Living on the Fringe.

Well, the thoughts of recent happening are along the nature of how malleable one’s perception of Reality actually is.  One of the reasons I’ve been slow to post this past month is because I’ve been “charting new ground”.  In the sense that I’ve been trying to dig into literature, and my own mindset to see how feasible some of these thoughts are.

The first thought I’ve been toying with ties in with one’s perception of self, and their body image.  Taking into consideration that we are generally perceived to be constituted as beings of matter/energy according to a prevalent western paradigm.  Along with notions of Plato’s Cave allegory (that what we see as Reality, is really just shadows/illusions).  I’ve been toying with the idea that a person can change their own bodily perception if they can change their mindset.

Without further ado, based upon Jungian psychology of the mind having a ego, shadow, and unconscious along with a gendered anima/animus.  I’ve added in notions of a “split mind” based upon notions of our two hemispheres.  One hemisphere being considered more “feminine” and “abstract” with non-sequential logic (the right hemisphere).  And the other (left hemisphere) being more sequential logic, concrete perception based.BrainMindOrganizationThis diagram for short.

As one can see there are two modes of self image, one in each hemisphere according to this conception.  There is also a portion of body image in the right hemisphere.  Accordingly, it would seem to me that the left hemisphere of the brain is favored a lot in modern culture with all it’s reading/writing/math….etc.

In the brain there’s the corpus callosum that connects both hemispheres.  One hypothesis for anyone interested is to look into the notion of the corpus callosum being “mono-directional”.  In that electrical signals may flow predominately from one hemisphere to the other.  That one side takes over the other for extra usage instead of both being a two way street/flow of information.

This later thought was brought up by a notion of “right-handedness”, or a favored side of the body that is utilized in daily life.  I think it is.  Normally I’m predominately right handed, but I’ve been doing experiments/training to help develop strength/coordination in the left hand.  Oddly, for those who don’t know the brain’s hemisphere configuration coordinates with the opposite side of the body.  The right hand is controlled/influenced by the left hemisphere, and the left hand by the right hemisphere.

Thus the thought is, if I can influence/develop my capabilities with the left hand (which has been neglected for usage for the most part), I should strength connections/abilities with the right hemisphere.

Tying this back into Jungian psychology, I would like to venture into a notion that each hemisphere has a internal mind which is supported through several incidents where the corpus callosum has been severed.  In those cases the patient has developed “two personalities” within one body.  Thus I’d like to push even further into this speculation, and say that each hemisphere can, and may have a ego, shadow, and unconscious within it.  Now the question is, if one ego sees the body a certain way, and the other hemisphere’s ego sees the body a different way which one is “correct”?

Let us assume something for a moment, and say that my left hemisphere is my dominant one, and has a masculine identity.  It sees the world, and itself as a male within a “male world”.  It has taken over or subordinated the right hemisphere up until this point.  Running with this, let us say that the right hemisphere has a feminine identity, and sees itself as a woman within a female world.  Is this possible?  Personally, I don’t see why not, body image is stored within the mind, so if the mind is accustomed to seeing the world said way….based upon information received/given…  What happens?

So to break this down a little bit, we each have “two minds” that connect up to make one individual/holistic brain.  Each mind, depending upon life factors/history/experience may have their own ego, their own shadow, and their own unconscious.  Some people may have a double of the same.  Ie; Two masculine identities, or two feminine identities.  Even just as likely, a person may be “bi-gendered”, and have both gendered identities.

One mind is generally dominant, and forces/coerces the other into subordination.  Thus this final theory is, there are those people who have access to a feminine identity as a woman in a bicameral mind, and there are those who have access to a masculine identity too.

I have a feeling that, for most people in their daily culture, they are restricted to one identity alone, and this kills their other identity that lies locked within their other hemisphere.  The question I’ve been working through myself, and experimenting with is; Is it possible to unlock/release the other identity/self through acting in different manners?

To an extent, I think it is.  I have experienced “Phantom Limb” of body parts I normally wouldn’t have if I was solely “Male”.  Like say bodily sensations/tingling of breasts/vagina nerve clusters in the body.  And a complete change in psyche of identity.

To those who are used to seeing the world in a more “concrete” manner.  I would assume that these thoughts are highly disturbing, but it may just be me and psychosis (if you really care to label it).

Personally,  I think my perspective is the more authentic/correct one, where the mind and its accumulated psychic history influences the person’s bodily perception, and how they see themselves in the world.  After all, who is it that determines what is “Male/Female”…etc.  It is a constructed notion, in the vein of it being socially enforced to a degree.  The label, “male” may reflect a notion about reality, but “Male” is not the reality.  It is a symbol used to convey a sense about an aspect of reality.

A person, has to look beyond the restrictions of the languages they are using, and realize that the language that they do use, restricts their worldview. (Linguistic Relativity).


Spontaneous Spirituality, or Developed Souls?

I’m somewhat reluctant to open up on this topic.  Even though it ties in a lot with the rest.  Mainly because I don’t know what the general reaction would be.  From those in my family, and around me it seems to have been a “negative response” which may be a factor in my reluctance.

Regardless, the last time that lead to me being hospitalized had some interesting turns of events.  From outside observers (aka my Mom), I had apparently spontaneously started to perform a chant/mantra and it sounded both intelligible, and unintelligible at the same time.  She couldn’t recall the words I was saying, but she knew it “had meaning” on an intuitive level.  Meaning it wasn’t random word salad, but it sounded like coherent repetitive speaking/chanting.

Well, that was her perspective, from mine.  I had apparently developed a sudden notion that I needed to expel/combat an evil spirit that was plaguing my family (hopefully it’s not me).  In order to so, I somehow or another planned on channeling this evil essence through me in a form of exorcism.  In order to do so, I assembled something I called a “demon grinder” within my mind’s eye.

It should be noted that what I’m about to describe didn’t take place physically.  Except for perhaps the chanting…which I was quite unaware of doing at the time.

Okay, so this “demon grinder”…, I had envisioned and somehow felt like I had seen my chakras (which I didn’t believe in, or really knew about before hand…heard the ideas, just didn’t “agree with them”…it wasn’t/isn’t a part of my belief system).  And through “working” with them…something happened, but I don’t know what.

The things I visualized are sort of hard to describe with words, but I shall attempt to do so.  If only to make sense of it, and to help figure it out.

About a week before I was hospitalized, I drifted into what I shall call “psyche space” where I was really into inner thoughts.  In this space, I apparently envisioned a complete chakra system of the seven primary chakras (I’ve been doing some research since this happened).  The red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and purple…etc.  All “complete”, and I followed the perspective of an outsider being able to navigate from one loci to the next.  Going from red, to orange, up to green…etc.  I witnessed a “lotus bloom”, and drift off into ….the astral(?) realm while still being conscious of my surroundings.  Upon the “outsider” (me) passing through the blossoming lotus at the crown.

I somehow instinctively decided to reorient, and “reconfigure” my “personal* chakra system” (*key, I don’t know if chakras are a universal to every human in layout, or if they vary from person to person).  In doing so, I rearranged the “crown/halo” (not sure if those exist either in traditional forms).  In a ring of nine crystallized stars with the one directly in line with my “face/frontal focal point” was larger/special.  Upon completing this “halo”, I ventured farther up the “astral line”, and established something I’m going to call “guardian forms”.  These guardian forms, took the appearance of platinum and gold dragons (Dungeons & Dragons tie in somehow…where metallic skinned dragons are Good).

That’s where that one “session”/experience ended.  Up next is the actual construction of the “Demon Grinder” (there were also other “psychic” events in between these “major events”…that I’ll keep to myself for now, for brevity’s sake).  The demon grinder, must’ve started with the chanting which I was unaware of.  But I’m going to assume that the chanting was synchronized with the following work.

I “duplicated my primary chakra”….which I don’t even know if it’s possible, or what entirely happened.  It seemed that way to me, I had doubled the 7 primary points, and rearranged them throughout my body.  The Red one was in the same spot for both of them as the “traditional” layout.  One was shifted to dark/deep crimson, and the other was/is bright red.  Although they’re overlaid each other.  Orange followed a similar result.  It was doubled, and overlaid.  Yellow was split into two equal, and similar toned/hued spheres along the same parallel/axis.  Green was doubled, and took on a dark forest hue, and bright green.  Blue was doubled, and split like yellow.  Purple was overlaid with two different hues.  Lilac, and velvet purple.  Indigo, which may be an unconventional(?) one was overlaid, and kept the same.

The rationale behind this, was that I had fully embraced a concept of “two souls”, or that I was “bi-gendered” in nature.  I had a female persona/soul, and a male persona/soul.  Two masks, but neither one was “half-n-half”.  Each one was a complete identity in its own right.

Well, to stay in touch with the physical world,  I had made my way to my bedroom to go to bed for the night/sleep because I had been sleep deprived in someway, or it felt that way.  As I was resting in bed, I realized that I needed to “shift something away” (said Demonic force), so I envisioned a trap that would construe my body, and various “spiritual realms”.  The Underworld was where this demon would come from, obviously.  So I saw it as infinitesimal cube (really I was thinking Planck Scale Universe), and this cube ran a “black line” (like an anti-thesis to a silver cord) towards my vicinity.

I figured that said hostile force would attempt to attack/possess members of my family so, I put a “gong” on each of the cords leading to my immediate family from the underworld cube.  The gong was meant to alert them…like a klaxon/siren.  I left myself exposed because I was to be the channel/conduit.

Said demonic force entered my body, and caused a jolt.  It’s return route to the underworld was severed, as planned, by me.  It then progressed up the modified chakras, and entered my “mind” where I had inscribed something like a “summoning/power circle” to keep it contained.  It wouldn’t, and couldn’t take full control of my body because of this.  It was lured into a trap.  One where I imagined that once it “broke free” in an attempt of dismissal/abandonment.  It would then have to face God(?)…the two guardian dragons at the top which it did.

The dragons, as planned, would “abdicate”, and allow a false victory to the demon.  As the dragons left their solar/astral realm they would retrace the demon’s progress through the lower “planes/my chakras” which they did.  Thus the demon was caught between a vengeful God, and two+ guardians below which ultimately ended with its demonic demise.

I know these words are a poor portrayal of my experiences, and I know they happened.  It’s just I don’t know how to make sense of it other than in an “after the fact” causal notion.

I don’t really adhere to Christian Traditions, nor any other Religious doctrine (like Hinduism), so I don’t know if I should talk to any practitioners in those fields.  Like a priest or something, and even then it would be “worrisome” on my part because I’ve already been pegged “crazy”.

I feel like I know enough of certain traditions to be “dangerous” to my self, but I don’t feel comfortable saying “I know this information authentically”.  The chakras, and the whole affair I’m prone to writing off as “hokum” because I can’t “cross verify” these experiences.  The scientist/empiricist in me wants to be skeptical, and condemn such flights of fancy.

And even if I were to talk to a “spiritual” figure, I don’t know how’d it work out.  Can they see the “changed patterns” without me mentioning them?  Is it even possible to do syncretism with Hinduism, and Christianity (along with other aspects in some way)?

I’m not trying, or intending to create a new faith/religion.  I’m just trying to figure out what and why this is “happening”.  Along if there’s a better way of dealing/adjusting to it than ending up in the hospital every single time.

Does anyone have any ideas?

Crossing the Veil.

I’ve hit a connection between thoughts that may be key to understanding why I’ve been accounted with Schizophrenia.  The thought is predominantly based off of this article and some tangential ones related to the ideas expressed in the linked article.  Mainly the Default Mode Network which is an aspect of every human, and to an extent may actually be what makes us “human”.

Going into details, at least a little, I’ve been told by doctors that I spend too much “time” in my “inner world/work” which there is more to be said about.  And that seems to have been a general assessment of who I am.  That I “focus inwards” instead of being externally directed.  There is apparently a connection between daydreaming, and hallucinations.

To me when the doctors use the expression “Hallucinations” it seems to me to be an unintentional lapse from reality, and not daydreaming.  I’ll gladly admit that I still daydream, and that it has actually been increased because of the treatment from the medical profession with their desires to “help”.  I mean doesn’t it seem like common sense that when you’re being told, or confronted with a reality that is treating you with a regime of medication that you don’t agree with.  That you’re being bound by double binds in which you are simultaneously being told that you’re crazy (Schizophrenic), and that you must agree with the treatment.  Even though in effect to do so would be to accept an insinuation about your grasp of reality?  That either way your reality is “unstable” because the doctors say so?  And that if you don’t agree with the diagnosis, you lack insight which in itself is a symptom of said condition?

Bollocks.  I think it makes absolute sense to withdrawal from a reality that is telling you that you’re crazy.  All the more so when you actually dig into philosophy, and realize that one of the most fundamental arguments in said doctrine which is still ongoing.  Is arguments about what is real, and what actually exists.

To me it shows nothing more than the arrogance, ignorance, and self-entitled narcissism of those who feel the need to designate mental health.  There’s a quip that my brother used to make about psychologists, and psychiatrists that they’re the ones who actually need the help they push onto others.  It would seem to be a classic case of their “defensive projections” if one were to use their lingo.

Re-focusing on a note that isn’t as likely to piss me off.  I would like to return to the notion of daydreaming.  I daydream, simple as that.  I do so to avoid boredom, and to engage my mind in narratives that actually interest me.  Case in point; when I was growing up, my brothers and I had to do a fair amount of yardwork.  Hauling, and stacking cords of wood, for every seeming moment that our Father thought we should be busy.  You know, the notion that idle hands are a devil’s plaything…

To keep myself engaged in my mind, and with what I was doing while doing the yardwork.  Especially, hauling wood.  I would imagine/pretend that I was a “peasant/peon” from Warcraft II (a videogame I was playing at the time in my youth).  To build the economy, in said game, you needed workers.  It was an RTS game where in order to engage in war, and defeat of your enemies.  You had to have a functioning economy.

How is that a problem?  To pretend to be a peon going “zug-zug” from a videogame while you’re doing essentially the same task as those fictional characters.  I don’t think it is.

Getting to another point, the very uncertainty of Reality is a very fun notion to play with.  More so when one realizes that philosophy supports a lot of those thoughts.  Plato’s Cave Allegory.  Characters in shadow.  A false reality of illusions.  Those that are taking the fiction (life) too seriously are those that are literally caught in the illusion of the shadows.

And if you’re a successful doctor, politician or really anyone who has a “Successful/Reputable” life, are you really going to give that up?  Even to uncertainty of the foundation your whole world is built upon?  I think not.  And this should be easy to illustrate.

Had I continued to believe in the Illusions/Absolute Truth of Reality as it was laid out.  I would more than likely be an “Aerospace Engineer”… a proverbial “Rocket Scientist”.  Making something like $80,000 a year, and having the “high life”.  And yet, at what cost?  Had I gone that route, I would be just as judgmental of anyone that “rocked the boat”.  Aerodynamics work according to the system that I was taught…rawr…etc.

I’d actually like to think that I have a stronger grasp on reality now than I did at that junction in time.  I’ve come to realize that it’s in the mind, and if one has a strong enough understanding of their mind.  I think it’s highly possibly to break the illusions, and more than likely institute your own.  The part about the return to the Cave of Plato’s Allegory where the returning philosopher/seer of truth is killed.

In my game I was working on, I had implemented a concept that allows one to switch realities.  In order to do so, they simply have to suspend disbelief.  They’d have to disbelieve their current reality, and enact a new reality.  How is this any different from getting attached to videogames/virtual reality/augmented reality?  I’ll tell you, those are prefabricated stories, you’re playing through someone elses created, and contrived narrative.  Not your own.

You’re not actually succeeding at anything, just like what happens when you play the game of life in “Reality”.  You’re working the grind, earning a representation of “worth”…vouching to support the system (voting), playing the roles assigned to one.

Is it not time to be ourselves?  Not in relation to the external world.  I have this n’ this, I define myself by these external descriptors/variables…etc.

Is not the Kingdom of Heaven within?

The Worlds of Our Lives.

This may be a silly thought, but even silly thoughts need to be said.  The thought is that we are all living in multiple worlds with multiple levels of awareness.  In a sense that there used to be a division between worldviews of “inner subjectivity, and external veracity”.

The inner world was subdivided by Jung into the unconscious/shadow, and by Freud into the id/ego/superego.  This is old news.  What is new news, is possibly the idea that the external world has now undergone another subdivision.  The internet, and the physical world.

Isn’t this a little cool?  That we effectively have two lives?  If not more?  We are capable of presenting ourselves virtually in different parts of this physical world by being resident in our very own locales.  This is kinda like saying that within my own “house” I am “King”.  There is a social assumption being made that these two realms are demarcated.

One wouldn’t enter into someone’s house uninvited, so in the past we have made a social/psyche integration that allows us to publicly be one way, privately another, and there’s even more!

Let’s break this down;

  • House Inside – Private
  • House Outside – Public
  • Personal Body – Personal Sovereignty, but one could make an assumption that it is public/private
  • Mind – Private until rendered public
  • The Internet – Public, going/building “Private”/Internalized (Net Neutrality Death)
  • Computer – Private/public because what is rendered on the hard-drive is kept to oneself until shared.
  • So forth into different demesnes of different scales.

I mean is it any stretch of the imagination to realize that one is a “citizen of Facebook” or whatever social networking site.  Just as much as they are a citizen of whatever Nation?  Facebook is “bigger than most nations” population wise.

Facebook is effectively a Monarchy/Oligarchy.  In a virtual space, but it’s not any less real to those in its throes.

The essence of this post, is a thought that our psyches may be “Individuating” in themselves.  My “net” presence is a subset of my “Real world” presence.  Just as both are dependent upon my Bodily/Intellectual presence.

And apparently it’s seems possible for the “Mind” to have multiple layers too!  The “Inner Critic, and so forth.

Isn’t this cool?  But also worrying, if not “Schizophrenic” in itself?  That we have to have “multiple realities”?  One called Virtual (the internet), One called Real.  Both of which is further subdivided into Fact and Fiction.  Along with Internal World, and External World?  That have all their own subdivisions, and patterns?

And yet, this is agreed to be all of one Fabric, that of the Universe.  This is awesome isn’t it?

End of The Enlightenment Experiment?

One of the books I started over this holiday season is Rights of Man by Thomas Paine.  You know, if you’re familiar with American History, the firebrand that provoked certain reactions amongst the colonists in Colonial America with his pamphlet “Common Sense”.

This book is one I was gifted from a friend I knew in college, for he felt that it would enjoy a place in my readings…which it’s starting to.  The copy itself was published in 1888 which is about ~20 years after the American Civil War, so it’s going to enjoy a special place in my accruing collection of texts.

I haven’t made it too far into the text itself, but already it’s provoking a lot of thoughts.  The basis for Paine’s book at the start was a response to a book that someone had written in England criticizing the revolutionary mindset that was embroiling the times of said Era (France’s Revolution was 1789-1799, and American 1765-1783).  This author, of whom was Paine’s target, argued that historical precedent was to be obliged.  That the older generations who deferred to Divine Right, the legacy and legitimacy of Kings and the Monarchical order should be adhered to.

Thomas Paine, ever so rightly points out the irrationality of this position by saying that Life belongs to the Living, and not to the Dictates of the Dead.  That government, is constituted foremost by the people who it is supposed to govern, and not by those who benefit from positions in governance.  This to me, as an American, seems so rational, and commonsense that it seems absurd mentioning it!

Thus there’s not much controversy in his opening arguments to me, but there was a facet in the passages that I read so far that I’d like to turn to.  Paine, makes mention that there had, at that era, been three types of Governance/Power Structures at that time.  The first being Religion, and the power of “Spirituality”.  The second power system that took hold after the Church went into decline was that of “The Conquerors”.  People who could rule, and maintain their rule through force, you know, kings.  The third system which is the one that Thomas Paine noted was, “The Power of Reason”.

It is this last one that I’d like to call one’s eye to.  The Power of Reason, America, as far as I can ascertain was a byproduct of the Age of Enlightenment, an era in Western Europe where the assumptions were made that Man could abide, and create a world based upon their facilities of Reason.  That they could think about their problems, and have a way of governance that made sense while being reasonable.  That there’d be no excesses of “Irrational Power”.  Like ones seen in the Spiritual Government (Religion), or in the Power Government (State/Monarchies).

This was a splendid idea at that time, and involved having an educated populace to be “enlightened citizens”.

Now, to me at least, it seems that we’ve hit the pinnacle of that Experiment, and era of Enlightenment.  That for lack of a better phrasing, we as Americans, have come to the conclusion of that experiment.

And here’s why, psychology is calling into question that fundamental assumption made by Enlightenment Thinkers, of Mankind being a rational creature.  This is not something I’m going to go into too much detail with, but that’s where we’re at.  Our reason is destroying our rationale…, if that seems absurd at all.

A possible cause I could attempt to pinpoint is the idea that morality of the past Thinkers, and their accumulated history that allowed them to establish the American Experiment.  Is no longer there.  People don’t seemingly care as much about morals as they used to.  It isn’t a problem to shun religion, or to be non-religious.  And for many of those who lived in a previous era, that’d be unthinkable, and condemn-able in itself.  From this, I would like to establish a premise that being that morality can be a little bit “loose” now.  There isn’t as much condemnation about “minor sins”.  You know like lying, or being self-absorbed with one’s own self-interest.

We currently have a president, that seems to be built upon his own self-interest, and not upon the common good, or what can be done for the Nation.  In essence, the “idealism” that held together the American Mythos is falling apart, if not failed.  If he lies, it is considered persuasion, or the glibness of the “False Media”.  We are in a crisis where the established facts simply don’t matter.  Not because they aren’t “relevant”, but because our rationale can be “reasoned in circles”.

Recall that brief comment about psychology eradicating the concept of “Reason”.  This is why we are in our current predicament.  We seemingly don’t agree with the principles, and assumptions that the Founders have made for their work.  Along with not having an “Absolute Morality” system where everyone must abide by common graces.  And this is not a problem, as far as I can tell.  At least not entirely.

To me, Thomas Paine offered a glimpse at a new hope.  That of one where we’ve reached the final notes of the Enlightenment.  We are enlightened for the most part.  A larger portion of us know how to “think”, and be “reasonable”…it’s just that our “rationale” doesn’t align with the Governing Structure built from the Age of Reason.

The problems we are facing as a populace, seems to be a notion of not having a “Higher System”.  Recall, the three types of governance that I mentioned before?  The first, religion/spirituality was concluded, and ran its term.  The same goes for the power of the Conqueror.  Now, we’re wrapping up the Power of Reason.

I would venture into betting on to this, and that is; We are entering a possible “Fourth Era” of governance.  One which I honestly don’t know how to describe.  Some would call it an “Algorithmic” Era where power is determined by computer, and mathematical algorithms.  To me this doesn’t seem to be the case, for those are extensions of Reason.  They are byproducts of a “rational mind”.  To me, it seems like a cusp of potentialities, and that is what I would like to call one to think about with this post.

The possibility that we can have a form of government that isn’t based, but incorporates aspects of the previous three.  Spiritualism, Personal Power, and Reason.  All the while we’re searching for a Fourth Paradigm.

| Unsymbolic Thinking And Language :|: egaugnaL dnA ginknihT cilobmysnU |

This should be a fun one to think about.  It is the notion that one doesn’t need to conceive of the words within one’s mind in order to speak them or write them.  I’ve referred to this idea in passing before, but I’m hitting upon it harder now.  Normally, when one thinks to themselves there’s a notion of inner monologue, or “Private Talk”.  This is such a norm, and so prevalent that when someone mentions that they can “think” without “speech” it registers as an aberration.

This is something I’ve experienced myself, I used to have an inner monologue that somehow or another became an inner dialogue for a while.  I used to visualize/imagine that I was talking to “figments”.  Figments in this context would be people who I knew, and had met in person prior to this change.  Most “private talk” is soundless, and it is considered to be subvocal in the aspect of no one can hear it except the creator of the subvocal intonations.

The thing is, at some point in my life I had escalated the inner monologue of my stream of conscious to a dialogue because I had no conversational partners.  It was during the period of social isolation that I had experienced a transition.  The transition was to an inner/external self-dialogue.  External because I apparently was actually vocalizing it to the world around me, but it was still with reactions/perceptions that the Self had.

The “figments” I mentioned before, were people who I had gone to school with, and thus it was my sense perceptions of who they were.  At least who I thought they were.  That I was calling upon.  I was in essence, rehearsing conversations or desired conversations I imagined myself having with them.  It was from one perspective, a broadening of my mind to include the aspect of minds from other people.  This is called theory of mind ( ).  The notion that one can attribute a sense of identity and awareness to other minds.

In some sense, a theory of mind is parallel to “Typology” which is a reference to Myer-Briggs personality tests that were so prevalent a few years ago.  Consider for a moment that you have to explain, or at least make sense of another person’s actions.  You could ascribe a “Type” to them, like ISTP…or whatever.  The same goes for horoscopes.  Aries, scorpio…etc.  They are theories of mind that allow you to interpret the world around you, and the actors therein.

My “Morality Cube” is another “theory of mind”, it is a cognitive tool to make sense of the world, and my place in it.  As it should be seen, a “Theory of Mind” is a healthy thing to have, but overtime I’m sure that there is bound to be “paradigm breaking” events.  An instance where one can’t register the events that just happened according to their old mental schema.

The same goes for language, if you can’t express it, can’t conceive of the thoughts, or words themselves… can you experience, or understand it?

LanguageIgnoring “A” for a moment, let’s look at “B” in the above diagram.  It says, “Tacocat”…which is “Taco Cat” read left to right, and right to left.  I have seen this on a shirt, but the idea is upon exposure to this the “linearity” of language starts to get called up.  There are cultures that read right to left, and left to right for another different culture.  This ties into that “Linguistic Relativity” from “Word Salad 101”.

Now looking at “C”, it looks something like “Reder” read right to left, or left to right.  The same goes for top-down, and bottom-up.  This was intentional, and it was meant to get a person to think about an “omni-directional language”.  A language that could be read from nearly any direction?

Now stepping back to “A” while holding that last part in thought.  Is it possible to have an “omni-directional” language?  That is something I’m experimenting with.  I haven’t devised a full alphabet or lexicon yet, but the idea is to do something similar to the image where to read it.  One starts at a “Circle/dot”, and follows the lines to the next junction/object.

As it now stands, it means nothing, but I see potential in it.  And with that how would one “think” in that language?  They would have to diagram it out according to the yet to be implemented rules.  Is this perhaps, a “why”, for why I haven’t been “thinking in words” anymore?  Along with having dreams where I’m talking to people in what seems to be standard American English?

It is apparently somewhat common to dream of a foreign language when they’re learning it, but what happens when they’re dreaming of their native tongue?

Transient Morality.

Sounds like a bad thing doesn’t it?  A morality that is shifting, and mutable…dear gods no!  There isn’t a question as to if this is a thing, it is.  It’s just that we generally don’t like the thought of it.  We’re used to an Absolutist Morality.  A codified means where it is generally applied universally.  This is not to say that absolutist, and universal morality is a bad thing.  It just exists, and is the current common structure.

In this post, I would like to venture more into my conception of the Morality Cube.  I would present images to help relay the notions in the following post, if only I could figure out an easy way to render a three-dimensional construct!  The easiest way to attempt to describe a visualization of the Morality Cube, is to say think of a standard Rubix cube.  Not the fancy ones where it gets beyond 3x3x3, but the common 3x3x3 one.

To avoid overly confusion the readership, you guys, I’ll break it down into more manageable parts, even if it involves a longer post.

To begin, a person generally has a conception of “Good & Evil”.  This shouldn’t be doubted, and in fact it is generally conditioned/ingrained through an Absolutist Morality system.  Thus if anything, my “Morality Cube” is an expansion of it in some ways while in other ways, a challenge.

Thus if one were to take one of those axis, the first “3” in 3x3x3.  They intuitively understand that there’s three “blocks” or “fields” along that one axis.  Therefore it should be conceptually easy enough to imagine labeling each block differently.

  • 1a) Good
  • 1b) Neutral
  • 1c) Evil

Simple enough, right?  Now adding in a second axis, the next “3”.

  • 2a) Intentionally
  • 2b) Incidentally
  • 2c) Unintentionally

Third axis,

  • 3a) Maintained
  • 3b) Intermittent
  • 3c) Abandoned

Now to go back and apply definitions to each one along with an “Axis Title”:

Alignment (First Axis):

  • 1a) Good – What is “Good”?  It is something that is considered beneficial to one’s society, culture, or themselves.
  • 1b) Neutral – Neutral, is the bystander in this argument between “Good & Evil”.  They either have no say, or they don’t have an argument to be made.  They aren’t involved, or they’re trying to be “balanced”.
  • 1c) Evil – Evil, is something that is deemed unwanted by society, culture, or the individual.

Effort (Second Axis)

  • 2a) Intentionally – Said entity (individual, group, or culture) acts with direct effort to bring about their desires.
  • 2b) Incidentally – Something just happened, and the entity decided to run with it.  “Being at the right place at the right time”.
  • 2c) Unintentionally – Something that wasn’t planned for, or acted upon just happened.  Ie, something that got hit that shouldn’t have.

Degree (Third Axis)

  • 3a) Maintained – A set mindset, or codified systematic effort that applies over a longer duration.
  • 3b) Intermittent – Something that happens sporadically, or is only followed through with only so far (like a New Year’s Resolution…, for a bit).
  • 3c) Abandoned – Set goals, or mindsets are readily given up.  In favor of the “next best thing”.

Doesn’t seem like much does it?  The fun part comes in when you realize that the “Morality Cube” involves combining/reading blocks together.  One from each axis.

Easiest example; 1a w/ 2a w/ 3a.  Thus an entity would be Good, Intentional, and Maintained.  To me this conception seems like a classical portrayal of the “Good”, or God.

Harder Example; 1b w/ 2b w/ 3b.  This entity would be in the middle of the “cube”, and would be considered; Neutral, Incidentally, Intermittent.  This, in my conception, is one of the hardest moralities to maintain on a personal level.  It is essentially the notion that you are acting on “instinct/rationale” that makes sense at the time it does so, with no desire for “good or evil” outcomes, or analysis.  It happens, you deal with it, and you accept it.

On a “species level”, the Neutral, Incidental, Intermittent one is the default.  This is because on par, Good balances Evil, neither triumphs over the other completely, and thus there’s a “balance” even if in tension.  Example of this thought; Hitler and F.D.R.  Both existed in the species, and they sort of counteracted each other.

The trick with the morality cube comes in when one considers relativistic perspectives.  If I see Humanity as “Neutral, Incidental, Intermittent”.  An alien species would likely, and most assuredly see us differently.  Say to them we’re evil….thus their perception of us would have an evil alignment instead of neutral, but they see themselves as good.  The opposite applies to us, we see them as evil, and we consider ourselves good.  The alien, would likely, in my conception, be another form of “neutral”, but it is centered upon their respective morals.

This is how I see morality, I like to consider myself in the “Neutral” camp because I realize I may be “damaging/evil” to “Others” just as I’m good to a different “Other”.  It is essentially an application of contextual morality.  That may be generalized to other entities.  Those of a different “Moral Flavor”.

Controversial Example:  Christianity & Islam.  Both probably see themselves as “Good”, but to each other they’re “Evil” in some aspects.  Otherwise there wouldn’t be this tension in the world.  If, and this may be a big one, IF we can all recognize that we generally come from a same/similar feedstock.  AKA we’re all Humans…we may actually be able to live better lives on this Rock.

And when, or if we encounter other forms of Intelligence.  This little contraption may be of use.  If just to help people develop their sense of “perspective”.

Overall, there’s more to this idea, but not too much.  And yes, it is one of the principle systems in the roleplaying game/Mythos I’m working on.  It is also how I try to interpret the world.

And yes, it applies to “more than one layer”.  It works on and for the individual, group, social, cultural, national…species scale.  As one can see throughout the above passage.  In total there’s 27 different “Moral Codes/combinations” to be made in the base cube, but as also alluded to.  It expands as additional species/moral entities are added into consideration.

If anyone has any thoughts, or questions.  Feel free to share.

A Nation of Deviants.

What would happen if there was no social order, in essence a form of anarchy?  Is it even possible to sustain itself?  Most would immediately say no, but let’s think for a moment.

How often does the Federal Government intervene in your daily life?  Not much, probably not much even for the State Government.  It is only when it gets down to a local level can we see the firsthand effects of Government.  It is here where deviancy starts, and where oppression may begin, I imagine.

We hear fears, and mongering about the Russian’s influencing our election process, for government.  Yet we naturalize Russians to our nation, and think nothing about it.  Not saying this is a bad thing, but where does the threshold for “Those Russians” take hold.  Is it only in the elite strata?

Going back in time, to WWI-WWII era, Germans in America were seen with suspicion, and so were the Japanese ( & ).  Was it by their neighbors at first?  Did a person glance at the nearby “Helmuts” and think, “Yeah, they’ll be doing Sieg Heils soon enough….better put a kabosh on them now.”

It just seems odd to me that we as individuals can develop a hatred, and resentment towards groups that we interact with, or even those we don’t.  Even though we exclude those individuals from judgment.  “Hate Charlie, the Viet-cong gook, but don’t hate my friend Wong here”…  Do the Texans that live on the border near Mexico have severe problems with them?  Just like asking, do the Minnesotans that live near the Canadian border have problems with them?  I wouldn’t think so, but yet there can be such a fear developed of the Other “Tribe” that we’ll build a wall.  If not go to war, and annihilate them.

We are all friends of someone, and they in turn are friends with another…  What is it like Six degrees of separation?

So, where does it start?  At what level does this demarcation actually take hold?  I’m actually asking here because I honestly don’t know.  I’m not being rhetorical here, but authentically asking.  At what level does it become okay to “Hate the Other”?  Is it when it’s so generalized that “no-one” is afflicted.  Kinda like saying the person is smart, but people are stupid?

If so, damn pinks….wait that’s an euphemism for Communism/socialism…damn yell…oh, ah…greys?  Can I say, that?  Damn Greys!  Those bug eyed aliens?  IS that safe to have prejudice towards?  Even if it is that absurd?  I think on some level, it’s not.  They haven’t done a whole lot to us…., as far as I know.

Is this a constant, and permanent failing of the Human psyche?  That we need something to contrast ourselves against?  Stupid Martians, can’t even keep their planet hydrated with water, and alive…wait…aren’t we having a similar problem?  Climate change?

Oh right, why can’t I find one justifiable cause to hate something, and not have to look at myself….

…We are just as alien to ourselves as we are to another.  Self-Contrast.

I want to say we are the “Other”, and every flaw/value that we find within them is just as likely to be found within ourselves.  This is a concept from psychology called projection, ( ) and it applies to both positive, and negative traits.

So with that ever so old maxim of; Treat others as you wish to be treated, there’s an additional one; that of, “Treat yourself as you wish others to be treated.”  Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense at first, but that’s where it slips on ya.  If you don’t have respect for yourself, how can other’s have respect for you?  And from that, if you don’t know what respect is, how can you respect another?

If you don’t act as a leader, are you worthy of leadership?

If you need to follow, are you a good follower?

Self hate can, and will lead to a hatred of others.

And here we get back into the topic at the top.  If one is afraid of anarchy/discord/deviants…what does that say about themselves.  That they aren’t resilient enough to be “different”?  To be themselves?  That they have to influence, and control others for their own safety?  Or does it say, that they are comfortable with themselves?  To the point where they don’t feel a need to stand out?

But can there ever be a nation composed solely of individuals with individualistic goals/agendas?  More so if it upsets the composition of the Nation?  Ie, if no one believed in America, would there be an America?  That’s the part we seem to be hitting upon right now.

That the American Dream is dead, but it is dead because we have killed it.  Just like we killed God.  That society is “falling apart”, it is falling apart because we are allowing it, and fostering it, so in the future of “A Nation of Deviants” which we are heading towards…apparently…how will you survive?

Communities care about the Individual when the Individual cares about the Community, but the Individual needs to care for themselves just as much as the Community cares for itself.

We can’t have scapegoats, we cant have minority rule, minority oppression, minority tyranny, majority rule, majority tyranny…it seems to me that there can only be “Self-Rule”.  Self-Control.  Personal Accountability to oneself, and to others.

…, but maybe this message/post isn’t needed.  Maybe it’s so glaringly obvious.  That I’m merely making a fool, an ignoramus, out of myself.

If that be the case, I’ll happily be the fool.  The one who cries, the “Emperor is naked!”….even if they seemed fully clothed.  If solely because we are all naked in some way, and I would be deeply humbled to have my own foibles presented to me.

If Illness was a Superpower…

The big question is, if you were ever hit with a sickness that changes your life, how would you cope/accept it?

In my case, I’ve been struggling with the diagnosis of Schizophrenia.  Not a fun thing, especially when you start to dig into it more, and try to find the “origins” of this illness.  Namely you start to find out that the psychiatric profession/industry hasn’t been around that long.  Say 100 to 200 years which is about as how old the diagnosis of schizophrenia , as a clinical expression, has been around.

Schizophrenia, when it was first noticed, and/or conceived of was called Dementia Praecox back in Germany around say the mid 1800’s (technically 1891 according to the wiki ).  This was around the time that Friedrich Nietzsche was writing along with Soren Kierkegaard.  Both of whom wrote about a new “type of person”.  One that seemingly was more individualistic, and less society oriented.  All the while still a part of society.  The individuals they sought to classify were/are those who are capable of standing alone with their thoughts, and their values.  Even against the Crowd.

The Ubermensch is one that gets bantered about with a semi-regular frequency, especially in some Transhumanist circles.  To simplify the concept, but also to slightly butcher it down into parts that can be easily consumed.  An ubermensh is a person, who has realized that social conventions are just that, conventions.  They realize that God, or the Social Contract (Hobbes’ Leviathan) may not always apply to them as an individual.

This is like realizing that for all the “touted individualism” to be found within the United States.  It is still a limited freedom of expression.  Christian mores still have a strong influence, and so does other social mechanisms.  You see “trends” of people who “must have” the latest “it” item.  Like Ugg boots, Iphones, pace monitors, and have to “keep their steps counted” because their social group does.  This concept of the Ubermensch does not blindly follow,….anything.  It has gone through their awareness at some point if they even wish to have a say on it.

A society of Ubermenschs, if it were to exist, would exist as a society of individuals with individualistic perspectives of nearly everything.  There likely wouldn’t be as much “social cohesion”, but that in itself may be a good thing.  Less wars, perhaps, for it’d all be personal conflicts.

Continuing on to Kierkegaard, he expressed a notion of a personality called the “Knight of Faith”.  A Knight of Faith doesn’t let the negatives in life get them down.  They are capable of skirting into, and through the maelstorms of turmoil while seeming dancing with levity.  This is kinda similar to the Ubermensch, in at least one aspect, that of thoroughly enjoying life in spite of, or because of the brutalities present in it.  If I recall Kierkegaard’s work enough (it’s been a few years since I read his collected works), he makes mention that there are three stages to becoming a “Knight of Faith”.

The Aesthetic (admirer of beauty), is a simplistic worldview where they aren’t fully cognizant of Death, Mortality, Eternity…etc.  It is like a child playing on the coast with no awareness of how deep the ocean may go, and how fast they may drown in it if swept out by the eddies.  Upon realizing this there is an assumption that they hit the next stage.

The second stage is that of the Judge, the aspect of realizing that the Aesthetic was a little bit vain, and self-centered.  That it was shallow, and not really serious, or in touch with their actions within Reality.  A realization that said individual has no “core”.  It is often afflicted with morbidity.  After this stage, of Judgment, the personality goes onto the Religious.

The Religious stage, is one that Kierkegaard thought was one of the hardest ones to attain, for it involved integrating both previous stages.  A sort of concept like finding tragic beauty in a wilting flower.  That would be a religious sentiment, essentially.  Kinda like “We are all Artists”.  This stage is the last stage, and involves a Leap to Faith.  Keyword, “to”, not “of” Faith, but to Faith.  The culmination of this stage is the Knight of Faith.  It is expressed more explicitly in his works, and probably more poetically…, but that’s aside.

Tying back to the original thoughts, of can an Illness be accepted, and become a “superpower”?  Let’s dawdle on Schizophrenia for a bit, in what seems to be the clinical/common perception of said disease is a notion that the suffers can’t participate in Society.  That they’re too incapacitated because of the Hallucinations/Visages of unbridled emotion they suffer from.  Now there are some groups in this world that have tied mental health issues into Shamanic Traditions, and there has been at least one psychologist to call “Schizophrenia” a Survivor’s Personality.

That these individuals are the more adept at living “life”, ironically.  Or that they’re “healers”, that have healed themselves.  Overall, I’m not going to make a judgment upon this chain because I’m apparently afflicted with the condition.  Thus I’d be heavily biased.

Although, let’s put a mild spin on something to end with.  Say the common cold, if you actually wanted to have a “special ability” there’s one there, the ability to incapacitate people with your cough.

God Without Religion.

How absurd would that be?  To have a conception of a deity, but no known tenets that are codified?  I’m beginning to wonder if that is the case in my life.

Is this not what is lauded by certain sects of Christianity?  You know empathize with Jesus, “What would he do”?  Or a personal relationship with God?  One found through prayer and attentiveness?  Just what happens when a Saint achieves beatitude?  Divinization ( ).

Said individual if the following holds true;  “The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.” – Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Seemingly would become God, or like God.  If this be the case, why is it then considered clinically insane to declare, “I am like God”?  Is it a false belief, an ill-conceived reality?  Or ignorance?

We could think of God as throwing lightning bolts, or fireballs and what have you, but is that an accurate conception?  Or is it a juxtaposition of deities, a conflation with super powers from childish fantasy to aspects of real life?  If anything, if one is like God, what can they authentically and actually do?

Is this process of divinization a form of “uplifting”.  You know, say we had an animal, and we wanted to make it “like us”.  Wouldn’t we on some level, foster it’s intelligence, or cause it to change from it’s normal base behavior?

If that be the case, it would seem to me on some level that we are “looping”.  Man becomes God, God creates new form of life, new form of Life is Lost (Original Sin?), Conceives of Deity, and starts developing as a species…

Is this what happened to us as a species?  That we had been uplifted by a “foreign” intelligence to an extent, and we had committed a cardinal sin against our benefactors?

Say we did something like an “AI Apocalypse” to them as we fear our own AI doing to us.  Does this seem feasible?

I mean consider that the first signs of consciousness was a flicker, and not a constant “on” of self.  That for an extent, your sense of self flickered on/off with respect to time duration, and energy availability.  Say that you could only maintain a sense of awareness, and a sense of self for mere moments because of the energy usage.  Our brains use the majority of our energy if I recall correctly.  Thus it’d make sense that once we get acquainted to it.  We’d rather be aware.  Say you were only conscious/alert once an hour every 24 hours.  You’d shuffle through life thinking that you’d be dead once that hour was over, and to most perceptions you’d be right.

Thus when one starts to think years, or eons…cosmic time.  One begins to realize where, and how Eternity sets in.  It’s like the inversion of that 1 hr per 24 hrs.  Imagine being alert 24 hours, and only needing one hour of rest.  Would that seem like an eternity to you?

This is like saying/applying math;

  •  y = x
  • y = x^2
  • y = x^3
  • y= x^n
  • y = x^n^n

Now if one were to start plugging in numbers it becomes apparent which one dominates.  The one where the where “n” is the biggest, right, or “infinity”.

Adding in some calculus thoughts of the following;

y = 1/n as n approaches arbitrary large numbers, the 1 is divided by bigger and bigger numbers, thus yielding a limit of y = 0 as n approaches “infinity”.

Or in another perspective, if one awakens each day with a question; “Do I wish to exist today?”

“No”, would be a permanent solution to a temporary problem whereas “Yes” allows more and more statements/questions to play out throughout the day.

Overtime those “Yes’s” build up to years, and so forth…eventually, the “yes’s” negate that one single instance of “no”.

And that’s where Eternity starts, and applies.  Those moments of “Yes” builds up and collapses that “no” to nothing.  It’s like saying that if y = n/1 as n goes to infinity, n being the number of “yes’s”….what happens?

Eternity compresses the here, and now to a single instant.  An instant in which we live.  If the future has already happened, we are already there.  If life keeps going faster, we are already there.  What would happen if a person believes/thinks that they are already in the “Afterlife” if simply by living?  Is there a transition between the previous life, and the Afterlife?  I don’t think so.

Thus if we only have one life to live, live it as if it’s Eternal.  Not by putting things off, but realizing if you don’t live here and now with regards to how you wish to live tomorrow.  You aren’t actually “living”.  There is no consistency, no integrity, no sense of “Godness”, for God is Consistent, and has Integrity does it not?