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

Advertisements

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.

 

Logos, The word of God(?)

In common Christianity (supposedly) the term Logos is a reference to Jesus, but in a lay (or perhaps technical sense). The term logos means logic, or reason. Thus in compilation, Jesus is supposed to have been a word, or the reason of God. Getting into details in this relativistic period. One is caught between a juxtaposition of what it means for a word to have meaning or a concept that can be grasped. Namely the notion that every person, and/or actor in reality has a variable understanding of what their word usage means. Take for instance a simple word of “I”, in English it is a self-referential to the person who is speaking said “sound/word/concept”.

Breaking it down, the sound of an “I” is variable, and to a foreign “ear’ could just as easily sound like “aye” a sound of affirmation. A person utters their own “I” with their own vocal cords for the most part, but it is a sound that is generally unique to them. My “I” is not your “I”. Truth. How is this sound much different than a German “Ich”? It’s written differently, and pronounced differently (somewhat). And yet the concept is the same, a self-referential remark to the entity that has spoken. The odd part that I’m building up to is the notion of how many different ways of saying “I” are there?

I’d say a near infinite amount. My “I” is, and never shall be your “I”. Simple fact. The twist comes when you seriously consider the notion of empathy/sympathy/identification with something outside out own “I’ness”. Losing sense of oneself in other words. A negation of “I”. A “No-I”. Is such an event possible, yes. Either from over-identification with a concept/entity outside ourselves, or through attempting to negate our own sense of reality. Negation done through minimizing our own core sense of self. “I am not worthy”, or “I’m above this”. Both change our sense of “I’ness”.

The fun begins when one realizes that our own personal “I” isn’t always static. “I” may change whenever we choose to change our own “I’ness”. In some contexts there is an internal “I”, and an external “I”. An Internal “I” is how we choose to see ourselves, and how we relate to ourself. Meanwhile an External “I” is how others relate to us, and interpret our presentation of our Internal “I”. Getting lost in another’s presentation of their internal “I” is what empathy/sympathy/identification is about.

Skipping about, what makes our “I” our “I”? It is our awareness of ourselves, and how others acknowledge our presentation of ourselves. Consider for a moment the notion of “Gender” (withholding some thoughts about gender, at least a little). There’s commonly only “two”, a female and male. Body Dimorphism. An example of what is meant to be presented. “I” was born a “Male”. It is a common assumption to make that “I am” such based upon my name (Richard), but is this actually an accurate portrayal of an “Inner/Internal I”? Who knows? This “I” you’re reading is a persona on an online/medium that is created solely by me. An aspect of my presentation.

Digging deeper into this line of reasoning, who’s to say this “I” is not an artificial being? That this “I” is a gender-less construct? Words only have meaning when we instill them with meaning derived from our own experiences, and the concepts we can conjure forth. It takes a recognition of our presentation to either affirm, or deny our presentation of “I’ness”.

Thus if I were to venture into an experiment of “I” changing “I” what would happen?  What if I started to disown the mask, or the persona that was created/foisted upon me by myself in my earlier years.  To change the identity that was recorded previously?  Just because there’s a paper record (Government, or otherwise) does this reflect my true sense of “I’ness”?

To so many eyes, it seems that our sense of “I” is concrete, and without choice.  Is this so?  In some ways it would make more sense to take self inventory, and try to decipher out a personal identity that was never created for oneself from outside sources.  Our parents have constituted our identity up until we leave their house, and their jurisdiction.  What happens when we look in a “mirror” (Social, or Physical), and refuse to accept what we see/perceive as a true reflection?  Is this not an actual application of thought from Plato’s Cave Allegory?  That the reality we see is merely shadows created in an untrained conscious?

Hate ‘Em, and Discriminate ‘Em

Well, it seems I’ve been wading into the current cultural conflict, and having unofficially joined the “wrong side” of this escapade.  I must make my position known, and at least semi-defendable from the point of view that I find myself entertaining.

Is it okay to “Hate”?  To some extent, I would say yes.  Is it okay to “Discriminate”, again to an extent, yes.  Carrying on, and attempting to justify just these two claims, for myself.  I will say, and start with a simple question to those who read, and disagree with those two claims.

What about those two phrases are you hating against, and discriminating against?  You hate the word “Hate”, and the connotations that may be inferred from it.  You dislike the word “Discriminate”, and all the contexts it may be used in.

Is this rational?  Not really from my perspective.  Mainly because if one is aiming for any goal in Life, whether it be as mundane as a morning breakfast, or as important as where you want to live.  Who you’d want to marry, and so forth.  You are actively, or subconsciously; “Hating, and Discriminating”.   You don’t feel like toast this morning, well disliking something is a slippery slope to hate, is it not?  It’s discrimination against the TOAST!  How can you not want Toast on a Daily Basis!  It’s Blasphemy!   Heretic…

Where things get tricky, in my opinion, is the level of zeal, and the threshold of extremism that resides within those two qualifiers of; “Hate”, and “Discrimination”.  If, for example, you absolutely loathe toast, and wish all bread would burn in Hell (oddly making toast).  People are going to see you as insane, and a little, if not outright kooky.

Thus we arrive at the age old idea of,… wait for it, …. moderation.  You can moderate your hate, and you can moderate your discrimination.  In fact, I highly recommend it!  Keep a nice little flame of hate going in you belly towards some absurd, if not useless target.  I personally despise Beets, and that is because I was on some level force fed them as a child.  I have no problem discriminating against beets, but here now!  We’re talking about food, not people.

IS that really a major factor?  To some, maybe, to others who follow the line of reasoning in odd, and interesting ways.  It’s not.  You pick, and choose daily.  Simple fact of Life.  We can’t all have the same outcome.  We can’t all date the same person (whomever that may be).  We have to choose, and that is a fact.

I choose to “Hate” and “Discriminate”, simply because it is an acknowledgement that I have to do so.  Mainly in order to have a Life I wish to Live, and a Life I will thoroughly enjoy.  If any of you have had a childhood, you too will know what it was like having choices made for you.  And that is why, I find myself turning towards the “Alt-Right”.

(Note:  I used to consider myself in the “Anarchist Camp” until I realized that too is just a state leading to Order, and Organization.  That was during college when I was still forming/developing my personal Life edifice, and I still am).

Truth, Lies, Masks, and Deceit

We all lie.  Truth.  The issue is can we honestly verify a marketable difference between the two states?  From my introductory college psychology textbook there was a brief remark that one shouldn’t trust any, or all self-reporting data.  Simply because of the implicit desire to lie about oneself to maintain a ego, and ones own self esteem.

Perhaps true, but I personally think at some level, maybe the more maturity one develops.  One begins to realize, and accept the atrocious behavior that one may so easily enact.  Case in point; It was recently implied that I sound like a “Rapist”, and thus am likely to be a “Rapist”.  This was coming from a friend that I had known for approximately five years.  Five years in which I had never made any “rapist” inclinations, but being that I am a male that doesn’t apparently speak the approved dialect/vocabulary.  I am now considered a “would be rapist” by her.  Being that I have no desire to associate with said context, the friendship is now over.

The reason this is being brought up is the notion that we so readily enact a mask that others may find appreciable, or we hide our true thoughts of each other behind said mask.  I had no clue that she had been raped prior, and that I was being continuously judged for “rapey” tendencies.  Personally, I don’t need the paranoia that would stem from a continued friendship with said person.

Mainly because I’ve been so far into madness that I’ve gone paranoid to the part where I was afraid to breath, for fear that I was inhaling toxic fumes.  Even when I was in broad daylight, in a natural environment while this fear may be true in a smog ridden city.  It wasn’t in the context I was in at that time.

Tying back into the main premise, my concept of identity seems so shaky sometimes that I’m not sure which mask to believe.  I can readily acknowledge/admit that all the worlds human institutions are constructs that only operate based upon a mutual/shared belief.

The military, banking, industry,…etc they all require a mutual suspension of disbelief that the idea we are working on actually matters.  The lauded dollar, only has value because we belief it has value.  It’s value could be tied to a “value/life” of every soldier sacrificed to maintain such belief (ie, $1 is 1 soldier’s life), and would anyone really care?  It’s not tied to anything concrete, and it doesn’t need to be so to have value.  No Gold Standard, or “Oil Standard”…it’s all made up.

The same way our identities are made up, if I wish to be recognized as a veteran.  I would have to enlist, and serve.  Get a narrative made up about myself, and have it approved by others that are in on the same terms.  It is nothing but virtual games, or so it seems.  Call up images of Orwell’s 1984, or Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451….any dystopian story…it all is narrative.  And the writer creates, and advertises the narrative.

Our stories are self-concocted, self-narrated, and self-imposed.  There is nothing that says you have to be who you are in any given moment.  For all I know, I could be a King of France that is also a little bit “crazy”.  That the year isn’t 2017 (calendars are also made up).  That it could be mere moments from the masquerade where courtiers got lit on fire ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bal_des_Ardents ).

The only reference that we have is ourselves, and our believed history/narrative.  And yet psychology seems to want to disown that portion of our lives by saying it is likely false.  A lie that is due to self-reporting data, but what I do I know?

The Monkey Chain of Hierarchies, (or Breaking the “Self” to Realize the Self).

(Ensure that you’ve read “The Divide” post before putting much weight behind this one).

One of the things that I seem to find myself butting my head against more often than not is the notion of “hierarchy”.  At least that’s what a cursory understanding may imply, but digging deeper to try and express what I’m aiming at seems to lead to a notion of the following.  The idea that no matter what, a person, or individual is embedded within a larger social context.  We are after all social creatures, but we seldom maintain one “level” of status consistently.

To some, if not most, people a person encounters in their waking life.  They are an individual of low worth, or indeterminate worth.  You’re still recognized as human for the most part, but other than that you may as well be a stereotype, or a 2-dimensional stock character, a trope.  This is what equality leads to, a sort of dehumanization of the human element in some sense.  A King, a President, a serf, or a slave…all have to use the same/similar “throne” (toilet) at some point during the day.  And yet, the majority of us don’t think of it that way.  We defer to those with “Authority” which in itself has it’s own perks, and cons.

The point I’m attempting to hone in upon is a notion that for as lauded as some people may appear to be, their shit still stinks as with our own, and until they come up with android bodies where we don’t need to use the “Facilities”.  It likely won’t change.  Regardless of this, we clamor, and use whatever slight of mind to discern, and advance ourselves above some sort of “Other”.  An “Other” being something, or someone that is simply not a part of “Us”.

We (the “royal we”), claim to be (insert age) Souls, or whatever level of spiritual/intellectual/cognitive development where we attempt to set ourselves up as some sort of “Status” icon.  At least to ourselves, and at most to those around us.  Thus it starts to boil down to a game of “monkey chain”.  Those who play the best end up at the “top”, but everyone else is beneath them holding on for dear life.  Whereas the one at the bottom has no other burden other than themselves, but they get all sort of “messages” from above.

If one were to construe this as a “moral message”, it would be along the lines of, “abase oneself of their own inflated worth”.  You aren’t special, if simply because until you realize that you aren’t so.  You have no sense of specialty.

To illustrate what I mean by this.  Consider that your entire identity, and sense of “Self” was concocted outside of your own sense of “Self”.  Your Name, given to you by your parents.  Your friends, determined mostly by your social status/grouping.  Your Nation, just a larger group.  It all boils down from above with the notion of “social identification”.  You are “granted/given” a #Number# at birth, and registered with the local official body (for the most part).  And yet, how much of your identity is tied up within these constructs?  Lose said #Number#, or have it “Stolen” and you’ve lost your “Identity”.

Once a person truly realizes this, and integrates it into their consciousness.  There’s no going back.  Your identity is a construct, you aren’t being “Authentic” despite whatever showy actions one takes until this realization is made (or so I think).  At the base you are just another object given a name.  A hunk of carbon, water, and other various chemical compounds that moves, and acts “Human”.  Yet in some sense is still missing a “Soul”.  You have an “Identity”, so much as it is recognized by “Others”.  And yet, this seems really hollow.  You had no say over it as an individual, it just happened.

You are a “Nothing” playing at being “Something”, (this whole post is building off of the last post where Sartre’s Authenticity was mentioned.  That sense of True Self).  A person isn’t truly an individual until they’ve cast aside whatever constructs they have used to precipice their “Identity”.  This is why “Individuation” is so hard, and ego shattering.  It is because that is exactly what one is doing.  Destroying, and allowing their Ego to be destroyed.  Only because they’ve realized that their Ego is, and was completely fabricated by another outside Entity.  Ie; Not their-selves.

It is a Hellish experience to go through, but it is one of the most rewarding ones that a person can experience in their entire lives (as it feels to me).  To realize that you are an animal, that you can be trained “Pavlov Style” (Classical Psychological Conditioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning ).  As my personal thesis, I think that a person can gain control of themselves, but they first need to be “mastered” by another.  A different person, who may, or may not have their newly found servants best interest at heart.  This is to be so because, one is essentially being shown how they’ve been “Domesticated” by society, or whatever culture.

Taking another step from this, One once being mastered, (broken like a wild horse, for analogy) is presented with an option.  To be the eternal servant/slave of “God”, or to struggle/fight for Freedom (become a Prince in Hell).  A person can’t faithfully serve two masters, that should be easily understood.  One Master is external, and are the ones who originally “broke/domesticated you” (say they potty trained you).  The other True, and Honest Master is the one that resides within.  Your True sense of Self, and let me say this, “You’ll always have to live with yourself.”

Thus having been “Socially built” (broken by the external master), and forcibly re-broken/rebuilt by the Internal Master.  One may achieve their sense of Self, and become a True Unique Individual.  After all, if you personally know what it takes to break you, and destroy you.  What is there to fear except yourself, but you are your own Master at that point.  Thus there is no fear, no remorse, no guilt, not one single ounce of internal conflict.

Realizing all of this may be mental gymnastics though, but I wouldn’t be surprised if veterans could relate to this.  The metaphorical “Hump” in Boot-Camp.  The point where one wants to give up upon themselves, and just quit.  To washout.  Pushing through that, and “breaking oneself” once again allows one to remold themselves completely.  Simply because as an analogy the Sergeants have “broken you down at that point”.  One must simply do it to themselves now.  They (The External Master) have demonstrated all the skills needed to do so.

As a quip…., “Spiritualism calls for Ego-Death, but doesn’t that imply something is actively killing or has killed the Ego?”.