My Book

[The Transcended Omniverse]

I have now created a book which is 62 pages long. It explains everything in regards to my worldview and it also explains new things in regards to my worldview. It is not a book I am selling. Rather, it is a book you can read anytime. I will give you the links:

Book Cover: http://fav.me/dbsosib
Part 1: http://fav.me/dbpycai
Part 2: http://fav.me/dbq9g03
Part 3: http://fav.me/dbqxucc
Part 4: http://fav.me/dbqxud2

[Divine Insight]

Do I really need to read the whole thing when I can see obvious flaws early on?

In part 1 you say:

Now, I am trying to prove that hedonism is real and not just some philosophy through empirical evidence.

What do you mean that you are trying to prove that hedonism is real? Of course it's real. It's a philosophical idea of how to live one's life.

What you need to prove is not that hedonism is real, but rather that it's the best way to live one's life in an imperfect world. Obviously if you find yourself living in a perfect world a life of hedonism would be easy to live. But is that the case in the real world?

In part 2 you say:

With that being said, our negative emotions would, therefore, have to always be value judgments of bad value since they are a form of disliking, not wanting, and a negative form of wanting. Now that I have established this, I need to establish how our rational value judgments are not any real value judgments.

The problem is that we live in a real world that contains things that we find emotionally negative. It's not like we can simply choose to ignore those negative emotions. In fact, if we do ignore them, or try to avoid them that can lead to even more negative unwanted emotions.

So once again, a lifestyle of pure hedonism, regardless of how well-intended and harmless it might be to others, is simply not always practical or even possible in the real world.

Also from part 2:

The Type Of God My Worldview Advocates: As I said before, I am undecided when it comes to the existence of god, the afterlife, and the paranormal. But I keep an open mind and hope that there is an eternal blissful afterlife for me to be forever happy in and get whatever I want after I die. But let's pretend that god does exist. According to my view, his light is not that of a saved sinner who has repented lest he be burned and tortured forever in a lake of fire. Rather, this is a god who just wants us to be happy and enjoy our lives. When we have fun, this is nothing sinful. There is no hell and there is also no need for us to serve our lives and obey. All we need to do is just be happy and have fun all the while making wise decisions and not harming ourselves, others, or disrespecting and being cruel to others.

Well, if your hedonistic worldview is true then there cannot be a God. Why? Because according to what you have just said about your God would need to want us to be happy and enjoy our lives. If a creator God had wanted that it would not have created horrible diseases, unannounced natural disasters, droughts, etc.

So hedonism is not compatible with any God who might have created the world in which we find ourselves because our world is most definitely not designed for hedonism. There are far too many horrible things in this world that are totally beyond our control. You have no control over having your new born baby being born deformed by a birth horrible defect, or contracting a horrible disease where it slowly dies a horrible death right before your very eyes as the months slowly pass away.

So this universe is not compatible with your hedonistic worldview. It's especially not compatible with a God who supposedly just wants us to be happy.

So your worldview simply isn't compatible with the real world.

Again from part 2:

My Christian Metaphor: I will give a religious analogy to get my point across. We can still use whatever analogy we want as long as it gets our point across regardless of how nonsensical the analogy sounds. After all, people convey elements of reality in their literature using artistic metaphors all the time. So, here is my Christian analogy/metaphor. You, as an unsaved sinner, can never see the magnificence, love, and beauty of Jesus without his holy light within your inner being. It doesn't matter how much you acknowledge the existence of his magnificence and love. You need his holy light in order to truly see his love and beauty for what it truly is. As long as you don't have his holy light within you, then you are living like a machine and your standard of living is nothing at all.

In that same sense, our positive emotions are like the light of Jesus as they allow us to truly see the beauty, worth, and good value that things and situations hold. Without them, then our standard of living is nothing at all (a no quality standard). Likewise, our negative emotions would be like the opposite of Jesus' light (the inner darkness). They are what allow us to truly see things as horrible, disgusting, etc. So, our positive emotions put us into states of sheer love, joy, goodness, and beauty while our negative emotions put us into states of sheer misery, despair, hate, suffering, agony, and badness. But if you can have another form of the inner light, then you would have been granted an alternative form of Jesus' light, so to speak.

If Jesus is this God of hedonism, then why does Jesus curse us with deformed babies, and our young children dying from horrible diseases?

This FORCES us to have extreme negative emotions whether we like it or not. And many people are extremely sensitive to the emotional pain of others. So they are filled with deeply negative emotions just knowing that other people are suffering from these things.

My sister is a perfect example. She's crying all the time, even from stuff she hears on the news that he happening on the other side of the world. The state of reality fills her with negative emotions. She can't just choose to be "happy" all the time whilst ignoring the REAL WORLD.

You're "worldview" requires that we ignore, or at the very least, refuse to allow ourselves to have any emotions associated with the real world, because if we allow ourselves to feel those emotions they will be negative emotions and we will have violated the hedonistic worldview.

More from part 2:

Situations: Whatever situation we feel from is the situation that we either perceive as being good or bad. If you felt excited from getting a new movie, then you would be seeing the movie as having much good value. If you felt sad from the idea of a loved one being dead, then you would be seeing bad value towards that tragic situation. The same idea applies to people, things, objects, etc. in your life as well.

So how does this support a worldview of hedonism? You've just confirmed that the real world isn't designed for hedonism.

More absurdities from part 2:

The Truth Hurts And Cures Need To Be Found: It doesn't matter how much the truth of my worldview offends or hurts people; it can be used to help find cures for depressive illnesses and other illnesses that take away the inner light we need in our lives. As for other people who would be offended, they would just be like religious believers and I would leave them behind in the dust just like how all the Thor believers are left in the dust. This book needs to be shared to the world so that such progress can be made and, perhaps, this book is an established basis for creating a utopia life for us all in the distant future.

Creating a utopia life for us all in the distant future?

How are you going to create a life of utopia by preaching hedonism? No matter how much hedonism you practice the world will still have babies being deformed by birth defects and young children dying from horrible disease.

You cannot cure the ills of an imperfect world by preaching or practicing a mindset of hedonism.

You appear to be lost in a totally unrealistic worldview that basically ignores the true nature of the actual real world we live in.

I'm not going to waste time reading the whole thing because you have already said far too many things that are obviously misguided.

Here from your part 3:

What About Other Worldviews?: At this point, I don't think any advice or philosophies from anyone else can help change my worldview. Like I said, that would require a whole new personal experience to do so. I mean, I have, in fact, made the best of things during my miserable moments which would be me taking the advice of others, but that did not bring my life any real good values. Ask my mother if you don't believe me because she knows that I work hard at things and make the best of things even during hard times. But none of that worked for me. It is only once I have recovered my inner light (positive emotions) that all the good values were, in a way, magically brought back into my life again.

It seems to me you are confusing "Worldviews" with "Outlook on Life".

It's always good to shoot for the best, be optimistic, and work toward results that will ultimate produce good emotions.

I don't think anyone will argue with that.

But that's just an attitude toward life. It's not a "Worldview".

So I'm thinking that you are potentially just using the term "worldview" incorrectly.

A hedonistic "worldview" would be one where you believe the true nature of the world is hedonistic. I don't see how that can make sense since the world is clearly not pretty. There are simply too many nasty things in the world for the world to be hedonistic.

But shooting for the best possibly outcome, positive emotions, and optimistic thinking is of course a good thing. I don't think any sane person would argue with that.

You don't need to necessarily call that a hedonistic attitude though. There are other ways it can be labeled. Like optimistic attitude.

So I suggest that you are just making a semantic error here by calling it a "Worldview" when what you are really talking about is an "Outlook on Life". That's totally different from a worldview.

[The Transcended Omniverse]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

You don't have to read the book if you don't want to. Instead, here is a brief summary for anyone pressed for time But first, as for your question about god, god could not even be a being which would mean he has no intentions. He would be like water. His light energy is pure goodness that we need to "drink," so to speak. This means god would not be put to blame for all the suffering of this world since he never had any intentions at all to begin with. Now, onto the summary:

Short Summary: http://fav.me/dbsuczh

[Divine Insight]

In the first few sentences of your summary you contradict yourself.

You say:

This is the shortest summary of my book/worldview for anyone pressed for time and for anyone who doesn't have much patience to read. My positive emotions are what literally bring my life good values since they are what allow me to see all the good values, joys, and beauty in this life and universe. No attitude, belief, or mindset alone can do this.

I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but what you are calling your "Positive Emotions" are your "Attitude".

Emotions aren't just feelings alone. Emotions are how you react to various situations. And how you react to various situations depends on your attitude.

So anytime you have rationally concluded that you are having "positive emotions", all you have actually done is make a logical assessment concerning the attitude that you have associated with a given situation.

Only then can you come to the logical conclusion that the experience was a "positive emotion".

So what you are calling "positive emotions" really amount to nothing more than your own personal subjective attitude toward how you feel about any given situation.

You are the one who needs to make a logical determination of whether or not the emotions you are feeling are "positive" or "negative".

So you can't avoid the necessary logical thinking involved in your own assessment of how you are judging your emotional response to things.

So really, all you have been talking about all along is having a "Positive Attitude" toward life.

Yet in the first few sentences of your summary you claim that no attitude can do this.

[The Transcended Omniverse]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

That's because I don't agree that positive emotions are the mindsets and attitudes we have. They are the biochemical emotions.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

That's because I don't agree that positive emotions are the mindsets and attitudes we have. They are the biochemical emotions.

But doesn't this fly in the face of your very own claims?

From part 1 of your book:

I have achieved enlightenment and I am now sharing my enlightenment to the world which would, hopefully, enlighten them.

What exactly was your "enlightenment"?

If emotions are all there is to it, then you should have either had positive or negative emotions from the time you were born with no "enlightenment" required.

If there was a point in your life when you came to the realization that it's better to chose to have positive emotions over negative emotions, then it couldn't have been emotions themselves that drove that. The only possible explanation is that you came to an "intellectual realization" that you're better off focusing on what you deem to be good emotions over bad emotions.

And now you are trying to claim that emotions themselves are the driving force behind this, and that attitude or logical reasoning cannot play a role.

That cannot possibly be true if at some point you had an "enlightenment".

All your "enlightenment" could have possibly been was to recognize that your attitude concerning your emotions actually matters.

[The Transcended Omniverse]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

Here is one more person's response and my reply to him from the summary of my book:

Other Person's Response: Perhaps explain what makes them qualitatively different from other biochemical thoughts, while you're at it. I understand that we put one in one box, and the other in a different box...but I strongly suspect that this is folklore and fairy tale. A product of centuries of inability to see the workings of our own mind.

My Reply: The biochemical emotions are forms of motivation (drive). For example, when you feel sexually aroused, that is a sex drive. But when you don't feel sexually aroused and having the thought of being sexually aroused cannot put you back into that sexually aroused state, then having the thought of being sexually aroused would just be empty words. They would not give you any sex drive. That is why our rational value judgments cannot be any real emotions (drive/motivation) while it can only be our biochemical emotions which are the real emotions (drive/motivation).

The same idea applies to value judgments. Our rational value judgments are not any real value judgments and it can only be our biochemical emotions which are the real value judgments. People are mistaking their rational value judgements as being the real emotions and real value judgments when it was really their biochemical emotions all along which were the real emotions and the real value judgments. Even the idea of our biochemical emotions being value judgments is supported by skeptics and neuroscientists. I present one quote from one of these skeptics/neuroscientists in my book. I will just go ahead and present it here though. Although, I disagree with his idea that our rational value judgments are real value judgments:

Emotions are value judgments too. If they weren't, humanity would not be distinct from other mammals; we would be biological machines with no autonomy, acting purely on instinct. For example, if you are physically hurt, and the doctor treating you causes you pain during treatment, do you become angry and bite him? No, because you are able to override your instinctive anger and fear at someone causing you pain with your ability to reason that the treatment is necessary and the pain is temporary. But a dog can't reason, and will bite to stop the person causing the pain. Both the instinctive emotions AND the reasoned thoughts are value judgments.

[Divine Insight]

My Reply: The biochemical emotions are forms of motivation (drive). For example, when you feel sexually aroused, that is a sex drive. But when you don't feel sexually aroused and having the thought of being sexually aroused cannot put you back into that sexually aroused state, then having the thought of being sexually aroused would just be empty words. They would not give you any sex drive. That is why our rational value judgments cannot be any real emotions (drive/motivation) while it can only be our biochemical emotions which are the real emotions (drive/motivation).

I don't know about you but I can get myself sexually aroused via intellectual thoughts alone. So clearly you are wrong to think that thoughts cannot effect our biochemical emotions. In fact, for me, sex is far more cerebral than physical. Not to say that physical stimuli cannot play a role. It certainly can. For me, physical stimuli is not even sufficient at all if it isn't accompanied by the correct cerebral stimulus. So your assertion here is nothing more than your own personal opinion. An opinion that clearly doesn't apply to my life.

The same idea applies to value judgments.

Well there you go. Your idea was already wrong, so if you're applying this same idea to value judgements it's most likely wrong in that case as well.

Even the idea of our biochemical emotions being value judgments is supported by skeptics and neuroscientists. I present one quote from one of these skeptics/neuroscientists in my book. I will just go ahead and present it here though. Although, I disagree with his idea that our rational value judgments are real value judgments:

Emotions are value judgments too. If they weren't, humanity would not be distinct from other mammals; we would be biological machines with no autonomy, acting purely on instinct. For example, if you are physically hurt, and the doctor treating you causes you pain during treatment, do you become angry and bite him? No, because you are able to override your instinctive anger and fear at someone causing you pain with your ability to reason that the treatment is necessary and the pain is temporary. But a dog can't reason, and will bite to stop the person causing the pain. Both the instinctive emotions AND the reasoned thoughts are value judgments.

I agree with the skeptic/neuroscientists. Rational judgements are every bit as important as non-intellectual emotional reactions.

~~~~~

And besides, this is a total distraction from the point I made which you totally ignored.

If your emotions are the sole driver of your value judgements, then how could you have possibly had an 'enlightenment' of this at some point in your life?

If your emotions are the sole driver of your value judgements then you would have been judging value in a consistent manner with your emotions from the time of your birth onward.

But according to you that's not what happened. You claim to have had an "enlightenment". An enlightenment is a realization of something. This necessarily requires a change in intellectual perspective. Therefore you have undergone a change in intellectual perspective.

The mere fact that you think you could intellectually convey this change in perspective to another person only proves that even you ultimately realize that it requires a change in intellectual perspective. Otherwise there would be nothing you could say to another person to "change" how they emotionally perceive the world.

So your denial that this is an intellectual change of perspective makes no sense. I can only assume that you are yourself confused over what has truly caused you to change your outlook on life. However, it cannot possibly be attributed to just emotions alone.

If emotions were the sole driving force several things would be true.

1. This should have been true for you from birth with no "enlightenment" required.

OR

2. You have gone through some sort of "emotional transformation" that was totally beyond your control. In which case it wouldn't have been an "enlightenment". It would have simply been an "emotional transformation" that even you could not possibly have been responsible for. For in order for you to have been responsible for the experience would have required an intellectual intervention of your own perspective on things.

So there's just no way that your hypothesis holds up.

It may very well be true that an "enlightenment" of intellectual perspective matters in how we ultimately take control over our emotions, actions and life's goals. But that's not the thesis of your dissertation.

Your dissertation is basically a thesis on proclaiming that intellectual perspective plays no role in the value we place on our lives when actually nothing could be further from the truth.

Your dissertation simply doesn't make sense and contains its own self-contradictory reasoning.

[The Transcended Omniverse]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

For me, thoughts alone are no real emotions or any real value judgments. When I am in a depressed mood or an apathetic mood, then thoughts alone cannot put me in any emotional state and neither can they be any real value judgments in my life. But moments where I am out of those depressed or apathetic states, then these thoughts can make me feel emotions. We as human beings know this all too well. We have moments where we feel down and depressed and no thought can make us feel any positive emotions.

Then we have moments where we feel blissful and no mindset can make us feel any negative emotions either. It doesn't matter what attitude or mindset I have; none of it works for me. It is only my biochemical emotions themselves which are the real emotions and the real value to my life. This is all I can say. This has been my own personal experience and nothing can convince me otherwise. It can only be a whole new personal experience (mental state) that can convince me and I am just not sure if there is any other mental state out there for me that can allow me to truly see the good values, beauty, worth, and joy of this life and universe. It is value judgments that allow us to perceive value in the first place. Since my biochemical emotions are the only real value judgments in my life, then they are the only things that can allow me to see all those good values.

Some people would say that I have an emotional disability which prevents me from having any real emotion and any real value in my life besides my biochemical emotions. I think I might be a mentally disabled person because, as I recall, I had special ed in my school years. I wasn't capable of what others were capable of. This means that, perhaps, the one and only thing that can truly make my life good, beautiful, and worth living is my positive emotions and that's it. This, for me, is truly the one and only way for me to live and be a composer. There are so many factors out there that can take away our positive biochemical emotions and it is just up to me to do my best to avoid these factors. Lastly, I am open minded though towards the possibility that our biochemical emotions truly are the only real emotions and that they truly are the only real value judgments in our lives.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

For me, thoughts alone are no real emotions or any real value judgments. When I am in a depressed mood or an apathetic mood, then thoughts alone cannot put me in any emotional state and neither can they be any real value judgments in my life. But moments where I am out of those depressed or apathetic states, then these thoughts can make me feel emotions. We as human beings know this all too well. We have moments where we feel down and depressed and no thought can make us feel any positive emotions.

If what you just said above is true, then what good would any "enlightenment" be?

According to you we are nothing but dust in the wind controlled by our emotions which we ourselves have absolutely no control over.

The idea that any form of "enlightenment" would help is absurd.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If you claim that we are totally unable to control our emotions, then all you can say is that we are helpless and at the mercy of emotions we cannot control.

On the other hand, if you claim that there is some "enlightenment" we could obtain that would allow us to control our emotions, then you have violated your very own claim that we can't control our emotions.

So you don't have a viable philosophy here. Your philosophy is logically self-contradictory and therefore it cannot be a valid philosophy.

This means that, perhaps, the one and only thing that can truly make my life good, beautiful, and worth living is my positive emotions and that's it. This, for me, is truly the one and only way for me to live and be a composer. There are so many factors out there that can take away our positive biochemical emotions and it is just up to me to do my best to avoid these factors.

And you have just verified my point once again. Read what you just said above that I have formatted in bold red. You can only avoid factors that you intellectually believe will cause you negative emotions.

Therefore you are guiding your life using logical analysis in an effort to avoid situations that you have intellectually convinced yourself might spark negative emotions.

This is actually a method of "avoidance". You simply try to avoid anything that you intellectually believe might cause you negative emotions. Actually that's not a bad idea at all in many situations.

However, sometimes "avoidance" isn't realistic. Due to other responsibilities you may be required to deal with situations that you would rather not have to experience. In that case "avoidance" may not be an option. Fortunately there are other methods we can employ to prevent negative emotions from overwhelming us.

What you seem to be advocating is that avoidance is the only method available to us because you have been convinced that there is nothing we could possibly do to control our emotions via thoughts, attitude, or will power.

I strongly suggest that you are terribly wrong here because I have personally learned how to control my emotions via my own thoughts, attitude and will power.

So I do not agree with your original assessment that we cannot control our emotions.

I'm quite certain that there are many psychologists who will agree with me that avoidance is not the only way to navigate through life. Sure, if you know that something is likely to cause negative emotions and you can easily avoid that situation, then by all means do so. But to think that this is the only option available to you would be crippling (hardly an enlightenment)