Friday, August 26, 2016
Ontological Vicissitudes of Life and Death 5
Pertaining to the metaphysically decidable aspects of the issue of the "life after death" phenomena such as "the light" and the question of reincarnation.
Thursday, August 25, 2016
Are You One of the Many, the Shameful, the Lowlife "C.reeps O.n P.atrol"?
Creeps like this are the reason we have an army of creeps passing themselves off as "citizens on patrol". America has become the testing grounds for covert civil warfare "social engineering" projects, augmented by counterfeit fiat money from the FED, channeled through the Pentagon, so we can have creepy assholes going around acting like everybody's creepy perverted minder and handler. Congratulations, assholes, you earned yourself one creepy, nasty, filthy bed to sleep in. May you all sleep together in it until eternity.
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
Friday, July 1, 2016
Simulate THIS
Because it is my pleasure, not that there is any urgent need (or is there?)... I will now do justice to the argument that we are actually "living in a simulation".
First of all, definition of terms. Broadly, to "simulate" means to imitate the characteristics of that which is to be represented. It can take an object, or be intransitive. I can simulate being an authority figure, but only if I properly imitate the characteristics which would actually be authoritative, and by which someone would be properly thought of as an actual figure of authority.
It implies that there are levels of ontology in any phenomenon such that some may be actively taken on by another phenomenon simply so as to lend to the realm of the subjectivity of the interpretation of appearances the possibility of mistaking the latter phenomenon for being actually a specimen of the former. It is a process by which we say that what is an inauthentic being can be presented as being a specimen of the sort of being which is the authentic being. Inauthentic, that is, with regard to appearances matching the substantive character which should have caused their presentation, as they are expected to do in the authentic being's case.
This entire idea is supported by the metaphysical context which declares that the appearances of phenomena are somewhat disjoint from two poles of being which make those appearances possible in the first place: pole 1 is the cause of the characteristics perceived, that is, the character of the being presenting the appearance; pole 2 is the perceiver of the characteristics, the being which attempts to correlate the characteristics perceived with the specific properties of a being which produces them, and not only that but a specific type of being which produces those characteristics, by those properties the being inherently has, which uniquely says something about that sort of being, and hence about those characteristics in that context.
But just because a characteristic is special in that way in that context does not mean that just any presentation of those characteristics correlates with those properties in any being, let alone assuming it should be the exact same unique sort of being which we would refer to as being the principle type from which our authentic specimens are to be drawn. We call the reference group the authentic group, the "true" type, and we call groups that merely share some features of similarity to be relatives to that type. But any sort of entity which presents a cluster of features which lend themselves to being mistaken for the true type, but which happens not to be even a close relative, we tend to think of as inauthentic varieties of beings, though they may be distantly related. Compare the true scorpion to the pseudo-scorpion.
Now no one would accuse nature, let alone the pseudo-scorpions of the world, of attempting to put on a fraud that they were the real thing, though they look quite a bit like the real thing. Indeed they would be in the same club if only they had a tail that stung! Indeed, pseudo-scorpions are more like spiders that weave cocoons out of their mouth parts rather than their rear-parts, but also possessed of pincers just like a scorpions. Nevertheless, they are more closely related to scorpions than spiders, though all three of these types of insects are in the same group called "arachnids".
But to say that something simulates something else is to suggest a degree of intention. It is more than just mimicry that is going on, but rather there is the witting attempt to make appearances falsely suggest that what is not a certain type of thing literally is that certain type of thing. If it is merely a means to the end of deception, that would be one basic level of simulation that is simply the presentation of an appearance so as to elicit conditions that better enable opportunities which should only be present when both parties are actually what they appear to be.
So for example, a politician or a car salesman who is actually an honest, charming person will attempt to persuade to accept a good deal. But a less scrupulous person in that position will simply use his charisma and cunning to lend the appearance that he is doing what the honest variety of person in those roles would be doing. Customers pretend to be clever by kicking tires. Clever customers learn a lot about what they intend to select, whether a car or an elected official, whether with money or with votes, and can much more easily spot a lemon, as well as a con artist selling them one.
We might say that the fraud simulates being the upstanding variety of person who deserves our trust, enabling him to get into a position to receive from us an unwarranted exposure to something of our own which he desires. Again, this is a simple and basic level of simulation, which in nature occurs rather frequently by mere fact of degrees of similarity trailing of, sometimes gradually and sometimes with punctuation, into a distinction which might be missed and which lends to a false identification of one type of entity with another. Many ecosystems of predator-prey relationships are stabilized around a series of such disparities between what is in substance one thing and yet which in the facts of perception appears to be another. Some worms look like mere twigs to avoid being eaten by birds, and some add to this an advantage over flies who get too near to them, so that accidentally simulating the appearance of a twig protects it from predators while it develops on a diet of leaves, and for some this facilitates its own access to prey such as flies, doing double duty in both deceiving predator and prey.
But there may be constructive uses of mimicry which do not have as their goal the taking advantage of a targeted prey, nor of escaping the notice of a searching predator. When attempting to understand something as it really is we are sometimes attempting to understand aspects of some of its properties, not necessarily all of them. Also we are sometimes attempting to understand some aspects of its relations to other entities and some of their properties, not necessarily all at once. Allowing room for error based upon taking these properties out of their context, we may put these entities in environments which are sufficient to engage some of the properties of the entities, preferably only those we wish to study especially, and this is clearly not the exact same thing, nor even really the same kind of thing as studying those properties in their natural environment. But we have found an isomophism between the normal environment and the one which we've set up, one which is sufficiently similar so as to elicit action concerning those properties we wish to study "just as if" they were in their natural circumstances.
That is part of the method of science which studies natural phenomena, and this much is known by the average 7th grader. Likewise, all the tricks they play on one another, all the mockery, all the fantastically imaginative story-telling and lying they do, shows they know well the underlying mechanics of fraudulent presentations which are at least sufficient to garner them (mostly) harmless amusements at one another's expense.
Given these parameters for understanding ideas such as "similarity" and "simulation" we can already state that humanity, "in the state of nature", as well as in his contrived social circumstances, lives in a simulation, more or less, and not necessarily on all fronts. Much of his mentality, activity, and methodologies of progress, whether constructive and benign or destructive and malign, whether productive or fraudulent, rely on a capacity to simulate and to understand simulation, and to create simulations both as a part of their own being and also as extended constructions outside of their own being and "out there, in the world".
Then we have the world of technological development in which computing technology, combined with artificial forms of stimulating the sense organs of human bodies could, conceivably, be so advanced and so realistic that the brain might be utterly fooled into believing in a simulation of its original sensory environment (original both evolutionarily and bioecologically). And the issue was raised by some intrepid minds concerning whether or not this was probably already the case for at least one of us, if not perhaps even all of us here in what is reported to be, to my senses at least, "planet earth".
Whether one person or a whole warehouse of tightly packed brains were simply plugged into a simulation, perhaps in a warehouse stored on an interplanetary vehicle hurtling through hyperspace, seems an interesting possibility. And to consider that we don't know what size the universe actually is outside of our own rather suspiciously controlled intelligentsia's claims based upon their rather guarded methods of observation and interpretation which are more akin to a presumptuous religion than to an objective assessment, it might seem a bit of a stretch to assume the premise that the universe is already populated with intelligent life which for the most part is sufficiently advanced enough to have produced a simulation capable of wholesale deception of real organic brains. Even further of a stretch is to assume that the habits of such civilizations are to entrap as many brains into such simulations as they can so that the ratio of brains-in-simulations to those outside should be such that most of the time, if you are a brain, you are in a simulation, in this universe.
That would be a very weak inductive argument...
But there are those thinkers who are so intrepidly overambitious that they presume that consciousness itself can be simulated.
They've now gone completely outside the realm of inductive argument and have dived into the murky deeps of arbitrary metaphysical speculation. So much for their clever presumption to have proven that it is probably the case that our world is a simulation, because they have not even demonstrated that consciousness is probably something that can be produced by material concatenations of energy which forms into patterns of data which can be so constituted as to believe that they are not such a thing, and made to believe that they are the sort of patterns of data which are produced by material concatenations of energy formed by brains instead of what were made by brains out of other matter.
And unless we are willing to swallow wholesale all their assumptions about the nature of the relationship between subjective consciousness and objective matter in such a way as to allow them their pet fantasy, it must be called for what it is and left for them to enjoy, but a cogent argument for the probability that we are living in a matrix it is not, and this would be the case even if I myself were already a brain in a vat merely connected to a matrix by some psychotronic gadgetry.
But if you look at the human skull as an organic vat attached to a vat support system called its body, and if you look at the world of fraudulent systems of control which pretend not only identities they do not have, but rights they do not possess and authority which they cannot authenticate, and if then you add to this the fact that psychotronic weapons are deployed as a covert infrastructure of social control throughout "developed" countries, then in fact I already am, in a "free range" sense, exactly a "brain in a vat". My proof against the argument that we are probably in a simulation still stands, and my condemnation of this world as a vat of corruption does also.
And in this sense, I've done Justice against two birds with one stone. What has been discovered is that we really are living in a simulation, one at the very least which results in only a simulation of a discussion of a simulation of a simulation. That is because the nature of simulation is erroneously hinted at by the topic discussed "as" simulation, and therefore also so that a discussion of the real topic was only simulated, for it is as different as a discussion of predator/parasite and prey/"host", as different as a discussion of what is from what is only superficially like it, but diametrically antagonistic to it... As different as a world whose main myth is that it is even a world, versus a mythical world which takes such an utter falsification to be a moral and cognitive impossibility.
Yet this difference exists, and to such a degree, that we see by metaphysical deduction and not merely by any spurious pseudo-induction, that we do indeed live in a simulation of a metphysical kind and of an ontological order. And such which has the character, ironically, of a plot in a horror movie, and in which world people watch such movies, paying to be taught to disbelieve in their plot though they themselves embody and live in that in real life, even in cases when the movie literally has characters in the plot who are doing exactly this.
This is the real "Ourobouros" which CHOOSES and CHEWS those whom it makes falsely believe that they CHOOSE and CHEW. It may bite and perhapse even swallow itself and regurgitate itself many times and for a long time, but it is the Good News that only those who oppose it, whom it attempts to digest but cannot, that only they will survive its end when it shall breathe no more, when all fraudulent similitudes are annihilated. That is RAGNAROK, that is ARMAGEDDON, that is "The End of the World", that is "The End of Time", that is "Judgement Day", that is where all this MUST GO and I have DEDUCED IT FROM THE EVIDENCE WITH METAPHYSICAL CERTAINTY.
So much for the world's mythic simulations to the contrary.
First of all, definition of terms. Broadly, to "simulate" means to imitate the characteristics of that which is to be represented. It can take an object, or be intransitive. I can simulate being an authority figure, but only if I properly imitate the characteristics which would actually be authoritative, and by which someone would be properly thought of as an actual figure of authority.
It implies that there are levels of ontology in any phenomenon such that some may be actively taken on by another phenomenon simply so as to lend to the realm of the subjectivity of the interpretation of appearances the possibility of mistaking the latter phenomenon for being actually a specimen of the former. It is a process by which we say that what is an inauthentic being can be presented as being a specimen of the sort of being which is the authentic being. Inauthentic, that is, with regard to appearances matching the substantive character which should have caused their presentation, as they are expected to do in the authentic being's case.
This entire idea is supported by the metaphysical context which declares that the appearances of phenomena are somewhat disjoint from two poles of being which make those appearances possible in the first place: pole 1 is the cause of the characteristics perceived, that is, the character of the being presenting the appearance; pole 2 is the perceiver of the characteristics, the being which attempts to correlate the characteristics perceived with the specific properties of a being which produces them, and not only that but a specific type of being which produces those characteristics, by those properties the being inherently has, which uniquely says something about that sort of being, and hence about those characteristics in that context.
But just because a characteristic is special in that way in that context does not mean that just any presentation of those characteristics correlates with those properties in any being, let alone assuming it should be the exact same unique sort of being which we would refer to as being the principle type from which our authentic specimens are to be drawn. We call the reference group the authentic group, the "true" type, and we call groups that merely share some features of similarity to be relatives to that type. But any sort of entity which presents a cluster of features which lend themselves to being mistaken for the true type, but which happens not to be even a close relative, we tend to think of as inauthentic varieties of beings, though they may be distantly related. Compare the true scorpion to the pseudo-scorpion.
Now no one would accuse nature, let alone the pseudo-scorpions of the world, of attempting to put on a fraud that they were the real thing, though they look quite a bit like the real thing. Indeed they would be in the same club if only they had a tail that stung! Indeed, pseudo-scorpions are more like spiders that weave cocoons out of their mouth parts rather than their rear-parts, but also possessed of pincers just like a scorpions. Nevertheless, they are more closely related to scorpions than spiders, though all three of these types of insects are in the same group called "arachnids".
But to say that something simulates something else is to suggest a degree of intention. It is more than just mimicry that is going on, but rather there is the witting attempt to make appearances falsely suggest that what is not a certain type of thing literally is that certain type of thing. If it is merely a means to the end of deception, that would be one basic level of simulation that is simply the presentation of an appearance so as to elicit conditions that better enable opportunities which should only be present when both parties are actually what they appear to be.
So for example, a politician or a car salesman who is actually an honest, charming person will attempt to persuade to accept a good deal. But a less scrupulous person in that position will simply use his charisma and cunning to lend the appearance that he is doing what the honest variety of person in those roles would be doing. Customers pretend to be clever by kicking tires. Clever customers learn a lot about what they intend to select, whether a car or an elected official, whether with money or with votes, and can much more easily spot a lemon, as well as a con artist selling them one.
We might say that the fraud simulates being the upstanding variety of person who deserves our trust, enabling him to get into a position to receive from us an unwarranted exposure to something of our own which he desires. Again, this is a simple and basic level of simulation, which in nature occurs rather frequently by mere fact of degrees of similarity trailing of, sometimes gradually and sometimes with punctuation, into a distinction which might be missed and which lends to a false identification of one type of entity with another. Many ecosystems of predator-prey relationships are stabilized around a series of such disparities between what is in substance one thing and yet which in the facts of perception appears to be another. Some worms look like mere twigs to avoid being eaten by birds, and some add to this an advantage over flies who get too near to them, so that accidentally simulating the appearance of a twig protects it from predators while it develops on a diet of leaves, and for some this facilitates its own access to prey such as flies, doing double duty in both deceiving predator and prey.
But there may be constructive uses of mimicry which do not have as their goal the taking advantage of a targeted prey, nor of escaping the notice of a searching predator. When attempting to understand something as it really is we are sometimes attempting to understand aspects of some of its properties, not necessarily all of them. Also we are sometimes attempting to understand some aspects of its relations to other entities and some of their properties, not necessarily all at once. Allowing room for error based upon taking these properties out of their context, we may put these entities in environments which are sufficient to engage some of the properties of the entities, preferably only those we wish to study especially, and this is clearly not the exact same thing, nor even really the same kind of thing as studying those properties in their natural environment. But we have found an isomophism between the normal environment and the one which we've set up, one which is sufficiently similar so as to elicit action concerning those properties we wish to study "just as if" they were in their natural circumstances.
That is part of the method of science which studies natural phenomena, and this much is known by the average 7th grader. Likewise, all the tricks they play on one another, all the mockery, all the fantastically imaginative story-telling and lying they do, shows they know well the underlying mechanics of fraudulent presentations which are at least sufficient to garner them (mostly) harmless amusements at one another's expense.
Given these parameters for understanding ideas such as "similarity" and "simulation" we can already state that humanity, "in the state of nature", as well as in his contrived social circumstances, lives in a simulation, more or less, and not necessarily on all fronts. Much of his mentality, activity, and methodologies of progress, whether constructive and benign or destructive and malign, whether productive or fraudulent, rely on a capacity to simulate and to understand simulation, and to create simulations both as a part of their own being and also as extended constructions outside of their own being and "out there, in the world".
Then we have the world of technological development in which computing technology, combined with artificial forms of stimulating the sense organs of human bodies could, conceivably, be so advanced and so realistic that the brain might be utterly fooled into believing in a simulation of its original sensory environment (original both evolutionarily and bioecologically). And the issue was raised by some intrepid minds concerning whether or not this was probably already the case for at least one of us, if not perhaps even all of us here in what is reported to be, to my senses at least, "planet earth".
Whether one person or a whole warehouse of tightly packed brains were simply plugged into a simulation, perhaps in a warehouse stored on an interplanetary vehicle hurtling through hyperspace, seems an interesting possibility. And to consider that we don't know what size the universe actually is outside of our own rather suspiciously controlled intelligentsia's claims based upon their rather guarded methods of observation and interpretation which are more akin to a presumptuous religion than to an objective assessment, it might seem a bit of a stretch to assume the premise that the universe is already populated with intelligent life which for the most part is sufficiently advanced enough to have produced a simulation capable of wholesale deception of real organic brains. Even further of a stretch is to assume that the habits of such civilizations are to entrap as many brains into such simulations as they can so that the ratio of brains-in-simulations to those outside should be such that most of the time, if you are a brain, you are in a simulation, in this universe.
That would be a very weak inductive argument...
But there are those thinkers who are so intrepidly overambitious that they presume that consciousness itself can be simulated.
They've now gone completely outside the realm of inductive argument and have dived into the murky deeps of arbitrary metaphysical speculation. So much for their clever presumption to have proven that it is probably the case that our world is a simulation, because they have not even demonstrated that consciousness is probably something that can be produced by material concatenations of energy which forms into patterns of data which can be so constituted as to believe that they are not such a thing, and made to believe that they are the sort of patterns of data which are produced by material concatenations of energy formed by brains instead of what were made by brains out of other matter.
And unless we are willing to swallow wholesale all their assumptions about the nature of the relationship between subjective consciousness and objective matter in such a way as to allow them their pet fantasy, it must be called for what it is and left for them to enjoy, but a cogent argument for the probability that we are living in a matrix it is not, and this would be the case even if I myself were already a brain in a vat merely connected to a matrix by some psychotronic gadgetry.
But if you look at the human skull as an organic vat attached to a vat support system called its body, and if you look at the world of fraudulent systems of control which pretend not only identities they do not have, but rights they do not possess and authority which they cannot authenticate, and if then you add to this the fact that psychotronic weapons are deployed as a covert infrastructure of social control throughout "developed" countries, then in fact I already am, in a "free range" sense, exactly a "brain in a vat". My proof against the argument that we are probably in a simulation still stands, and my condemnation of this world as a vat of corruption does also.
And in this sense, I've done Justice against two birds with one stone. What has been discovered is that we really are living in a simulation, one at the very least which results in only a simulation of a discussion of a simulation of a simulation. That is because the nature of simulation is erroneously hinted at by the topic discussed "as" simulation, and therefore also so that a discussion of the real topic was only simulated, for it is as different as a discussion of predator/parasite and prey/"host", as different as a discussion of what is from what is only superficially like it, but diametrically antagonistic to it... As different as a world whose main myth is that it is even a world, versus a mythical world which takes such an utter falsification to be a moral and cognitive impossibility.
Yet this difference exists, and to such a degree, that we see by metaphysical deduction and not merely by any spurious pseudo-induction, that we do indeed live in a simulation of a metphysical kind and of an ontological order. And such which has the character, ironically, of a plot in a horror movie, and in which world people watch such movies, paying to be taught to disbelieve in their plot though they themselves embody and live in that in real life, even in cases when the movie literally has characters in the plot who are doing exactly this.
This is the real "Ourobouros" which CHOOSES and CHEWS those whom it makes falsely believe that they CHOOSE and CHEW. It may bite and perhapse even swallow itself and regurgitate itself many times and for a long time, but it is the Good News that only those who oppose it, whom it attempts to digest but cannot, that only they will survive its end when it shall breathe no more, when all fraudulent similitudes are annihilated. That is RAGNAROK, that is ARMAGEDDON, that is "The End of the World", that is "The End of Time", that is "Judgement Day", that is where all this MUST GO and I have DEDUCED IT FROM THE EVIDENCE WITH METAPHYSICAL CERTAINTY.
So much for the world's mythic simulations to the contrary.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Hee Haw
"Guns and God are our Religion..."
Weapons and a Clean Conscience are two things that those whom people elect into office pretend to have, claim to have, and are supposed to have. They are elected from and by the people, supposedly. Therefore it is supposed to be the case that they reflect the social norms and mores of those people. Therefore the norm of a person "fit for office" is someone able to take up arms with a good conscience whenever it is dictated by duties of office, which are supposed to be consistent with religious norms. So "God and Guns" is the STATE RELIGION, or "Right and Might" or many other pertinent mottoes and dicta. There IS no creed which does not claim that authority is rightly vested with the power to admonish and if necessary to kill. That's history and the facts of nature. So while it is not necessarily the case that Palin or Trump or ANY supposed "conservative" of any stripe is fit to hold office, it doesn't mean that the basis by which they claim that right has no claim to truth. Someone who is right and able WILL TAKE POWER inevitably.
This video does make an amusing aesthetic remark, which might even be a subconscious acceptance of the reality that at least the veneer of authority, and the enthusiasm with which "conservatives" (nominal or actual) will claim that human dignity and honor require a moral basis and require being physically secured with the right, will, and ability to take up arms in their defense. Really, there is no other claim in existence for worldly authority, because even the "cynical left" will claim that the vicissitudes of how authority works naturally and historically requires at least a certain rhetoric of beneficence, as understood to function in a utilitarian way on the surface at least. So a certain representation of "normative right" is required in any case for authority to have hold over people's cooperation. Otherwise only brute force will be sufficient.
There is some force which must administer over these processes, these forces of the expression of force as something which those who wield it are supposed to be exempt from blame. Exempt that is, if they can establish the consensus belief that they represent "everyone's best interest" in a way that people at least habitually and perfunctorily cede to be the case. They pay enough lip service, are well fed enough, have enough things to do which alleviate boredom, stress, anxiety, and then they go along to get alone enough that the agendas of those who actually wield power passes over them, in search for the taller nail.
And those types of administrators of power don't care what veneer it takes to achieve their goals, and so their number one agenda with the public will be to ensure their covert control over overt institutions of power that people accept as a facade reflective of their traditions and mores, or at least their acculturated expectations of what should be social norms and what role government has ministering to it or administrating over it. That is the supreme "realpolitik" that was understood by Plato, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Hegel, Nietszche, Foucault and anyone else who ever wielded or in principle understood worldly power. That being the case, any mockery of such a facade which claims it has only a facile grip on claims to authority misses the point entirely.
And while those on the left have their cynical modes of paying lip-services, those on the right do as well. It is not even out of the question that some claims have a lot more veracity than other. If for one tend to resonate with the "overall aesthetic" of this somewhat comedic yet transparently reverential video depicting Donald Trump into a more "urban pimp with a cause", versus Sarah Palin's "country hick with a groove".
The point is that those who administrate through the publicly accepted institutions of authority, which is the right to admonish to the point of bestowing either honor or punishment as the reward for responding in a way that satisfies strictly the administrators of authority, however represented in the social infrastructure, are not necessarily relying upon their substantial mandate nor the public's sincere acceptance of it. And therefore one must understand that the calculus of "realpolitikal" power demands that we accept the probable conclusion that pragmatic distortions of these dynamics of good faith relations of public to authority have been already employed, that a sort of "Snell's Law" exists which dictates that the publicly acknowledged discourse of authority, and the public's cooperation with those who represent those offices of authority, is refracted so that there is a significant distortion between the image of rightful authority as rightful and its actual status. It is unfortunately the norm for "the human condition" in this worldly domain that this angle of refraction is naturally severe enough as to raise, at minimum, serious consequences immediately upon reflection.
Two directions of implications immediately arise.
1) Metaphysical Context, Simple
In this context there is a necessity for us to understand the natural facts as empirically presented, which discover the disparity between appearances and beliefs about what is right and what actually takes place behind authority structures which sustain their hold over populations by means of a pretense which is sufficiently convincing of their audience, who are called "the people" in a democracy, but are recognized as being "the citizens" in a republic, and in a given republic it is not automatically the case that every person who lives as part of the nation is a citizen, or even a full person! The problem which immediately arises is that this disparity exists, but there is a large body of cultural work which suggests that people understand that there is a moral authority which genuinely transcends physical power. Some hold that it exists as an ideal which can be understood by "just souls", who "more participate" in that ideal, and some claim that a personal authority exists in some transcendent realm, or at least operatively in this immanent realm, which embodies that ultimate model of such righteousness. At all events, all parties admit that they must at least some of the time pay lip service to this idea. At a minimum, even if this is an illusion which people use to psychologically shield themselves from a naked admission of a submission to naked power, even those who say "power issues from the barrel of a gun" must admit that they need to convince their cohorts that it will not be issued at them unless they go severely wrong in certain well-defined ways, and this must also be promulgated through the propaganda, or this image must at least not be defeated by cultural forces which develop public consensus, at least stably enough and overall long enough to allow them to pursue their agendas while operating completely in bad faith as a psychopathic predator class upon the human species (as a form of psychological "royalty" exempt from the false moralities criticized by the existentialist school, and rightly).
2) Metaphysical Context, Complex
This The above is a possible interpretation of the world, but the idealized moral authority is not only a linguistic trick that organic robots are trained to perform with no real meaning given the terms it uses, or else merely an arbitrary meaning. In fact Moral Authority IS REAL, but simply misrepresented by false stewards, usurpers and pretenders to this Office. This is a premise which we add to the first, morally flat narrative and it turns out that it provides, and is itself supported by a larger context which resolves contradictions which arise from the the morally flat narrative, and does this without resort to moral epiphenominalism or physicalist-evolutionary reductionism. In other words it provides a metaphysical context which is both logically consistent and ontologically real, and it reveals its contrary as being explicable both in terms of its self-contradictory aspects, as well as to its motives and agendas. Hence, this second, metaphysically more robust position reveals the world "as it really is and must be".
This is the position of Gnostic Metaphysics in actuality, when all of the theological discourse is reduced by the appropriate "logos" (logic) so as to transduce the morally flat discourse of the world into a paradigm which is properly texturized, ethically and cognitively, for a being who actually holds the Spirit of Truth as their internal locus of control, and cannot be corrupted or subverted by the false prophets of the metaphysically oversimple "moral flatland" suggested in the discourse which is blandly broadcast by the pervasively corrupt culture and its current power hegemonies. Those who administrate over that process are now understood to be not "merely" opportunistic psychopaths, which they plainly are, but are now understood to be morally objectionable to an infinite degree. This is understood in the religious mind as a willingness to hold in contempt any relations with someone, or something, who is so morally wrong, so ethically wrong, in that such relations would contaminate one's own Good Conscience, let alone offend one's dignity and besmirch one's honor.
Such people know better what to disdain, and there is a long tradition of these people being universally acknowledged to be the True Pillars of the World, in that their image is stolen by frauds so that their fragile false world can continue being propped up as though a mighty dome of stability sanctioned by "heaven" (to include even a Confucian interpretation of the term), while their pretended mandate is actually null. It is the case then that there are two ontological types, one who bears the substance (the real "right" one) and the one who "at best" bears only the image (the false "right" one). They cannot coexist, being ontological opposites, and the disparity between substance and appearance will be used to shield the false authority from just attacks, and bolster unjust attacks against the True Authority. No one graduates Plato's Acadamy without knowing this.
Metaphysical Deduction
There is a consequence of the above two metaphysical lines of implication, which converges their opposed logics into a unified conclusion which takes the first to be the "false" and "stolen" image of the second, which is Substantively True, and even logically and ethically derivable and realizable from the (only) opposing position.The deduction which is a necessary consequence in all possible worlds, and which is derived from the maximal opposition of two metaphysical contrary paradigms, the only two which can possibly exist in any syntactically logical form, results in only one paradigm which converges the facile attractions of the first position upon the substantial semantic basis of the second, a basis which is referred to in both positions, but exists uniquely only in the second.
Now, referring to the degree to which there is a cognitive bias against realizing this deduction in any form, we have a series of results which hinge upon this realization, thus deduced.
1) The persons who are subjugated by the falsification of authority are at minimum cognitively invalid.
2) They are cognitively invalid to a degree which exceeds reasonable expectations based upon the very syntax of their paradigmatics, which suggest some relation to a substantive, genuine authority, though we know such would never be subjected to such falsification willingly and/or knowingly.
3) Therefore, as a function of operative cognitive action in the world, the populace is largely incompetent to assess the situation of their current socio-political conditions in a deliberate and self-propelled way.
4) It is yet possible that some persons are Spiritually Real and yet whose cognition has been disabled by various vectors of psychological/biological/economic warfare, conducted against them directly and indirectly.
5) Historically, currently and empirically, and logically it can be shown that 1-4 are true, and this leads to 5 inexorably, and the opposite is self-contradictory by both logical and empirical evidence.
6) If any who act according to the description of the beliefs in paradigm 1, including those who actively belief in those descriptions or not, but who act as it describes (and are even properly described by it, the soul-less people of a merely physical nature, for example), if any of this type have access to any covert technological means to alter people's cognitive abilities as described in 4 and proven by 5 then they will develop those means and deploy them in any way necessary to sustain their preferred agendas of control over everything that they can control, including any public narratives about right and wrong, but minimally of what is real or unreal, true or false (think "false flag" discourse, including false flag narratives of false flag events at one extreme).
7) Psychotronics is a term referring to a well-developed, factually existing means of such warfare, and it even has open, publicly visible aspects, though most of its function is hidden and deployed against all the public covertly through a dual-purposed infrastructure both civil and physical-technological.
8) Through 6 and 7 we reach 8, which states here that such a system, and all its adjunctive systems which it catalyzes and regulates/supervises, rooted in the ancient prerogatives assumed by primitive and evil minds, is now also controlled and used by their modern counterparts.
9) And since a factual and logical catalog of the phenomena of the world, seen through the angular distortion now acknowledged to be ramified to a high degree by psychotronic and various other vectors of catalysis and augmentation, convinces us that this distortion has radically impaired people's cognitive capabilities to such a degree that even if they could have developed a fully awake and conscientious personhood capable of acting authoritatively in the world, then those would be systematically regulated by this system so as to make them mere suzerains of a false sovereign. Therefore even the Best can be overruled by the worst, which is understood by real philosophers to be "the worst possible world".
10) And as predicted, since anything which is true in all possible worlds must be true in even the worst possible worlds, and because these deductions are proven in the worst possible world (not only in a model of it), then in fact the necessity of their Truth is Metaphysically Proven.
11) Therefore, the Heavenly Mandate has been ignored and insulted and misrepresented and abusively usurped by frauds for so long, and to such a degree, maximally to this present degree, so that the inevitable consequence, approaching proximally in time in direct proportion to the severity of the evil existing in the world which enables these inversions of reality so that substance and image are so perversely disjointed, WILL without fail arise, arrive, and execute Justice upon this worldly domain, and all current events suggest this will be very soon. How soon? May as well bet the farm on it.
This video does make an amusing aesthetic remark, which might even be a subconscious acceptance of the reality that at least the veneer of authority, and the enthusiasm with which "conservatives" (nominal or actual) will claim that human dignity and honor require a moral basis and require being physically secured with the right, will, and ability to take up arms in their defense. Really, there is no other claim in existence for worldly authority, because even the "cynical left" will claim that the vicissitudes of how authority works naturally and historically requires at least a certain rhetoric of beneficence, as understood to function in a utilitarian way on the surface at least. So a certain representation of "normative right" is required in any case for authority to have hold over people's cooperation. Otherwise only brute force will be sufficient.
There is some force which must administer over these processes, these forces of the expression of force as something which those who wield it are supposed to be exempt from blame. Exempt that is, if they can establish the consensus belief that they represent "everyone's best interest" in a way that people at least habitually and perfunctorily cede to be the case. They pay enough lip service, are well fed enough, have enough things to do which alleviate boredom, stress, anxiety, and then they go along to get alone enough that the agendas of those who actually wield power passes over them, in search for the taller nail.
And those types of administrators of power don't care what veneer it takes to achieve their goals, and so their number one agenda with the public will be to ensure their covert control over overt institutions of power that people accept as a facade reflective of their traditions and mores, or at least their acculturated expectations of what should be social norms and what role government has ministering to it or administrating over it. That is the supreme "realpolitik" that was understood by Plato, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Hegel, Nietszche, Foucault and anyone else who ever wielded or in principle understood worldly power. That being the case, any mockery of such a facade which claims it has only a facile grip on claims to authority misses the point entirely.
And while those on the left have their cynical modes of paying lip-services, those on the right do as well. It is not even out of the question that some claims have a lot more veracity than other. If for one tend to resonate with the "overall aesthetic" of this somewhat comedic yet transparently reverential video depicting Donald Trump into a more "urban pimp with a cause", versus Sarah Palin's "country hick with a groove".
The point is that those who administrate through the publicly accepted institutions of authority, which is the right to admonish to the point of bestowing either honor or punishment as the reward for responding in a way that satisfies strictly the administrators of authority, however represented in the social infrastructure, are not necessarily relying upon their substantial mandate nor the public's sincere acceptance of it. And therefore one must understand that the calculus of "realpolitikal" power demands that we accept the probable conclusion that pragmatic distortions of these dynamics of good faith relations of public to authority have been already employed, that a sort of "Snell's Law" exists which dictates that the publicly acknowledged discourse of authority, and the public's cooperation with those who represent those offices of authority, is refracted so that there is a significant distortion between the image of rightful authority as rightful and its actual status. It is unfortunately the norm for "the human condition" in this worldly domain that this angle of refraction is naturally severe enough as to raise, at minimum, serious consequences immediately upon reflection.
Two directions of implications immediately arise.
1) Metaphysical Context, Simple
In this context there is a necessity for us to understand the natural facts as empirically presented, which discover the disparity between appearances and beliefs about what is right and what actually takes place behind authority structures which sustain their hold over populations by means of a pretense which is sufficiently convincing of their audience, who are called "the people" in a democracy, but are recognized as being "the citizens" in a republic, and in a given republic it is not automatically the case that every person who lives as part of the nation is a citizen, or even a full person! The problem which immediately arises is that this disparity exists, but there is a large body of cultural work which suggests that people understand that there is a moral authority which genuinely transcends physical power. Some hold that it exists as an ideal which can be understood by "just souls", who "more participate" in that ideal, and some claim that a personal authority exists in some transcendent realm, or at least operatively in this immanent realm, which embodies that ultimate model of such righteousness. At all events, all parties admit that they must at least some of the time pay lip service to this idea. At a minimum, even if this is an illusion which people use to psychologically shield themselves from a naked admission of a submission to naked power, even those who say "power issues from the barrel of a gun" must admit that they need to convince their cohorts that it will not be issued at them unless they go severely wrong in certain well-defined ways, and this must also be promulgated through the propaganda, or this image must at least not be defeated by cultural forces which develop public consensus, at least stably enough and overall long enough to allow them to pursue their agendas while operating completely in bad faith as a psychopathic predator class upon the human species (as a form of psychological "royalty" exempt from the false moralities criticized by the existentialist school, and rightly).
2) Metaphysical Context, Complex
This The above is a possible interpretation of the world, but the idealized moral authority is not only a linguistic trick that organic robots are trained to perform with no real meaning given the terms it uses, or else merely an arbitrary meaning. In fact Moral Authority IS REAL, but simply misrepresented by false stewards, usurpers and pretenders to this Office. This is a premise which we add to the first, morally flat narrative and it turns out that it provides, and is itself supported by a larger context which resolves contradictions which arise from the the morally flat narrative, and does this without resort to moral epiphenominalism or physicalist-evolutionary reductionism. In other words it provides a metaphysical context which is both logically consistent and ontologically real, and it reveals its contrary as being explicable both in terms of its self-contradictory aspects, as well as to its motives and agendas. Hence, this second, metaphysically more robust position reveals the world "as it really is and must be".
This is the position of Gnostic Metaphysics in actuality, when all of the theological discourse is reduced by the appropriate "logos" (logic) so as to transduce the morally flat discourse of the world into a paradigm which is properly texturized, ethically and cognitively, for a being who actually holds the Spirit of Truth as their internal locus of control, and cannot be corrupted or subverted by the false prophets of the metaphysically oversimple "moral flatland" suggested in the discourse which is blandly broadcast by the pervasively corrupt culture and its current power hegemonies. Those who administrate over that process are now understood to be not "merely" opportunistic psychopaths, which they plainly are, but are now understood to be morally objectionable to an infinite degree. This is understood in the religious mind as a willingness to hold in contempt any relations with someone, or something, who is so morally wrong, so ethically wrong, in that such relations would contaminate one's own Good Conscience, let alone offend one's dignity and besmirch one's honor.
Such people know better what to disdain, and there is a long tradition of these people being universally acknowledged to be the True Pillars of the World, in that their image is stolen by frauds so that their fragile false world can continue being propped up as though a mighty dome of stability sanctioned by "heaven" (to include even a Confucian interpretation of the term), while their pretended mandate is actually null. It is the case then that there are two ontological types, one who bears the substance (the real "right" one) and the one who "at best" bears only the image (the false "right" one). They cannot coexist, being ontological opposites, and the disparity between substance and appearance will be used to shield the false authority from just attacks, and bolster unjust attacks against the True Authority. No one graduates Plato's Acadamy without knowing this.
There is a consequence of the above two metaphysical lines of implication, which converges their opposed logics into a unified conclusion which takes the first to be the "false" and "stolen" image of the second, which is Substantively True, and even logically and ethically derivable and realizable from the (only) opposing position.The deduction which is a necessary consequence in all possible worlds, and which is derived from the maximal opposition of two metaphysical contrary paradigms, the only two which can possibly exist in any syntactically logical form, results in only one paradigm which converges the facile attractions of the first position upon the substantial semantic basis of the second, a basis which is referred to in both positions, but exists uniquely only in the second.
Now, referring to the degree to which there is a cognitive bias against realizing this deduction in any form, we have a series of results which hinge upon this realization, thus deduced.
1) The persons who are subjugated by the falsification of authority are at minimum cognitively invalid.
2) They are cognitively invalid to a degree which exceeds reasonable expectations based upon the very syntax of their paradigmatics, which suggest some relation to a substantive, genuine authority, though we know such would never be subjected to such falsification willingly and/or knowingly.
3) Therefore, as a function of operative cognitive action in the world, the populace is largely incompetent to assess the situation of their current socio-political conditions in a deliberate and self-propelled way.
4) It is yet possible that some persons are Spiritually Real and yet whose cognition has been disabled by various vectors of psychological/biological/economic warfare, conducted against them directly and indirectly.
5) Historically, currently and empirically, and logically it can be shown that 1-4 are true, and this leads to 5 inexorably, and the opposite is self-contradictory by both logical and empirical evidence.
6) If any who act according to the description of the beliefs in paradigm 1, including those who actively belief in those descriptions or not, but who act as it describes (and are even properly described by it, the soul-less people of a merely physical nature, for example), if any of this type have access to any covert technological means to alter people's cognitive abilities as described in 4 and proven by 5 then they will develop those means and deploy them in any way necessary to sustain their preferred agendas of control over everything that they can control, including any public narratives about right and wrong, but minimally of what is real or unreal, true or false (think "false flag" discourse, including false flag narratives of false flag events at one extreme).
7) Psychotronics is a term referring to a well-developed, factually existing means of such warfare, and it even has open, publicly visible aspects, though most of its function is hidden and deployed against all the public covertly through a dual-purposed infrastructure both civil and physical-technological.
8) Through 6 and 7 we reach 8, which states here that such a system, and all its adjunctive systems which it catalyzes and regulates/supervises, rooted in the ancient prerogatives assumed by primitive and evil minds, is now also controlled and used by their modern counterparts.
9) And since a factual and logical catalog of the phenomena of the world, seen through the angular distortion now acknowledged to be ramified to a high degree by psychotronic and various other vectors of catalysis and augmentation, convinces us that this distortion has radically impaired people's cognitive capabilities to such a degree that even if they could have developed a fully awake and conscientious personhood capable of acting authoritatively in the world, then those would be systematically regulated by this system so as to make them mere suzerains of a false sovereign. Therefore even the Best can be overruled by the worst, which is understood by real philosophers to be "the worst possible world".
10) And as predicted, since anything which is true in all possible worlds must be true in even the worst possible worlds, and because these deductions are proven in the worst possible world (not only in a model of it), then in fact the necessity of their Truth is Metaphysically Proven.
11) Therefore, the Heavenly Mandate has been ignored and insulted and misrepresented and abusively usurped by frauds for so long, and to such a degree, maximally to this present degree, so that the inevitable consequence, approaching proximally in time in direct proportion to the severity of the evil existing in the world which enables these inversions of reality so that substance and image are so perversely disjointed, WILL without fail arise, arrive, and execute Justice upon this worldly domain, and all current events suggest this will be very soon. How soon? May as well bet the farm on it.
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Duds Obfuscating Live Shells
It should be pointed out that the real bombshell isn't what this former Secret Service man has to say, but that what he has to say would have been legally(?) gagged if he signed a non-disclosure agreement.
Extending: If what he has exposed in his book and in interviews would have been in some way legally(?) prevented by a non-disclosure agreement, and if since 2004 this agreement must be signed by any Secret Service officers, then it is reasonable to conclude that they are attempting to stifle any further such exposures.
It is also reasonable to conclude that they wished that they had already required such an agreement be signed before this officer joined. Therefore the bombshell isn't what this man exposes, as that is some pretty superficial stuff compared to what they really don't want you to know. The bombshell is that such agreements are considered in any way binding when matters involving the breaking of the law, or any breaches of ethics are involved.
Extending further: If that is the REAL bombshell, then it exposes another:
And this leads to further incoming conclusions about the:
Extending: If what he has exposed in his book and in interviews would have been in some way legally(?) prevented by a non-disclosure agreement, and if since 2004 this agreement must be signed by any Secret Service officers, then it is reasonable to conclude that they are attempting to stifle any further such exposures.
It is also reasonable to conclude that they wished that they had already required such an agreement be signed before this officer joined. Therefore the bombshell isn't what this man exposes, as that is some pretty superficial stuff compared to what they really don't want you to know. The bombshell is that such agreements are considered in any way binding when matters involving the breaking of the law, or any breaches of ethics are involved.
Extending further: If that is the REAL bombshell, then it exposes another:
People must be under some form or extreme mind kontrol if they believe in the binding nature of such an agreement, but not the binding nature of: Conscience (Divine Law), Nature (Common Law), and the Constitution of the United States of America (Civil Law). The nature of God, Country, and Humanity are all ignored by people so that wrongdoers won't be exposed? That's supposed to be an "honorable agreement"? REALLY? THAT, is the BOMB SHELL, that absurdity RIGHT THERE...
And this leads to further incoming conclusions about the:
Chemical warfare being conducted, psychological warfare being conducted, economic/class warfare and information warfare being conducted against the citizens of the United States of America, against AMERICANS, by those who pretend to hold offices of public trust. And the preliminary calculations, developed in a manner akin to the structure of a Hess Diagram as seen in chemical science, indicates that psychotronics are being pervasively, persistently, and invasively deployed to act as a catalyst to ramify and modulate (not moderate) the effects and impacts of these other vectors of warfare I just mentioned, and this vector would fall under the category of electronics/energy physics warfare.THAT is the REAL bombshell, not Mr. Clinton's coffee allergy!
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Pray Tell, What for This Madness?
Does Monckton realize the bombshell that he's just dropped?
We are talking about a document which supposedly binds people into legal relationships upon which their very lives' and nations' fates may in the balance hang, but despite all modern methods of communication, progress in understanding the corrupt cryptocratic tyranny that had always existed in the psychology of human mentality which allows for some people's godlike right to rule over others as well as the venerable institutions and instrumentalities as though a God-Given gift, and despite a realization that the technological and methodological implications were spelled out on various levels of intelligent discourse and artistic culture since the Enlightenment, and therefore despite all good reasons to expect a hell of a lot more people to accept the significant meaning of their own personal dignity in the face of the state's thoroughly defunct authority over their lives, and the more so the more they trespass beyond even their stated duties of office..then the more absurd the situation becomes, all the more so as all the more yet absurd is the fact that this document's importance is lost on all those people who will take up arms over a damned sports game yet lay down their lives meekly before ANY TYRANT.
So does the noble speaker understand what he's said? If so it would have to be through what absurdity he's exposed, and by what implications that yields readily to our minds' best judgement and conscience. It should be plainly recognized that the people's current psychospiritual malaise has no mere mystical nor otherwise inexplicable route into our thoughtful attention. Yet given all the conventional elements known to exist as factors in the current social situation, it seems not easy to explain. That becomes a lot easier when you understand precisely what I say and mean by one particular term:
PSYCHOTRONICS
DO NOT underestimate this factor. IT MULTIPLIES (MK-ULTRIFIES) all these conventional, realpolitik you are discussing. That could only exist in a world where evil was spiritually at the core of the world order on an ontologically fundamental level, and that is understood as Demiurgos, Saklas, the Blind Fool.
From the facts we found an absurdity, explicable only by means of deducing the existence of a certain methodology of social control implementing cutting edge technology used to hone their anciently evil-minded criminal mentalities, and therefore metaphysically deduced what is True about the world, which is that it is not so much what it pretends to be by its proclaimed narratives, but simply a world or recapitulated evils in newly augmented guises. The people are less people than hobbled dwarves, and who rules over them are less giants than dwarves on technologically fabulous stilts. I've already alluded to the nature of those methods of hobbling and how certain techniques and technologies are employed to enscaffold undue height to such heinous dwarves who would naturally stand lower than those they've also made unnaturally short by every means of fraud and force. Answer me what that is and what is to be done about it and then and only then will I deign to call you any kind of "lord".
BECAUSE I KNOW THE ANSWER, and "FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE" you better, too!! YOU ALL BETTER!!
Because if you don't, and then if you do not understand the profound implications which are derived from the deployment and operation of psychotronic-cybernetics, then no matter what your creed, no matter what your faith, and no matter what "god" you claim, you will have only one destiny, and HEAVEN WILL NOT BE IT. Understanding the TRUTH about PSYCHOTRONICALLY AUGMENTED 5th COLUMN CRYPTOTYRANNY is the only means by which you can distinguish yourself as a great enough spiritual person to be called "Lord" of any kind! And if you are on the wrong side of this issue as a participant, then you should be stripped of any title synonymous with such a spiritually magnificent person. Glorified land lords don't count without prejudice, let alone "Kings" or "Queens", let alone "Lords". Even persons at the rank of GOD are not above suspicion in circumstances where glorified pimps have taken the place of True Heroes.
And whether that be the case or not for someone called "Lord Monckton" or someone called "Joe Blow" has no less magnitude of significance in either case. And that should be very preoccupying all the more if one has a fancy mind and title to go with it...
Because if you don't, and then if you do not understand the profound implications which are derived from the deployment and operation of psychotronic-cybernetics, then no matter what your creed, no matter what your faith, and no matter what "god" you claim, you will have only one destiny, and HEAVEN WILL NOT BE IT. Understanding the TRUTH about PSYCHOTRONICALLY AUGMENTED 5th COLUMN CRYPTOTYRANNY is the only means by which you can distinguish yourself as a great enough spiritual person to be called "Lord" of any kind! And if you are on the wrong side of this issue as a participant, then you should be stripped of any title synonymous with such a spiritually magnificent person. Glorified land lords don't count without prejudice, let alone "Kings" or "Queens", let alone "Lords". Even persons at the rank of GOD are not above suspicion in circumstances where glorified pimps have taken the place of True Heroes.
And whether that be the case or not for someone called "Lord Monckton" or someone called "Joe Blow" has no less magnitude of significance in either case. And that should be very preoccupying all the more if one has a fancy mind and title to go with it...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)