Polarities of Existence.

Nihilism and Postmodernism are somewhat similar in the sense that they both annihilate, and deconstruct meaning for their respective adherents.  Yet, I think there’s enough of a difference to throw them in a cage with each other, and let them fight it out.

Starting in one corner of this match is Nihilism, who weighs in with nothing and stating that everything has no meaning inherent.  Including itself, as a self-contradictory notion, but it doesn’t care about this.  It won’t acknowledge that it destroys its own definitions of value for itself.  A meaning that destroys meaning destroys it’s own meaning, essentially.

In the opposite corner, there is Postmodernism, who is in such a dizzy state that it’s constantly asking, “what does it mean?”, and there’s no reference in which to apply value.  Your good is just as good as my good.  It’s all relativistic to who does what in what circumstances, and conditions.  There is no basis of judgment.

Stumped by why these mindsets seem so prevalent?  So am I.  Thus let us tilt at both of them then.  Historically, it is Nihilism that was first cogitated, so it has a claim there for being the progenitor of Postmodernism.  Although it probably won’t admit to it.  It gets deconstructed for itself.  The self-contradiction of its own logic.

Stepping out beside these two, there’s a void of meaning on the Nihilistic pole of this spectrum.  All the way up to the, “Meanings everywhere, and they’re all equally valid”, of postmodernism.  Thus it’s almost like saying Nihilism (0/Nothing) to Postmodernism (Infinite).  Both perspectives may be “valid” as intellectual constructs/curios, but they fail in reality.  Big time.  For if one where to be a die-hard nihilist, why do they continue living?  Nothing has meaning in the First sense.  That that of everything being negated, and left purposeless.  Applied to a postmodernist mindset of, “All meanings are constructed”, one is left with no edifice in which to ground themselves.  Suicide, is prevented by the State/Society which holds Human Life as sacrosanct based off of Christian Theology.  If one doesn’t support this view, just off oneself.  There’s no meaning to hold one back.  Thus how many people are willing to take the plunge over that cliff?  Not many, I’d assume.

Thus to struggle out of that void, of being in an ocean with no boat, or surface to cling too.   One is in the depths of Being, that infinite potentiality realm.  This is what postmodernism writ large is.  That everything has the same potential to exist, and just as valid as another to exist.  If that be the case, why does one value default to existence over non-existence?  Simply put, one has to exist to have thoughts about both existence, and non-existence.   This is truth.

Who’s to say in all this postmodernist struggle that one won’t be reborn/resurrected again?  You didn’t choose to be in here in the first place, thus there is the mindset to negate and destroy all things as illusion.  Thus why wouldn’t you not exist by getting dragged into existence again?  Thus suicide, is such an asinine move on so many levels it just seems stupid.  And here’s why;

  1. You’ll never know if you succeed, because if you are; you’re logically not there/here to see said success.
  2. You will only end up crippled, and/or worse off for every attempt made.
  3. You may just get reincarnated once again, and against your will.  Much like you were the first time.
  4. It doesn’t “solve anything”.

This is what the postmodern/relativistic/nihilistic mindset climaxes in.  Starting again at point A.  Thus to build from there, and that plane of “nothingness”.  Let us consider that, “Nothing has meaning” in a second sense.  That of which, somethings simply mean “Nothing”.  Nihilism becomes a tool at this point.  It allows one to constrain their system of awareness/growth to a manageable realm.  Especially when applied to postmodernism.  Postmodernism (infinite meaning).  Bloats itself up to the grandiose level itself.  A sort of , I can recreate and apply new meaning to everything because the “Author is Dead”, and there is no Inherent Meaning!

Good luck with that, if one wishes to create from scratch, and Sui genesis.  By all means attempt to do so, but realize that if you’re playing this way.  Everyone else is too.  Why should I adopt your given meanings over my given meanings?  Thus remains relativism.

If you adhere to the relativistic mindset, you can’t change anything because you are paralyzed by the mere notion that all are equal in all senses.  Thus I have to put no stock into your “Truths”, and if you wish to violate another by imposing your truth upon them through force…well, you’re no longer Relativistic.  You are merely another tyrant.

Note:  This era is likely the “Great Leveling” that Kierkegaard feared, and the “Re-evaluation of all Values” that Nietzsche prophesied was coming back in the 1800’s upon hearing and thinking about the “American Experiment”, and Democracy.  Taken to the extreme, Democracy fails.  Even the Ancient Greeks knew this.

Advertisements

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 Crucified Lord.

(Building Upon: (The Light of Postmodernism, and Its Very Own Cave).  Point #10; One can buy into one Myth over another).

Christianity.  One word, but it means a lot to those in the know, and practice.  To me the very expression is complicated.  I fell out of religion when I was probably about 8-9 years old at the time.  The reason being, oldest brother railed hard, and I do mean hard against the dogmatism of the Catholic Church.  Thus up until my years in College, religion was simply a no-go for me.  I didn’t think about it, and it never really came across my plate.

And it was at this point in time, nearly 2010, when I was about 20 years old.  I was in the Deep South (Alabama), and peers were talking about Intelligent Design…nonstop.  Regardless of class (I kept hearing about it in Calculus at the time), I guess it was the rage at that time for people my age.  People where arguing about religion in bathroom stalls.  It struck a nerve with me, “why are we talking about God in the middle of a math class?”  God had ceased to exist for me at that point, but suddenly it was starting to be everywhere?!  I don’t know why either.

When I had a Facebook account, I had posted a “remark” in the quote section of my profile that essentially ran along the lines of; “The only idols we have are the one’s we place upon their pedestals.”  To deconstruct some of the thought behind that expression, one has to think like I did back then.  I had, and still have no “heroes” in Life.  I don’t have a role model, or an aspiration of who/what I want to become.  Simply because I know, and have experienced growing up that “heroes” fail…, big time, and it hurts when they do.

Thus, it only makes sense, and it still does to a degree.  That one shouldn’t operate under the “hero identification” modal.  Sure Elon Musk may be a “great” guy, or Steve Jobs, Obama,…Christ…whomever.  I’m not likely to know any of them.  Firsthand, nor secondhand.  And I really don’t care.  They aren’t going to impact my life in a manner that is more meaningful than I allow, or the effect on a societal scale.

There’s a book series called Dune, that in one perspective of reading delineates what happens when one falls into the mindset of “Hero Worship”.  They (said hero) loses touch of what is Real, and the Reality that made them.  Often leading to massive discord, and casualties in some sort of aggrandized scheme.  Ex;  Hitler was a hero to the German People post WW1, simple as that.

Now getting onto the point of this post, Christianity/Jesus.  There are many who have placed him in the Hero Pantheon simply because they grew up in it, and are cultivated to believe in it.  This is a myth, just like the “myth” of Hitler.  I don’t deny that both have been real people, just the narrative that has sprawled forth since their deaths are a myth.

An offensive analogy to make, I’m sure, but let’s add to it that title of the post; “The Crucified Lord”.  With said title, I was hoping to call up some new imagery of what Christianity could, or may be.  Christ was crucified, yes.  Crucifixion was a crime reserved for criminals in the Roman era.  The message of Christianity, is that he was the son of God, and he died upon the Cross for our sins.  Simple enough, right?

From there it gets contorted.  What sins have we wrought that are so grievous as to warrant a life of detachment, and punishment.  Some consider this mortal coil to be entirely base, and undesirable.  The sin of Knowing?  The Knowledge of Good, and Evil?  Sure, that seems like a good qualifier for a sin?  But as we can see firsthand in our world, right now.  Evil, and Good are bantered about as Relativistic Terms.  Your Good is not my Good.  Let us agree to disagree, right?  Acceptance, Tolerance….etc.

How long is it before someone yells, “NO QUARTER!”.  Well, we already have that effect going on today too!  The Far Left, and the Alt-Right, ring a bell?  Why can’t we simply agree that these beliefs are contextual?  That a person from Northern Minnesota has no problem driving on a lake (during winter) whereas to a person from the South.  That idea is completely alien, and utterly or nearly incomprehensible.  “Drive on water, do you mean boating?”…, “No I mean take your truck, and drive to your fish house…”….

Is this an alien concept?  Is it hard to wrap one’s mind around the notion that the house I go home to isn’t your home?  I don’t see this as any different, and yet…to some it is.  Why?  Do I need to buy into the myth that Jesus (or whatever doctrine) is going to provide me eternal life?  Isn’t that the greatest form of self-denial?  To deny one the Truth?  That as far as one knows, they are going to die regardless?  A person who says, or implies that Death is natural, and that there’s not much to do about it when it happens.  Immediately gets hammered with a notion that, “Oh, so you’re not going to connect to Others?”, or “You can’t live life that way, no sentiments…”.  How are you supposed to know?  Have you done it?  I’m not saying I don’t have a “higher ideal”, but it’s simply erroneous to goad/coerce others into following a doctrine that doesn’t work for them.

That is the casualties of an aggrandizing scheme.  Those bystanders who’d really prefer not to get caught up in the mix of ideological warfare.  From the same book, Dune, there’s a message that when it comes to leaders, it all boils down to who’s going to play/be God.

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.

Liberated Love

(For An Idealized Love & An Aged Romance)


Through hellish haze, and into the brambles of death.
I’ve walked, always faithful to you.
To the twilight hour, and the depth of despair.
Into the blackness of that lonesome void.


I have always held you in my breast, and bound in my heart.
It is now, that our time has come to briefly depart.
Only to be reunited, and forever reunited in the times to come.
I have lost faith, but you have shown it to me time and time again.


Never have I lost it in you, but always in myself.
This is always my finest hour, the moments in which I recover,
and struggle headlong into the fray of life.
To be redeemed, and made anew in the fires of Love.


To know always, that you will remain steadfast by my side,
as I by yours.
Neither Hell, nor High Water shall break our bonds,
and the dignity that we share.


You have chosen to honor my name, as I yours,
in every breath that passes through our lips.
We stand apart now if only for a passing instant,
but I know deep within the depths of my very being,
that this was never meant to be so.


We are always One, united in Love, Faith, and Charity.
Never turning a blind eye to each others failings,
but never casting a harsh blow in reprimand.
It has always been a gentle caress between us,
as it is meant to be so.


You are the captain of my soul, and I, your navigator.
Together we stand at the helm of Life, and direct our shared course.

Shadow Spectators, and Spectres of Shadow.

The dreams of the Lucid, and the ability to lucid dream.  May overlap to an extent, let us say that this Reality is nothing but a reflection of our will to an extent.  That we can, and have changed what is Real to suit our needs.  At the simplified levels, we do this through hands on interaction, like writing a blog post, or through creating some physical ware like a chair from a carpenter.  Drilling into the basics even further, what could be considered to actually be universally Real?

People argue daily about the shape of the Earth, is it flat, or is it a sphere?  So digging into this, there’s the notion that maybe the only thing that may be considered real is the notion that the “I” exists”.  That there is at least one observer within the system.  To avoid being rendered solipsistic in some sort of philosophical nightmare.  There is a “we”.  This “we” can stem from multiple sources, that may be chosen and/or considered by the reader.

The first is that the “Other”, the one an “I’ considers a “You”.  Is merely a fragment of their own psyche, that there’s only One True Universe.  The one in which I exist, and am the sole proprietor!  This doesn’t work out so well, for even if it is still a fragment.  It is still you.  This is one of the problems I see with the Big Bang Theory.  If we all came into existence from one discrete unit (one sole universe) we’d all be essentially the same person running through different timelines.  That there is no “Other”, and it is essentially just ourselves seeing ourselves from different perceptions.  This thought comes about through consideration that if all matter is the same, and consciousness is within the same matter, that there’s only a finite amount of “I’s”.  That there literally is just yourself, and the persona you chose to wear today.

The second thought is that there are multiple actors within the Universe, and it is essentially a proverbial giant “sandbox”, or Lego pit with multiple points of access.  That you have your own finite closet space (or your sandbox is only so big), and my sandbox is only so big too.  This is based on the prior thought where one is the “center of their creation/universe”.  Except the universe isn’t complete at that stage, it is still expanding to include other actors.  Thus the “universe” is really our cognitive space, and our awareness limit.  Combining our cognitive space with another, a meeting of minds so to speak, our universe/awareness expands to incorporate the same fundamental truths about them, as what we see within ourselves.

Ex;  If you see yourself as a human, you may have a bias to see things that are bipedal, and upright as a human.  Simply because that is what your cognition has set up as the definition of Human.  The more you’re exposed to different types of creatures, one begins to wonder if they too are just as sapient, or stupid as we are.

Further, let us make an assumption that the creatures that are shown in something like the Star Wars Cantina Scene;

Are potentially real aliens, at least in some reference frame.  The question is, is one willing to suspend disbelief in the charade that we are all semi-delusional, or that our realities are really not as concrete as we’re lead to believe?

That it is only what we bring to the table, cognitively speaking, that we’re able to understand?  That all our prior assumptions, and biases are built into our cognition until we start actively questioning why are we doing something?  This is all based off the thought of the Shadows in the Cave posted previously.  Who’s to say the shadows we are seeing are mutual shadows, or even the same shadow.  My concept of an alien may look completely different from your concept, and that’s where the fun begins.  Who’s to say my innate species, is the same species as yours?  Although at this time these thoughts are theoretical, and expansionist with attempts to broaden my perspective.

At the barest, if one person flew from one side of the world to the other, the culture is going to be completely different, and foreign.  How foreign?  It depends upon the baggage you’re carrying (metaphysically), and where you’ve been along with where you’ve went.

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.

 

Stepping Out of the Shadows, and Into the Light of the Flame (A Perceptual Test in Progress).

So here’s the thought, if we’re born ignorant of who we truly are, and what we perceive ourselves to be on a daily basis is an amalgamation of perspectives either from within/without.  Who are we really?  What would happen if one were to concretely say publicly, “THIS IS HOW I SEE MYSELF”!  Would there be rejoicing in the “community”?  Or would the person be considered a deviant in need of exile/punishment?

Let us take a step deeper, and say that we’re all shapeless, and formless ooze/matter/energy.  That our conscious perception of who we presently are is an old afterimage of someone elses’s imposed sense of self.  That reality doens’t need to be “Figured out”, it is merely a play thing, for us to amuse ourselves.  That everything we fear, and dread are constructs.  Just as much as everything we enjoy, and rejoice in.  That we are putty to mold to ourselves.

Taking a leap out onto a limb here, let us say further that we do need to define ourselves.  Both to ourselves, and to some social mirror of values.  How would one go about it?  Is safety an issue here?  Safety from what?  A “Stolen Identity”?  Why would that matter, the “Record” has been created for us without our say.  Isn’t it always the most opportune time to make ourselves who we are?

Let us start, I’m;

Bi-gender – I have no problem in living in either of the dominant human guises.  Female, nor male.  I see the human body as a vessel that may be sloughed off upon death, or desire.  This ties in with that part of Plato’s Republic that seems to have been overlooked/forgotten.  The part where a veteran soldier makes a comment that we can choose our bodies upon “death”, for our “next life”.  Thus I have many bodies, and changing them is like changing a shirt.

Ontological – I think that there is a state of Nothingness that exists before one realizes that they too didn’t exist until they realized that they do exist.  That it’s quite possible to divide 1 by 0, and have it equal 1 (1/0 = 1).  Mainly because these symbols are used to denote a shorthand process of logic.  That 1 divided by nothing is UN-operatable in classical logic, but that was a hand me down logic.  This logic is a “new formulation”.

Many Roles – Some of you may have seen me in life as a certain character, or from a certain point of view.  That is fine, but it may have been only in passing.  Apparently, Kant set up the Point of View that the Self is the Center of the Universe.  That we tell stories about ourselves, and about each other in a vast unwinding drama we call Life.

I have seen myself as Revan from the Knights of the Old Republic era, Geralt of Rivia, the Dragonborn, and other numerous personas.  These are masks that I may wear with a simple change, or they may be different narrations of events that have gone about through the elephant’s phone game of Life.

One person’s fiction may be another person’s reality.  Who’s to state what is what for certain in these postmodern times?  At one level, we are God’s Fiction, and God’s Reality.  Does that make our experiences any less real?

My memory carries over from Role to Role, and from Body to Body.  I never lose sense of who I am, nor where I’m at.  It is just this at the barest, and basest.  We are creating stories for ourselves, and others around us at all times.  Don’t strip the masks, put on a new one.  Accept one that is truly unique, and individualistic.  An Omniscient Mask.  A mask to unite all the masks, and roles that have been created for us.  We do not have to fight, and struggle for a part of Reality.  It is, and was gifted to us all.

It is up to us to accept, and acknowledge it.  We don’t have to play all the masks in this masquerade, for we are Non-player characters to some people, and those are the masks I refuse to wear/play.  If solely because they steal away my own agency.  Some may see me as disabled, or crippled, or insane… Schizophrenic by their book, but their book has created said role for me.  I don’t have to play it, nor enable it.  I just have to fulfill the part for now.

Let them see bodies, and nothing more hereafter.  For in the long run that’s how they see me, as a faceless casualty of Life.

Exodus 3:14, “I AM WHO I AM”, in essence.

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?

What Wouldn’t Jesus Do? (A personal response to: A Philosophy of Pain, Suffering, & Humiliation).

Be it far from me to truly, and fully know Jesus’s teachings faithfully.  I would like to speculate for a moment, for those amongst us that would often ask, “What would Jesus do” when given a life challenge, or situation that seems difficult.

Well, let’s look at this perspective from a “negative space” angle (borrowing a term/concept from Artistic pursuits for a moment).

From what little I honestly know of his creed, I will state, that I could possibly infer several factors that Jesus would likely adhere to (if you’re willing to suspend my lack of formal credentials as a imposition to belief).  Let us say from an obvious example that Jesus would distrust betrayal from those deemed friends.  Unless he learned/realized that such infliction of hardship is within a “master-plan” from a Holy Father/Mother (Whatever terminology one would use for a “Holy Lord” *(Lord being in this case non-gendered, as touchy as it is nowadays)).

Should a betrayal as Judas Isacroit(?) wrought be forgiven?  It is not my place to say, only Jesus and God would know the full, and proper response to that.  Be that as it may, I’d like to think that Jesus would offer a chance of redemption (Christian core belief).

I don’t think he’d voluntarily submit to needless suffering, suffice to say, because that is legitimately stupid, and pointless.

There’s a highly good chance he’d love everyone he could in whatever little way that he could do so to brighten their day, at that junction in time, so there’s that.

There’s also a strong chance that he may be lenient towards deviancy because well, honestly he was one of a lineage of deviants *(Moses fled from Egypt…deviant inference made).

There may also be a chance, really off hand, that he may attempt to make reparations to those that were previously unjustly wronged, and encourage a strong sense of Justice.  The Christian God is reknown for that.  A sense of mutable Justice.  Meaning Justice is an evolving thing, we are growing from our lessons in Life, and through God’s education.

*(Note that’s a really strong reason to believe in Christianity, for The God, is understanding, and will enact what is necessary to create a sense of Justice….including, but not always limited to his own son’s Sacrifice).

As far as I can tell, Christianity is a Growing, and Living Faith which is highly admirable.

At this point I must disclose that I feel more inline with a reformed Baltic Faith of some form (thus I may be a “Neo-Pagan” in some way, but I’m still searching…as far as that True Faith goes).  The reasoning being that I may, or may not believe in a “Family History” of “Religious Persecution” (Look up the Baltic Crusades).  Although, I’ll gladly admit that every day my Faith grows, but I don’t know in what way.  Thus I’ll firmly state I’m a devout Humanist, of a Christian Origin.

Note: Humanism is a Philosophy, Christianity is a Religion.  Things change daily for us all, and I’m devising my own “philosophy” as far as I can make sense of “my world” on a daily basis.  I like to consider my “personal taste of life” to be in line with a made up term called “Zen Stoicism”, for I find myself drawing upon inspiration from around the World.

1st Ethos;  It Happened, Deal With It.  2nd Ethos; A Disciplined Mind is a Happy Mind.  3rd Ethos; Change Happens, Accept It.

From here on, it’s all “fun n’ games” of some sort.  Unless something “Changes”…, so there’s that.