Many introverts are good empaths. They respect others just as much as they would wanna be respected. They're shy around people because their sensitive to others' dignity as well as their own. They know their limits so they can tell when a person needs some space.

An introvert might also be aloof due to high sensitivity--indeed, their introversion may result in part from the mental and emotional overstimulation that other people cause, especially in group settings.

So while it may appear that the introvert is stand-off-ish, they are actually protecting themselves from sensory overload, and in a one-on-one situation might be able to go deeper with the other person than an extrovert.

I've always describe introvert as: everything begins and ends in the self. In other words, introverts are kind of the pack rats of reality: going out into the world and gathering representations of reality which they carry back to their own little hole and work with. While, for the extrovert, everything begins and ends in the world of objects.

But saying introversion and empathy are synonymous, or at least complimentary with each other. After a longer look at the two meanings, I want to disagree. Empaths may pick up other's feelings whether they want to or not. Being an introvert can be a coping mechanism in that case.

Regardless of the oversimplified dichotomizing, introverts draw their energy internally, extroverts externally. This seems have to do with the dominance of their acetylcholinergic and dopaminergic systems, respectively. Either could be empaths, but draw from different bases. In this perspective, the introvert could actually be more empathic, given they get past the social barrier. But overall, neither is black or white; we are talking about continuum of functioning.


There is an image of the ideal world where there is no hate and everyone is holding hands and smiling and singing. These kind images of perfection are pretty absurd, if you ask me. I wouldn't like to be happy all the time. I'd forget what happiness was. If I was kind to everyone all the time, I wouldn't be able to differentiate the quality of relationships anymore.

If I loved myself unceasingly I would no longer remember why I was worth loving. It may sound cheesy paradoxical but the all things you don't like are the things that make life worthwhile. Pain, shame, rejected, all the shit you hate to do, not getting what you want.

Many concepts we use are binary. Meaning that they come in pairs of opposites; like good/bad or love/hate or black/white. We often forget these opposites are ending points on a continuous spectrum; not really the same, not really separate, just a long way apart.

Obviously pleasure isn't the same as suffering, but the one is only a reflection of the other. They are references to each other. Therefore if you minimize suffering, you will minimize pleasure. 1 Yin equal 1 Yang. 10 Yin equal 10 Yang. And so on. The most interesting part of the spectrum is not the white or the black end, but the gray middle circulation which is both and neither.

What you are preaching isn't anything new, and who gave us the authority to dictate what's natural for the rest of humanity?

We have no idea what humanity's purpose or natural progression is supposed to be like. And claiming that you do is just a big LOL. What we believe isn't the point. The point is we're pushing beliefs as facts. It makes us pretentious douche. End of story.

If you awaken people before they have found their own truths and done the process themselves, you will awaken immaturity. Beliefs are not facts. Facts are truth known for certain. Beliefs are positions held of a thing to be possible as the truth value. We talk about how what we believe will save humanity, but in reality what we are doing right NOW is what has caused humanity to fall so far.

We're operating under d notion that our beliefs are facts. Beliefs aren't facts. Everything we say about "awakening" is a self-critical-versa.


"Fear is an evolutionary advantage. Without fear, the human race would not have evolved."

Nope. The idea that fear is an evolutionary advantage is a cultural myth not based in any fact. It is a notion that is actually way older than any evolutionary science, so how could evolution have established such a "fact" before it existed?

Here's what the current science has to say about fear:

Fear is mostly the product of the amygdala in the limbic system, one of the oldest structures in the vertebrate brain; the "feeling" portion of the brain. Much older than the frontal lobe where we get our intelligence. So for millions of years, a lot of very simple animals were running basically on fear before higher animals with a capacity to reason evolved.

In simple animals, fear has a very specific function which is "panic." Panic causes an animal to freeze, not fight or flee. Fighting and fleeing are the results of the animal being able to overcome chemical signals from the amygdala, not give into them. The animal rejects fear and chooses to fight or flee. A function of the frontal lobe's reasoning ability.

It is now suggested by evolutionary science that fear was a way in which members of a species could grow stronger by sacrificing its weaker more fearful members to predators who gave into panic while the stronger, smarter members escaped. Fear is therefore not a tool of evolution, but a tool of extinction or population control.

To further this theory, it has been observed under brain scan that an increase in fear signals from the amygdala results in an immediate decrease in activity in the frontal lobe. Therefore, fear actually works against our reasoning brain. Fear makes you stupid. Being stupid is not an evolutionary advantage for the entire species. However, it is an advantage for the stronger members of a cooperative species in terms of becoming the "alpha" members. Fear in a primitive collective could help an alpha control the rest of the tribe and further their own genetic heritage while suppressing others. Our ancestors were not the members of the human species who capitulated, but the ones who dominated. We still see this behavior in lesser primates even though humans have for the most part abandoned this kind of social behavior. Most of us, anyway.

Fear is still used as an excellent tool for controlling the masses by those in charge. So, the idea that fear, a tool which makes sure weaker animals become prey and are dominated by stronger members of their species, is probably not an evolutionary advantage for anyone other than the predators and the oppressors.

Fear is also responsible for things like hatred, racism, bigotry, misogyny, greed, murder, paranoia, self-destructive behavior, addiction, apathy, depression. The kinds of things that are eroding our civilization, not building it up.

It can therefore be properly stated that our civilization is the very fight against fear. Fear is not your friend or ally. Fear is your enemy. How strong you are depends on how much you resist it rather than give into it.

There is also the harmful stress and general mental health issues associated with experiencing too much fear on a constant basis.


Interestingly, every ultimate super-villain is unbeatable because of their level of intelligence (which is supreme but not godlike since their fatal flaw is always the pursuit of godlike knowledge and power), but the reason why every super-hero is the most powerful is because of how hard they can hit.

What does society then tell us through this narrative?

It is that the villain is the person who uses their intellect through their utmost potential. And the hero is the one who is most violent and hits the hardest in the face of the villain's intellectual superiority.

Society tells us that the most brilliant of us are the ones who are in opposition of social stability, and the most violent and righteous are the protectors of society. And yet, it is the most violent and righteous (police, military) who are the vanguard of the oppression of all human liberty. Even though knowledge has done nothing other than elevate the common human to a level in which they can oppose the oppressor.

I ask you, who really has the better chance of eliminating society's biggest ills, the police or the scientist?

Hero narratives are cleverly crafted lies in which society tries to convince us that our oppressors are our saviors. After all, even "Superman" (√úbermensch) is modeled after a concept wherein "the ideal superior man of the future" is someone who could "rise above conventional morality to create and impose his own values." Superman is the military industrial complex personified.

And people like Lois Lane are otherwise intelligent and aware "reporters" who are rescued on a daily basis by the hero, but are still not smart enough to recognize that hero for what he really is, despite the rather pathetic means by which he goes to hide his identity--simple spectacles.


Creativity and originality are not that closely interdependent. One can be creative and innovative, without being original. Most of the time, this is how it works. Being creative is the ability to inspire your audience. You don't need to be original for that. You just need to have a sense of showmanship.

Originality is the notion that one can create something which has never been created before. And although this is not entirely impossible, it is rare these days. Creation has an entropy all its own. And the creational entropy of our civilization is huge at this point.

Original ideas become more difficult to formulate over time. Eventually, originally becomes dependent on the ignorance of the audience. Something is "original" only because your audience hasn't seen it before.

It is far more realistic for you to focus on talent and passion rather than originality. Don't worry about doing something unseen. Focus on doing something well.


Knowledge is the accumulation of information which is given conceptual context in relation to other information. A complex web of information you might say. If information is sugar, flour, egg, and milk, knowledge is cake.

Belief is a form of knowledge that presupposes: "I believe I can have cake if I have sugar, flour, egg, and milk."

Even if no cake yet exists, belief that there can be a cake is justified by the information available. Probability based on material evidence.

Faith is a broader spectrum of belief. It deals only in possibility, not a narrower probability. As we all know, anything is possible (hypothetically speaking). There are no realistic parameters for possibility. And definitely no standard of evidence.

Faith is like having sugar and imagining that is all you need to make cake. Obviously not very realistic.


The problem with the school systems is that people always expected too much from it because of the hype. They see it said that smart people learned to be smart in school; and so they go to school expecting it to make them smart.

However, school has never been about making someone smart. The only time this was possibly true was in the days of the ancient Greek academy. A very short period in Western history. A similar time was seen in India, China, and Arab around the same period. These are the areas in which philosophy was born.

But for the most part, the purpose of schooling was to produce workers and leaders. Not make people smart. No one can make you smart. If a person becomes smart in school it is because they had the will be be smart. If you lack the will to be smart, or you are an unintelligent person by no fault of your own, no amount education is going to solve that problem for you.

What education will solve is giving you the necessary skills to make a living and contribute to society. You can do this without an education as well, but the work you get without an education is going to be the work left over that no one wants to do. You can be a garbage man or a waiter. Or you can be a computer programmer or a lawyer. But if you want to be a computer programmer or a lawyer, then you need that degree on paper. Because no one is going to hire a self taught computer programmer or lawyer for any more money than they would be willing to pay a garbage man.


Have you ever thought about what it would be like to simply stop using the internet? Not just Facebook and other social media, but the whole internet. No computers, no smartphones, no email, just living like the internet does not exist. Is it even possible? Probably not if you need to function in today's global culture. Just considering the possibility can be daunting. You'd lose contact with friends and family whose relationships you've spent so many years kindling and growing; unless you decide to keep in contact by snail-mail, of course--sitting down to actually write a letter on paper. No more would you be subjected to spam and constant bombardments of advertising. Your page and website views would no longer be tracked so that your personal advertising experience is tailored. Heck, no more tracking at all. Especially if you revert to a cash only mode of living, but that's another story.

Would you want to leave some lasting impression on the internet, specifically on social media? Kind of like a relic that says, "I was here!" Or maybe just cut yourself off completely, becoming nothing more than a fading memory to your old friends? "Hey, does anybody remember that guy?"

So, how would you do it? Delete everything? Social media profiles, email addresses, etc? Would you leave a backdoor in case you change your mind? Maybe change your passwords to something not easily remembered, write them down and put them in an envelope, and give them to a trusted friend to hold on to just in case? Or do the relic thing and change your passwords to something hard to remember, do not write them down, and do NOT give them to a friend for safekeeping?

If you go the relic way, what would be your last message to all of your friends? What epitaph would leave at the top of your profile? Would it be something profound? A simple goodbye and thanks for all the fish? Or would you just disappear silently into the night?

If you did leave the internet how would you prepare yourself mentally? So much of our time is consumed by the internet that to leave it seems an impossibility. Would you read more? Work more? Watch a lot of TV (trade one addiction for another)? Exercise? Go on a quest?

Dropping off the internet would be a little like dropping out of society; seeing as how much of our being social entails simply being on the internet. Sure, the interaction with people over the internet is not of the same caliber as face-to-face, but for many who are a little introverted the internet has allowed us join with others in the celebration of life, even if it is a virtual celebration.

I just wanted to throw these ideas out there. I'm not suggesting that anybody actually do it. That would be so anti-social. And scary. And selfish. And ... a way to gain back your sanity?

People say they can't do without internet not because it is impossible, but because they have no desire to do without internet. They are not asking themselves what it would be like without internet, they are asking what it would be like to have their opium taken away from them. An addict isn't going to ever like that happening. But they aren't likely to die because of it, either. They'll just have to do something other than surf the web.

Ah, too much questions.