Friday, March 23, 2018

Essential Realizations VI

Far from being some "mere abstraction", the reality of the "world" in which one lives is no less and no more than a being unto itself.  It is alive in the same sense that any beings "within" it are live, and in the same sense that any being in which it lives is alive.  Why people think that such an idea is an invention is similar to, but opposite from, the way that an idea may be thought to obtain a degree of reality which it does not possess.  Hypostatization is the latter notion, but the former notion, which is expresses the idea that one fails to duly recognize the reality of something that is real, is perhaps best captured by the term "derealization".  The failure to realize something that is in fact real.  Both are forms of delusion, or rather are extreme polar elements which are essential to the idea of any delusion.

But the nature of any entity is a certain degree of independence from other entities, that is the nature of the dignity of being, and manifests as the existing realm of phenomena that manifest between beings as their interactions.  These transactions which occur between beings is not something arbitrary, but stems from their own inner nature, from each their own essence.  When the essences of beings are able to flourish according to their characteristic properties, and are able to manifest the expression of their own living spirits, then they are a true and full, actual reality.  And what is manifested between beings in that state is "cut from the same cloth" as what enables those transactions, the environmental conditions in which they are embedded.  These conditions exist within them, between them, and beyond them.  

The fullness of all these manifestations is not some abstraction of the mind which models them "at a distance", any more than is such a mentally constructed model a mere hallucination without reference.  They are all actually mentalities articulating their own resources in a world which provides a context for their endeavors, and these manifestations are not merely observed events, just as there are no such things as "merely observed events".  Such a truncated notion, that things are "merely objectivities" is a gross delusion in both aspects (as are all delusions suchlike).  It is the hypostatization of a model beyond the scope of its relation to reality as just that, a model.  It is also the derealization of the beings  which are modeled, that is the modeler, the model, the and modeled.
The modeler is derealized in that some aspect of their being has to be negated from expression in order to deceive itself about the nature of its own thought process, so that it cannot recognize properly its origin (its own self), its limits (its function), and its reference (the modeled beings in themselves).

What "goes on" in a world is a representation of that world, just as what goes on in an individual person within that world is for himself.  I discussed in my series Contra Columnus Quintis that there is an essence of each being and kind of being, which expresses through modes and manners of its action and articulation.   That reveals the character of that being, both as an individual and as the member of a class of beings.  So it is essential to the further discussion of the nature of this world and its destiny.  And there is a destiny for this world, as there is for each and every being.  This world, this realm called "Earth", is not the original firmament, and it is not the final domain of reality, not by anything except the most tenuous and delusional stretch of the most unacquainted mentality.   So, to use the colloquial expression "what's going on", we might ask just that question of the world in which we exist.  I already said what was going on in many videos and writings, in one form or another, going at it from many angles, and ranging across many aspects.  So I won't belabor the specifics here. Not even a short list.  I'm going to discuss what's going on in this world using a template that will structure my statements in a way that schedules the understanding to reach the appropriate realization on its own, simply by adducing the relevant facts for themselves.  That template will address the fundamental characteristics of transactions between beings in this world and relate those characteristics to principles of assessment.  The primary principle I'll use is the one called "Justice", which I've well-defined as a condition of being wherein its expression of its true nature is not hindered in any way.  Don't let that fool you into thinking I mean "anything goes".  There is a logic to Justice which demands anything goes which is in accordance with the fullness of a being's nature.  A being which is deficient in some way does not express nature truly "according to its kind" and attempts to act outside of the jurisdiction of Justice, which is untenable to the very principle of being, and is a violation of being and beings, though speciously a fulfillment of its own agenda.

In order for a being to be able to flourish according to its nature, it must of course exist in the proper environment, in relation to the proper classes of other beings, and therefore must exist in a realm proper to it.  Otherwise there cannot be a truly characteristic expression of its essence.  Without that, there cannot be a world in the proper sense of the term. Justice amounts to the necessary and obligatory facts of these relations where none are restricted by any other, since what they express is tantamount to the same thing.  For example, "Liberty", when properly understood, embraces the Right to do whatever is in accordance with one's own nature, which is the true meaning of having a "will" and the "freedom" to express it, and hence the true meaning of  having a "free will".  There are degraded forms of the idea, just as there are ideas which are improperly labeled by that term.  But what is at stake here is understanding that such an idea carries within it the necessary understanding that there is no such thing as the liberty to restrain liberty.  The liberty of one being by its very nature does not contradict the liberty of another, when we are speaking of true and whole beings, whose forms of entity do not carry deficiencies in any way.  The only way this can be different is through coercion, always as a result of the violation of the essential dignity of a being.

So if a being should find it must sustain itself by incorporating other beings, such as how a human being must ingest the substance of other living beings, that is one thing.  But if one of these human beings does so in such a way that it takes the sustenance of another  human being from him, then that is not a true expression of the liberty to survive by seeking sustenance, because it is doing something to another of his kind just as if he were not of the same kind.  That is untenable, as an individual is only properly the expression of a kind of being, though he is also his own unique expression.  And just as he would like the liberty to express his being, which partly consists in and requires sustaining his life through alimentary processes, he therefore cannot do so by violating that same Right as it is expressed by the same essence expressing simultaneously in another instance of Itself, in this case by frustrating the same expression of that essence in another of his kind.  That's just a negative way of describing the principle, which is derived from the positive and complete form of that principle of Justice, which is best summed up by the term "To Each, His Own".

Understanding that "each" means "each person", and that a person is nothing other than what a mind is in the fullest sense of the term "mind", how could it be said that a person can express his own being if others, through their own arrogance and ignorance, decide that a person doesn't have a right to his own mind?  Surely there will be specifics to the issuance of prohibitions to someone as to what they can have a right to think, say, or do with his own self , such that those who issue those prohibitions or who take incursive actions against someone's self-expression would declare that in fact they know better about such things.  They would argue that the person in question is not fit to express themselves as they truly are because such expressions are "wrong" or are "dangerous" or are "harmful" or are a "threat".  But of course that is something that begs a proper definition of what is "wrong" and "harmful" and a "threat" in terms precise and also accurate enough to make such a thing so clear as to be a demonstration that what one person has done is, in itself and without any doubt, a harm to another person's right to do whatever it is they would prefer to do in the same class of actions.   So I'll use a seemingly trite example to make it clear.  Let's say someone doesn't want to engage in idle chitchat at work.  Well, is engaging in idle chitchat a requirement of the job per se?  Does not doing so prevent anyone else from doing so with another, willing person? 

Think about that same seemingly petty example in another way.  Is there not the matter of what it is that the person would rather do with his own mind, apart from the doing of work per se?  Perhaps some people like to engage in banter and chitchat at work, and it doesn't stop them from doing their work properly and efficiently, and even helps them because they get a sort of kick out of that, so much so that their supervisor, who has the right to prohibit such, permits it.  But perhaps some at work do not wish to, or do not wish to do so with the persons there who do wish to.  Does it make any sense to then demand such out of someone who wishes only to perform his own tasks and get on with the rest of his life when his work is done?  The situation should be clear to a mature and honest mind.  Unless it is a requirement of the work, then it is not required of the worker.  That's a sort of logic anyone can understand.  Also, if it stems from the nature of being, and it is permitted, and it is not injurious to the work himself or another, then it is his liberty to so engage in that extralaborious activity.  Chewing gum, whistling, tap dancing, juggling, eating; hell, doing anything whatsoever, so long as it is in accord with the simple requirements mentioned.  But this makes no positive requirement about what that sort of thing will be, and it must simply stem from the nature of the person, just as the actions he takes to do his work per se stem from the nature of his work.  To demand of him not to express his nature in that way is senseless unless it is unfair to his agreements for that job.  To demand of another to engage in such, which is an expression of liberty peculiar to the inclinations and needs of the individual, is incoherent.  It is not only not the nature of the act, though the outward form is demanded.  It may very well be inconsistent with the nature of the person put upon to join in that act.

That example indicates that there is an inequity.  It is not that the person who won't behave according to the preferences of others is at fault, but rather that his right to behave according to his own wishes, on the same plane of consideration, is abrogated by being ignored and devalued.  Yet these others do value their own preferences, don't they?  It is unjust, plain and simple.  "But that's the way people are".  No, that's the way some people are.  Some people are not that way.  Or some people are that way, but only around certain other people, not those there who want to force fit the relationship.  That's just debased.  That's called being "dense".  Instead of facing their own over-expansive, coercive behavior for what it is, they are simply willfully infringing on the right of the other to have their own mind.  It is a disrespect for the dignity of another.  Yet surely if these disrespectful persons were put in the same situation they'd suddenly have all the empathy in the world for their own predicament, as usual.  There are a lot of these people in the world, different classes of them according to what part of "to each his own" it is that they "don't get".  It can be something as trite as bothering someone who's not interested, or it can be something as severe as trying to force others to view the world the same way that you do because you think your view is more correct and that if the other doesn't adopt the same view (or doesn't claim to), then it would be better if that person died because "their soul will go to hell".  Just look at what happened to the Waldensians at Merindol, or ask a Waldensian what "Piedmont Easter" means.  The summary of such events is a true depiction of "the way people are".  The evil at work in these kinds of deeds is enough to condemn the world, but their frequency in the past up til this present day is astonishing.

I will venture to say that we are in a realm in which has paid a whole lot of lip service to its respect for Justice, and that it cares a lot about the dignity of each and every being, and sees all life as sacred, and hopes for a benign and even heavenly outcome for everyone, as much as can be hoped for according to whatever standards of divine justice they have dogmatically believed are actually real and just.  I will also venture to say that the "Earth realm" has the most grisly, abhorrent, wretched, insipidly idiotic and truly unforgivable track record on the fulfillment end of that bargain. 

Is this just what goes on "all over the place" and just something that happens chronically at a simmer, most of the time, bursting forth in an evil episode here and there?  If so, then this is a world of nothing but evil volcanic activity striving to reach the surface constantly, with a Mt. St. Helens for each patch land 100 miles square.  But it is truly worse than that.  It is systematic.  This Earth realm, this one that is variously understood as being spherical or flat, floating in infinite space or extended on an infinite plane, resting on a cosmic turtle's back, or what have you; that is to say this place called "the world" for everyone living in it from Timbuctu to Dublin to De Moines, in all of its nation states, in each of its cities, and in every one of its localities and neighborhoods, is thoroughly designed by those who wield the power of hegemony to be systematically unjust.  So unjust, according to the description of each kind of crime that exists, all of which taken to a metalevel, that it even has damn near reached perfection at being unjust.  This is a reality which it seems most people are schizophrenically realizing and denying simultaneously.  

But the consequences of such a condition are going to be in direct proportion to the antecedent causes, and are inexorable.  What those consequences cannot fail to be is akin to the phenomena seen in a rubber band when it snaps back to the shape it prefers when it has been stretched beyond it and then suddenly released.  But for this "world", it is going to be something more like what happens when two large celestial bodies attempt to occupy the same space.  Those sorts of events are also similarly trite and profound, like the examples of injustice to which I referred before.  But they manifest a simple fact that transcends the question of who or what "made" this world or the universe.  This simple fact also transcends the question of what people think is going to happen or hope is going to happen, and how they think that relates to what is going on or what they think is going on.  It is simply going to be the necessary demonstration of the principle of Justice, that each must get what he truly deserves, each must reap as he has sown, and the entire realm of the Earth is no exception.  And judging by the symptoms, the condition is quite near its peak.  And I think it was not idly said, for it fulfills a true understanding of the moral metaphysics of Ultimate Reality, that when evil reaches its maximum expression, then it will time for the Destroyer of Evil to manifest in the world, and utterly destroy it with a sort of energy which cannot be survived by any elements which are corrupt, seeming to them like molten metal.  But this will seem to the Righteous like a bath of warm milk does to an infant.

Wednesday, March 21, 2018

Essential Realizations V

If it is accepted that metaphysical idealism not too different from that of Bishop Berkeley's is the basically proper description of the way reality is, then it is no longer a matter of wonder concerning what sort of cosmos it is in which we exist, or in which anyone exists.  It is itself a mental person, perhaps as much greater in scale and complexity compared to a human mental person than is he from that of an atom of iron inside of a hemoglobin molecule within his own body. It's not any sort of stretch of the imagination, and it seems actually to be a significant stretch to assume a world that is different, where there is such a thing as a mindless atom, mindless structures composed of atoms, all emanating or physically evolving from some primordial mindless singularity and then, at some particular phase of its compounding complexity, resulting in an "emergent property" which we refer to as consciousness, which supervenes over the neurobiological structures which "give rise" to it as though nothing more than some passive effect of its active, "objectively describable" features.  Rather, it is this materialist viewpoint that "gives rise" to nothing more than correlationism, which is not a form of explanation at all and is really an incredibly superfluous intellectual sort of tap-dancing around the problem of "what is the mind in itself", the actual primary phenomenon with which the mind itself is immediately confronted, long before it models relationships with an experience which it calls "the brain" and with which it maps correlations through scientific processes which can never, in themselves nor with the help of the mind which does the correlating, ever produce a sense of why something supposedly without any mental qualia should ever "give rise" to such.  

Locke handled this problem admirably well in his "Essay on the Human Understanding".   Descartes, Berkeley, Locke and Hume all contribute insights of different sorts into these issues which, if seriously examined and connected to one another in proper fashion will make it clear that the burden of proof lies with those who declare of there being something which exists "in and of itself" and is not a mental person.  It may not be enough to convince someone who already has an obsession with such a conceptual plaything as "material monism", but there are people who won't be convinced of many things plain to common sense, and there are also people who seem to have some sort of dogma or doctrine, sometimes many and of many kinds, so ingrained into them through conditioning from a young age that they cannot seem to muster the will to think outside of the box in which such conditioning has placed their thought processes. It isn't the responsibility of what is true and real to convince, but rather it is incumbent upon each person to reach his own realization of the what is true and real.  Many people survive quite well in a basic biological sense without ever grasping the nature of logical thought and how it differs from fallacy, but that's not because fallacies are reasonable thought processes, and it isn't because logic is untrue, useless, or a spurious and arbitrary invention of the mind (though fallacies are useless, except as useful for fostering delusion). There is no need to win people over to the proper understanding of things, as that is not the responsibility of those who possess that understanding.  When someone understands the truth and reality of things, their responsibility is fulfilled immediately.  Those who fail to do so, waiting around for someone else to break through their obstinate idiocy, should be left to the wayside where they prefer to linger for whatever perverse reasons or for whatever reasons of deficiency or preference. When, if ever, they should decide finally to leave their donkey's ears behind and pay attention to reality then, if their prior obstinacy hasn't given them too ill-starred a fate, they might, I say possibly might be graced with some sort of indication of what they had formerly and willfully ignored or rebuked in stupidity. But reality is not necessarily the sort of place where such benign fates are in any way guaranteed or even likely, though people seem to have many cherished notions of secret powers according to wishful thinking.  They are followers of a particular mindset, and that will be explained in later realizations.

Regardless of that, and back to the matter which subsists truly beyond the world of delusion. So it is with the proper understanding of the way reality in fact is that it becomes clear that we are never in a condition of impersonal forces acting blindly, never in a realm where things have no purpose or meaning, and never in a state of being without accountability for what we are and do.  One must always relate to some other person, on some level of existence, with whom there will be a meaningful relationship of some form.  What remains to be better investigated is what has always remained to be investigated anyway, both for those who understand reality in a fundamental way and those who don't, and that is to discover what is the nature of  the relationship.  Reductionists (materialists are the only a kind of reductionist, technically), are happy to obsess with studying beings which can be treated by abstract measurements at a distance, and to develop models of what their behavior will be in varying conditions with varying degrees of probabilistic accuracy and precision.  They are voyeurs of a sort, and would like nothing more than to watch what other entities do.  But in fact they are not only that in many cases, and they would also like to develop ways to thwart or facilitate some of these behavioral potentials of beings, and would like a matrix of feedback from entities which enables them to develop models of their behavior that yield a basic reliable set of probable outcomes given some reliably fixed environmental conditions, inevitably with the hopes of assisting some tyranny into coming about, often poorly disguised as some hopeful utopia, wherein they often feel more at home in some role as technical support or some sort of managerial bureaucrat, when they're not actually members of the perverse class of "end users" of such a system.  Again, more on such matters later.

But the perversity of the reductionist-mandarin entities is not any sort of construction in a vacuum, produced merely to serve any spiteful misrepresentations on my part.  It is simply a sublimation of their obsession with limiting relationships between beings to their own natural and/or preferred level and way of understanding how such ought to be.  What is that but the essence of seeking control?  It is the complementary aspect of what they avoid realizing about the nature of being and beings, which is that they have an inherent dignity and worth within them which is a power and value of being itself, which is expressed in their very entity.  It's expressive gestures may have a relatively simple or complex band of manifestation on a spectrum of possibility, and the whole range of what may be ideally understood as the free expression of Real Liberty contains all those manifestations in all of their possible manifestations and relations to one another.  Not in a vacuum either, but rather as a sort of living dream or daydream perhaps, within a mind of greater scope which includes their actions as a partial subset of its own experiences, as microcosmic expressions of its own self-expression.  All a "cosmos" is, within this paradigm, is the upper boundary of what sort of mental person it is that contains some set of beings that are within the scope of its influence.  That being itself already offers to those beings within its scope a domain of expressive possibility which will be partly defined by its own expressive tendencies, which then exists as a partly determinative matrix of those who will manifest within it as an environment for their active and passive expressions of their very own living characters.

Different sects of religion, mystery schools, schools of philosophy, traditions of shamanism, and in fact in his own way each and every being which exists, all model in some way their implicit understanding of this actual and real relationship.  They may or may not recognize such an understanding in an explicit form peculiar to a sentient and conceptually mature human being or similar type of being, but that is only a fact of what those particular beings are capable of doing, not a limit on what the facts of reality are beyond those beings' capability or willingness. But these relationships are bound to manifest in whatever way they will according to the nature of the beings related, as in all cases.  The only question which remains, as I said a few paragraphs ago, is "what kind of relationship, modeled with what sort of understanding".  That's where there will be a more empirical and pragmatic science of these matters that is less immured in the abstractions of transcendental metaphysical concepts and their clarifications.  And this is the realm of development which is naturally complementary to that abstract realm of understanding, as it is in fact the world of phenomenal contents which actually embody the form of the metaphysical models which are derived from those phenomenal expressions of beings in their actual relations with one another.

These are the empirically immanent "facts of life" which obtain among a set of beings who relate to one another within a plane that is, relative to their nearest neighboring sets of beings, distinct unto themselves and nested in relation to the other sets of beings within some larger context which subsumes them all.  That is a condition which I think best defines what a "world" is.  It is a coherent whole that is formed in relation to other coherent wholes that are, as are all wholes, comprised of parts which relate to one another in a way that is capable of generating beings and events that would not otherwise exist, and which is, properly speaking, an expression of that class of beings "as such".  There can be relations between spheres of a world which bring them into a greater harmonic of wholeness that expresses what can manifest as a kind of systematic being that would not exist, again, without their harmonic coexistence together, and which manifests as their expression together which is peculiar to that coexistence in particular.  Such a being may have an existence that is "coming to be" in a particular realm, and may be guiding those beings in that realm in order to manifest its own expressive spirit, its own natural character, partly through them, partly because of them, and also the reverse.  It would live through them as an epitome of their expression insofar as their systematic expression together enables that relation-in-essence to manifest.  And it may not gain its own entity from manifesting in simply one realm per se, and may have a higher-dimensional form of existence that intersects with multiple realms, such that there is a critical set of varied realms which must each be developed toward a certain sort of world in order for a "world being" to exist in its own right, and it would manifest as different phases of developments in those different realms.

A sort of homeostasis would exist which would not become fully manifest to any of the particular realms which participate in it, but their character as worlds would be marked by its influence, and would each contribute their participation in it as active members of that critical set of realms which give rise to a world being.  So rather than a world only, it is a "sort" of world, perhaps less than or greater than what is necessary to create an independent and unique world-being on its own, and which may be some cell or organ which contributes to the existence of a world-being that goes far beyond a given world-more-or-less (a realm of some kind), and which may require changes in a realm so that it may be some particular sort of tributary into such which would be its more transcendent totality.  Without trying to go too much into those sorts of dynamics and their specifics, let's say that a cosmos would be a greater context in which realms of a certain minimum scale would coexist with varying sorts of relations to one another, and that a cosmic scale being would be something like what many consider a "god" to be.

That's just to speak of a sort of context of discussion of kinds of relationships between beings by indicating how they act as participants with one another, who have beings participating within them, and who all together participate within beings of an even greater scale.  The realm we call "Earth" is a representative case of a world.  What kind of world it is cannot be discovered simply by such a generic and abstract discussion as was had here, and must be understood through an empirical investigation of the sorts of beings and events which occur within it.  But in fact this brief accounting of scales of beings will become relevant as a context for that discussion, and so it seemed necessary to go into it a bit here. In the next installment of this series I'll look specifically at the Earth Realm and what sort of world it is.

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Essential Realizations IV

When we experience phenomena, and we desire to negotiate some relationship with them, we seek to understand the phenomena.  This means that we want to reach a sort of "meeting of the minds" with those phenomena, just as if we could inquire of them what are their intents and what might be done so as to either better enable or limit their manifestation in a way that seems better for ourselves and perhaps also of the phenomena themselves in some classes of relationship.  That negotiation process is itself a manifestation of a more complex form of reaction patterns that are the reacting entity's attempt to optimize its relationships on simpler levels than on the more advanced levels which are readily recognized as "mental" per se.  But the very idea of reaching an understanding of phenomena seems no different in its essence than the process of reaching an understanding with the phenomena.   It is just that in the former aspect it is implied that there is some sort of "take away" of the understanding, and not just a relation confirmed during the actual interaction.  These changes of condition of the entity which is capable of taking away information from an exchange with phenomena are the components of what amounts to gaining an understanding. And this information is a key component in predisposing the reacting entity to better adapt itself to future negotiations with phenomena which are "adventitious" to itself (not organic to itself  qua specific entity).  

This is what the whole process of intelligence is all about.  Entities maintaining their own integrity by entering into relationships with other entities in a way that better and better comports with their own agendas, and less and less are merely happenstance and less-than-ideal varieties of interactions which, if only they had been better negotiated, could have been better integrated with the agenda of the reacting entity.  Sometimes one entity can possess great latitude over the relationships to be negotiated with the other entity, and can very greatly delineate the relationship toward more specific and more reliable relations to its own agendas.  If it does, it may do so to such a great degree that the subdominant entities register only as passive phenomena to the dominant entity, and are experienced as "objects" in the relations which are adopted with them.  This registers as a certain fixity in the phenomena as they are experienced, and is really a range on the spectrum of possible relations between entities, which can be experienced on the other extreme as well if those "objects" overtake the conditions which hold when they are "objectified" and become more like agents with their own agendas requiring a ready, focused and constant attention as they assert their own will.  Taking will to be an abstract way of looking at certain expressions of beings as they act, it could easily be understood that so-called "material objects" really do have minds "of their own".

Perhaps it could be a function of looking at different scales of phenomena with the right perspective that could cause one to see that their behavior is all "mental", and that regularity and predictability are a function of the size and complexity of the "essence" of that being, which might seem without enough nuance to constitute a personality on the scale of a human being, but still may seem in their own way, on their own scale, as "persons of a sort" in their lateral relations in kind.  Different isotopes, different degrees of ionization, different forms of entanglement lineages, and perhaps other factors which are recognized as simply "quantum phenomena" are altogether just some ways that elements of matter are still with a sort of personality with respect to their own generalizations within our understanding of them on our own scale.   If we are to take the evolutionary model (without regard to ultimate origins), we could thereby understand relationships of elements, compounds, and certain forms of their more complex interactions, to result in stable forms of cellular life which can also then become more complex in ways that demonstrate an aggregation of simpler intelligence into more complex intelligence, such that the higher ranges of intelligence can regard the personalities of the lower ranges as being more "simplistic", although their actual behavior and the models of behavior which must be developed to describe them could be naturally quite complex and nuanced.

The understanding that is reached, the negotiated relations that are created from those understandings, the bonds formed and contractions of  conduct which result, both firm and flexible, all seem to imply "intelligent behavior", not as something developed only later in the scale of beings such as at the animal level, but which seem to exist in "their own ways" at the most basic levels of beings.  When these relations are sufficiently graded in favor of the dominant entity, then it can have a surplus of adaptive potential represented as its enhanced capacity to respond to, store, retrieve, and apply information concerning its experiences with its complementary phenomena.  It may even be capable of doing this in ways that do merely outstrip the the complexity of the phenomena with respect to their relevant relations to the dominant entity, but may even be capable of outstripping their own cycles of direct relevance, becoming more abstract, more diverse, more precise, more broadly related with other forms of information, more "cognitive" in the full sense that captures human intelligence in all its different respects, both as similar to less intelligent animals and also as peculiar to its own special level of development.

On this level, it may reflect upon its own development, referencing the entities which are relevant to the cognition "as though" they were present to the reflection in some standard form.  The cognition may even advance beyond reflections upon entities and their relations, and extend to processes as such, and even to its own  process as "cognition in this case".  Building upon cases of its own self-reflection, cognition may even take "cognition as such" as an object and continue its adaptations in a so many diverse and extended arrays of developed understandings.  It may even develop scalable processes which are applied to its own process, a set of protocols which bind cognitive processes toward adaptive relations to expected versus obtained results, so that cognition fashions itself into a more powerful, more specialized tool to occasion more difficult and more specialized tasks.  The processes which are developed in this level of evolution of the complex mind may be called self-consciously cognitive heuristics.  One form of such development lies in the development of explanations for things and events so as to discover their ultimate source and ultimate result.  When taken to a very abstract degree it results in the investigations known as philosophy.  When specified to some restricted range of phenomena it is understood as a branch of philosophy known as "natural philosophy" or "science".  When the development of the knowledge of these disciplines are referenced to their own heuristic processes so as to enhance or reorganize their feasibility they are more of the philosophical and theoretical end of the spectrum, and when they are referenced more acutely to the demonstrable consequences of their application to their related phenomena, and for which their further development relies more upon the empirical demonstrations of their accuracy and precision of reference, then it is more of the experimental and technical side of the spectrum of these cognitive disciplines. 

Now surely not everyone will jump up and agree with the way I've outlined how a human reaches an understanding of his world, which I would say resembles the above description, and is a composite of the full range of his component "substructures" which cooperate to generate his totalized complexity of understanding as a "human being", together with his own uniquely human contributions qua total being (more than the sum of his components).  Also, not everyone will even be able to understand the gist of what I've said nor grasp where I'm going with it, nor have a sense of why or with what import. But I think it is a reasonable model of what goes on when human beings, and other beings, act and adapt their actions to one another. It makes more sense than a model of sheer data recording and collation, and it seems to leave room for a disciplined discussion of the so-called "qualia" of the mind, and of qualities of the mind's experience which are not describable merely as measurable movements of entities correlated with them, however consistent and well-attested such may be within some specifically related science (for example in cognitive neuroscience and its relations to neural network design and artificial intelligence).  I don't deny the substance of valuable information derived in scientific approaches that rely heavily on the descriptive/correlative/mathematical modelling process for their results.  The growth of powerful technologies confirms the power of that approach, and the model of intelligence I've outlined suggests that it is a predictable symptom of the development of intelligence in its outstripping of its own base entity as it develops exteriorized simulacra of its own process so as to extend the scaffolds of its intelligence beyond the practicable scope of its own entity into a fuller realization of itself without its inherent limits in some form or other (but also without the core of its own essence).  

Yet I would say that those are simply the embodiment of ideas, rather than ideas that have been born within the exigencies of a living body.  They are extensions of minds, but not minds "in themselves" in the same sense.  They are artifices, not life forms.  Yet they are composed of life forms, and they do behave systematically in resemblance to the life forms which created them.  They may even one day come to be synthetic reproductions of human beings made from organic materials that possess all the behavioral characteristics to seem reliably like any of some range of human beings whose real and living typology already resembles such simulacra.  I jest derisively a bit there, but I mean it all the same.  And yet they will not be alive in their composite form in the same way as that living being is which they are artificially made to resemble.  Why that is the case is a metaphysical issue, of a specific branch of philosophy which asks questions about essence, and yet I posit here simply as one of many already posited assumptions.

But this is to speak of the world as a collection of beings.  And it is also to speak of one's own entity as a collection of beings.  Neither of these discourses are the same thing as the beings "in and of themselves".  It is an instance of cognition, borne out in linguistic representation.  Nothing more.  But it may reflect an understanding that can have more or less accuracy and precision, more or less significance and relevance to any given interpreter.  I want now to bear out what those aspects of my understanding are, in specific relation to humanity and its world. 

What it means to be a living being cannot be separated in fact from what it means to that living being as that living being.  It is what is often referred to as a "subjective phenomenon".   Surely there isn't anyone who knows "what it's like" to be the being that they are who would argue that such a category of phenomena have no signification of, or relevance to "what it means to be" that sort of being.  In fact it would be better said that such a being always begins with that baseline of its own subjectivity, and this reaches out to, and is reached in towards by, phenomena.  In the first case, the phenomena is found to be sourced in the being itself, and it can give its own testimony to that origin.  It can directly realize that it is the reason for those expressions of phenomena that it might describe as its own actions.  In the second case, the phenomena seem to have a mind of their own, and reach in toward the experiencing being, as though they might also be expressions of a mind, but there is no attestation of which mind or for what reason or purpose, not in the same way that there is for the actions which are native from the being experiencing both kinds of phenomena.  Both kinds of phenomena register as "subjective experiences", but only one kind registers as originating from the subjective experiencer.  Freud's models of how the psyche forms its ego structure in relation to objects could be said to bear out this fundamental idea at which I'm getting, and it is similarly detectable in the Meditations of Descartes.  

But what I'm saying is that what the person is, is a mind.  It is not that a mind is part of a person, or that one is a construct of the other.  A mind and a person are the exact same thing.  Also, there isn't something else other than minds.  Everything that is its own entity is a mind, and also on its own scale of dignity, a person.  This doesn't mean that there aren't diversities of essences in what kinds of minds exist, what kinds of persons, or that there aren't different scales of complexity and novelty.  Rather it means that all those aspects of reality, are expressions of mental persons.   There isn't anything else than mental persons and their interactions, which are all themselves aspects found existing as and in mental persons, whether as intermediaries or as conjunctions.  This is not a novel idea, but it is rather the most basic idea.  We always start with a sense of there being some reality, but in doing that we always start with a sense, which is a subjective experience.  That it takes the form of "there being something actual" is a form of that experience, which bears out a certain spectrum of novelties of quality and form and are always personalized as there is no discourse in which they can be discussed "impersonally".  They are always personal experiences which are experienced by mental persons.  There isn't any other sort of reality.  All of reality fits within this basic description.  All of it.

Therefore it is not some grandiose notion that I can understand something.  Nor is it some sort of extra-grandiose notion that I can understand humanity.  Nor is it some mythic or arbitrary claim that I can understand the world.  I can do those and must do them by my nature as a Man in human form. That I possess the faculties for doing so is not a condition of what the world, humanity, nor any adventitious thing has upon me, but it is a response to those realities which is naturally adapted to preserving the integrity of my own nature in relation to those exteriorities.

So it is by way of enlargement upon something I said in an earlier installment of this series that I wrote all of this, where I before said that the truth may be that the reality as such is what would be described properly in panpsychical, panpersonalist, and metaphysically idealist terms.  Even to the point that "matter" is the mere syntax of specific relations between these existing beings, and not something "in itself" that is not in fact also one of these beings.  The closest thing to "material object" that exists in reality is the sense of stability in the model constructed in the cognition of one being which is made of another being due to the dominance of the former subjectivity's intelligence over the complexity of the latter subjectivity's potential to act independently thereof.  That gives the sense of a "concrete existence" that stands apart in a stable form from the experience of it, and stands out in relief from anything which varies from it so that it seems to be the stable expression of a single agent, and therefore is given the status of a stable expression of that agent, and grants a sense of  "solidity" to it which is felt to be what is called an "object".  That is, an object of one mental person's experience of another mental person's expressive act.  This is something essential to realize at least as a possible way of understanding the world, simply in that it is a possible way of understanding the world, and one which I say does not disagree with any of its phenomena, and even gives a sense of better explanation to some of them than could be granted under any reduction into some purely "descriptive data correlation" model of the world, which I also say simply complements my understanding of the world in the same way that a model of something complements the actual being.

Why I stated all of this in more detail, especially in light of what I've already said, will be explained in the next few installments of this series of articles.

Friday, March 16, 2018

Essential Realizations III

I  would have been grossly mistaken to have failed to consider all the possibilities before reaching any conclusions.  That's one thing we must learn, one way or another, when encased within situations such as these bodies and this material world represent. That's one of the realizations which dawned on the wiser heads in the tribes of human zoo specimen which are kept on this giant reserve (more on that later).  The reality is that it isn't due to the peculiarities of "objective reality" being such as to outstrip the figments of a subjectivity which has, itself, outstripped the biological basis of its own existence (by which it was presumably "selected").  That is, it isn't that the mind has lost its bearings in the pragmatic conditions by which it was of survival value, the ability to face the harsh, chaotic-seeming deterministic world of objects foreign to the organism and which it must strenuously attempt to model in order to assist in the survival of the organism.  Indeed, one wonders what survival value some "subjective mental traits" even have.  It seems that some think there is a subtle survival value in "religiosity" and some think that there is actually only evolutionary dead weight in that trait, the "god gene" as it were, and that it is perhaps at best a sort of genetic weakness that, in our particular evolution (but not necessarily in all possible forms of such evolution), had perforce accompanied the other precursors to the modern scientifically capable mind.

Perhaps it was in fact genetically unavoidable, and it would be an interesting subject to investigate what are the theoretical possibilities which could be teased out in consideration of such a subject, just taking for granted for the purposes of investigation the "standard model" of human existence as being the product of evolution in the worldly conditions in which his earlier ancestors bequeathed to him their legacies, similarly bequeathed to them by theirs, until we gradually see over long periods of past time an organic, sometimes gradual sometimes sudden, regression toward perhaps the early genesis of life itself from some primordial ooze.  Perhaps "Q" was there and, giving some ironic lessons to Cpt. Picard, created life on this planet by rubbing his fingers in said ooze, which inevitably led to the evolution of human life, the development of space-faring humanity, the flagship USS Enterprise, etc, so that that very scenario in a strange causal loop, implies directly that the future pre-exists the past.  Or there could have been any number of other possibilities at the beginning, including "biblical" literalist possibilities, some of which can be construed to literally imply that a race of beings created humankind here, some "Elohim".  Whatever the case, even just taking the standard model that carries the least baggage from any human sources of prejudice, whether from science fiction, religious fiction, or some other fantasy, it would be quite an investigation to see whether, for example, the "religious mind" were always a precursor to the the "objective, scientific mind".  

I think the truth would be unsettling for almost everyone who discovered it, or even dreamed of it.  What if the truth is a mixture case?  What if in fact religious texts are almost never what people think they are, and are not even close to what they once were when they were originally written in some form?  What if, however, they are not entirely wrong either?  What if they contain elements of truth and yet are themselves, on the whole, rubbish?  Yet what kind of truth and what kind of rubbish?  That might be more complicated than people would like to believe also.   What if, for example, the entire metaphysics of most minds could be wrong, and they could possess a trait, perhaps genetic in origin, which treats of "objects" entirely too  impersonally?  What if personalism, panpsychism, and metaphysical idealism all are the ultimate reality, but that a given psychism, such as modern humankind's, is generally incapable of fully embracing such a reality, and for various reasons?  What if it is just to abstract and arcane an understanding of reality, though it would be accurate, to be "worth it" to the average man in average circumstances?  It would for him simply create "extra hoops" that he'd have to jump through in his mind so that, while he must still nonetheless have to negotiate all the same problems in life, now has possibly thrown off his concentration or performance in some way due to this, in his mind, superfluous considerations as to the metaphysical considerations which, to him, have no direct bearing on what "turns out" in the basic world of day to day facts and actions?

That tends to be the same attitude men often have concerning history, religion, and science also.  They don't "pay the bills", as it were.  And unless you have the propensity to become a great authority in these subjects (or a sufficiently useful adjunct to those offices, up close or extended indirectly), or in any other such abstract subject, then you will perhaps find that your labor of love will have to mix with some other labors of necessity.  That might be for some, as it was for me, until the day came when I was "fifthed out" of house and home, and also out of work and normal life.  Indeed, from the look of the social landscape, everyone was fifthed out one way or another.  And it is just the beginning. This sort of thing is of extreme morbidity and doesn't revert, cannot revert, to pre-existing conditions.  Fifthery is every bit the serious crime and sin I say that it is, and it will be demonstrated to even the blind in the immanent future. But let's say that the many who shared similar labors of love, and who investigated the possibilities of the past and the present, as well as the future, in each their own field, all could be right or could be wrong, but let's say that there is, determinably within the structures they explore, a "right answer".  And let's say that it is something most will never find palatable to realize, because it  "outstrips" their psychical structures as they are, not even just because it is "impractical" or "unsavory" for them as an exercise, but for some deeper reasons that they would find even more impractical and unsavory!

But before going into that directly, why not set up the stage, without Q around to muck it up this time, perhaps.  Actually, he might be mucking it up in reality, "out here" in the "real world" even now, considering what a degree of "science fiction/fantasy" it turns out to be, but leave to the side for now.  What is Man's original form?  Is it like this humanity, with its apparently "nasty, brutish, and short" characteristics that has marked its history for so long, no matter what developments came along due to a few kind (or not so kind) sages? Many sages would have just hid away in the mountains or disguised as "useful" potato field harvesters.  Possibly for good and "practical" reasons, considering what tends to happen to "useful" people otherwise.  But looking at the overall history of humanity, or "human-kind"  here in this domain called "Earth", it is very grim, indeed.  And there is no consolation whatsoever but in the minds of those who simply are not able to bear any more the evil facts of life, and turn away to worlds of phantasms.  But is all that is phantasm what "turns away" from the world?  No.  Some turn toward the world, to investigate just some of it, or some aspect, or to fixate upon some of its attributes and dismiss others, or to try and distill some part of it and filter out the rest, and so on.  Sometimes a human's inner states can complement some relation to the world.  Many scientists and artists are like this, and even more than a handful of philosophers and priests.  Indeed, any specialist of any kind, and any specialized form of human lifestyle, embodies some degree of this focus within detachment toward the world and the experiences in it and of it.

But whatever about the ameliorative aspects of looking away or being "experience averse" to such a world, and due to whatever reasons it is that such occur, we are to look here at a specific possibility of interpretation of these dynamics which may yet subsume all others, for simply the fact that is is the most truthful, and therefore can absorb within it all other aspects of any truths connected to it, directly or indirectly being in full agreement with them, and indeed perhaps even explanatory of them in some cases so as to be, in effect and with respect to them, "even more true", taking their truth further than they would themselves suffer to go.  That historical and also modern reality of humanity's evil-doing is only made to look worse when we consider that he has developed entire traditions around the idea of combating his own evil.  You'd think that'd be a saving grace of some kind, but look at the results.  Those very traditions exist merely as fronts for even worse evils!  It would have been better if he never learned the words "crime" and "evil" and "unjust" and "wrong" and just knew how to growl and grunt if he didn't like something.  Less hypocrisy and duplicity that way!  But what is a thing or phenomenon except some lesser form of what it would be like if it were a perfect form of its own essence?  And what is "perfect injustice"?  Read the  Republic, and then turn to the "Last Days of Socrates", and look closely there and you'll know what "perfect injustice" is. The dynamics have not changed since those times about 2.5 thousand years ago.  If, that is, those texts are dated correctly.  In any event, they don't seem anachronistic so let's presume they are for now.

Hideous to behold.  Mind bending.  Gut wrenching.  And you don't have to go looking around in all the worst places, but there are plenty of displays available in the common places.  Let's just say that based on what is gathered in evidence, there is a lot more where that came from.  The "Inquisition" (a large event, both in space and time, not just Torquemada's exploits, but all as officiated directly and indirectly by the Papal Entity), the exploits of Genghis Khan, the workings of all serial killers (especially of children), the full scope of all degrees and kinds of child abuse perpetrated by family and other custodians of children (teachers in public schools, CPS agents found among them, both institutions of mass kidnapping and a trauma all their own), wars perpetrated simply for profit and social control or out of mere aggression, and that alone would cover a nice big fat chunk of terra perfida.   I personally can't blame a soul for wanting as little to do with it as possible.  But is that how it is with life then?  Do not all life forms here want to have "as little" to do "with it" as possible?  Most certainly it is.  It's just as if the entire nervous system were designed as a sort of paranoid motility enabler.  That's for good reason judging by the way the other animals in the free range, open air gulag-zoo have it.  Humanity just takes the dangers and increases them, while making the painful dichotomy between apparent joy and beauty amidst horrors and terrors all the more painfully palpable and apparent.  When they're not busy creating specialized refuges from the "downside"of that dichotomy.  It seems, however, that those who most enjoy such refuge are the guiltiest of making them such a desirable commodity through the actions they inflict on the rest who are lower in the pecking orders they serve to enforce within their own and other species of life here.  I think the second part of this paragraph would be justified by the first part, but some have blinders on that just don't let them see that.  Perhaps they are well-ensconced somewhere on a plunder-toilet or in some part of it, and so they just don't "feel" this sort of evil the way others do.

Maybe they have near infinite credit for doing nearly nothing at all, or maybe they are trusted with evil weapons to "defend" the country and community, though they are its worst enemies.  Maybe they simply lack the ability to "feel" anything, but have the compunction and wherewithal to "do" almost anything, for a quick and fleeting sense of feeling as their victims writhe under them, feeding on their victims' warm glow of feelings the way a cat enjoys the mouse kicking in its mouth over and over again releasing it and capturing it again for this purpose.  Maybe they have a low grade mentality, so to speak, and such things as spoken of here are never more to them than a distant storm cloud, for their minds lack the volume and texture to be able to project the fullness of their reality.  It seems these above-mentioned types are the "all too many" specimens to be found in the lamentable "all too human" species.  And in the realms of fifth column action, they all work together, each playing his own part in a silent accord, with invisible strings orchestrating them all together, in one big transcendental handshake of evil will.  I SEE YOU. What of those who turn to some sort of religion to guide their mental trains onto better tracks? Some even seem to have more wholesome tendencies, wanting to do honest work and trade honestly with one another, wanting to fall in love, wanting to have and raise families, wanting to coexist with others who are the same in these ways, wanting to be fair, wanting to win honor and respect, wanting to defend all such values, sometimes with their own lives?  Some of them share religious affiliations which seem to affirm their values as being authorized by the ultimate forces of the cosmos.  What of them?  Taken as such, the second part of this paragraph does not resemble the first part.  But this is not entirely a mystery.  Taken as a whole, most religious texts and religious systems, in fact basically almost all of them to be fair, possess a similar dichotomy in their contents and in the personages of their participants. 

But rather than get pulled into the discursive investigations of those turgid and messy waters, what of that all-encompassing signification that subsumes all these others as though the "key" to their interpretation?   Clearly, duplicity is a common feature of all these aspects of the world, no matter how one looks at any of its parts in relative seclusion, or even in opposition to one another "as though" they were not genuinely of the same original wholeness.  That said, it could be said fairly that they yet coexist in the same "realm of reality" and are found, as phenomena of experience, to exist as manifestations of the abilities and tendencies of entities found in the same classes of beings. Good men, evil men.  Good days, bad days.  Good religions, bad religions.  Yet all in the same world, all in the same sort or aspect of thing in that world.  And the question arises, are they truly good, and in some surprising ways, are they truly evil?  Anyone who has read any significant number of things I wrote in this blog, and have written for a number of years consistently in this respect, should know what I think of all this.  But what if we just looked at all this evidence and let ourselves steep in it and wonder to ourselves, do any of these systems of thought and do any of these traditions and lineages of human conduct within the world truly capture the overall essence of the world and humanity's place within it?  I'd say some come tantalizingly close, and without getting into their specifics I'd say that they all who come this close also have some amazing parallels in what they admit and how they frame it, and what they claim and how they argue it, and what they omit and how they avoid it.

They have seemingly been developed as a stop-gap in the way human beings operate in the world, so as to funnel their tendencies to sometimes go further in their thought and deed than some controlling forces would like them to go.  So they are led down a path that promises more than it delivers, though it delivers some tantalizing tid bits more than would the typical creed.  They may admit of the world's miserable condition, and may admit of human responsibility.  They may admit of there being "supernatural" influences that bear on the question of humankind's abilities, proclivities, and the institutions of limits upon it.  They may admit that there are "natural" forces in play which bear down on the human situation, and even his own basic condition, such that they may as well be "super" natural, as they are a natural force which is far superior to a human's purview or power.  At least to a normal human.  Perhaps there are entire classes of humans, such as the perfectly (or near-perfectly) unjust who inhabit superior refuges from the pervasive difficulties allowed and even enforced upon the rest.  These entities are suitably called "archons" by some.  "Controllers".  "Men about town" perhaps, but the upper crust of such.  Usually they have very illustrious positions within their human city-state pecking orders, but often they are unknown to the public, though they are not "unknowable". They seem to be even more "untouchable" to the hands and minds of the typical person than are even high officials and humans of wealth and repute.

They seem to exist just as empirically as anything else suggested by the evidence available to anyone curious.  Yet most are not very curious about such things.  They prefer to pay money to have such things cast into a specious and fantastic mold of appearances having at best a certain entertainment value at the movies, multiplied by various directed energy (light, sound, psychotronics, group mind dynamics), so as to permanently tuck such ideas about such beings away as something to ooh and aah about at the theater, but to consider "resolved" there upon leaving.  What of that dichotomy?  It seems that instead of serving a function which awakens human people from the depths of ignorance and dull stupidity, artists and their combines simply invert that function of art and all the more ensure that people will be lulled down to just the right level of being duped.  They are working as Project Mockingbird affiliates, as part of Project MK-ULTRA's evil fruit, many times in tandem with Project Monarch and Cointelpro/Northwoods-type operations.  A whole class of people who think they are the upstanding personages of 3 paragraphs above are enlisted into this franchise of centralized social control, now recast as the science of social engineering "for the safety and security of all".  Haha. What a joke that is.  Good people working as lackeys for evil people are not "good" people in fact, and their not knowing the full scope of their involvements due to the heavy amount of bullshit blown into their faces through propaganda and delusion-reinforcing propaganda they chose to consume uncritically does not excuse them, nor does the fact that their involvements may be quite compartmentalized.  When the murderer and traitor hangs, his hands hang with him, both of them, the dexterous and the sinister.  Don't kid yourselves.

Oh they might think critically about things, they might ponder things, but they are usually the same critical thinkers that decided they could devour a most grave piece of propaganda, and devour it in one bite.  Then use what version of that they have digested, with the help of specialized handlers, to "critically examine" everything else that comes their way.  I wouldn't call that critical thinking at all.  That's a very specious, very truncated version of the action called "critical thinking", because real critical thinking doesn't fail to question such exceptions to itself, it has no exceptions!  It is aware of the problem with such things, and let's nothing through without due examination.  And it has something other than "feelings" to use as criteria.  Not that feelings aren't important.  But if anyone has the "feeling" to accept a system of doctrine or dogma, whole hog or in part, just because their feelings say it is true, then they are... stupid.   Just plain stupid.  Foolish to boot.  Especially if someone sold it to them as being authored by god the almighty.  And written down in a book, to be magically safeguarded for thousands of years, to be kept for your timely perusal one fine day.  That's a serious plate of bullshit.  But people should be entitled to believe what they want, one supposes. They should not be, nor even feel, entitled to form groups who operate covertly under false pretexts of their "common rightness under god" and using color of authority in the public sphere, combining their private and state-sponsored coordinated efforts to harass someone, anyone, for any reason.  Certainly not on any basis of false claims, indeed malicious accusations that wouldn't have borne scrutiny, and mainly in the demonstrable purpose of securing conditions in the life of the person so as to make him more easily compromised and rounded up and treated as a criminal, which is all clearly an entrapment scheme in which the entrappers are dirtier of crimes in all cases!  It's a joke, a folly, a ridiculous venture into role-playing being the good guy with the white hat, when they are nothing more than a miscreant mob with a petty agenda no different in its repugnant evil and criminality than any other such mob actions taken against people for "not fitting in".  Many of the "good people" of the sort I have described are part of such enterprises.  They are well connected, they are well supported, and they are well compensated.  Just one subspecies of homo perfidis.

What of that all-encompassing view that subsumes all these other views into it and explains them better, making them more certain of their own lights?  The world's duplicity has many forms, I've only here outlined one series of components in just one array.  But this handling of these elements fits neatly into a larger concept that gives them all better coherence, and helps explain the incoherence of those inferior and false views that crop up speciously within different domains of human discourse, which amount in fact to a mere chatter which is a side-effect of the entities themselves, not a true "discourse" on any aspect of reality truly.  Well, let's just lay it out.  They're "not wrong" about being created.  They're "not wrong" about being guilty in a fundamental way, fundamentally flawed.  They're "not wrong" about there being a powerful creator-being who is responsible for all of these conditions, including the guilt enforced upon them because they are puny and sometimes disobedient. They got those things right.  Just look at the condition of the world where the visible actor is humanity!  I've even outlined a deeper issue with humanity that is revealed only on a meta-scale where the entire enterprise of not being unjust, and being honorable, is merely a useful front for an even more vile form of injustice, which I've called elsewhere a "metaracket", a subset of metacrime (not metacrime in the specious sense of its institutionalized forms, but including it).  They're even "not wrong" about their "holy" books being inspired by their creator-entity, who did and does have active priesthoods on Earth in different places.  They are usually "not right" about being, in each case, the "special and authorized" representatives of this creator-entity, but when they are close to being "not wrong" in this particular matter in some cases, it is simply since this creator-entity does play favorites depending on how a subspecies and specimen performs, how it fulfills the agenda of this creator-entity.  It's because they're "meta-lackeys".  The craftsman keeps different tools for different jobs, and sometimes does not clean or polish some of them due to the nature of their use.  But they are his "selection" of choice.

They're more "not wrong" than they even know and admit!  But what they are "not right" about are many things.   They are "not right" that their god is "good".  He is not good.  He's the author of evil and its primary beneficiary, in every single interpretation of their own doctrine and dogma, no exceptions.  I've proven this.  They're "not right" about this creator-entity being the ultimate being, either.  It didn't create "everything".  It didn't create "free will" (which I've shown in previous writings is thoroughly misunderstood by almost everyone who uses the term).  And in fact opposes freedom of will, for its fundamental form is the ability to choose among ambiguously similar alternatives, and if some of these holy book-believers will remember, the original sin constituted listening to the argument that was made to seem better, or choosing the alternative that was made to seem better.  Not that such an absurd story properly reflects any fundamental sort of situation of choice anyway.  It is absurd, and I've proven this. It's more like drugging someone, imprisoning them, brainwashing them, promising  great things for obedience and dreadful things for disobedience, making them a very tempting offer to escape through a third party who was similarly "set up to fail", and then calling it a moral lesson!  It's utterly stupid!  I'd shit a gold brick before this sort of nonsense would pass as a sort of divine activity.   Even by his own admission in such texts, which are not gold bricks but do seem akin to excretions of another sort, he admits to being the author of evil!  His own apologists admit it. He's basically a powerful tyrant, nothing more.  Perhaps he can intimidate and dazzle children, but I'm not impressed with his stature as a moral being.

Not that one needed his own involvements during the course of history, nor his own admissions, to make such a case against him.  Look at the damned place!  It's an insult to human intelligence to claim to a human being that the human being is guilty, but that he was made in all his respects and capabilities, and given simply one basic law "obey".  What a damned joke!  Yet it is also ridiculous to suggest that humanity is intelligent, if given such a situation they don't see it for what it is, yet within their own legal traditions even have a name for it:  EXTORTION.  It's not even a meaningful quid pro quo.  It's like some story of a ridiculous person who literally tries to pick himself up by his own bootstraps!  A "god" creating an agent who is supposed to be under ideal conditions, yet given both capability, inclination, and tempting circumstances to try and mislead him from those conditions. What kind of stupid evil game is this?  That's what sadists do to those they happen to manage to confine in wood shacks in secluded forests.  And then he somehow authors confabulations about beings even superior to man in their intelligence, grace, beauty, and spiritual depth and complexity, somehow spuriously becoming narcissistic and coming to hate their own undoubted creator on some random fling of fancy?  That story is so stupid that it refutes itself!  It's like a half-assed excuse someone comes up with when they don't even feel that they have to give a damn about being credible anyway. And no wonder.  It's all about being infinitely gullible in these religions, at root.  And no sensible, credible thing ever came from an absurd root unless it was forcibly grafted onto it!

"Oh hey, I made you this way, and put you in this condition.  I totally could have just made you appreciate all this as a normal faculty and could have made you a biological robot.  But I wanted to make you "like me" and possess an arbitrary will (as if that's an improvement...).  Now here's a chance to fuck it all up.  There's something called moral judgment, and you can exercise it, deciding for yourselves what's good or evil based on your own judgment, which no doubt must have some information leading into it or it wouldn't even be capable.  So here's a sense of when things are harmful and painful, when they are gainful and pleasant.  Here's a conscience so you know when you've been the former to someone who was the latter, and vice versa.  You can feel guilty or angry accordingly.  BUT ALL THAT IS A SIN UNLESS I DO IT.  Now, if you do it, which seems reasonable enough to do and is rightly called a sort of basic knowledge (kind of like common sense, really), then I'll kill you (but only after a long torture, then I'll send you to hell for an eternal torture). But if you DON'T, and you just obey me (which I've now given you the dubious power to have to choose to do, making it a riskier thing than if I just made you obey, which would make more sense since that's what I made you to do and intend for you to do (out of my "love and wisdom") any way (or else suffer) then you'll become by some vacuous process exactly what I wanted you to be and could have made you to be in the first place.  So here's this awesome "temptation".  This makes it more credible that you are worthy of obeying me, since you chose against such a tempting offer.  How magically neat in my own mind that is! Isn't it amazing!?  Bow and worship in awe...."  Makes zero fucking sense, frankly, except as a twisted sort of psychological torture experiment.

This is not tenable.  It makes no damn sense, at all.  Yet it clearly is the point at issue.  But what else ever is with a tyrant, in the end?  The tyrant gets to be any way he wants, and be treated any way he wants.  Everyone else must be treated by him any way the tyrant wants, and must also take it any way the tyrant wants.  What a fucking deal.  Who could say no to an eternity of that.  In fact, you can't even say no!  No one that I know of asked to manifest in a world which was constructed by this meta-asshole, and he doesn't seem to offer even a refusal to exist as an alternative.  What a "good god" you have there.  I don't deny he exists, at least in concept.  People think of this sort of personage as real, even if it were apocryphal to some creed's mythological basis, and so they admit this being some sort of existence in their own minds, and that is not a power to be disregarded.  Indeed, this myth is, in substance, a story about what happens in the human mind with respect to issues of authority, morality, judgment, agency, consequences, and the essence of what existence means overall and "in the end".  All of it hinging, for the sake of  humans at least, but even of the drama unfolding in their creator's mind, upon the decisions of humans in their own minds.  Supposedly constructed just this way, it must be remembered, by the very "god" who has a beef with anyone who tries to get around his Hobson's Choice .  It's more like an evil Hobson's Choice, take one horrible possibility or another.  It's like he's brainwashing someone to be an assassin, offering him an eternity of wonderful things if he'll obey on command, but an eternity of horrors if he won't.  That's after what is determined to happen in this life as a consequences of his obedience or disobedience.  What a racket.  If it isn't holy when "Allah" offers it to Muslims, then it isn't "holy" when Yahweh offers it to Jews, or when Jesus (supposedly) offers it to Christians.  Naturally, those who cuck to such vicious forms of authority are "actually" made that way, and don't have an alternative in fact, and all discussions of such are ephemeral make believe.

But what of the fact of such an opportunity, conceivable right here in the mundane world in the forms of tyrants who exist right here in it (who resemble their patron god, and for obvious cause)?  That's usually a racket within a racket, as saying "yes" to one usually means saying "no" to another, or another branch of what is essentially the same, and naturally they attempt to arrange it so that saying "no" to one puts one at extreme odds against that group merely for not drinking their Kool Aid. And also, naturally, to make the maximum profit from their extortion process, it is arranged so that saying "no" to one must mean saying "yes" to another racket.  It's the sort of racket identifiable in any identity politics of any scale of social construct, from the family to the nation state to the "human species" as a whole.  It's clearly a deep issue of this world, and not an exceptional condition which crime fighters especially deal with "as such".  Rather, they tend to deal with the competition, themselves racketeers par excellence.  Society being the overall racket.  I speak of fifth columnry, but that's a formal exercise. Fifth columnry is the actual norm.   I speak of the idea of a social existence with a fifth column of corruption invading it because in a world of inverted norms I am forced to speak as if I am speaking in a world inverse to the one I'm in so as to retain coherence while criticizing it, because as one would expect from such a racket, it demands possession and control of all discourse concerning it, especially as it pertains to coveted and contentiously distributed statuses such as "honorable" and "just" and "wise" and "right" and "good" and "beautiful" and "true" and "real" and "genuine" and "authoritative" and "divine" and "sacred" and so on and so forth!  But it was NEVER a good world and NEVER will be.  It was always a pseudo-plagiarism, a mockery, a con job.

It's author, a con artist of the original sort, a sham par excellence.  Perfectly unjust, and with all the attributes and attributable actions which go with such a status. And this is THE TRUTH and it WILL NEVER BE OTHERWISE until the end of the world and its maker.  The "religious" role-players are right about there being such an evil phenomenon, but they are wrong about their place in it.  They are guilty of aiding and abetting this hell hole's evil rackets and other crimes, and adding a false front to its structures, with polish and aplomb.

Thursday, March 15, 2018

Essential Realizations II

When I consider the backdrop of history as one source of information, I consider that it is simply a testimony, among others, vying for credence.  The question of whether it deserves credence or not may not even occur to someone, but it had always occurred to me.  There is a further question which should occur even more rarely, judging from manifest human proclivities to swallow stories, and that is the question of on what basis would I decide the credibility of some historical testament.  There is still yet a further question, and by now we are far away from the province of most human mental structures, who are typically fifthing or aiding and abetting fifthery, at minimum, as so-called "busy idiots", some of them even useful.  That further question is, what is the spectrum of meaningful interpretations of the fact in itself that this story is structured the way it is.  Going further, one might ask why that it has the content within it that it does.  Also, why is it presented in the form that it is, by whom, and toward what intended audience?  These are issues that might seem "trivial" upon close inspection.  That is, the basic way that the thinking mind operates should, of itself, reach these sorts of investigations.  One shouldn't have to be a historian, a philosopher, or even a particularly "thinking type" of person, and yet one should reach those investigations, just in virtue of having a human mind at all.  If you think these investigations don't apply to your favorite holy book, then get the fuck out of here and get the fuck away from me.  And go fuck yourself.  You are an evil bigot.  I have no use for you and I don't give a damn if you are the human Swiss Army Knife of talent, genius and virtue.  You are stupid in a way that is so basic that you are a living incongruity, you are a "modern art masterpiece".  You're the kind of shit piece that was happily in the service of Pope Asshole the Nth, who merrily sent fiends to go and torture, butcher, rape, pillage, and desecrate anyone who wouldn't kiss his bigoted ass.  I condemn you.  Especially if you "fifth", and a fifth knows damn well what I mean.  You better refocus your proclivities for magical thinking thusly, and realize that your evil subterfuge and malicious mischief are coming to a dramatic, world smashing end right soon.

Of course I don't seriously entertain to educate or admonish wretches here.  But what I mean to get at is that it is a patent idea in my mind that those questions I indicated above are just the beginning of where investigations into the testimonies of histories should go.  Just the fragile, facile, barely scratched surface of the issues that arise in hearing or reading some historical account!  Just the beginning.  And most will never even approach such a beginning.  They swallow what they are told and taught, bait, hook, line and sinker.  They'd swallow the pole, the fisherman, and the god-damned boat in some cases, and without provocation beyond a tainted morsel at the tip of the hook.  This is not an exaggeration.  There is not even the remotest sort of detachment in the minds of most people when it comes to receiving their dogma and doctrine from "duly self-appointed" authorities.  After all, isn't that all an authority is, upon first inspection, as far as you know?  Only a fool mistakes the sign for the signified. But there's one born every millisecond.  And in the ranks of fifthery, which I have described as a metaphysically constructed entity that intersects with the various different fractally related human social organizations to create varied modes of hive-minded dupery and complicity with organized criminal rackets of varying scale, from the local insanity of a single human mentality to the ultimate mentalities of the entire universe (whatever the particulars of its outer form or shape).  It is a granfalloonery of a dramatic sort, but rather of a metadramatic sort.  A grotesque phantasmagoria with a panorama rooted in the Demiurgic "evil mind", the defective architect, all the way down to the local dimwit at the remote service station who will mislead unwary travelers into their last wrong turn.  It's connected, as I said, in a fractal structure, and that's more mechanics if I go further into it, but that's not necessary.  Just know that the part and whole bear a relation which ensures that every part is a franchise of the whole, and of a particular aspect of the whole most especially.

That's the situation which baffled philosophers since Heraclitus and since long before him.  What is this way that the world has its form, and its form is at once intelligible and also absurd?  How can the proper functioning of the reasoning mind be so rare, yet exist at all, when it should be the norm given that it is seemingly itself the proper harmonic in general between any given mind and the cosmos?  Why shouldn't the mind as such operate in such a way?  In other words, to wax poetic, why should the spirit of angels mingle with this animal clay?  Or as One once said "How has such wealth come into such poverty"?  Is it not a rhetorical question taken well out of context?  Most who arbitrarily believe arbitrarily authoritative testimonies, presented with the most incredulous of heraldries, do not realize that such a thing as an apocryphal recapitulation of things that were really said is something that can even happen, unless it is someone else's devil-inspired hoax. Flappy ears really do abound in the world, do they not?  I could walk around blind with a needle and probably pin a donkey right on his ass with it, and the more crowded the pedestrian traffic in any given city, anywhere in the world I've been, the more likely.

I mean just take the Bible for instance?  It usually comes at you when you are barely able to perceive the world, some mysterious object that your caretakers are busy obsessing over in the midst of your trying to piece together a personal perspective of your condition and surroundings.  And as far beyond the process of a single cell that this constantly necessary, and yet faltering attempt will be, it is still quite excruciating in most cases, and quite tragic in how it plays out, and all the more as it is more articulated and extruded into an exposure into a most hostile "world".  Most will not form truly complete, fully "stereotactic" personalities of any real depth or quality, even by "clay" standards.  They'll become persona-mimics at best.  Epimetheus's own.  Boy oh boy, am I ecstatic about swimming in a soup of person parts that never became real and whole, but simply became charged entities filled with a constant need to be made and remade by that ever-needed, ever-authoritarian "other".  They'll be sure to constantly try and coerce everyone they see to join them in that leaderly way unique to their type.  They'll be sure to "ostracize" which means condemn the "not them" everywhere they find it.  They'll FIFTH, too!  Lovely.  What a lovely work has been constructed here!  No, it's HIDEOUS!  But it must be endured, oh yes...  Because those who have the most to lose from this process, those who are encatenated upon this evil cross of material filth, which is the active oppression by the mind which orchestrated this falsified domain, seem to have been lured here by an evil summoning, or bid here on some grim purpose. But I'll defer from speaking directly of that insanity par excellence, the Demiurgos per se, for now.  Let's focus on the manifest symptoms.  Each of these human mentalities are what's left of a very aberrational process of development, even by its own most charitable lights cast from within the psychological schools of thought which broach these issues.  It's really a dismal picture.  I'm leaving out the added issues that come with fluoridated/chlorinated/psychotropicated/who-knows-what-elsinated water/milk/similac etc. Throw in whatever is in the air, and what is in the "food" as one grows up and develops and that's more I'll generously leave out here.  Leave out the gulag conditions mistaken for an education system, and let's not even get into the rite of passage where one makes license plates for Janet Yellen and her ilk as an "honorable job". 

So with all this hell doing wonders to the developing mind, we might even have to leave out the issue of how people in households act and behave, and treat themselves and one another (fifth and "non-fifth", if that's a thing anymore).  But let's just take the "normal" dysfunctional family as a baseline. So all that hell outside the house which is going on "out there" and which typifies this shit hole world is, through the more "mature" and "wise" members of the family, filtered into the house and into the child, nay funneled as though through a tube into his mouth, and we can get some vague idea of how that primordial condition of the personality, in its formative eons, is thoroughly corrupted, tainted, and generally "upwardly fucked".  And if you somehow lived a "blessed" life ensconced somewhere safely away from all this because you were one of the Demiurge's preferred pets or because you are a beneficiary of some evil refuge for the upper class select-elect, then go fuck yourself.  You are the beneficiary of a hellish world, which feeds on the pressurized class conditions created by such bifurcations of abuse on one hand and on the other the protection of its apologists, managers, and enforcers from it, and you should feel ashamed that you haven't done something heroic to expose this evil-doing at the very least.  Shut up and get out of my sight forever.  You are probably quite happy to enjoy the benefits of this extremely evil arrangement.  Know that "Justice" really is "in the interest of the Stronger", but that this world is the flimsiest in existence!  It is a shallow refuge, and it is getting pressed thinner and thinner from without and from within. There is no further place to flee, there will be no comforter or salvation.  Know it, and enjoy your rewards here, and hereafter.

And if you are some jack ass who claims that all this is somehow "just the way it is" or literally doesn't even think it is evil per se, but just some sort of backdrop for him to say boldly "onward and upward", then may you and your ilk receive an anvil on your heads dropped from a great height.  Better to have the wherewithal to wish such evil upon the deserving than to presume it not evil because it fell upon people in their infancy, seemingly "as the norm", and they should just get busy "rising above" and man those soup kitchens of epic altruistic duplicity!  Especially if you have access to even the most basic collections of mostly undisputed historical accounts of the past which led up to and which constitutes all that is currently ongoing.  Especially if you have the intellect and vocabulary with which to understand what I'm saying, and are be able to see for yourself the current events of the world, and even suffer from it, and to be able to even use common sense so as to divine the true causes of all these plights. It's amazing to me how gullible people are, to accept as "normal" or "natural" such ghastly things, but it also just goes to show how ghastly the state of their minds, the basic evil that they represent in a semi-conscious form, which is in reality their microcosmic expression of this world as the macrocosm of their origin in essence.  No wonder they "don't get it" in the way that it is wrong, but somehow think that they've "got it" in some way that makes it fundamentally right.  They are "of it", and not merely "in it".

On  top of it it seems that a hierarchy of entities, which operate in and upon the human cultural spheres, has created a hegemony in which they are the ultimate rulers and deciders of how everyone under their spell will think and act concerning such things as their own general and pervasive condition of enforced maltreatment and degradation.  And these beings have no pity for the fools who apologize on their behalf, but will perhaps find them to be useful idiots for a time.  Maybe they'll be put in charge of some speciously and dubiously charitable enterprise, so they can think they are "doing something", and so they can look down on someone who sees the truth of all this as being just cynical "do nothings".  Even as their petty endeavors accomplish very little except to put up a big show, while funneling much wealth and energy back into the coffers of those who were supposedly the least intended recipients.  I can't even afford the space of thought to say in detail how far down my nose I have to look to see these little wretched specks of persons who have accused me of some dereliction or other while they remain blissfully oblivious of what stupid and subservient tools they are, apologizing for massive and corrupt forces of degradation of the dignity remnant or rather held hostage in this misformation of man.

And sometimes they have artifacts upon which they focus their magical and stupid thinking, so as to tell themselves that they are able to approach the proper thoughts and actions which would be expected of them by their authorities to which they are beholden.  Yea, they holdeth their artifact and they thumbeth through it. They ruminate upon its contents cacophonously.   Verily, they presume that they have reached divinely inspired epiphanies as they dart around, stitching together one malformed personation after another, like some sort of dying, melting T-1000, searching for some randomly hopeful order in their rather permanent chaos, inflicting the accidental aspects and arbitrary scintillations of these horrific yet corny deformations onto the developmentally impinged phenomenology of their infantile charges.  This is the crucible in which "holy books" are first encountered by those who will later treat them as their primary "go to" source for truth, as their premier treasure trove of transcendental wisdom which has descended and condensed into the ethereal dew which graces magical leaves of pulp and ink, more precious than one's own soul!  And then one must later come to treat it with the same neurotic fixation as those who do who hold sway over one's body and soul, and one must appreciate that this is right and best.  And then one must believe, not only outwardly, but inwardly.  One must demonstrate due reverence!

And will there by anything of value within those pages?  Possibly.  But would one gain that value best under these conditions?  Would one need to accept the whole of something before the fact of comprehending any of its contents and also without any sense of discrimination so that one could say one could easily imagine a world where one would say "no" to such a thing?  Can one say what a "holy bible" would look like which didn't deserve to become such a mind-displacing artifact of reference within a family-sized brainwashing cult, itself a franchise of a larger one that links such families into church-sized brainwashing cults?  Well, they'll always be happy to use everyone else's "devil-inspired" hogwash as fodder for this exercise in hypocrisy, but anyone with just a little common sense can see the bias here.

And this is only to use such a thing as an example. It is ERSATZ RELIGION, GOT IT? This is an ersatz world, full of ersatz beings, ersatz people, with ersatz religions and creeds, which got their form as a hybrid of a demented evil-minded defective creator being who misplagiarized the broken traces of an Actual, Real, Good, and True World.  And "this one" AIN'T IT.  I've put it to the test in every conceivable way which would indicate whether it is or isn't what it claims itself to be.  I was able to find out that it was, within its own auspices of influence, but only under the office of the proper agency, something that is in fact "decidable".  Like a "Turing Test" for a world's authenticity and viability for being considered a Real Existence. The method of determining this was a function of determining, simultaneously, that world's worthiness to exist.  And that was determined as a subset of the realization that a world's worthiness to exist, and its actuality of real existence are directly correlated to one another due to an underlying cause that could be called the substantial merit of that world.  And while this ersatz hole-of-an-ass granfalloon world of abject fifthery has been busy doing every evil thinkable and unthinkable, covering it over with every facade no matter how crass and gaudy and impossibly honorific, and all of this while using the most filthy, debased, wicked, unlawful, and utterly criminal covert warfare operations within all its supposedly lawful domains of civilized human polities, all so as to destroy lives wrongfully and to do so with false pretexts, under false pretenses, and with false purposes to undermine and destroy the worth and lives of those it cannot control and brainwash, so as to commit the "perfect injustice", and all the while to pretend to be my judge; so in that, that while all this has happened, it has all turned out to expose the true facts of the situation, and in that this world has thereby placed itself under judgment and has been fully exposed and revealed to be the fraudulent imposter-world that I have said it is, as have so many of my predecessors before me.

And all this evidence was made most abundant in today's world, hypertrophied by the excesses made possible by the development of sciences and technologies, arts and methods, which enabled the concentration, and then the virulent explosion of the essential seeds of evil, to reveal their character, the character of the soil, and of the tenders of the fields and their landlord.  If you have failed to see these things, and if you dare think yourselves my judge even now, then that be your doom upon doom, that be your ultimate and immanent undoing.  Such hypocrisy simply cannot be allowed to continue to exist.