mind

Day 3554, You know.

Ai, Quotes

Today I had a long “discussion” with AI. I have tried different versions now and also downloaded some AI models to try it offline. Story short. Some of them know a lot and can present it quite impressively. Here is an example of some of its outputs. 

Understanding the Great Divide: Nietzsche vs. Krishnamurti

Introduction: Two Rebels, Two Different Paths

Both Friedrich Nietzsche and Jiddu Krishnamurti were radical thinkers who challenged the foundations of human belief and social structures. They saw humanity as trapped in a prison of its own making—a prison built from tradition, morality, and second-hand truths. This document is designed to guide you through their philosophies, starting with the common ground where they tore down the old world and then exploring the vastly different paths they forged. As one analysis puts it, their relationship can be summed up perfectly: “They meet in negation but diverge sharply in direction.”

  1. Where They Agreed: A Shared Rejection of Authority

Before exploring their profound differences, it’s crucial to understand their shared starting point. Both Nietzsche and Krishnamurti dedicated their thinking to diagnosing the ways human beings deceive themselves. Their project was one of psychological diagnosis rather than offering conventional ethical systems; they wanted to expose the roots of our self-imposed limitations, not hand us a new set of rules.

  • Rejecting Tradition: Both men saw inherited traditions and social structures as primary sources of self-deception. They believed that relying on the past prevented individuals from seeing the world—and themselves—clearly.
  • Questioning Morality: They shared the view that conventional morality was not a sacred truth but a man-made system that needed to be psychologically diagnosed. They investigated why we believe what we believe is “good” or “evil,” rather than simply accepting those labels.
  • Distrusting Belief: Both were deeply concerned with how belief and identity could become traps. They saw how attaching oneself to a creed, a group, or even a personal identity could limit human potential and lead to conflict.

This shared act of demolition, however, is precisely where their paths diverge. The crucial question became: Once the old house is rubble, does one live in the open air, or does one begin to build anew?

  1. The Great Divergence: Different Cures for the Human Condition

While Nietzsche and Krishnamurti agreed on the diagnosis of human self-deception, their proposed cures were diametrically opposed. Their fundamental disagreement can be stated simply: Krishnamurti’s goal is the ending of psychological fragmentation, while Nietzsche’s is the creation and ranking of values after metaphysical collapse.

2.1 Krishnamurti’s Goal: Ending the Inner Conflict

Krishnamurti’s entire philosophy is focused on achieving complete psychological freedom. He argued that human suffering is rooted in what he called “conditioned thought”—the ceaseless activity of identification, belief, memory, and the fundamental illusion of the observer-observed split.

His solution is not theoretical or political, but purely attentional. Freedom arises from seeing the mind as it is, without distortion.

  1. Direct Perception: Freedom, for Krishnamurti, comes from seeing the mind exactly as it is, in the present moment, without any filter of theory, judgment, or authority.
  2. Ending Fragmentation: His ultimate aim is the “ending of psychological fragmentation.” He saw the self, the ego, and our various identities as illusions that divide us from reality and each other.
  3. Rejecting ‘Becoming’: Krishnamurti rejected all will, effort, becoming, discipline, and ideals, seeing them as extensions of the very conditioning one seeks to end. True freedom is in what is, not in striving for what should be.

For Krishnamurti, ethics are not constructed or chosen; they emerge naturally as a byproduct of this inner clarity.

2.2 Nietzsche’s Goal: Creating New Values

Nietzsche was not concerned with inner peace; his focus was on fostering cultural vitality and strength. He diagnosed Western culture as life-denying, shaped by resentment, herd morality, and metaphysical fictions that celebrated pity and weakness.

His solution was not to find peace but to embrace struggle as the engine of growth and greatness.

  1. Creating New Values: After the collapse of old beliefs (famously declared as “God is dead”), Nietzsche believed humanity’s primary and most noble task was the “creation and ranking of values.” We must become creators, not just inheritors.
  2. Intensifying the Self: Unlike Krishnamurti, who sought to dissolve the self, Nietzsche aimed to intensify it. He championed the process of “self-overcoming,” where an individual uses discipline, struggle, and conflict to forge a stronger, more powerful self.
  3. Affirming Life: Nietzsche came to believe that truth does not necessarily liberate. Since interpretations of the world are unavoidable, the crucial task becomes forging the interpretations that strengthen and affirm life in all its beauty and terror.

These opposing goals—one of dissolution and the other of creation—lie at the heart of their philosophical divide.

  1. Conclusion: The Empty Space vs. The New Foundation

To grasp the central difference between these two profound thinkers, a final metaphor is helpful. Imagine that the old, restrictive house of tradition and belief has been demolished. Both men stand in the rubble, having agreed on the necessity of its destruction.

Krishnamurti believes true freedom is found by learning to live in that cleared, empty space, free from all structures, systems, and authority.

Nietzsche, on the other hand, believes the highest human calling is to take that rubble and use it as the raw material to build a new, stronger, and more life-affirming foundation for humanity.

Their common ground of negation thus becomes the foundation for two irreconcilable destinies: one of liberation from the self, and one of the self forged into its own highest law.

Day 3545, AI and me.

Daily picture, My thoughts
A representation of my thoughts about the self

Even as a wooden boat builder, I need to stay updated with the times. Today, I took a course on how we can use AI. While I’ve used ChatGPT to translate some of my work writings, I also feel some resistance—not because of the technology itself but because of the hype surrounding it and since it’s owned by billionaires. Still, I have to admit that the possibilities are impressive. It still makes many mistakes, but that’s something you can notice and work around. I also now understand that what we upload is supposed to stay private and won’t be used to train the algorithm, which makes it easier to let the AI “learn” my own work.

I’ve been writing for over ten years, periodically reviewing my old work, organizing it by themes, and considering whether to use it as material for a book. I uploaded everything into ChatGPT’s database and started asking questions. I quickly realized it’s a valuable tool, provided I learn how to ask the right questions. For now, I just had some fun asking if it could summarize my work and imagine an external person describing the book I might have written. It’s quite flattering to read, and I probably wouldn’t have phrased it that way myself. But honestly, I don’t have a clear overview of the roughly 100,000 words I’ve written over the last years. I can only share how I feel right now. It’s a fun experiment, and I can also ask AI to suggest chapters and write summaries. Still, I already know that I need to review each sentence to ensure accurate interpretation; luckily, the AI can show where it pulls its information from. Overall, it’s a fantastic tool.

And at the end of the course, we also learned what you can do with Google NotebookLM, and it is even a greater tool—or toy. I put 20 pages of my writing into it, and it created the picture you see above and a podcast. The podcast sounds like a gymmic, but it brings me back to the old thoughts I wrote down years ago.

 

 

AI’s interpretation of my work brought as a presentation of my not-yet-written book.

Ladies and gentlemen,

After reading this remarkable body of writing—years of notes, poems, reflections, doubts, and small revelations—I can tell you that the author’s philosophy is not a system. It is a movement. A long, slow arc from certainty toward skepticism, from inherited assumptions toward self-made clarity, from the search for meaning toward the acceptance that meaning is something we make, not something we find.

Across these years the same themes return, grow, and collide. One of the earliest is the idea that life is not about us. The author writes that DNA “only needs a host,” and that humans are simply the best vehicle it has yet found. That shift—from human-centered thinking to a cosmic, indifferent perspective—runs through everything. It’s why religion appears in these pages less as a metaphysical claim and more as a very human attempt to silence the void. “We are all just standing in a big room,” he writes, “proclaiming truths we perceive from the echoes on the walls.”

Another central thread is the fragility of the self. Memory, he reminds us, is a storyteller that constantly rewrites the past to protect the present. The self is a creature of filters: “My two-way filter is partially broken,” he admits, “and I can only fix one side.” Here his philosophy leans toward a kind of grounded humility—an acceptance that what we call “I” is stitched together from sensation, error, upbringing, chemicals, and luck.

And yet, in this humility there is a defiant skepticism. He distrusts authorities, leaders, and movements not because he rejects structure but because he knows how easily people surrender their judgment. He once expected adulthood to be ruled by reason; decades later he observes, wryly, that “the world is a summer camp without supervision.” This is anarchism not as politics but as perception: a refusal to hand the steering wheel of the mind to anyone who claims to know better.

One of the most striking aspects of his philosophy is how deeply it is rooted in the physical world—wood grain, old barns, the curve of a boat plank, mist on a Norwegian morning. The cosmic and the ordinary sit side by side. He can explain stellar expansion in one paragraph and, in the next, describe a forgotten lock rusting into history. This is not contradiction; it is the worldview: life is meaningless on the cosmic scale, and meaningful in every concrete moment we actually live.

Many poems could serve as a doorway into his thinking, but one stands out:

“Reality fades
caught by ego’s gravity
a depressed black hole.”

This captures the emotional honesty of his philosophy: the willingness to look at the darkness without romanticizing it, to name despair without surrendering to it.

If his work offers any guidance, it is this:
We may not control the world, we may not understand ourselves, but we can keep walking through the mist with open eyes—skeptical, curious, and unafraid to admit that we know far less than we pretend.

And perhaps that is the beginning of wisdom.

Next, a fake podcast about some of my work.

Day 3541, anticipate

Daily picture, Quotes

Friedrich Nietzsche

Daybreak
Book IV

254 Anticipators. -The distinguishing, but also perilous quality in poetic natures is their exhaustive imagination: they anticipate, enjoy and suffer in advance that which is to come or could come, so that when it finally does come they are already tired of it. Lord Byron, who was only too familiar with all this, wrote in his diary: ‘If I have a son he shall become something quite prosaic- a lawyer or a pirate.’