Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Alida Spies]

Hi Scott,

Why in your view are some people murderers, rapists, or enjoy inducing pain on their fellow human beings?

[Risper Ouma Lisa Anyango]

If you haven't already, you can sign up to be personally mentored by Scott "Eckhart Aurelius" Hughes at this link.

Scott,

I trust you are in excellent health as always. I want to express my heartfelt gratitude for being a source of understanding and inspiration in my life. Your experiences, philosophies, and ideologies have resonated with me on a profound level, and I feel a deep connection to your words, as if you are speaking directly to me. As a fellow Scorpio, I believe our shared astrological sign contributes to our mutual understanding.

I am reaching out to you today with my worries, confident that you can provide the clarity and solutions I need to move forward in life. Allow me to share a bit about myself. I am completely blind, but I have never let that define or limit me. I studied French and Spanish at university, but my true passions lie in computer programming, web development, digital forensics, and open-source intelligence (OSINT). Additionally, I have delved into the realms of astrology, numerology, and tarot, as I am fascinated by life's mysteries, enlightenment, inner freedom, and the cosmic and supernatural aspects of existence.

Despite my visual impairment, I am versatile and adaptable. I can develop web and desktop applications, perform astrological and numerology readings, conduct research on and off the web, and express myself through writing with clarity. The only thing I have been missing is someone to guide me in making the right choices and setting me on the right path. Thankfully, joining OnlineBookClub (OBC) as a reviewer has led me to you.

My experience with OBC has been both exciting and occasionally challenging, but I have learned and grown from the discomfort. As the saying goes, "ad astra per aspera" which literally means the path to greatness requires hardship. The constructive feedback I have received has helped me improve as a writer, and I look forward to leaving an extensive review of OBC.

Scott, considering the skills and abilities I have outlined, could you help me identify and focus on one that would be most beneficial for me in the long run? I would be thrilled to hear your insights and guidance.

I was filled with awe when I received an email asking for the support and guidance I needed. I eagerly await your response.
Swimmingly,
Asamoah

Hi, Emmanuel Asamoah 5,

Thank you for your question!

Regarding the "right path", a key teaching of mine as explained in detail in my book, In It Together, is that whatever path you are on is the right path for you at the time you are on it. Whatever is done is the right thing to be done at the time it is done.

Nothing ever happens that shouldn't happen.

Nothing 'should' be different than it unchangeably is.

In other words, there is no should.

Reality is right.

The universe doesn't miscalculate.

With that said, you ask what path forward for you might be most beneficial to you.

But how could I answer that? Each person is different and unique. What would be beneficial for you would not be beneficial for someone else. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

May I ask if you have already read my book, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All?

If not, I would definitely recommend starting there.

From there, I suggest you ask yourself what you want. What long-term goals would be desirable to you? Ideally, where do you see yourself in 5 years? 10 years?

You might be stuck not knowing which skill to focus on and which small step to take in which direction because you may be doing things out of order. You cannot really decide on a means until you have decided on an end. You cannot really decide on a short-term plan or course of action until you have decided on a long-term plan or long-term goal.

Then the question gets simplified because instead of the vague possibly unanswerable question "What's most beneficial to me?" it instead becomes "What's most beneficial to this long-term goal or plan?" or in other words "What's most conducive to me sticking to the long-term plan and achieving the long-term goal?"

Goals get misused when we expect the achievement of the goals to make us happy. A symptom of that is when someone says something like, "Once I reach my long-term goal, then I can finally be happy and at peace."

Someone who says something like that is NOT following the teachings of my book.

However, my book also talks about how goals, especially long-term goals, can be helpful and useful for an already happy person who loves the endless journey, by acting like the magnetic pull that aligns the pointer in their proverbial compass to guide and inspire them on their endless journey.

Don't feel like you have to pick some hard tough long-term goal and work hard towards it. If you aren't going to be happy while doing the work, then my advice is don't. If you aren't going to be happy on the long challenging road towards the long-term goal, then my advice is don't go down the road and don't take on that goal.

However, if you love journeying and working, and if you want a destination to happily journey towards and happily work towards, then don't worry too much about which goal you pick. It's like choosing to go on vacation to Bermuda versus the Bahamas. You can weigh the pros and cons a bit, but it's not that big of a deal. You could even flip a coin if needed.

On those latter two points, I think these two articles of mine will be very helpful for you:



Do less better! | The incredible power of doing nothing



My HUGE TIP for decision paralysis: If it's that hard to decide, it doesn't really matter.



With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott


If It's that hard to decide, it doesn't really matter..png



---In addition to having authored his book, In It Together, Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (a.k.a. Scott) runs a mentoring program, with a free option, that guarantees success. Success is guaranteed for anyone who follows the program.

Hi Scott, you are right by saying that one man's poison is another man's treasure and its true that we all want and have different things. Our journeys in life are all very different and another person can't dictate your life. It is all upto to you to live your life the way you desire. Be wise and choose the right path.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

If you haven't already, you can sign up to be personally mentored by Scott "Eckhart Aurelius" Hughes at this link.

Hi Scott,

You made a post about learning to not have an opinion about everything.

How can one really live without having an opinion about things? Our opinions shape the way we think and live our life, don't they?

Hi, Amy Jackson,

I think you misunderstood that post.

I did not recommend anything in that post.

Instead, I simply pointed out that one doesn't need to have an opinion about every single thing.

You seem to have misunderstood that on two counts:

First, you misunderstood my concept of not having an opinion about every single thing as if it meant not having an opinion about anything at all. In effect, I was simply pointing out that you can have much fewer opinions than you do rather than saying you could have no opinions at all.

Second, you misunderstood my saying "You can..." as if it was a recommendation. There is a big difference between me saying you can do something versus me saying I recommend you do that thing.


Nonetheless, while 'opinions' and other subjective feelings can come in many forms, my book, In It Together, does indeed suggest one avoid willfully engaging in any judgementalism at all, and likewise it does suggest one do not engage in any willful resentment or willful hate at all.

May I ask if you have already read my book, In It Together?

If so, have you read it just once or at least twice?

As always, I recommend everyone read it at least twice.

The reason for reading it twice is explained here.



With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

avoid willfully engaging in any judgementalism.png (2.08 MiB) Viewed 51251 times

In addition to having authored his book, In It Together, Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (a.k.a. Scott) runs a mentoring program, with a free option, that guarantees success. Success is guaranteed for anyone who follows the program.

[Risper Ouma Lisa Anyango]

If you haven't already, you can sign up to be personally mentored by Scott "Eckhart Aurelius" Hughes at this link.

Hi Scott,

You made a post about learning to not have an opinion about everything.

How can one really live without having an opinion about things? Our opinions shape the way we think and live our life, don't they?

Hi, Amy Jackson,

I think you misunderstood that post.

I did not recommend anything in that post.

Instead, I simply pointed out that one doesn't need to have an opinion about every single thing.

You seem to have misunderstood that on two counts:

First, you misunderstood my concept of not having an opinion about every single thing as if it meant not having an opinion about anything at all. In effect, I was simply pointing out that you can have much fewer opinions than you do rather than saying you could have no opinions at all.

Second, you misunderstood my saying "You can..." as if it was a recommendation. There is a big difference between me saying you can do something versus me saying I recommend you do that thing.


Nonetheless, while 'opinions' and other subjective feelings can come in many forms, my book, In It Together, does indeed suggest one avoid willfully engaging in any judgementalism at all, and likewise it does suggest one do not engage in any willful resentment or willful hate at all.

May I ask if you have already read my book, In It Together?

If so, have you read it just once or at least twice?

As always, I recommend everyone read it at least twice.

The reason for reading it twice is explained here.



With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott


avoid willfully engaging in any judgementalism.png



---In addition to having authored his book, In It Together, Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (a.k.a. Scott) runs a mentoring program, with a free option, that guarantees success. Success is guaranteed for anyone who follows the program.

Hi, Scott.
How about I look at it from this approach, yes I do have an opinion but choose not to share it and keep it to myself. Does this also equal to not having an opinion.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

If you haven't already, you can sign up to be personally mentored by Scott "Eckhart Aurelius" Hughes at this link.


Hi, Shirley Labzentis,

Thank you for your questions!

Within the next week or so, once your question comes up in the queue of unanswered questions, I will be posting a longer more direct answer to your full question.

However, I wanted to pull out these lines from your question and respond to them sooner and separately, because I can see how they may be urgently troubling you:

This person also thinks that everything they say, you should believe,

They say whatever they like and look at you like you are supposed to take their word as gospel.

they think I am an idiot

they think that I believe what they are spewing

Have you ever woken up from a dream that seemed so real and non-absurd while you were dreaming, but then once you find yourself awake in this new other reality, the dream world seemed so absurd and you almost can't believe you believed it. The human brain and mind is typically so quick to accept what it presents to itself, but it's really a story-making machine inside of a dark quiet skull.

Waking life is much more like a dream than we often realize.

For some, the story, narrative, and dream they make-up is very pleasant and heavenly. For others, they create an unpleasant fictional nightmare. Many find themselves somewhere in-between those two extremes.

Unless writing a fiction story as a literal fiction novelist or such, I recommend you avoid ever using phrases like, "They think", or "he thinks", or "she thinks". Instead, quote the person verbatim. Take and provide screenshots if needed. Get others to put key communication in writing or otherwise, if spoken, have it officially objectively recorded, through a sound recorder, a video recorder, or at least by having someone take minutes and have those minutes formally reviewed and approved or voted on by all participants in the meeting.

In other words, instead of saying, "they think" or "they feel" about someone else, instead say, "They said" or "they wrote", and then provide a true accurate verbatim quote of what they actually said word-for-word, ideally one backed by a screenshot or recording. That's not to say you want to always provide the screenshot or recording, but just know it's available in case there is a dispute about what they said, and also so you can use the screenshot or document to fact-check the quote yourself before sharing it to make sure you are accurately quoting the person. Don't ever quote by memory and offer that surely imperfect memory as if it was an accurate or verbatim quote; that would be very dishonest. And the person you might be lying to the most with that kind of dishonest might be yourself, and it can be very miserable lie if the thoughts and feelings you are projecting onto someone else are nasty or unpleasant.

Following those polices serves many purposes but it will tend to help you wake up from whatever waking dream you are having a little bit to a level of increased lucidity, meaning you will sort of force yourself to stop perceiving people as thinking and feeling things they may not be thinking or feeling.

Keep in mind, there is even a big difference between saying, "He thinks X", vs saying, "He said that, and I quote, he thinks X". For example, it's very different to say, "Bob loves me," versus saying, "Bob said that he loves me."

Like all of us, you are only qualified to report your own thoughts and feelings. For others, even if they tell you flat-out in plain words what they allegedly think or feel, you are still only qualified to report what they actually said, not what they actually feel or think--because they could be lying and you have absolutely no way of ever knowing if they are or not. Neither you nor I are mind-readers. The more we mistake ourselves as being a mind-reader, the more we fall deeper into the delusions of the waking dream we are having, and we are all having a waking dream. We are all hallucinating all the time. We are all doing a lot of projecting all the time, some more than others, but all doing plenty.

I think the following tweet and advice article will be very helpful for you:

I don't know who needs to hear this, but here it is: You are not good at reading minds.

Posts on Projection, Reading Between the Lines, and Toxic Unassertiveness


And here are some helpful mantras:

Whatever you read between the lines is almost certainly wrong.

Whatever you mind-read is almost certainly wrong.

Unless they are your official patient and you are a trained professional with a doctorate, whatever mental illness you would diagnosis someone with is almost certainly wrong (a misdiagnosis).

If you are having an unpleasant nightmare, realizing the dream is your own creation usually instantly solves the would-be problem. In some ways, even if you cannot force yourself to stop seeing the optical illusion, just knowing it is an illusion takes away the would-be nightmarishness of it.

They aren't thinking what you think they are thinking, and so if thinking they are thinking it annoys you or causes you misery, my advice is to simply stop imagining that they are thinking it, or at least realize you are not a mind-reader and choose to disbelief the hallucination you are seeing. It can be a very pleasant and liberating realization to realize it's all in your own head, always.



With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

projected.jpg (30.38 KiB) Viewed 51029 times

***

From a Ted Talk by neuroscientist, Anil Seth.

Anil Seth is a Professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience at the University of Sussex, where he is also Director of the Sussex Centre for Consciousness Science.
your-brain-hallucinates-your-conscious-reality.jpg (343.05 KiB) Viewed 51029 times

***

marcus-aurelius.png (377.82 KiB) Viewed 51029 times

In addition to having authored his book, In It Together, Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (a.k.a. Scott) runs a mentoring program, with a free option, that guarantees success. Success is guaranteed for anyone who follows the program.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

If you haven't already, you can sign up to be personally mentored by Scott "Eckhart Aurelius" Hughes at this link.

Hi Scott
Do you think the afterlife is real or is it just a place talked about so that humans have hope that they can live again after death.

Hi, Risper Ouma Lisa Anyango,


Thank you for your question!

I am a bit confused by the use of the word "the" in question versus "a", as in "the afterlife" versus "a afterlife".

If you are meaning to reference something very specific, then I don't know what that is and don't understand the question.

It's also not clear if you are talking about (1) what my book calls "the real you" or talking about (2) what my book calls the false self (the body and ego), or (3) talking about something else.

Are you talking about (1) an afterlife for you, the real you, or (2) an afterlife for your clothing (including your ever-changing ego, ever-changing memories), or (3) something else?

Finally, let me ask, have you read my book "In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All"?

It will help me understand your question much better if I know whether or not you already read my book, since it provides a lot of important context to these kinds of discussions.

Nonetheless, here is a question I can answer even though it may not be the one you are asking:

"Do I believe that when a human body and ego dies here on Earth a copy of that body, brain, and ego (a.k.a. a figurative outfit) in its current condition with its current memories suddenly gets copied over to some other world, realm, or place in some magical-seeming way where the body and brain keeps living, aging, forgetting things (i.e. losing old memories), and forming new memories, with its personality and appearance slowly changing over time until either it abruptly dies in that world too or lives long enough to evolve/morph/age into something that is utterly unrecognizable to what it was back here and is no longer human and no longer shares any of the same memories or molecules as it had back when it was human? In other words, when one of your clothing outfits here on Earth gets destroyed, does that outfit get copied over in the condition it was immediately prior to its destruction to some other world, realm, or place where it then keeps existing, changing, and aging until it either gets abruptly destroyed there too or until it ages/changes enough to have the same result as death/destruction but just done gradually bit by bit over time via slight, steady gradual changes?"

The short answer is no.

I see no evidence of that.

Thus, I don't believe in it for the same reason I don't believe Russell's Teapot is out there floating around in space.


Here is a quote from page 189 of my book, In It Together:

"Each night you die, and each morning you are reborn. You are reborn in a similar image but not the exact same image. You are reborn in a similar body, but not the exact same body."

To me, an official documented medical death of the body as declared by a doctor is just one type of death that is very arbitrarily defined. Change (i.e. death and rebirth, or destruction and re-creation, or creative destruction, or transformation) is not really binary. Imagine the following two scenarios:

(1) This body we call Scott/Eckhart suddenly gets hit by a bus later today, is declared 'dead' by a doctor, and then the nutrient-rich corpse is stuffed with a tree seed and planted in the ground where it grows into a tree.

(2) This body we call Scott/Eckhart never undergoes such a drastic change as getting hit by a bus anytime in the next million years, meaning in a sense Scott/Eckhart lives a million years, but over that time he very slowly and gradually morphs into a tree. The change is so slow you don't even notice from minute to minute. The change from minute to minute and even hour to hour and even day to day is so slow it's imperceptible to the human eye and mind. It's only when you look at longer time periods that you or I could even notice it, such as by glancing down at a 10-year-old photo and saying, "Wow! I was less tree-like back then! Do you see that?"


I no more died in version #1 than in version #2. Now if being the tree is having an afterlife, then in both cases I have that afterlife, and of course, I believe in that kind of afterlife: I see trees. There's incredible empirical evidence for that.

The real me never dies because it was never born.

The false me(s) and false you(s) die all the time. It's of that false me, or really one of those many false me(s), of which I speak if I say, "The old me is dead and gone. He is dead, and this man and ego you see now are reborn in his image."

I can rip apart a car, thereby destroying it, to build a boat with its materials, thereby giving birth to a boat. Change, big or small, is always just a process of death and rebirth. Thinghood itself is an illusion. Insofar as the boat or car has a spirit (a.k.a. a true self) it is the same one true eternal self that they both have, that we all have. Insofar as any tree and any human has a spirit (a.k.a. a true self) it is the same one eternal true self (a.k.a. spirit) that we all have. The rest is just ever-changing clothing that exists on a continuous spectrum, with no one outfit really being separate or distinct. The fine line between car and boat or this thing and that thing, meaning the very distinct discreet thinghood or selfhood of any one specific outfit, is an illusion. It's like mistaking the borders drawn on a map as if they really existed on the ground.

In terms of the real me, I'd still be me even if I morphed into a tree.

In terms of the false me, that is the human body writing this now, I won't be that me anymore by tomorrow. Tomorrow I will be dead and gone, and in his place will be a similar but slightly different-looking guy with similar but slightly different memories. I've heard it takes about 7 years for every atom in a human body to have been replaced by a whole new atom.


Words like 'afterlife' can mean many different things, depending on who is using them and in what context. Thus, whenever we ask someone else or ask ourselves if some particular thing or type of thing has an afterlife, I think it's very helpful and important to also ask if that thing has a beforelife, and if so in what sense it has a beforelife, what that beforelife is like, and how we know it had that beforelife? That is an important question to ask and answer first, just so that we can use it to better understand what is meant by the word beforelife in that context and thus by extension what would be meant by the word afterlife in the context in regard to that particular thing.

Presumably, as a rule of thumb, no matter what is meant by afterlife/beforelife, anything that has a beforelife would have a corresponding afterlife to roughly the same degree, no more and no less. Thus, anything lacking a beforelife would also lack an afterlife.

In other words, that which is created in time is destroyed in time. Everything that is created is destroyed. Everything that is born dies.

But, of course, as I make very clear in my book: I believe the real you is eternal.

So, if you read my book, I can be confident the real you is not what you are talking about, since I explained my view on the eternality and effective omnipresence of that clearly in my book.

And, if you haven't read my book, then you will get this question answered best and fastest simply by reading my book.

I spent over 5 years working on my book, so it would take 5 years of me talking to someone one-on-one about these kinds of things to convey to them what they would get much more quickly and better by simply reading my book. Reading my book is a huge time-saver for the reader. It's a huge time-saver for the reader because I condensed 5 years of work and thought into a maximally concise and clear version that only takes a few hours to read.




With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

Connection.png (1.69 MiB) Viewed 50769 times

In addition to having authored his book, In It Together, Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (a.k.a. Scott) runs a mentoring program, with a free option, that guarantees success. Success is guaranteed for anyone who follows the program.

[Ray Thompson]

Thanks for all you do. However, my question is: what can one do when he has a passion for something that pays less and proves hard to become accepted, but has something else that pays well but does not have the passion for it?

[Risper Ouma Lisa Anyango]

If you haven't already, you can sign up to be personally mentored by Scott "Eckhart Aurelius" Hughes at this link.

Hi Scott
Do you think the afterlife is real or is it just a place talked about so that humans have hope that they can live again after death.

Hi, Risper Ouma Lisa Anyango,


Thank you for your question!

I am a bit confused by the use of the word "the" in question versus "a", as in "the afterlife" versus "a afterlife".

If you are meaning to reference something very specific, then I don't know what that is and don't understand the question.

It's also not clear if you are talking about (1) what my book calls "the real you" or talking about (2) what my book calls the false self (the body and ego), or (3) talking about something else.

Are you talking about (1) an afterlife for you, the real you, or (2) an afterlife for your clothing (including your ever-changing ego, ever-changing memories), or (3) something else?

Finally, let me ask, have you read my book "In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All"?

It will help me understand your question much better if I know whether or not you already read my book, since it provides a lot of important context to these kinds of discussions.

Nonetheless, here is a question I can answer even though it may not be the one you are asking:

"Do I believe that when a human body and ego dies here on Earth a copy of that body, brain, and ego (a.k.a. a figurative outfit) in its current condition with its current memories suddenly gets copied over to some other world, realm, or place in some magical-seeming way where the body and brain keeps living, aging, forgetting things (i.e. losing old memories), and forming new memories, with its personality and appearance slowing changing over time until either it abruptly dies in that world too or lives long enough to evolve/morph/age into something that is utterly unrecognizable to what it was back here and is no longer human and no longer shares any of the same memories or molecules as it had back when it was human? In other words, when one of your clothing outfits here on Earth gets destroyed, does that outfit get copied over in the condition it was immediately prior to its destruction to some other world, realm, or place where it then keeps existing, changing, and aging until it either gets abruptly destroyed there too or until it ages/changes enough to have the same result as death/destruction but just done gradually bit by bit over time via slight steady gradual changes?"

The short answer is no.

I see no evidence of that.

Thus, I don't believe in it for the same reason I don't believe Russell's Teapot is out there floating around in space.


Here is a quote from page 189 of my book, In It Together:

"Each night you die, and each morning you are reborn. You are reborn in a similar image but not the exact same image. You are reborn in a similar body, but not the exact same body."

To me, an official documented medical death of the body as declared by a doctor is just one type of death that is very arbitrarily defined. Change (i.e. death and rebirth, or destruction and recreation, or creative destruction, or transformation) is not really binary. Imagine the following two scenarios:

(1) This body we call Scott/Eckhart suddenly gets hit by a bus later today, is declared 'dead' by a doctor, and then the nutrient-rich corpse is stuffed with a tree seed and planted in the ground where it grows into a tree.

(2) This body we call Scott/Eckhart never undergoes such a drastic change as getting hit by a bus anytime in the million years, meaning in a sense Scott/Eckhart lives a million years, but over that time it very slowly and gradually morphs into a tree. The change is so slow you don't even notice from minute to minute. The change from minute to minute and even hour to hour and even day to day is so slow it's imperceptible to the human eye and mind. It's only when you look at longer time periods that you or I could even notice it, such as by glancing down at a 10-year-old photo and saying, "Wow! I was less tree-like back then! Do you see that?"


I no more died in version #1 than in version #2. Now if being the tree is having an afterlife, then in both cases I have that afterlife, and of course, I believe in that kind of afterlife: I see trees. There's incredible empirical evidence for that.

The real me never dies because it was never born.

The false me(s) and false you(s) die all the time. It's of that false me, or really one of those many false me(s), of which I speak if I say, "The old me is dead and gone. He is dead, and this man and ego you see now are reborn in his image."

I can rip apart a car, thereby destroying it, to build a boat with its materials, thereby giving birth to a boat. Change, big or small, is always just a process of death and rebirth. Thinghood itself is an illusion. Insofar as the boat or car has a spirit (a.k.a. a true self) it is the same one true eternal self that they both have, that we all have. Insofar as any tree and any human has a spirit (a.k.a. a true self) it is the same one eternal true self (a.k.a. spirit) that we all have. The rest is just ever-changing clothing that exists on a continuous spectrum, with no one outfit really being separate or distinct. The fine line between car and boat or this thing and that thing, meaning the very distinct discreet thinghood or selfhood of any one specific outfit, is an illusion. It's like mistaking the borders drawn on a map as if they really existed on the ground.

In terms of the real me, I'd still be me even if I morphed into a tree.

In terms of the false me, that is the human body writing this now, I won't be that me anymore by tomorrow. Today I will be dead and gone, and in his place will be a similar but slightly different-looking guy with similar but slightly different memories. I've heard it takes about 7 years for every atom in a human body to have been replaced by a whole new atom.


Words like 'afterlife' can mean many different things, depending on who is using them and in what context. Thus, whenever we ask someone else or ask ourselves if some particular thing or type of thing has an afterlife, I think it's very helpful and important to also ask if that thing has a beforelife, and if so in what sense it has a beforelife, what that beforelife is like, and how we know it had that beforelife? That is an important question to ask and answer first, if not just so we can use it to better understand what is meant by the word beforelife in that context and thus by extension would be meant by the word afterlife in the context in regard to that particular thing.

Presumably, as a rule of thumb, no matter what is meant by afterlife/beforelife, anything that has a beforelife would have a corresponding afterlife to roughly the same degree, no more and no less. Thus, anything lacking a beforelife would also lack an afterlife.

In other words, that which is created in time is destroyed in time. Everything that is created is destroyed. Everything that is born dies.

But, of course, as I make very clear in my book: I believe the real you is eternal.

So, if you read my book, I can be confident the real you is not what you are talking about, since I explained my view on the eternality and effective omnipresence of that clearly in my book.

And, if you haven't read my book, then you will get this question answered best and fastest simply by reading my book.

I spent over 5 years working on my book, so it would take 5 years of me talking to someone one-on-one about these kinds of things to convey to them what they would get much more quickly and better by simply reading my book. Reading my book is a huge time-saver for the reader. It's a huge time-saver for the reader because I condensed 5 years of work and thought into a maximally concise and clear version that only takes a few hours to read.




With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott



Connection.png



---In addition to having authored his book, In It Together, Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (a.k.a. Scott) runs a mentoring program, with a free option, that guarantees success. Success is guaranteed for anyone who follows the program.

Hi Scott
I am sorry that my question wasn't clear but I still got the right answer. I have always thought that this life I live changes and I am reborn every day. I always wondered what happened when I slept and woke up the next morning. I will always continue to live on in different ways, it may not be the flesh I am now that will define whether I live on but bring true ti my self.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

How do I start a great career in writing books. I love reading a whole lot. But I'll definitely like to write someday, where do I start from ? How do I start. When do I start. Anybody can give an idea. I'll be glad.

Hi, Gerrard Mark,

Thank you for your question!

That question was already asked and answered earlier in the Q&A:

I want to write. How do I start?


Moving forward, please do make sure to read all the previous Q&As before asking a new question to make sure the question hasn't already been asked and answered.



With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

If you haven't already, you can sign up to be personally mentored by Scott "Eckhart Aurelius" Hughes at this link.

Hello!
I have read your innovative book, In it Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All, once. I see very little reference material noted. Will the fourth edition will have some foundational resources, a bibliography or both?

Hi, Mcbride6841,


Thank you for your question!

There is no planned fourth edition of the book.
       
I am working on the third and final edition.
       
All editions, including the third, will use 'on-the-same-page' footnotes to provide any needed citations.
       
Regardless, if there is even a single sentence in the book that you doubt or otherwise do not agree with, please simply post a verbatim quote of it in the following topic:
       
       
Do you agree with everything in the book, "In It Together"? If not, what is the first sentence with which you disagree?
       
       
So far, most readers who have replied there have stated they do agree with every single sentence in the book, which is incredible for a life-changing philosophy book like this with radical life-changing conclusions.
       
Indeed, most people wouldn't agree with the ending of the book if they read the ending without reading the beginning. Yet, because of the logic and clearly explained reasoning, like a train on the tracks, most readers find themselves changing their minds as they read and fully agreeing with the life-changing conclusions once they reach them.



With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott
 

---


In addition to having authored his book, In It Together, Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (a.k.a. Scott) runs a mentoring program, with a free option, that guarantees success. Success is guaranteed for anyone who follows the program.

[Risper Ouma Lisa Anyango]

If you haven't already, you can sign up to be personally mentored by Scott "Eckhart Aurelius" Hughes at this link.


Hi, Shirley Labzentis,

Thank you for your questions!

Within the next week or so, once your question comes up in the queue of unanswered questions, I will be posting a longer more direct answer to your full question.

However, I wanted to pull out these lines from your question and respond to them sooner and separately, because I can see how they may be urgently troubling you:

This person also thinks that everything they say, you should believe,

They say whatever they like and look at you like you are supposed to take their word as gospel.

they think I am an idiot

they think that I believe what they are spewing

Have you ever woken up from a dream that seemed so real and non-absurd while you were dreaming, but then once you find yourself awake in this new other reality, the dream world seemed so absurd and you almost can't believe you believed it. The human brain and mind is typically so quick to accept what it presents to itself, but it's really a story-making machine inside of a dark quiet skull.

Waking life is much more like a dream than we often realize.

For some, the story, narrative, and dream they make-up is very pleasant and heavenly. For others, they create an unpleasant fictional nightmare. Many find themselves somewhere in-between those two extremes.

Unless writing a fiction story as a literal fiction novelist or such, I recommend you avoid ever using phrases like, "They think", or "he thinks", or "she thinks". Instead, quote the person verbatim. Take and provide screenshots if needed. Get others to put key communication in writing or otherwise, if spoken, have it officially objectively recorded, through a sound recorder, a video recorder, or at least by having someone take minutes and have those minutes formally reviewed and approved or voted on by all participants in the meeting.

In other words, instead of saying, "they think" or "they feel" about someone else, instead say, "They said" or "they wrote", and then provide a true accurate verbatim quote of what they actually said word-for-word, ideally one backed by a screenshot or recording. That's not to say you want to always provide the screenshot or recording, but just know it's available in case there is a dispute about what they said, and also so you can use the screenshot or document to fact-check the quote yourself before sharing it to make sure you are accurately quoting the person. Don't ever quote by memory and offer that surely imperfect memory as if it was an accurate or verbatim quote; that would be very dishonest. And the person you might be lying to the most with that kind of dishonest might be yourself, and it can be very miserable lie if the thoughts and feelings you are projecting onto someone else are nasty or unpleasant.

Following those polices serves many purposes but it will tend to help you wake up from whatever waking dream you are having a little bit to a level of increased lucidity, meaning you will sort of force yourself to stop perceiving people as thinking and feeling things they may not be thinking or feeling.

Keep in mind, there is even a big difference between saying, "He thinks X", vs saying, "He said that, and I quote, he thinks X". For example, it's very different to say, "Bob loves me," versus saying, "Bob said that he loves me."

Like all of us, you are only qualified to report your own thoughts and feelings. For others, even if they tell you flat-out in plain words what they allegedly think or feel, you are still only qualified to report what they actually said, not what they actually feel or think--because they could be lying and you have absolutely no way of ever knowing if they are or not. Neither you nor I are mind-readers. The more we mistake ourselves as being a mind-reader, the more we fall deeper into the delusions of the waking dream we are having, and we are all having a waking dream. We are all hallucinating all the time. We are all doing a lot of projecting all the time, some more than others, but all doing plenty.

I think the following tweet and advice article will be very helpful for you:

I don't know who needs to hear this, but here it is: You are not good at reading minds.

Posts on Projection, Reading Between the Lines, and Toxic Unassertiveness


And here are some helpful mantras:

Whatever you read between the lines is almost certainly wrong.

Whatever you mind-read is almost certainly wrong.

Unless they are your official patient and you are a trained professional with a doctorate, whatever mental illness you would diagnosis someone with is almost certainly wrong (a misdiagnosis).

If you are having an unpleasant nightmare, realizing the dream is your own creation usually instantly solves the would-be problem. In some ways, even if you cannot force yourself to stop seeing the optical illusion, just knowing it is an illusion takes away the would-be nightmarishness of it.

They aren't thinking what you think they are thinking, and so if thinking they are thinking it annoys you or causes you misery, my advice is to simply stop imagining that they are thinking it, or at least realize you are not a mind-reader and choose to disbelief the hallucination you are seeing. It can be a very pleasant and liberating realization to realize it's all in your own head, always.



With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott



projected.jpg


***


your-brain-hallucinates-your-conscious-reality.jpg


***


marcus-aurelius.png





---
In addition to having authored his book, In It Together, Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (a.k.a. Scott) runs a mentoring program, with a free option, that guarantees success. Success is guaranteed for anyone who follows the program.

Sometimes we tend to have our own imaginations about what people say or feel about us and yet this is not a thing we are supposed to worry about. Instead, we should get out of our heads and see things the way they are supposed to be. Believing what the other person said and yet there actions towards you show the opposite is also a big red flag. Take situations as they are and building castles in your own head is wrong.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

If you haven't already, you can sign up to be personally mentored by Scott "Eckhart Aurelius" Hughes at this link.

Hi Scott
What is the ideal number of children you can have in this generation?

Hi, Risper Ouma Lisa Anyango,


Thank you for your question!


I don't understand your question.
       
What do you mean by the word "ideal" in this context? In other words, can you please define the word "ideal" as you use it?
       
What do you mean by the word "you" in this context?
       
Are you asking about me (Scott), you (Risper), or someone else?
       
Presumably, no matter how you define the word "ideal," what's "ideal" for me would be different than what's "ideal" for you, and what's "ideal" for some other third person would be a totally different third thing that's both different from what's "ideal" for me and different from what's "ideal" for you.
       
May I ask, have you already read my book, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All?
       
If not, I strongly recommend you read that book before asking any additional questions in this Q&A, mainly since the answers will likely be in the book.
       
In any case, here are some helpful relevant mantras that capture some of the important teachings in the book:
       
- To each their own.
       
- One person's trash is another person's treasure.
       
- Live and let live.
       
- Clean your own backyard first and only. (In other words, don't apply your unique subjective standard of cleanliness to your neighbor's proverbial backyard, and don't ever trespass on your neighbor's proverbial backyard.)
       
- Everything is okay, always.
       
- Reality is right.
       
- The universe doesn't miscalculate.
       
- Everything is inexorably perfect.
       
- Everything is ideal, exactly as it is at that time that it is what it is.
       
- Everything is acceptable and to be accepted as either (1) that which you cannot control or (2) that which you do control and is thus exactly the way you are choosing for it to be.



With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

Everything is okay, always..png (2.2 MiB) Viewed 50068 times

In addition to having authored his book, In It Together, Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (a.k.a. Scott) runs a mentoring program, with a free option, that guarantees success. Success is guaranteed for anyone who follows the program.

[Risper Ouma Lisa Anyango]

If you haven't already, you can sign up to be personally mentored by Scott "Eckhart Aurelius" Hughes at this link.

Hi Scott
What is the ideal number of children you can have in this generation?

Hi, Risper Ouma Lisa Anyango,


Thank you for your question!


I don't understand your question.
       
What do you mean by the word "ideal" in this context? In other words, can you please define the word "ideal" as you use it?
       
What do you mean by the word "you" in this context?
       
Are you asking about me (Scott), you (Risper), or someone else?
       
Presumably, no matter how you define the word "ideal," what's "ideal" for me would be different than what's "ideal" for you, and what's "ideal" for some other third person would be a totally different third thing that's both different from what's "ideal" for me and different from what's "ideal" for you.
       
May I ask, have you already read my book, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All?
       
If not, I strongly recommend you read that book before asking any additional questions in this Q&A, mainly since the answers will likely be in the book.
       
In any case, here are some helpful relevant mantras that capture some of the important teachings in the book:
       
- To each their own.
       
- One person's trash is another person's treasure.
       
- Live and let live.
       
- Clean your own backyard first and only. (In other words, don't apply your unique subjective standard of cleanliness to your neighbor's proverbial backyard, and don't ever trespass on your neighbor's proverbial backyard.)
       
- Everything is okay, always.
       
- Reality is right.
       
- The universe doesn't miscalculate.
       
- Everything is inexorably perfect.
       
- Everything is ideal, exactly as it is at that time that it is what it is.
       
- Everything is acceptable and to be accepted as either (1) that which you cannot control or (2) that which you do control and is thus exactly the way you are choosing for it to be.



With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott



Everything is okay, always..png



In addition to having authored his book, In It Together, Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (a.k.a. Scott) runs a mentoring program, with a free option, that guarantees success. Success is guaranteed for anyone who follows the program.

Hi Scott, thank you for your reply. Ideal to me can be defined as most suitable or perfect. As for "you" I used a wrong word. Can I please replace it with the word "anyone." The question will therefore be rephrased as, "What is the suitable number of children anyone can have in this generation." But because I haven't finished reading your book, I will have to refrain from asking anymore questions. I decided to read 5 pages everywhere so that I process each and every concept. Thank you.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

If you haven't already, you can sign up to be personally mentored by Scott "Eckhart Aurelius" Hughes at this link.


Hi, Risper Ouma Lisa Anyango,

Thank you for your question!

 
What do you do when you keep failing over and over again? 

 
 

 
I never fail because I never try. And I never try because I realize there is no try. From that realization, there comes incredible grace, extreme self-responsibility, and invincible free-spirited inner peace (a.k.a. invincible unwavering true happiness).
 
The illusion of trying and failure is generally a symptom of one or both of the following: 
 
1. Not fully and unconditionally accepting what you cannot control and cannot change. This would be trying to do X when X is something you know you cannot do. 
 
 2. Not being fully honest with yourself about what your choices and desires are (e.g. "I am not choosing to gain weight; I am trying to lose weight and failing." or "I am not a cheating spouse who is choosing to have an affair! I am someone who is trying my best to not cheat and failing".) 
 

 
 

 
Hi Scott 
Does this mean that failure is his choice 

 
 
No, that is not what I am saying. 
 
As I use the term, failure is an illusion. 
 
As I use the term, everyone and everything is a success. 
 
The adulterer isn't a spouse trying to be faithful who fails, but rather someone who succeeds at cheating. The drinking alcoholic doesn't fail to be sober, even if his stated goal is to be sober; rather, he is successful at drinking. 
 
Everyone and everything is a success. They aren't failing to be something or failing to be anything. They are who they are, and they are succeeding at being themselves. Bees don't fail to be trees, and trees don't fail to be bees. They are succeeding at being who they are and doing what they do. 
 
May I ask, have you read my book, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All? 
 
If not, I ask that you read that book in full before asking additional questions in this Mentoring Q&A, because likely the book already contains the answers. 
 
 
Regardless, here are some relevant topics that explain this point—that success is a choice and failure is an illusion—in more detail: 
 
- Page 150: "When it comes to your choices, you always get exactly what you want, meaning what you choose." 
 
- Beware: The phrase "work hard" can be just as dishonest and dangerous as the word "try". Be very careful with it! 
 
- Trying, failure, underachievement, and should-not-have-ness are imaginary phantoms that cause you real misery. 
 
- Success is a choice. 
 
- I have inner peace because I shamelessly know I do only what I want to do, and I don't ever do what I don't want to do. 
 
- When I see someone in hell, I smile inside myself, and I think, "Good for him; he's getting what he's choosing." 



With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

Everyone and everything is a success..png (749.22 KiB) Viewed 50166 times

In addition to having authored his book, In It Together, Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (a.k.a. Scott) runs a mentoring program, with a free option, that guarantees success. Success is guaranteed for anyone who follows the program.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

If you haven't already, you can sign up to be personally mentored by Scott "Eckhart Aurelius" Hughes at this link.

Have you ever met a true narcissist, and if so, did you call them out on it? There is a person who is such a narcissist that it is becoming unbearable. It is all about them. Look at me, see how good I look, follow my advice, be like me, etc. This person also thinks that everything they say, you should believe, and the majority of it is BS. They say whatever they like and look at you like you are supposed to take their word as gospel. Sometimes, I think that they think I am an idiot because they think that I believe what they are spewing out of their mouth. I usually just smile and nod, but inside, I'm thinking that they can't possibly think that I believe them. What I really want to say to them is that they are a narcissistic, psychopathic liar and scammer, and I don't and won't believe everything you say. The problem is that they are essential in my life right now, and I can't just drop them like a hot potato. Do narcissists believe that they are narcissists? Do they know how they come across to others? What is your opinion, Scott?

Hi, Shirley Labzentis,

Thank you for your question!


Only 1%–2% of people have Narcissistic Personality Disorder. 
 
I've met more than 100 people, so surely I've met a true narcissist. Presumably, for every 100 people I've met in my life, I've met a narcissist. For every thousand people I meet, I've met about 10 narcissists. 
 
But I have no way of knowing that they are narcissists. 
 
Maybe sometimes I suspect it, but I may be and likely am wrong when I suspect such a thing. 
 
Maybe sometimes I firmly believe they are not narcissists, but I may be wrong. 
 
In my opinion, the only situation in which a person is equipped to even semi-confidently diagnose a fellow human being with a mental disorder is when and only when the diagnoser is an accredited psychiatrist of above-average intelligence and the diagnosee is their official formal patient. And, even then, both misdiagnosis and overdiagnosis are extremely common. Just look at how many very normal kids get diagnosed with something like ADHD because they aren't great at sitting still for 8 hours a day in a miserable, boring, soul-crushing classroom at some factory school designed to iron out their individuality, creativity, and spark to factory produce another standardized obedient consumer. The average school setting is so inhumane and counter to human nature and to what a naturally healthy child is like. In my view, a student who can perform well according to the school's standards in that situation is the one who has an abnormal mental condition and/or disorder. To be sane in a crazy world is kind of crazy, in my opinion. 
 
Here is a great video by Dr. Orion Taraban, Psy.D., about how unreliable it is for even a trained psychiatrist to diagnose a patient in a formal medical setting: 
 
The source of the problem: what people fail to understand about mental illness
 
 
My point is that, even when it is a trained, accredited expert in a medical setting making the diagnosis toward their formal official patient, there is still a lot of doubt and uncertainty involved. Even then, there is a lot of misdiagnosis and overdiagnosis going on. 
 
But when someone is attempting to diagnose someone in their personal life, such as a spouse, roommate, or family member, I'd happily bet with at least 100:1 odds that they are wrong. I'd trust a Magic 8-Ball before I'd trust that person to effectively diagnose their spouse, roommate, co-worker, or such. 
 
That's true even if the person is a trained, accredited expert! 
 
A psychiatrist can diagnose a patient of theirs with some confidence, but they cannot reliably diagnose their own spouse, roommate, co-worker, or family member. It's loosely analogous to why even a practicing lawyer will typically not represent themselves in court. They are too close to it to be objective, rational, and unbiased, among other issues. 
 
Even if you are a practicing psychiatrist with a medical degree in psychiatry, here is my advice: do not attempt to diagnose your spouse, romantic partner, roommate, co-worker, family member, or anyone who is not your own formal patient in a medical setting. 
 
If you aren't a practicing psychiatrist, then don't diagnose anyone at all. 
 
If we polled women randomly and asked them if their most recent ex was a narcissist, what percentage do you think would say yes? 
 
I'd bet it would be around 20% to 30%. 
 
Thus, we can essentially be certain that almost all of them are utterly wrong since only 1%–2% of the population actually have Narcissistic Personality Disorder. 
 
We would get similar results if we polled men about their latest ex, especially if, in addition to (1) narcissistic personality disorder, we also threw in (2) bipolar disorder and/or (3) borderline personality disorder. They would probably mostly say "Yes, she has it" in regard to any one of those, even though a fun follow-up question would be to ask them to explain the difference between the three disorders and see how they can't. 
 
I'll bet 10:1 that the person you think is a narcissist whom you ask about is not actually a narcissist, meaning they don't have Narcissistic Personality Disorder. 
 
I am sure they often tell lies; most people without NPD do tell lies. I am sure they are often selfish; most people without NPD are, some much more than others. I am sure they are often mean, aggressive, and self-centered; most people without NPD are, some much more than others. 
 
I strongly advise you against diagnosing them even in your own head with any diagnosable mental disorder, let alone "calling them out" on it, presumably meaning loudly proclaiming your unprofessional and almost certainly incorrect diagnosis in an accusatory tone. 
 
But here's the more important point: What does it matter? What does it matter if the person you have in mind is technically actually one of the very few people who meet the exceptionally strict criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder versus someone else whose behavior you find irritating, who you consider to be very untrustworthy (i.e., someone who lies often), and who you don't feel like you can be yourself around? 
 
Those aren't just rhetorical questions. I'm really asking. What does it matter? Is it going to affect your own behavior and your own choices going forward? If so, how? Imagine, hypothetically, that you had a magic fortune cookie that could truly and reliably tell you with absolute certainty whether or not this person is truly one of the very few people who actually has Narcissistic Personality Disorder (versus maybe just some more generic, dishonest, annoying person who you don't like, meaning the person is what some might colloquially call a "giant asshole"). Would the yes/no answer that magic fortune cookie gives you affect your own behavior and your own choices going forward? If so, how? Roughly speaking, would it actually affect your own choices if going forward you found out he was (1) someone suffering from Narcissist Personality Disorder versus (2) just a giant asshole who doesn't happen to have NPD? If so, how? 
 
Do you see how the mind can get obsessed with deeply thinking about and debating things that don't matter (e.g., whether or not a person technically has NPD or is just some other kind of more generic asshole or liar)? 
 
It's like Russell's Teapot. The very reason you cannot know whether or not the person has NPD is the very reason it doesn't matter whether they do. The highly technical taxonomy for describing the deep, mostly imperceptible, alleged inner workings that lead to certain superficial behaviors (e.g., him lying to you) doesn't change anything that really matters to you (e.g., the fact that he is lying). 
 
Put the focus on your own behavior and your own choices, now and moving forward, meaning the choices of your present and future selves, not your past self. 
 
The main reason I recommend so strongly to you (and all my mentees) to never diagnose anyone at all (unless they are your formal patient and you are a trained accredited psychiatrist), is not because your diagnosis will almost certainly be inaccurate (which it will), but rather, more importantly, because doing so usually means you are overthinking about them and their traits, and thus—since your time, money, and mental energy are limited—you are therefore underthinking about yourself and your own behavior and your own choices. In other words, by taking undue responsibility for them you therefore are taking less self-responsibility. I suggest spending much less time thinking about or worrying about them and their alleged flaws and the alleged dirtiness of their backyard, and instead putting that time and energy into cleaning your own proverbial backyard. My recommendation to all mentees is this: Use your own standards of subjective cleanliness to clean your own backyard, not to judge or worry about others' backyards. To each their own. One person's trash is another's treasure, and one person's dirty is another's clean.
 
You cannot focus on your own behavior and your own choices if you are so focused on them, and their perceived behavior and perceived traits (as perceived by you which says more about you than them anyway since perception is almost entirely projection). 
 
If you are overthinking about them, then you are not taking the full self-responsibility that my book teaches you to take. 
 
As I have said many times before, self-responsibility (and, by extension, self-discipline, spiritual freedom, and inner peace) is less about taking responsibility for oneself and more about not taking undue responsibility for others. 
 
Look at your question and count how many words and sentences are about this other person, their perceived traits, and their alleged flaws, in detail, and how many (or few, as the case may be) are about you and the choices you are making and that are available to you. 
 
Every second you spend thinking about them is a second you are not thinking about yourself. Every second you spend thinking and worrying about them, their choices, and their alleged flaws is a second you are not using to focus on your own behavior and your own choices. 
 
This isn't some moral judgmental thing in which I am saying you 'should' focus on your own behavior and your own choices. No, I am not saying that. Rather, this is purely practical. It is to your own benefit to think about and focus on your own behavior and your own choices in your unique present, rather than overthinking about and/or analyzing in detail the behavior, traits, and alleged flaws of others, or, worse, attempting to diagnose them even though they (presumably) aren't your patient. 
 
 
Regarding everything I've said so far, I recommend you read these topics of mine: 
 
You don't have to have an opinion about everything. [Commentary on Overthinking] 
 
Posts on Projection, Reading Between the Lines, and Toxic Unassertiveness 
 
Advice about Ultimatums and Setting and Enforcing Healthy Boundaries in All Relationships: Personal, Business, Political 
 
 
You ask, "Do narcissists believe that they are narcissists?" 
 
If they did, they either wouldn't care or they would be proud of it. Narcissists certainly don't sit around anxiously worrying with fidgety fingers about whether or not they are narcissists. If they really are a narcissist, it's all the more reason to stop worrying about them and not bother calling them out or such, and instead focus on yourself and your own choices, such as your choice of whether to cut them out of your life by creating and enforcing healthy boundaries. 
 
But, again, it's worth stressing that 90%+ of the time you think someone is a narcissist, you are wrong. 
 
For example, in romantic relationships, a very common attachment style is the avoidant attachment style, which is far, far more common than NPD, but it is very commonly mistaken for NPD by those who attempt to diagnose their partner (which, again, I strongly recommend one never do). Here is a video that explains that common kind of mix-up with some tips to see the difference between the very uncommon NPD and the much more common avoidant attachment style: 
 
Are they a Narcissist or just Avoidant?? Here's how to tell...  
 
Other things that, unlike NPD, are very common are: extreme dishonesty, selfishness, pathological lying, and generic arrogance or aggressiveness. 
 
1%–2% of the population are narcissists, but a lot more than that are dishonest, selfish liars or mean, arrogant people. And there are many reasons people can manifest those kinds of traits besides NPD. 
 
A person's disliked behavior being falsely labeled as NPD is about as common as a quote on the internet being misattributed to Socrates. 
 
 
 
Finally, I want to pick out what I think is the most crucial part of your post and question, which ironically, isn't in question form. You write, "The problem is that they are essential in my life right now, and I can't just drop them like a hot potato." 
 
You can't? You truly can't? Like, how so? Is there a literal gun to your head? Have you been literally handcuffed and tied up? If not, can you explain in literal detail what exactly is making it literally physically impossible for you to remove this person from your life and/or just tell them flat out that you don't trust them? 
 
I find that roughly 99.9% of the time someone tells me they cannot do something, they actually can do it, and they are just choosing not to. 
 
Here is an excerpt from Page 187 of my book, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All: 
 

 
The ego will lie. The egoic voice in your head pretending to be you will lie. It may say: 
 
“It was a hard day, so I need to eat for comfort.” 
 
“I must eat.” 
 
“I need a drink of whiskey.” 
 
“I don't want to gamble, but I have to go to the casino one last time.” 
 
“I can’t quit until I’m ahead.” 
 
“I need to win the money I lost before I can stop.” 
 
“I need one last fix before I go to rehab.” 
 
“I need a spouse because I cannot be happy living alone.” 
 
“I have to do something.” 
 
“They need to be punished.” 
 
“I have to teach them a lesson.” 
 
“The world sucks; I need to fix it.” 
 
“I can’t be happy with inner peace until the world is fixed!” 
 

 
 
 
Here are some posts of mine about setting and enforcing healthy boundaries: 
 
Advice about Ultimatums and Setting and Enforcing Healthy Boundaries in All Relationships: Personal, Business, Political 
 
Leaving the proverbial door unanswered: True love is freedom, not slavery. You needn't obey the knock nor the knocker. 
 
Compassion without boundaries is toxic. Giving an ungrateful person more just makes them more ungrateful (miserable).  
 
 
If you truly "can't" drop the person like a hot potato (i.e., cut them out of your life), meaning it's not a choice but literally something you physically cannot do, then please do re-ask your question and elaborate in detail with literal words about exactly why you physically cannot remove the person from your life. 
 
Otherwise, you may already have your answer: You can cut them out, so do. 
 
Otherwise (as a third option), please do re-ask your question to explain in detail why you don't want to cut them out of your life and why you are choosing to keep them in your life and keep interacting with them and keep listening to their alleged lies and other things they say and do that annoy or bother you. 
 
In either case, to provide more helpful, direct, and clear suggestions to you, I need to know more about you and why you are choosing to do the things you are choosing to do, and not so much about this other person and what diagnosable conditions you would diagnose them as having if you were in a position to do so (which you aren't, unless you are a psychiatrist and they are your literal formal patient). 
 
I look forward to possibly getting your follow-up question and doing my best to provide additional helpful tips, advice, and suggestions.



With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

True love.png (1.35 MiB) Viewed 51059 times

In addition to having authored his book, In It Together, Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (a.k.a. Scott) runs a mentoring program, with a free option, that guarantees success. Success is guaranteed for anyone who follows the program.