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).

Advertisements

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 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/living-in-an-imaginary-world/ 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?

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dementia_praecox ).  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 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian) ).

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?

We Are Works of Art.

(Building Upon: (The Light of Postmodernism, and Its Very Own Cave).  Point #7; Good, Evil, and Every other Moral/Rationale Descriptor is based upon Perspective.).

And with art, comes the sense that not everyone “gets” what the art is about.  Take a look at modern abstract art, and it physically doesn’t represent much.  A few blobs of paint upon a canvas, and it leads one to speculate upon their emotions.  The red reminds me of passion, and rage.  This is nothing more than old school symbolism.  Red can be used in any sort of painting or image.  It should be sufficient that I don’t “get” modern abstract art.

Tying our sense of self to this notion that we are actors upon life’s stage.  One can easily come to terms with a notion that not everyone will understand, or appreciate our performance.  What you consider a great performance, or enactment may just be “eh” to me.  And vice versa, this is postmodern relativism.  My value system doesn’t have to relate to yours whatsoever.

Running with that notion, it is coupled to our inner sense, our introspection.  Are we being authentic to ourselves?  Am I fulfilling the role I feel I should be portraying in a manner that is consistent with my value/belief system?  This is where we get into the “Penitence” post.  I’ve found a reason why I posted it, or at least I’m conjuring one up now.

The reason, I think, is that it was meant to illustrate that all of us go through those inner turmoil where we don’t know how to act.  We’re just as judgmental of ourselves as we are of others.  Is this a problem, it can be.  We are petrified of the different, the unknown, and the strange.  Sure some people may lean into the transitions, but overall.  We like it when reality makes sense, even if it is a little bubble that does.

And a little bubble it is, regardless of what we think the scope of our awareness may be.  For instance, it’s starting to dawn on me that not many people have a non-religious based perspective.  I fell out of religion when I was six or seven years old.  Not entirely through my own actions, but it just precipitated out that way.  The last time I stepped into a Church with intentions of belief was probably close to tow years ago.  And it simply didn’t click with me.  I’m 28 now, pretty much, and so I’ve been without Religion/God, for about 20 years.  Yes there’s been times that it has bubbled up, but they’ve passed.  Mostly as my understanding grows.

Yet for many individuals, Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, Moses, …et al are significant factors in their lives.  To me they are historical figures, ones who almost summon up the same reaction that someone saying Thor would (technically not true because I know a guy named Thor….).  And is my way “wrong”?

To some, or maybe a lot…I’m starting to realize, Yes.  My way is “Wrong” simply because I haven’t been cultured to the dominant “culture”.

Although we’re hitting the stage, where we’re having the power of individuality.  That the individual is starting to have a presence in life.  Most of us aren’t uneducated slaves toiling away at our overseer’s jobs.  Our language, and our privileged place in history allows us to reflect upon Humanity’s Past.  And say, yeah we as a species did some stupid things, but let’s not repeat them.  Hopefully.

We have to dive into the unknown, swim in the eddies and currents of being woefully misplaced, surface when the need demands, and overall Live in the absence of space where other generations have tread.  Else we are doing ourselves, and our progenitors a disservice.  Their history is incorporated into traditions, moments and aspects that we chose to propel forward or to discard as unnecessary burden.

We should look to places where our languages, our experiences fail us, and dive in.  In order to have new experiences in order to talk about, and delineate new portions of reality.

That is what makes our lives art, we aren’t a set plan.  An if A then B, or proceed here from C to D.  Plans are to be acted upon.  Art conveys meaning, and expression.  We are meant to convey our personal sense of value onto the next generation.  We are vessels for our Ideals.  In addition to being the crucibles which purify the essence of those Ideals.

Even the word, Virtue, to our present understanding it means “moral high quality”, in essence, to the ancient Romans.  Vir the stem of Virtue, simply meant Man.  This something didn’t know months ago.  It is something I realized as I was looking through Latin Grammars, and it clicked.

We are living in our concepts, our perspectives of the world.  We are actors who don masks to perform, but is there an inherent state of wrong to this?  I can’t honestly say, so maybe we all need to realize that nothing is set in stone.  It all is dust going to dust in our lifetimes.  Our perspectives die with us, and that is a good thing.

I just found this last night, and it resonated with me; https://youtu.be/MBRqu0YOH14

Word Salad 101 (A Primer in Language Construction).

I was just perusing the web, and out of curiosity I decided to plop in “and/or” as a grammatical function.  It turns out using such a connotation is apparently “wrong” by the almighty style guides.

There is some sense to be made there, but in another case there seems to be some ridiculousness to be found too.  Take for instance, this expression; “You may have cake, and/or cookies”.  It seemingly sounds sensible, but apparently it isn’t.  You can’t have both cake and cookies nor may you have cake or cookies.

Just for fun, I want to try to ram as many of these connectives together in a few phrases and see if it’s possible to make sense of the.  Starting with trying to ram three of them together, let’s say and/or/either.

It is possible, if seemingly to do so, to have a car and/or/either a vehicle with an electric, gasoline, or diesel engine.

In some ways, it doesn’t seem to work, but let’s examine it.  It is possible to have a car.  It is possible to have a car and a vehicle.  It is possible to have a car or a vehicle.  It is possible to have either a car or vehicle.  Hmm…  It is possible to have a car, or/either a vehicle?  It is possible to have a car and/or/either a vehicle that has an electric engine.  It is possible to have a car…, and so forth with various permutations.

To me there seems to be a possibility that there is a usage of and/or/either.  Let’s get a little bit more logical.  1) “and” implies a conjugation that brings in the following as an additional component.  Ex; You and I are going to figure this out.  2) “or” implies that there is a disjunctive between one or more components.  Ex; You or I are going to figure this out.  3) “either”, again implies that there’s a dis-junction between components.  Ex; Either I am, or you are going to figure this out.

Although wait here, there’s an “or” that slipped in with the either in that last one.  Now is it possible to try to slip in an either with an and?  Let’s see, Either we are, and we can’t, or we are, and we shall.  It doesn’t seem natural to leave it Either-and, but maybe there’s an innate reflex against doing so.  Maybe it’s a conditioned response?

….who knows!  And yes, this was brought about by mashing together ideas from “Many-valued logic”, and “Linguistic Relativity” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity ).  https://youtu.be/u6eXw0AAKZ8 For fun, imagine combining the different directions that one refers to time (forward/backward/left/right/top/down) into a sort of “3d” mapping of time.

That’s something I’ve been intellectually toying with, and I call it an “onion of time”.

 

Isolation & Despair.

I just watched a free episode of “Mind Field” on youtube, namely the one about Isolation.  It…sort of triggered some old memories.  If you haven’t watched it, I’d advise doing so, but take into consideration the following comments I’m going to make.

In 2010, I had moved to a different state, and was on a “fast track” for “life success”.  I was going to get an aerospace engineering degree at one of the more prestigious colleges for such a program.  It was about 1000 miles from home, and I was a huge introvert at the time.  I had no experience with really contacting people, nor having a desire to make social connections.  I was a high school nerd that was more focused on personal “success” than at actually relating to people on a sociable level.

Suffice to say my social skills were limited, and I had just essentially jumped into a crucible.  In addition to this I was trying to cope with a friend’s death that had happened a year earlier (on my own), and a grandparents death a year before that.  I was extremely depressed, and was thinking like “Huckleberry Finn”.  In other words, wouldn’t it be cool/neat to see who’d go to my funeral?  I was having nightly thoughts/worries that no one would care to attend, and I would essentially be forgotten about completely.  I was going through what I’d imagine was a form of “Survivor’s Guilt”.

I felt like I was a false friend to all of my friends in highschool because I made no effort to get to know them outside of school.  I didn’t hang out with them, and the only social interaction I had been during school, and at the occasional lan/halo party.  I didn’t think anyone really “liked”, nor “cared” about me because of past bullying in Jr. High.  And it was a wound I was hiding throughout highschool where I had somehow became “inadvertently” popular.  I was recognized as one of the “nicest guys” (legitimate?), but I was secretly extremely judgmental of everyone.

Giving the background to my experiences, an a context to what I’m building up to is what I’m aiming at for right now.  When I had gotten to college I was hoping things would change, and they did to an extent, but they really didn’t in another way.  I had a girl take what seemed to be an interest in me during a course, but she was also the TA for the course while I was a freshman (perceived power imbalance).  And she already had a boyfriend, which to some doesn’t make a difference, but to me it did.  I was still in the stage of “being a white knight”, and actually caring about ethics/morals.

Thus when I moved, I was dug into a little bit deeper of a hole because of this.  I was depressed, and I went “Stalkerish” with trying to make amends for perceived slights that I had made.  Even though she was in a different state herself.  It was weird, it was the only social connection I seemed to really have.  It was the first time I felt “love” which I attributed to a warmth in my chest (Oxycontin produced), and I crunched it because I felt like it was misguided.  That I had been emotionally played like a harp.

Then I started isolating during this year in 2010,  I would go to campus, and classes, but didn’t care to interact with anyone that was “real”.  Namely because I felt like I didn’t know how to, I was still extremely judgmental, and I was hurting deeply.  I would then return home to where I was living, essentially by myself.  I was living with a brother that’d be out-of-town on weeks for work.  I got essentially to the stage of “psychosis” that was referenced in the above video (Isolation via Mind Field).  One where’d I would be dissociating, and talking to myself because I simply couldn’t believe the “Reality” I was in.

This went on for a few months, where I was still “functioning” on an outer level, but on the inside, I was completely torn apart.  I had nothing, and I had no one.  I met a few people on campus, but I was rendered paranoid about who they were by that time.  “How would this impact my future”?  Type thoughts, are they good “enough” to associate with?  I had wanted to work at Skunkworks (Top Secret Clearance Required) which is a division of Lockheed Martin.  I couldn’t tell from a cursory level, so I didn’t really associate with anyone.

This paranoia, eventually branched out into a global paranoia in the breakdown of my mind.  I had very little simulation, I couldn’t play computer games like I normally would because my computer didn’t have a graphics card, and I had no other physical goods.  All my books were still at home in MN.  Thus I got into a habit of just drifting off in thought while music (my only stimulation, or so it seemed) played on youtube.  I had pretty much nothing going on in my life during the summer because I made no friends, and I couldn’t find a job.

Therefore, I just sat at home staring at the computer screen going through the motions of living, and listening to music.  During about this time, I started to get agitated, and arguments with my brother ensured.  It created a fairly large rift between us at the time, which thankfully has been healed for the most part.

Regardless, I clearly made it through that, but I wanted to make some observations of what I noticed in comparison to the video.  Yes, people do breakdown like that, and it can happen that fast.  I dreaded reading some of the comments where I had a hunch people would be “boasting”, “oh, I could do that!”.  No, no you can’t.  Well, you can, but I wouldn’t advise it.  It is extremely unhealthy.

In my experience of it, I had;

  • Started dissociating, and realizing that the whole nature of reality was a “construct”.  That a “block” is defined based upon the user, and the context.  I would make “jokes” that I was going to “walk around the block” to my brother, who naturally thought I meant a city block.  Whereas I was thinking from a bird’s eye view, his house was a “block”.  Thus I was just going to walk around his house.
  • In said dissociation, I made a “connection” that “No1” cared, and “No1” became my “deity/god-figure”.  This came about because the keyboard I had at the time had the “n, o, and the 1” rubbed off (it was a refurbished office computer).
  • I started talking to myself, and not realizing it, apparently.  Up to the point where I was having entire conversations, for lack of stimuli.  And conversational partners.
  • I went through the shifting sleep cycles which as you could imagine caused arguments with my brother, and in turn caused more dissociation (rejection of Reality).
  • I had a few days, where in some sort of regression state, I felt like I had “emphasized” with Jesus during his walk to be crucified.  I was imagining that I was spiked through the feet, and hands like Jesus.
  • I would walk around, in a delirious state, thinking/playing “Make-Believe to Make it Real”.  This notion is an idea, that everything in Reality is a byproduct of someone’s fiction.  And one time, I felt cognitively jarred to the point where I thought I was a Simpson’s Character.
  • I had rationalized myself to a pure materialist nihilistic state, in which I was chemicals interacting, and producing changing hormones….etc.  Why was I, an “I” out of what could be considered “rocks…, and errata”?
  • + more…, but I want to switch gears here.

From said experience, and alienation, I’ve realized just how fragile a human psyche can be, but also how resilient it can be.  I had essentially, hit rock bottom, emotionally, socially, intellectually, and I had decided to “dig”.  And I feel it’s been my “digging” that has saved me.  Getting out of said state (no pun intended), of isolation and the co-partner despair.  Was brought about by getting immersed in “culture” again.

I feel to an extent, like I’ve hit that “state of nirvana” because of said isolation, but if that be the case, I don’t think it should be as lauded as it is.  I’ve felt like my “ego” has died, that I “don’t have that inner conflict anymore”, but to me …the cost almost seems a little too high.  At least from this vantage point in time.  I don’t move in “normal circles” anymore, and I have a hard time playing the “game of life” which may be a give or take thing for some.

The sad part is, that I sometimes miss those “hallucinations” because with them often came a feeling of ecstasy which is a little odd.  And things seemingly made “sense” in those hazes.  More sense than it does in the “real world” in some ways, and that I don’t know what to make of.

As I tried to make sense of what happened, I began to realize, that I couldn’t tell if I was under-stimulated back then or if I was overstimulated.  To me, there’s probably not much difference anymore.  And I started to turn towards mysticism which for someone in a Science program, isn’t apparently advisable.  The only way, I feel like I could make sense of it anymore is through an “appeal to an outside power”, aka “A God”, so I really don’t know what to make of it.  And I know I started this as a game design blog, but who cares?  It may give some insight into my eventual publications when they happen.

Juxtaposition of the Lens, and Multiple Candles of Consciousness.

(Building Upon: (The Light of Postmodernism, and Its Very Own Cave).  Point #9; All things are comprehensible to some reference frame, but it may not be the reference frame one is presently in).

There’s much ado about well, everything.  Hold one concept in mind, and the counter concept eludes you.  Ex; A person generally has a hard time holding these two emotions in their mind at the same time; Sadness, and Happiness.  They are generally opposed to one another, aren’t they?  It sounds odd to say one is blissfully tragic, or suffering from sorrowful ecstasy.  And yet, we can ram those concepts together, gotta love words.

It’s kinda like shifting statically, a person want’s to be “enlightened”, but they also don’t want to lose sense of themselves.  One is antithetical to the other, or so it seems.  And yet, is it really?  Can I efface myself to the point that there is no-self, yes.  I supposedly shouldn’t do it, for that may be a little problematic.  “Where does the person of Self go, and what about all those relations?”.  Well, in addition to losing sense of self, there’s also the loss of “Mutual Reality”.  My world is less real than the common one because why?  It wasn’t endorsed by those around me?  That the patterns within the chaos that I Observe isn’t, and aren’t the same patterns that you would pick up on?

How is this any different than spotting figures in the clouds?  What looks like a man, or a person to you could just as easily be another animal to me.  And yet we have to ram each others’ conceptions down the “Others'” throat.  Isn’t that what schooling is to an extent?  Teach ’em good, and teach ’em well so they don’t question anything ever again?  That they have no innate curiosity about the world around them?  And so they can express themselves in the proper verbiage of the day?

Are these characters, that were/are descended from “Latin” any better than their Arabic, or what have you counterparts?  What if you want to express a concept that is so foreign in a certain language that you don’t have words for?  Much less a limited palate/pallet of characters?  Sure you could invent new words, and/or new characters.  Although what have you really done?  You’ve changed the rulebook, at least for yourself, and that’s somewhat of a no go.

Say for instance that one couldn’t speak half the words that they can/could read.  Does this mean that you can’t converse with the sesquipedalian dialect?  I suppose, yes.  Let us assume that we only use a tenth, if not less, in any given language that we know.  And when confronted with an interlocutoring interloper…we get confused, and/or befuddled.

This is building up to the notion that with all our postmodern relativism, we’re losing an “absolutist” core.  That of a reference point that can be mutually agreed upon.  My last post was a slight towards Christianity, but I could have easily referenced any other Religion, or Worldview, including my own.  And that is a problem I think we’re starting to catch upon as a species.  This world is a little too vast, but small enough to be manageable yet.

As context, imagine having received a “Like”, or a “Follow” from someone halfway across the globe.  It happens.  Although do they grasp the full context of the events that are going on in one’s own world that allow them ability to relate?  I don’t honestly know.  An example of this is the American Culture War ongoing, and I think it’ll always be ongoing.  That the arguments being made about gender identity, and every other thing imaginable are now reaching halfway around the globe to what?  Ears (really eyes) that may, or may not be in a similar position?

That one can go to an international site, like Youtube, debate with a complete stranger, and foreigner about concepts that affect both of their worlds in completely different ways?  Imagine this for instance, an Afghani (or Iraqi) near the time of the American Invasion (perspective here matters).  Going online in the era afterwords, and arguing with Americans themselves about being “bombed” or attacked.  Its baffling, but also humanizing.

Or even this idea, that a Hindu from India could be privy to the same arguments that I hear in person about any of the American Cultural conflict right now.  They’d just have to navigate to the site on their browser, and see if their government will allow them access to it.  The world is getting smaller, but in multiple ways.  The internet connects us to such a broad, and diverse audience.  And yet, it causes us to get cornered in our own little echo chambers of rationale.

A person’s ignorance, can multiply faster than they can realize it now.  If I started rambling on about the Vedic Philosophies, I’d be completely clueless.  Much as I feel about Christianity sometimes (namely every time I reference the Bible/Jesus).  There’s simply too much to know, and this is what I think deters a lot of people.  They’re comfortable with the world that they know because it is their world.  Something from the other side of the planet won’t affect them that much, but it still will.

I watched a video last night that advised Millennials in America to work to change themselves if they want to change the world, and this was from a Canadian Psychologist.  ….As someone who got a little lost (psychologically, and socially) in a culture that was still American (Minnesota to Alabama) a 1000 miles from home.  It just strikes me as odd to realize that anyone can have a global audience.  Nonetheless one that could relate to what’s going on in the drama of life on my personal stage.

How is this any different for me over anyone who chances upon this blog?  I could catch a reference to say the Mandala, but I would have to reference a Western understanding of it.  I may be able to “live” some aspects of it, but is there a meaning behind say the Sanskrit that eludes the meanings to be found in English?  Most certainly, and this is where I fear we’re losing the context that is so important to many in our daily lives.

As a final example; Nihilism, in Western thought it is a dreaded concept at least on an emotional level.  That it leads to the nightmare of, “The Dark Night of the Soul” (Christian Thought), and despair.  Despair has been called the sickness unto death by Existential Philosophers in the West back in the 1800’s.  And from a deeper perspective, Nihilism is a meaning that annihilates all meaning.  That it renders void, all thoughts/emotions/values in life and puts one in a dark depression.  And this is all from the Buddhist thought of “Non-Attachment” as interpreted by the Western Mind.  How does a native thinker/experiencer of Buddhist doctrine view this change in mindset?  Is it even possible for a Westerner to attain “Nirvana” in a classical sense?  Or are they too biased by their old ontology?  Just like realizing Maya.

The Chains of Freedom.

(Building Upon: The Light of Postmodernism, and Its Very Own Cave ( https://wolframgand.wordpress.com/2017/11/03/the-light-of-postmodernism-and-its-very-own-cave/ ).  Point #8; Free Will exists because of the inherent Complexity in the System)

Free will exists, simply because there’s too many factors/vectors for any system to keep track of.  Simple enough thought experiment; try tracking down all the people from a “200 person flash mob” that “mugged/robbed/beat you”.  Can anyone do that?  Maybe if they find the network that facilitated it, but it’s like trying to keep track of 200 molecules for a gas system in chemistry, it ain’t happening.  Thus I think at the base free will exists, it’s too complicated to track every little widget down, especially in one life time.  The question isn’t if it exists, but if we have it.  Yes, and no.

Those who actually take the time, and expend the effort at understanding themselves.  To become one’s own taskdriver, may actually have it, as far as I’d think.  They have submitted themselves to a higher power (a Selfless-Ego that drives the Self-Ego).  Let us ruminate, and get a little bit theoretical.

To be a human, one has to domesticate themselves.  Does this sound offensive, yes.  Although think about this on a deeper level, if one wasn’t brought up to bear with the current cultural norms, like say potty training on where and how to go to the restroom at the proper time.  One who hasn’t done so would be seen as a complete imbecile, and would’ve lost the benefits of a culture hard won over the past 2000 years.

So to run with this idea of self-domestication, one has to think about it.  Let’s start with a general tilt in the direction of slavery, harsh yes, but let us speculate that a part if not a portion of human culture.  Is heavily dependent upon this notion.  Let us say that the earliest slaves, and those who were beaten down due to shear physical brutality.  Were some of the first ones to escalate, and develop our species intellectual bent.  After all, would it not make sense to have a conceit, or a hidden advantage developed if one is being beaten down by a physically dominant foe?  Yes.

An argument could be made that all of human history is built off the idea that we are burdened, and shackled at first.  That we are animals first, and foremost.  Is this not true?  This may be a central conceit to civilization, that society has to be trained for and adjusted to.  High school (really k-12), and to an extent college.  Is a socialization protocol, and even then they aren’t always successful.  Case in point, criminals.  Do they operate differently than an average individual, to some yes, to others the baseline human hasn’t much deviation in character.   Nature vs. nurture, and all that rot.  Taking into account that we’re all roughly born as an entity, and to lower the standards somewhat.  Let us say, we aren’t a “person” until we make an active effort to be an “individual”, and/or a “person”.  Otherwise we’re an “animal” that acts human.

Thus, we arrive at a chain of thought that it doesn’t matter what race, color, or part of the world you were born into, for there should (in theory) be equal opportunity everywhere.  It’s just the restraints, and the norms that one has to take into account in everyday society that dictates the lives one leads.  Does a native, from let us say, Texas, U.S.A. to be simple have a clue about “northern” culture?  To walk/drive onto a frozen body of water, and all the norms/customs that determine “winter driving” in the “Frosty Regions”?  Unless they’ve been exposed to it at some point in their life, they are going to be completely flummoxed by this notion.  And earlier the better.  Tying this into self-conditioning, there is a notion that yes, there’s the nature, and the earlier childhood nurturing.  And yet, we aren’t set in concrete as individuals.  Our entire sense of self, and being can be called into question by that foreign “Other”.  That alien that causes us to question some sort of “truth” that we had previously established as “concrete” at least for ourselves.

This whole line of reasoning isn’t what I was aiming at, at least entirely, from the starting notions.  I was calling up the idea that we are conditioned to behave in whatever manner society at the time dictates us to be cultured for (we are normalized to the normal, essentially).  And this applies to about everything in society, yes, it’s a construct, yes, it can change, but the change has to start from within ourselves.  And to do that, we have to be our own “master”.  We can’t let others dictate our course of actions from the point onwards where we are deemed an “Adult”.  Truth be told there are no “adults” it is merely a distinction set, and codified legally.  Another constructed means.  And this freedom along with the responsibility can be very troubling.  “What is one, nonetheless I, supposed to do in Life?”.  Well, politely, whatever one wishes to do, and/or accomplish.  This one life of yours is entirely about you.  Regardless of what religion, philosophy, politics, and even science states, or implies.  There is no right path to follow, there is only one’s own path.

It doesn’t matter if it’s colorful, derogatory, demeaning, or upright, so long as it is YOURS.  One has to be able to accept that.  Regardless of tone of life that you take, there’ll always be competition, and detractors.  Accept it.  And in that regard, if one truly desires the self-mastery that comes with being one’s own master.  Realize that you are responsible for holding oneself to task.  Everything that you do that you consider wrong, and don’t hold yourself accountable for, is a slipping and a failing of your personal integrity (you’ve devalued yourself in your own eyes).  Being a “master of self”, cuts both ways, one has to give oneself direction, and in turn hold their self to their standard.  You have to build yourself up (positive reinforcement conditioning), and be willing, and this is key, willing to punish your “Self” out of failure (negative reinforcement conditioning).

Yes, there’s a lot of talk about acceptance, and you should just “accept me for who I am”, but really.  Is the notion that you are accepted going to change much?  At this point, I should make mention that the positive/negative reinforcement thoughts are based upon classical psychology (Pavlov’s Experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning ).  In which a dog (an animal like we are) is conditioned to react to a bell every time it was served a meal.  Overtime, it would start to salivate with just the bell tone, and no food delivered.

Now as an animal, aren’t we too privy to being conditioned this way?  I’d say yes, and it’s done all the time whether we’re aware of it or not.  Potty training?  Yes.  Buying stuff, yes.  All positive feedback, but what happens when one starts to apply negative reinforcement.  “Oh, that’s bad…”, may be the instinctive response simply because of the word “negative”.  And yet, if there is no counter to the positive, what happens?  The “Trophy Generation”?  Why can’t a person, and I do mean person, and not in a generic everybody’s a person sense, but everyone who’s taken time to become (express) true individuality authentically as they see fit.  They are a person, those who go around rehashing words they’ve heard elsewhere, or supporting whatever political/societal platform because “so-n-so” is doing it, or “they said so”…are they really a person?  Deep down, maybe.

It is the “Self-less Ego” that takes the “ego” to task.  It is selfless because it doesn’t care about the “negative reinforcement” that it has to dole out.  It is a task it will do to either the willing, or the unwilling Self (Ego/id, respectively).  Call it super-ego, or whatever you wish to call it, but the super-ego is more about the social constraints/conditioning.  The culture that surrounds us.  I’m talking about a “4th” partition of the psyche where a person takes into account those “three: Id, Ego, Super-Ego”, and deconstructs all of them.  To the point where it can rebuild all of them.  It’s like building a triangular pyramid in one’s psyche.  One has the “id” (the animal-like), and base slave.  The Ego, who is seen as the individual (normally/classically) taking the place of the middleman in Super-Ego’s Society.  There has to be a higher mandating power that dictates that the “id” needs to work, and how.  And when it is supposed to be punished for breaching the character of the Super-ego.

The “Self-less Ego” is like a Pharaoh, it is transcendent, it gets us closer to the “divine”, and gives us direction in life, for the pyramid that is being constructed is it’s “tomb”.  It’s tomb is what we wish as a higher goal to accomplish for, and with our life.  Thus those who can master themselves, and treat themselves accordingly, should be able to benefit from the notion of Free-will.  Oddly through submissive behavior to themselves, and a higher calling.  Freedom is a chain used to constrain our action to our own desires.

The Light of Postmodernism, and Its Very Own Cave.

To start with a brief description of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave ( Link to Wiki; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave , but both this post and the wiki pale in comparison to actually reading the book for description); Imagine that one is trapped beneath the surface of the earth, and chained within a cave.  This cave is to represent the awareness of Reality that is viable through the normal human means.  Within this cave with you is a fire that is behind you projecting shadows upon the wall.  These shadows are construed by the observer, you, and perhaps I, as objects of “Reality”.  That every interaction between shadows within this domain is taken as face value of what is “Real”.

If by some odd circumstances one breaks free (gets “woke”) to the nature of being in said cave.  They would turn around and see the fire which burns their eyes with its luminescence which is supposed to represent truth.  Heading out of the cave, a person would see the Light of Day (the Sun), and deduce the true nature of Reality (God).

…This is where I’d like to break from convention, and say the following;  Is the sun not a bigger fire in the sky?  That we’re still in a cognitive box?  The Universe?  Albeit the Box of the Cave is a metaphor, I’m aiming on extending the metaphor a little bit to absurdity, and breaking it.  Plato’s Cave Fire, may be taken as the Light of Consciousness Itself for any said individual, and while dwelling inside they have a nice comfortable little flame.  Stepping outside, after breaking free, achieving enlightenment….what have you.  They see a bigger flame, is this bigger flame still a mirrored reflection of the own consciousness?  I would say yes, and thus we start to get up to an infinite regress in logic where every box (cave) we are in, and every one step out into leads us to another box (cave).

From a Cave within the Earth, to a Cave within a Universe, we simply like our boxes, and this is where the postmodernist/relativistic thought gets in.  Our cognitive domain is limited based upon the time we invest into expanding it, and we’re constantly investing effort into doing so.  Sure, it may not seem like we are doing it, but every little experience that changes from day-to-day whether it merely be the date of the calendar is a change in experience.

Regarding Plato; One has to take into account the context of his work, There was no Absolute/Monotheistic God…, and even was implied to say he doesn’t tell absolute truths, only probable, or likely myths.  Thus we have to always stumble upon what sort of Myth works for ourselves, one that we feel that we can narrate for ourselves, at least a little, and demarcate what is an outside influence that seems irrelevant to ourselves.

Platonic thought became Neo-Platonic, and that in turn became a cornerstone for Christianity (as far as this lay-man is concerned).  That of the Ideal, and Greater Good.  That higher purpose.  That of an intelligent, and intelligible design or schema to the World.

Ever since those days, we’ve been arguing about what to do with our lives, and what is actually Real.  The myth, I’d like to venture forth in saying will come subsequently.   Although to summarize these thoughts in keynotes prior to making said post(s) at a later date.

  • Everything One can conceive of exists, and even then there are some things that you can’t conceive of that exist.
  • Too an extent, the World revolves around the Observer, You.
  • There are, multiple reference frames, and modes of being.
  • The Problem Of Evil, is addressed by the notion of multiple Actors.  All of which have the same abilities/rights as You.
  • You, aren’t the sole creator/resident of your World.
  • One’s cognitive realm (World) can either expand, or contract.  Depending upon how they choose to interact with it.
  • Good, Evil, and Every other Moral/Rationale Descriptor is based upon Perspective.
  • Free Will exists because of the inherent Complexity in the System.
  • All things are comprehensible to some reference frame, but it may not be the reference frame one is presently in.
  • One can buy into one myth over another.