. Some writings of the metaphysician Robert Pirsig have been published in a work named "Lila's Child". It is in the foreword of this book that I first sensed Pirsig to fake something. I ceased to read the book. In retrospect, to cease to read was a great strategic advantage, but it took over a decade to receive any reward or even a hint of a reward for the choice to stop reading.

This choice of mine was based on intuition. I didn't think anything, but if I would've thought of something, I would've probably thought: "This guy didn't use to fake. His first book was great. His second book had boring parts. But now he's faking. I don't want this. I wanted someone who doesn't need to fake."

There would've been many reasons to believe that "Lila's Child" is a trap. The cover of the book and the association to animism would've been great clues. But the factor I was most aware of is that I liked to read Pirsig because I could feel like I would've thought what he thought if I'd been smart enough to think of it that way. Suddenly, when Pirsig began faking, I ceased to feel like that towards him.

Sometimes I feel a little sorry for seeing these guys go...

Pirsig identified the finest known metametaphysical nuance CORRECTLY. Could also make hierarchies, but with mistakes. Didn't understand femininity. He was successful as an author, rhetorician, dialectician and metaphysician but not as a logician.

Gödel was the most successful logician but he failed in everything else. Logic is the hardest of the hard sciences because it's what makes other sciences hard. The best thing about logic is that it isn't offensive towards synesthesia. After becoming the most successful logician Gödel tried to become a moral philosopher like Pirsig, but failed.

Leary identified the highest number of hierarchical psychological circuits. Didn't make any mistake that I'd know of. But Leary's interpersonal circumplex reveals he didn't find value in everyday life, only in excellence and the evasion of bad things.

Jung arranged the oldest known logical wisdom into a form that was almost correct. He also thought about gnosis a lot but apparently didn't quite get there. At least women liked him and he could make Freud faint just by talking.

Augusta totally deserves the honorary mention for finding a feminine way to understand everything Leary and Jung could understand. But she wouldn't have understood metametaphysics because she's a woman and women can't understand even metaphysics. Also, there's no empirical evidence that women actually can become logicians even though it's possible in theory.

COMPLAINT: It's so tragic and laughable that some men like you can't see women are people. You must be very lonely. It's painful to the rest of us humans to watch you blunder around saying stupid things like "women can't understand even metaphysics."

Becoming a logician, metaphysician or metametaphysician causes a handicap in relating to women because it will cause one to think thoughts that have value which is real but to which women can't relate as women. In order to overcome the handicap, one must learn everything a good liar would also need to know.

COMPLAINT: You make us choose between being in your company and suddenly having our humanity denied or leaving you. It's astonishing your misplaced sense of superiority leave you unable to listen to the universe around you and acknowledge when other Ni-users (who live an breathe metaphysics) are around you. It's baffling to me that you have so little self-awareness. I hope you raise your knowledge of self and the world

You only pretend I force you to choose because you don't understand Buddhism. But you could understand that.

COMPLAINT: ad hominem.

COMPLAINT: sigh. ad hominem.

COMPLAINT: ad hominem.

But everyone else who understands Buddhism can see that, too.

You think you have a hard time being with me but I know it's easier for women to be with me than it is for men. That's just a generalisation but generalisations are for making expectations and only a fool would never have expectations.

You think you have problems even though your society prizes your gender so much that you're allowed to go to the university to study something you'll never become good at. That isn't a problem for me because I don't like the university setting. I think people who go there to study those things would fail anyway so I don't mind that you're allowed to go there. There's also money in that game and I know that money isn't for me, but it could be for you.

But the men who go there are such that if you were good at entertaining people they might call you a "whore" for some reason. I don't know why but Pirsig was like that. So, if you're good at entertaining people, don't waste your time by going there.