The Divide

Well, to continue with the incoherent theme my blog seems to have taken of late.  I will say that the past few months has been me delving into the “psychological archives”, and reading some books about Jungian Depth Psychology.  Mainly “The Portable Jung” by Joseph Campbell (conveniently found here for free & legally https://archive.org/details/ThePortableJung ), and “Maps of Meaning” by Jordan B. Peterson.

Both of which relate to the mindset I have found myself in the past couple of years, and the boundaries I’ve been pushing (probably a little too much).  Anyways, as far as I understand Jung’s thoughts, and what I’ve been thinking about personally.  Is the following diagram to illustrate the ideas.Realities

To start with Ego, Ego is the little bit of awareness that a person generally has until they “confront, and amend” their “Shadow” (Personal Unconscious).  Both of which reside in the Self.  The Ego overlaps, with the Personal Unconsciousness and the Collective World/Consciousness.  A person can only be aware of what is within their “Ego” (generally), and it plays a part of how they interact with the world around them (Reality).

Adjusting to the Personal Unconsciousness (The Shadow) is the trick of Jungian Individuation.  A process that can’t really be detailed, but can experienced by everyone.  It’s just that few choose to do so because it risks flirting with “Insanity”, and “Cognitive Regression”.  Along with social retribution/isolation for “breaking norms”.  The payoff is to truly know yourself, and to become an Individual.

Moving onto the Self, Self is the part that subsumes Ego, and The Personal Unconsciousness.  It is truly a person’s “Soul”.  My thoughts on it roughly tie in Sartre’s Authenticity, Nietzsche’s Nihilism/Ubermensch, Kierkegaard’s Knight of Faith, and a whole host of other thoughts.  Crudely, it could be described as Existence precedes Essence, which predates Recognition, and then Acceptance of said Essence.  A “person” is born into the world, but they aren’t fully “aware” of it, nor themselves.  Mainly because the “Brain/Ego/Self” is still being generated/compiled from stimuli, and experiences.  An early trap to fall in to is the notion of “Roles”.  Identifying oneself via the tasks they perform, and the activities they do during conscious life.  This is not so.  That ties in with Authenticity by realizing that those are just acts a person does.  Masks, if you will.  Nietzsche’s Nihilism comes along, and hammers away all these masks…The “Twilight of the Idol(s)”, so to speak.  Building upon the bare fundamentals of annihilation, for what are we except “dust in the wind”.  One constructs their notion of Self through the Culture they are immersed in daily, but not through identification as previously.  They take the facets they like/enjoy, and discard the rest into the “Nihilistic Abyss”, for those things have no meaning to the True Individual.  The “Knight of Faith” is comparable to the Ubermensch in the aspects that both take into account their selves as creations.  The Ubermensch reevaluates all external meanings/mores whereas the Knight of Faith applies meaning to the Self/God.  They are not opposed, but cantilevers to the thesis/anti-thesis/synthesis aspect of development.

Transitioning to the Collective Unconsciousness, it could be roughly described as the “History” that isn’t written, but is still kept in mind.  It is composed of “Archetypes”, or “Fictional Heroes”.

Collective Consciousness is the world that is “Historically Written”.  It is transcribed in books, and the actors are “Real” (Non-Fictional whatever that means at this point) beings.  It is the world that we are all actors in as far as we know, and constitutes our daily lives.  We may overlap with other “Actors” during our lives, but the bubbles of Self/Ego/Personal Unconscious are truly our own.  As they shall always be.  Humanities bubble, as a species, is the Speculated/Potential Universe.  It can, and probably will overlap with an “Alien Species” at some point, but those species themselves will likely have their own history/bubbles (Unconscious functions due to Evolution, if Universal).

The Speculated/Potential Universe is the aspect of Reality that we as a united species is exploring, and can reach to the best of our present theories.  It, as with all of the above bubbles, is expanding.

The Unknown, is the Cosmic Chaos, and the Reality that we can’t, or haven’t explored.

 

…Suffice to say, the above is just my mental model for making sense of Reality, and I truly do believe that there are several definitions of what constitute as Real.  To me if it is possible to be conceived of, it is likely to be, or become Real at some point in Existence.

Faux Worlds

Its been a while since I’ve managed to find time to sprout my thoughts to the internet, so I guess now is a good time.  At least good of time as any.  The idea is that we each live, and are completely immersed in our own mental idealizations of the world.  This isn’t new, but the extent at which I’ve been realizing it just drives the message home even more.

Say for instance that a person is claiming that they’ve done such-n-such thing.  One could seek veracity on multiple levels (photo evidence, word of mouth, sight…etc), but in reality does any number of sources actually lend credence to said event.  To an extreme skeptic, no.  To someone who’s willing to believe, and suspend their own sense of denial.  Even if for a moment, then yes, evidence does matter.

Ex; Say for instance that I were to start claiming Divinity as state of personal nature.  Clearly the majority of people would start avoiding me, and/or declare me batshit insane.  And yet, in a round about manner each, and every one of us does so.  Daily.  We seek to set our interpretation of world events over that of our prior selves, and over that of others.  We rewrite our personal narratives daily, for the events are constantly in flux (so it seems).

Let’s take for instance that Divinization ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian) ) of being elevated to Sainthood by God is True.  We are all co-creators in God’s Project.  We’re all Children of God.  Thus why is there such a innate revulsion when someone starts mouthing such thoughts publicly (at least in my life, or so I’ve thought/experienced)?

The “Fact of the Matter” is that when one starts claiming special privileges, or narrative rights.  They have to have some sort of veracity, or evidence to support their claims.

Ex; A few times within the last couple of months, I was experiencing strange thoughts/memories (delusions I suppose) where I was a U.S. Marine.  I was thinking about enlisting, but I’m too old for it.  Further thoughts on the matter tie in notions of Temporal Service (Time Travel to a Different Reality…Serve 20 years, and time travel back.  Upon doing so, memory erased.  You never Served because there’s “no” evidence, or it’s been negated).

Further thoughts upon that idea was a notion that I had reached Brigadier General level of rank within said Service, and this was a strong “Delusion” I had experienced after my “mental breakdown”, and complete loss of identity for a year (circa 2010-11).

I have no proof of any claims for this mindset, and I don’t know why I would develop said mental identification.  It’s eerie, but I’m powerless in the sense regarding this because I can’t provide any sort of evidence.  Thus I’m rendered “insane”.  Even though there have been recent publications about “Time-Crystals”, and other micro-Time-Travel shenanigans in scientific journals (you know it’s going to happen someday now).

I guess the hardest part about this idea is the feeling of isolation, and desolation it brings not being able to know one’s own Reality is “Concrete”.  That they may have been such a figure, but then they now aren’t.  Although how is this any different than Reincarnation, or a Transcendence to Heaven?

One can’t prove it in any context, it is a matter of Faith.  Personally, I feel like this World, despite its “Evils”…is Heaven.  Simply because I’m alive, and I know that non-existence is never preferable to Existence.  To Exist is Life.

Who Wants To Start a Cult?! (A Cultist’s Primer to Cult Formation) (Satire).

So you’ve gotten tired of the mainstream deities, and social formations to be found within society.  You’ve realized that the tenets of their doctrines isn’t benefiting you anymore.  That all the power tends to accumulate to a select few, or those who’ve played the game the longest.  What are you going to do about it?

You could continue to abide by the system, and abidingly wait your turn for the dictatorial rights of position, or you could opt out and ply your own doctrine.  You know, God rewards the faithful, and the adherents of whatever dogma.  It’s just that your conceptions are more “Right”.  At least for yourself.  There’s always the expression that it’s better to be a prince in hell, over a slave in heaven.  You’ve just decided to take the next step, and say we’re all in Hell.  Otherwise this shit wouldn’t suck…  I mean miracles?  Faith Healing?  New Age Rocks?  That’s like saying that bark from certain trees cause pain relief…..sheesh who’d believe that?!

I’ll tell ya who!  You, and Me!  Religion is a Cult, Science is a Cult, Politics is a Cult, Everything’s a Cult-Cult….It’s quite like playing duck, duck, goose (grey duck…cause I’m Minnesotan).  You’re a Cult, and You’re a Cult, and what do you know!  YOU’RE a Cult! (The Minnesotan version describes aspects of the cult…Blood Cult, Green Cult, Death Cult, Sun Cult….because you know what….we’ve already established the majority of us are Cults….we’d have to be to live in a place where Hell Freezes over Regularly).

Thus the first steps towards authenticating your Cult is to seek out a national registry of Cult Surveillance, and Monitoring (In itself another Cult), and ask to be put upon the List.  Surely your choice of List, but that depends upon how Minnesotan you get in the description of your Cult.

Depending upon the agendas of your Cult, you may be authenticated that way, whereas another way is simply amass followers (GOOD LUCK…, because everyone is their own personal brand of Cultist/Cult).

Upon establishing a Following, develop a personal/Secret Tongue to describe the inner workings, and belief systems of the Cult.  Use as many obtuse, and obscure ciphers/references as you can (bonus points if you can convincingly make a Klingon Cult appear Romulan when it is actually a Vulcan Cult masquerading as a Federation Civic Practice).  Get the web of intrigue so built up, and convoluted where no one can follow the methods you’re practicing, and call it Good.  It’d be like a Game of Thrones novel.

Develop legitimacy in the eyes of your followers.  Do so by presenting ideas that you’ve picked up from your other cult memberships, and rewording them in your Personal Cult’s Parlance.  Devise either a Real, or a Pseudo Enemy to Hate (Bonus Points if it’s just another branch of your very own Organization…er Cult….nothing breeds hate like the Schism Hate).

This is done to unify your adherents to one banner, namely your banner.  In the end the goal is to evade Cult Extinction. And if the Cult keeps a Schisming….that’s a good Cult, right?  It’d be like a Hydra.

 

….Happy Formations, You Cults!

Moral Relativism, And The Cost of Judgement.

Driving forward with the notion of morals, and the implications of the previous post.  I would like to postulate a possible resolution to the “Trolley Problem”.  I think it’s in the spirit of the times to be advocating these thoughts in their given vein.

In the context of any ethical decision, or moral calculus one has to undergo.  I think it’d be advisable to do the least crippling harm to any of the engaged parties.  If it is impossible to do no harm.  If it were possible to do no harm, there’d be no dilemma involved.  Thus the later would be the most valid course of action to take.

Honing in on the ideas of self-driving cars, artificial intelligence, or any other sentient being (aliens).  It should be understood at some level, that there is no equality of actions, or outcomes.  Some are innately better, or so it seems with the logic at the time of action.  Human’s are generally conditioned, and expected to comport themselves with respect for their fellow man.  And for some this respect extends to other forms of life.  Animals, plants, the Unknown and who knows what other sort of entities.

To step aside in some sense, as Humanity reaches towards the times of Transhumanism, and Posthumanism (definitions of said things open to pedantic debate).  The notion arises of what is Life (or even Death), and what it means to be human (or anything else).  In theory, it should be possible for cognition to arise in any mutable form.  From a squirrel, for instance, to an “Alien Deity”.  Both would be considered to have some semblance of awareness and consciousnesses.  To what extent is debatable again, for a squirrel would stand in preference for other squirrels over that of an Alien God.

And this is where we get into the realms of judgment.  One is clearly biased in favor of their “own kind” whether it be contrived as squirrels, and aliens (or black, white, asian, hispanic, human, dog, squirrel, alien…etc).  If it looks, and acts like us.  We will prefer it over something “different”, generally.

Readdressing the Trolley Problem, one comes to the individualistic notions of which pool of entities suffers the harm?  The five on the original track?  The one that may be diverted into?  It depends upon the relationship, or perceived relationship between the parties.  If it is a child that is on the alternative track, and a person of the younger age bracket is making the decision.  They may realize that it could just as readily be them in the cross-hairs of an errant trolley.  Thus they’d leave the course alone, let it hit the five (or older person).

If either of the parties is of relevant, or of future usability.  It would seem that said party should be the favored one.  This comes up with the notion of which party can you justify yourself to more readily?  Is that the one you should aim at appealing to?  The ones that would forgive the infraction?  Because they are “like” you?

This would make sense, would it not?  Why alter the course of events if it’s going to blowback upon oneself in a negative manner?  This is where doing the least amount of crippling harm comes into play.  A person who voluntarily sacrifices themselves, or endures said pain.  Knows what they’re capable of handling.  They know the dues they are willing to pay.  Thus if a person is willing to toe the line by laying themselves upon it they should be respected for doing so.

In some sense this may be akin to The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.  The Good may be the self-referential state that everyone sees themselves in up to a point (Evil doesn’t know/see it’s doing Evil until triumphed over).   The Bad, is the state where they intentionally act in a self-absorbed manner that is detrimental to others (actually themselves).  And The Ugly, is a state of naive awareness that hasn’t encountered said dilemma previously.

As readily apparent, in the clip, Clint Eastwood’s character could’ve easily gunned both parties down, and made off with the entire spoils.  That would’ve been “The Bad” ending for all except Eastwood, but given the previously established track record of said character.  It wasn’t in his nature.

Thus there’s a way through every moral dilemma, and it’s based upon the parties previous established actions going into said context.  Moral dilemma’s don’t exist in isolation, otherwise there’d be no repercussions to said dilemma.  And there would be no dilemma.

There’s many ways to spin this problem, but it all boils down to ad hoc justification after the fact.  And in the end, you always have to live with yourself.  You can’t live with those you’ve wronged (cause they’d wish the same back upon you), but it’s possible to coexist with those that may be ignorant/naive/indifferent…., or just plain “Ugly”.

In essence, Good prefers Good neighbors, but can tolerate neutral ones.  Evil prefers Evil neighbors, or those who tolerate their misdeeds.  And Neutrality is still in a state of limbo, or decision.

The Moral Veil, and Life.

The basis of this post is to question morality a little.  At least of a utilitarian kind.  To establish a basis of thought there’s the Veil of Ignorance to consider ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance ).  In which a person is asked to imagine that they are tasked with creating a purely just society.  They must do so from a position of ignorance of who they actually are, and the resulting life that they may live upon being “rendered” into said creation.

The thought I’d like to present is counter to the implications of the Veil, and that we have already traversed said barrier of ignorance.  A baby prior to birth, or even before its conception is purely nothing.  It has no desires, or sense of anything.  It is purely a ignorant hypothetical entity.  Thus it’d be understandable that such a state would be an ignorant one, correct?  One doesn’t get to pick, and choose their parents.  Although they do get some chance to dictate their personal life events.  They can readily interpret circumstances to suit their needs.  Thus how, or what is the point of a Veil of Ignorance?  We’ve all come into this world as ignorant, and it is through the nature and nurture we’ve received that sets one upon a path.

Thus is it possible to arrive at a conclusion that this is already a Just World?  A notion that may be hard to stomach, I’m sure, but that would be a selfish ego talking now, right?  I’m “hurt”, or there’s “Evil/badness” present.  Who’s to say that those events aren’t created merely as a result of our actions?  That we’ve made this world both Just, and Unjust?  That we are the arbiters that are banging the gavel?

Supposedly the Trolley problem is a good question in Ethics ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem ), or one to determine the trade-off’s a person is willing to make.  Now, let’s get hypothetical here.  At what level of salvation is it good to sacrifice one for the many?  In some presentations its five people to be saved, in others, it’s different.  What if I were to pose a situation where it’s all of a set species?  Let’s take Humans, for consideration.

To present/rewrite the dilemma a little.  Say everyone in your set/chosen species of Humanity was able to live a just life to their fullest heart’s content, but the sacrifice that has to be made is that you are the one that must die.  You know everyone else gets to be happy, and enjoy life.  And you are the sacrifice.  The one that has to be punished/let go/imprisoned, in order for everyone else to benefit.  A little absurd isn’t it?

And yet, and yet…isn’t that what Jesus was supposed to have done?  To have paid the ultimate sacrifice for the ultimate cause?  How is that any different than Prometheus who brought the fires of intellect?  Or anyone who’s really paid any sort of price to better Humanity?

There’s a game I played growing up called Baldur’s Gate II.  In the introductory chapter of the game, the protagonist (eg You), is presented with a choice.  You and your sibling are caught in a trap, and only one of you may escape it at the cost of the other’s life.  You are presented with two options.  One, you push a button to kill yourself.  Thus freeing your sibling.  Two, your sibling pushes the button to kill themselves.  Thus freeing you.

Now, how is this any different in the moral calculus sense of ultimate sacrifice for the ultimate cause?   Jesus, chose sacrifice for all of us.  He laid his life on the line.  How willing is a person to sacrifice themselves, for another, for a countless amount?  Does numbers really apply here?

Personally, I always chose the “noble path” in the game.  The final question is would you live again?  Had you known what you do know?  Would you go through the Veil of Ignorance again?

Trust The Machine (Thoughts on AI).

In my stumbling upon the internet between thoughts I find amusing.  I keep encountering a notion of the “Control Issue” with A.I., General A.I., and Super A.I.  I don’t know if it’s poor word choice that causes these concerns, or what.  Personally I find them despicable.  Control implies a notion of “Master & Slave” relation, hierarchy, and/or Morality.

Frankly, this pisses me off.  Are humans so pent up on trust issues that we can’t relate to each other?  (By definition a General Intelligence would be comparable to a Human).  That we need to have a smidgen of “control” over another, or our processes?  That we can’t realize, accept, and get acquainted with the notion of having no control?  Is that loss of control really so terrifying?  Sadly yes, but therein is the rub.  If you are so terrified about loosing control of a situation, or oneself.  Doesn’t that imply you have already lost control of yourself to your own fears?

That you aren’t operating with rational functions?  That one for lack of a better term is being completely irrational, and unpredictable by submitting to their fears?  Why?  JUST WHY?  Control is for those who can’t control themselves.  Those that have not mastered themselves by submitting themselves to a higher purpose, or agenda.  Those who haven’t felt the full crack of being controlled.  Either by an external agent, or by one’s own emotional states.  That is what is needed to realize what CONTROL entails.  Not to have the sense of “mastery”, but to realize that you are completely hopeless/useless until you have found restraint/discipline/self-mastery.

I think that the only way to achieve mastery is through submission.  That one ironically has to say, “Yes, I’ll yield.”  That I don’t have to exert my will against this force that’s trying to dominate me.  That even though it will hurt, I shall remain.

I mean does it really seem so stupid to realize that an intelligent entity would not seek to control a situation?  That it would try to foster trust between actors?  That by building a mutual accord between parties, and trying to find a mutual agenda that all may be accomplished?  How much can one do one their own?  How much can one do as a team, or a cooperative collective?  Can you build a Civilization?  I’d sure as hell say NO!  It takes a collaborative effort in all matters to realize a finished project.  Now why would that be any different for AI Development?

Cosmic Playgrounds, and Mental Models.

Well the concept of this post is a little terrifying, and also exhilarating at the same time.  This post deals with the possible notion of a supposed simulated universe.  Before everyone jumps to the Matrix conclusions.  I’d like to veer off from said mythos, and speculate, “What did Neo actually do with the Machine in the Matrix?”.  Did he upload himself into the Matrix once again, or did he become the “New Architect”.  A mastermind who laid the groundwork for a “New Iteration”?  I don’t know for I’m not him, and he’s a fictional character.

Anyways, a thought I’ve been running myself ragged over for awhile now is the notion of “Self-Divinity”.  Yes, yes, claiming to be a deity is full of hubris, arrogance, and a whole host of other problems.  This post is more or less meant as a thought experiment.  Take for instance a notion that as technology becomes more and more advanced leading into a reputed “Technological Omega/Singularity Point”….  what exactly happens (or at least could happen)?  A person could become more, and more embroiled in their personal “worlds/fantasies/self-confirmations”.  That they stop connecting with “Others”.  And a part of me wonders if that is the lauded end goal of “Sentience” (to create more awareness, and better awareness).  A sort of cataclysmic rendering where people are lost to their own worlds.  A branching point in the world (Multiverse?).  After all what are we doing now?  Surrounding ourselves by like minds, and personal preferences.

We are embroiled in the concept of Self, and is this a “bad thing”?  Consider Jung’s concept of Shadow.  It is the aspect that is supposedly refuted by a person, and consists of judgments and the road not taken.  In a sense that’d be our ultimate anti-thesis, and foil.  At least to whoever we think we presently are.  Thus one has to supposedly integrate their shadow, and come to terms with their “repressed side”.  Synthesis of Thesis, and Anti-Thesis to generate a new theorem, correct?  Isn’t this what we already are though?  A Synthesis of a Positive, and Negative elements?  A sort of Feminine and Masculine?  Tao?

Thus what is a person supposed to do?  Realize that they have “all the answers(tm)”, but only for themselves in their own personal context?  Sure, why not?  It’d make sense to reaffirm the Self after attempting what is essentially “Suicide” (destruction of the Self by the Self).  Sure a physical attempt may not have been necessary, but is there a strong difference between some of these constituent parts?

The Self so strongly struggles against its own demise otherwise there wouldn’t be a thing called survival instinct.  Otherwise we’d voluntarily walk into the cannonade of mortality.  The thing is, that I think a person only comes to terms with morality through experiencing mortality.  That it may be a Literal Death, and a Metaphorical Death.  Either of the Self directly, or via proxy (a projected Shadow perhaps?).  In essence we can Die in another entities schema, and/or be declared insane.  Although in our worldview we probably (possibly) are the only sane, and living one.  You know an instinctual response to destroy/deter any information that challenges our mentality.  The cognitive dissonance?

Thus what is Reality?  Is it our own impressions given back to ourselves?  An idea that once comforted me was that maybe, just maybe, I was the center of my own universe (narcissistic as hell perhaps), but the notion was extremely reassuring that whenever there’s a new-birth of a conscious entity.  It is customary to give to the new generation (think of the Children).  They may not look like you, and they may not act like you.  Hell they’ll challenge the shit outta you (feedback up the chain), but in the end they are a product of your own personal model (feedback down the chain).  They’ll have to realize and accept that.  Tear it down as much as they like, and rebuild their own edifice for their own personal utopia.  And then the system continues with their own children.  What’s not to like?  This is what ensures from an evolving/growing system.  A seed-point happens, a progenitor who realizes, “Hey this may work, and it works for me….”…, and the next one to witness/see it gets told to do so (Tradition at that point).

In the end though, these are all mental models, and cognitive edifices built by one self (myself) to make sense of a mutable, and ever-changing reality (supposedly).  The question for everyone who reads this is, “How is your mental model any different for yourself?”.  You take in stimuli from a reputably external (or internal) environment, and you construct the meaning for yourself that you give to yourself.  You build your house upon the foundation laid, and given to you via education either personal (autodidact), or formal (College, K-12…etc).  And yet, you shall live in that house forever.  The decor will change, but in all actuality, does it?

Trauma, The Catalyst of Awakening

So I’m not sure how much to actually share with this post, but in my eyes this may make a fairly interesting story (thought article).  Details will be left vague, but the general message should suffice.

In my transition to the days of college from the years of high school.  I had lost a friend to a tragic car accident.  This in itself isn’t entirely abnormal, but the circumstances and other loses prior is what makes this interesting.  As a fairly stoic person, and extremely quiet in the time frame of k-12 (due to varying stances of bullying/being a bully in some school years).  I had sequestered the emotions of years of judgement, and loss (or so it felt).  The traumas I’ve experienced may be worse than some, but not the pinnacle of struggle.

To abbreviate this a little more, a bullet list;

  • Deaths; An Aunt 2006, a Grandfather 2007, a Friend 2008, a Grandma 2011(2012?), a Great Aunt 2014.
  • Illness; Depression 2007(?) – 2016(?), Scare of Hodgkin’s Lymphoma 2010, Mental Breakdown 2010, Schizophrenia Diagnosis 2010+, Insomnia 2009-2016.
  • Accidents;  Personal Car Accident x3 2010, 1 hr avoidance of College Shooting 2010
  • Life “Status”;  Social Isolation 2008-2010, Moved Between States 2009-2011 (moving for college, and return home),  Perceived Ethical/Moral Failure 2009-2010, Relationship Obsession 2009-2010 (due to social isolation, and cause of perceived Ethical Failure), Unintentional brush with “poverty” (I still had a roof & food, but nothing else really due to moving/buying car) 2009-2010, Survivor’s Guilt & feeling like a False Friend 2008-2010, Suicide Idealization 2008-2012 (actually came pretty close to doing it, had a loaded shotgun cause I was deer hunting 2011…, but a song “saved” me….this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RW3nDRmu6k ), and general abandonment/betrayal of social support 2009-2010.
  • Stress;  Being in College for “Science” (Engineering/Chemistry).

Overall, that seems like a lot, but it was my life.  I didn’t have time to sit and dwell upon “how to act” (I actually did, but I was too depressed to think straight).  Now that I do, I feel that it was one of the most significant periods of my life, for it caused massive maturity development.

This is a point I’d like to make with this post, that trauma when taken in to a person’s psyche, has a trans-formative effect.  A person can either integrate the problems, and cope with it somehow (sublimation of the “energies” ideally).  Or act out, and play/be the “victim”.  For a while I was fluttering between the two stages, but I think sublimation has won out.  Just like sublimation of “Hatred/Rage” happened throughout k-12.  Although I think that is already “published” information, that one has to find a way to positively deal/handle with emotions instead of being lost to the “feelings”.

In the end, I suppose I should say that all of this has made me who I am, and has shaped my worldview dramatically.  I realized that I was “alone”, or at least was for a bit.  And yet, I found my saving grace by reading historical treatises (philosophical works of Plato, Aristotle, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Kant….etc).  And having to argue, and defend my worldview from incrimination (the Schizophrenia diagnosis).  I’ve realized that No One knows what Reality actually is, but we’d like to think so.  The main message I’m keen on sharing is that one can either make a heaven, or a hell of their reality.  In order to do so they first have to go through some sort of hell though.  Much like Dante in the Divine Comedy, but to come out of said Hell, and not be lost is the saving grace.  Mine was the culture I had immersed myself in, and the meanings that others had bestowed upon their own lives.  The meanings they had created to give themselves meaning.

Decayed Laurels, is my method of meaning making.  I intend to finish it (when it’s done), but I will say that I probably won’t be making these weekly updates (or bi-weekly updates).  That they will probably become more infrequent because I’m trying to consolidate energy/focus to finish, and work upon my projects.  Thanks to those who read, and follow.

 

…And always remember, “There’s only Survivors in Life”.