Philosophers HDC.

This is a post that highlights casual, not put together, thoughts:

Stefan Molyneux:

Neitzsche:

Shopenhauer: 

Bertrand Russell: 

Robert Greene:

Soren Kierkegaard:

All with the ego undefined. The following have the ego defined:

John Nash, founder of Game Theory:

Rene Girard:

There was one more that I could have added to each. A psychologist with an undefined will and a philosopher that I don't like, with a defined will (Doesn't say anything bad, it's just kind of cliche'd annoying statements to me!) 

I already had the chart prepared. I.e. without meta data. For Neitzsche, Bertrand Russell and Stefan Molyneux. I had Nietzsche and Russell because I was thinking of following up on the idea that philosophers are simply describing their charts. Bertrand Russell was often about a love of work. That work was our meaning for life in a sense. And he has three connections between the Sacral and G- Self. 

Neitsche was about the animal heirarchy. All the little justifications and false uses of moral terms that people use when they are jealous. Which is very typical of the 34-20. Which bypasses the G Self/ sense of ethics. Robert Greene is precisely the same at this.

While Stefan Molyneux, as an example I am far more deeply acquianted with, Has a lot more moral convictions in his ideas surrounding morality. That the conscience is perfect in a sense, as it is our brains best adapted way of running tribal life. His Sacral runs through the G-Self in order to get to the throat. 

It is interesting that so many philosophers have the undefined ego. But it is in truth. Not higher than it would be statistically for the population as far as I know. The reason I have highlighted things like this, is to think through the difference that the defined ego is adding. 

Firstly, all the strategy that is needed in political machinations IS shown very strongly in Robert Greene's work. So the undefined ego does not shy away from that. 

But what is it that changes from the defined to the undefined ego?

I have a defined ego, and so does Ra Uru Hu. I have had a bit of an insight into how Ra Uru Hu potentially functioned recently:

A quote taken from Goodreads:

Passive, submissive imitation does exist, but hatred of conformity and extreme individualism are no less imitative. Today they constitute a negative conformism that is more formidable than the positive version. More and more, it seems to me, modern individualism assumes the form of a desperate denial of the fact that, through mimetic desire, each of us seeks to impose his will upon his fellow man, whom he professes to love but more often despises.

This line is very very similar to what I have been thinking recently. Although I called it something else. The way I see it, is that everyone attempts to conform others to their own chart all the time.  

 It is a very subtle thing to put ones finger on. How these energies function. But if this kind of conforming others to oneself is something said by Girard, and not these other philosophers. Perhaps it is more of a behaviour of the defined will. So when I look out at others and see them appear to do that. It is actually my projection. Since they do not have a defined will?