The Delusuion of Strength

It's deeply ironic that the person who coined the term 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger' - Friedrich Nietzsche - was in fact mentally obliterated by a disease that arose a a function of his own promiscuity.

Why do people do this? That is - why was Friedrich Nietzsche both a) so bothered by Judeo-Christian morality and b) so motivated to pursue a philosophy associated for millennia with the imperialist elite class?

In his book, "How Propaganda Works", the Yale philosopher Jason Stanley tries to grapple (from a cognitivist perspective) with the way elites in every generation 'recreate' the myth of their own legitimacy through the generation of a way of a seeing things that necessarily filters out knowledge that may undermine their beliefs (about their power).

This view is true - but being a cognitivist view, it leaves out the dynamical realities of what is happening, and what is occurring within their crazy-little-heads, simply as a function of ecology and what happens when Humans being scaffold the sort of world we see today.

Let me say quite simply: there is no epistemological 'threshold' for a perennial satanist who has committed himself to a life of doing the opposite of what would be instinctively suggested. My theory of human self-organization positions "being positively known" as the bar - the intrinsic teleodynamic 'standard', the sine-quo-non of the Human beings self-organization - which our organism passes through in each and every moment of our existing, and so, consider the following thought experiment with me, and lets explore psychologically (as well as neurologically) what happens when two types of human beings interact.

First, these two chart will need to be consulted to appreciate the value of the following thought-experiment:



Because we our cognitive creatures with minds that know (that it knows) and who reflexively use language to communicate different levels of needs, the mental, or representative level (language, ideas, concepts) can be dissociated from the physical, and affective level. This is problematic because the lower level is the ultimate determining force for behavior, which means a human being can have an identity state (defined as a way of organizing social-cognitive meaning) that is defending against the presence of an affective state. Furthermore, because people who hang out or socialize our structural 'convergent' i.e. the very basis of their being compatible with one another is a function of convergences in meaning and interpretation - these false higher level identity states can be buttressed simply through the force of being 'positively known'.

Thus, say the elite belief in the power of evil - as communicated by Trumps chief strategist, Steve Bannon:

“Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That’s power. It only helps us when they—get it wrong. When they’re blind to who we are and what we’re doing,

achieves its status as being "true" merely as a function of the elation, pleasure and success it affords the people at the top who want to maintain the material (and epistemic) advantages they have over others. The final point - epistemic, is strongly intimated by Betsy Devos, whose recent hearing shows what sort of temerity animates the mind of a Human being which subscribes to this 'higher level' meaning. In Devos' head, we may interpret every utterance of her interrogators, such as senator Tim Kaine, as being 'fed through' her own conscious (most likely) or unconscious (less likely) commitment to an elitist philosophy which arrogates to itself the sole right of determining what is 'true' - and so, regardless of what any science or philosophy - or reality - has to say, the epistemological ignorance (i.e. lack of a legitimate education) of Betsy Devos allows her the phenomenological freedom to talk with a gleefulness that starkly contradicts the reality of the world we collectively inhabit (this is related to her remark about guns and grizzly bears). A person who doesn't care about what you think or know as a function of your capacity to be coherent will act if you do not have said capacity - and what else would such a state produce bu anger? We humans simply work through social-processes - and so if other people who-are-like-us affirm our bad actions, any vitality or pleasure in living that is felt is a FUNCTION of those relationships - and not the truth or intrinsic value of the propositions about reality itself.

This disparity between reality and belief - between the mythologem of gnosticism, for example, and biodynamical social reality - is perfectly explicable as a function of dissociation: a primate with an advantage over his conspecifics will delude themselves as to the causative forces behind their success. This, in effect, goes to show how the environment 'out there', has become internalized as an environment 'in here'. The world inside of us - or reflexive ways of interpreting or making sense of the world - our there to regulate our affective processes.



The left and right sides of the above chart describe two sorts of societies, with a description of how the unconscious and conscious mind becomes organized - with positive experiences of self-with-other being the determining dimension - an intrinsically intersubjective vector. If the society emphasizes competition above nurturing, it will move in an authoritarian dimension, and so the 'powerful' authoritarian identity structure will animate conscious dynamics, with the unconscious dynamics being the consequences-for-self that have been either explicitly observed or implicitly (dissociatively) experienced. Point is: the culture determines the flow of affective processes, which means, how the social-world is interpreted by the organism, and so what kind of dynamical-structure emerges within the brain.

A Thought Experiment

John is a cop, and being a cop, he hangs out with other cops who constantly enact their own need to be strong and tough. John's social world teaches John how to self-organize, which can be shown in the following vignette:

John is tasked with calling people to ask for donations to an important police charity. When John is given an explanation by the owner of the house for why they can't give money, John hangs up, experiencing their explanations with irritation, John - as well many other cops at the station - share stories with one another about their intolerance for people who go into long-winded explanations for why they can't give money. John has no tolerance for it, and pridefully describes his response to how he acts - not recognizing that he is cultivating within his brains dynamics his own recursive higher-order relationship to a particular situation - without any recognition of the motivating behavior behind the response. This behavior is dissociative, because it doesn't acknowledge what sort of feelings underlie John's response.

Think about it. When someone calls your house asking for money, and the house owner tries to explain why they can't give money, the person on the latter end is put into a situation of vulnerability: in being propitiated for money, he is already being accosted by the feeling of guilt for not being able to contribute to what they would otherwise like to - and so their explanation, or attempt at an explanation, is for the purpose of seeking the caller - the other human involved in this interaction - to understand the conflict they are being put into

when people call asking for money. Thus, the householder is actually seeking to make clear the reasonable feelings they have - and so, seek to make clear to the caller (the one seeking money) to take them off their calling list so they wont be put in this undesirable situation again.

If we take John's actions, and put it through the filter of the above diagram, we can see that Johns mentality - or "mental phenotype" - places an apathetic and inconsiderate self-state into conscious awareness when the other party begins to seek being known.

This is interesting, as the empathetic act can oftentimes be experienced by people strongly identified with a "strong identity" state - a chauvinistic state - with aggression, apathy, or derision, because the self has come to identify certain emotions as having the power to elicit negative feelings of self. That is, when we act, we often have this 'double' motivation: the pleasure, or reward, of identifying with a state and experiencing the affirmative familiarity it has for us (affirmative because it affirms our existing social relations); on the other hand is the 'shadow side', or the implicitly feared state - i.e. the state implicitly known by the self, and implicitly related to within its phenomenology whenever experiences like this occur.

The nihilist is not hard to explain: in fact, we all have little 'nihilists' in us from time to time, particularly if we interface with particular cultures (as I often do). The nihilist is light-hearted and prone to affirm the feedback it has of its own embodied experience as 'invulnerable'. This feedback - how we feel to be in our bodies in the presence of others', is a structruing element - constantly being 'updated' and 'charged' by the implicit awareness we have of our own power.

The epistemological flaw - and idiocy - of this position is that we are AFFORDED by our environments with every thing we think and feel - and so, there is actually no 'external' place - no 'godhead- to perch from, from which we can honestly and effectively insist that we are 'beyond' being affected.

The Dalai Lama, a man schooled in the deepest mysteries of Tibets belief systems, has come to a more epistemologically honest perspective by acknowledging that he doesn't know if some of Tibets traditions are true - only that they have served their role in helping support some of the noblest goals of Tibetan society. What the Dalai Lama is genuinely bothered by is the transformation that many monks undergo when they are being tortured: they begin to experience themselves REFLEXIVELY interpreting the behavior of antagonistic others as something they can't control: as the buddhists say, you can't control the first arrow, but the second, you can. Well, it turns out that being subjected to torture causes you to lose your proficiency in controlling any arrow: a body being disrespected both in its nutritional needs - but also, and even more painfully, its social needs - begins to reflexively reflect the relations they are experiencing.

Look at Charlie Sheen or others who believe in their own invulnerability - a belief hard to shake when so many other people in your power-obsessed social world believe it. It can be hard to disabuse yourself of it - because changing your beliefs means CHANGING YOUR FRIENDS i.e. your source of enlivenment. A difficult, and for many people, an impossible task.

Quite the psychological study. Reminds me of Michael Tsarion saying the current state of events in the world is just a reflection of the inner psyche of man. You don't find maggots and crows feeding in a tea garden, you find them on a decaying, putrid corpse.

"As above so below"

Nietsche was actually quite shy with women. It was his predilection for prostitutes which led to syphilis has there's was a straight up deal, no mind games or deception. Just wam, bam, thank you ma'am!

originally posted by: Astrocyte
It's deeply ironic that the person who coined the term 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger' - Friedrich Nietzsche - was in fact mentally obliterated by a disease that arose a a function of his own promiscuity.

I am not getting the irony.
So, he said, "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger!" and he caught syphilis from a hooker and it didn't make him stronger.
Is that really irony?
Is he a hypocrite for having said that and caught that?
Eventually what.. kills you, kills you, but much makes you stronger...

Why do people do this? That is - why was Friedrich Nietzsche both a) so bothered by Judeo-Christian morality and b) so motivated to pursue a philosophy associated for millennia with the imperialist elite class?

I'm seeing your confusion arising from your assumption that he/we have free-will/choice.
That we can 'chose' to live according to some accepted philosophy, or whatever.
The Reality is that we do not have such magical ability, who and what we are, our Nature, manifests itself every unique moment of existence.
Killers will kill, healers will heal, and a moment later, switch...
He didn't pursue a philosophy, he got himself laid, because he was horny.
Very simple 1+1...

John is tasked with calling people to ask for donations to an important police charity. When John is given an explanation by the owner of the house for why they can't give money, John hangs up, experiencing their explanations with irritation, John - as well many other cops at the station - share stories with one another about their intolerance for people who go into long-winded explanations for why they can't give money.

John called me a couple days ago and I just hung up on him.
How dare someone trespass into my private space to panhandle me! *__-

I just hang up when they ask for money.

"When someone calls your house asking for money, and the house owner tries to explain why they can't give money, the person on the latter end is put into a situation of vulnerability: in being propitiated for money, he is already being accosted by the feeling of guilt for not being able to contribute to what they would otherwise like to - and so their explanation, or attempt at an explanation, is for the purpose of seeking the caller - the other human involved in this interaction"

I believe that the most common reaction is either support, if you believe in the cause or outright refusal without any explanation (not that any is required)

Why should anyone feel guilty for not contributing, even if they would like to do so but can't?

a reply to: JD163

True. Some people are sufficiently disconneced from the effects of their actions for others to not experience a 'conscientious' state like guilt. Guilt is a function of an unconscious dynamic between two self-states, or beliefs. For instance, I may be very interested in helping people or a charity, but when not able to do it, I want to explain to myself why I can't do it - and the Human being tends to do that through conversations with others. I thus seek to explain to you why I can't do it to control the subtle feelings which drive me to not want to give money.

Point being, a person who makes an effort to communicate like this is attempting to increase awareness inter-subjectively, so that the sort of factors which make people unable to give money can be known to the person in question.

To give you an example of a difference in processing experiences like this. My sister actually had the above situation happen to her. I on the other hand, like you, find myself able to end conversations like this because of a lack of sensitivity in me to the issue at hand. This lack of sensitivity, mind you, is money-based: I don't have money to give, therefore there is no point for me to even carry on in this conversation. Yet, I can also acknowledge that there is room for improvement here: I can be more considerate than I typically am.

People just need to be real about how they act: we very rarely recognize the unconscious source for our behaviors, and the only way to improve upon this condition is to become aware i.e. educate yourself as to those myriad factors which influence the organization of our motivations, such as the experiences we've had, how they've affected us (against species typical attractors) and following this sort of explanation every Human being can be 'slotted' into some situation of unresolved and unprocessed delusion - fantasies, wishes, which serve to protect us against negative feelings. Furthermore, these ways-of-believing are socially learned i.e. assimilated into brain-mind functioning for the purpose of FUTURE adaptability i.e. to better predict how to self-organize, and thus make your own self-experience coherent.

My present project - what I am doing and have been doing for 5 or 6 years now, is to attempt to fix the human sciences so that the political sciences of our day reflect the best science, which I define as an approach to explaining Human behavior in terms of existing principles that precede the existence of the Human being, i.e in origin of life studies - a bophysical science - which ultimately speaks to the complex phenomena of adaptive systems.

The amount of delusion which capitalism - and elitism - and the obsession with power - has sowed in the social sciences and the bio-anthropological sciences - in even providing some blanket justification for present elite behavior i.e. such as in the contemporary obsession with the 'machiavellian political mind', itself based up on the shockingly inaccurate 'selfish gene' theory - derives from the social input of a pre-existing aristocratic culture among elite - aristocratic in the assumption that they are possessors of the correct knowledge - and so naturally the emphasis in the sciences was 'competition' and 'geneology' - not how the organism works, which is itself a source of incredible awe: no - the focus was on coming to make sense of how elites were better and 'naturally selected' over the common people.

Reality, of course, has shown utterly impoverished this philosophy is. Non-African humans are more genetically alike than
any two groups within the mitochondrial 'haplotypes' of Africans - basically whats known as L0, L1, and L2. he L3 haplotype - originating in the Bantu people of southern Africa, and possessed by Semites and semi-semites, is what the majority of Human beings derive from.

Elitism is not a philosophy with any basis in biological reality. At the very most, perennial elites may be severely psychologically unstable - and so on an fMRI it may not be surprising to find greater bi-lateralization of the hemispheres i.e. if there is no effort to attune and make coherent meaning of the signals of others - and if the selfs interests begins to take precedence over a mutual and reciprocal society of self-other equivalence, then perennial elites may have a brain that is structrually different, simply because the social-environment they constantly manipulate affords the material and epistemic advantages they maintain from one generation to the next. The individual self does not make a consistent effort to makes its relations with others reasonable and just.

The problem with this philosophy - in light of climate change, and what it means in terms of the limits of growth, because we exist within a bounded system (a planet) - is that it necessarily relies upon extraction i.e. exploitation, of others, to bring about their enlivenment. Materialism is not in-itself problematic: whats problematic is the subjugation of a relationship that means more (human relations) to the desire to claim ownership, control or power over some system as a way to enrich the self.

In short, people who don't share come to HATE sharing, and come to experience people who speak like me - with hatred, annoyance, cynicism, or apathy. My words constitute a "threat" to their coherency system - and their system will pre-consciously filter out my intended meaning because thats how we work: our brain filters our conflictual information so as to 'set up' coherency.

a reply to: AtheAlmightyOne

and thus avoiding the education - and mental coherency - which comes with learning to live, love and accept the presence and value of others.

a reply to: namelesss

Is that really irony?

Yes. Its a contradiction. If I claim a) suffering, makes me b) stronger, and then I get syphilis from having sex with prostitutes (never mind what that says about my relationship to the other sex) and then the syphilis makes me sick, and I don't get better because syphilis is neurogenerative in its later stages - it proves the point: we do not inhabit a reality in which we can make claims like this, because the strength we feel is a function of a web of relationships that are unconsciously transformed by our bodies homeodynamics into the mental stream we experience from one moment to the next.

Nietzsche was EPISTEMOLOGICALLY NAIVE - as is anyone else so unfortunate not to realize or understand the point I'm making.

But that's the more general point: Nietzsche was a dualist - or at least thought that we could cultivate disparate and contradictive ways of being without any 'leakage' or self-delusion. He didn't understand that we are a dynamical system - and he couldn't see that because the sophistication of this philosophical perspective required the further development of the sciences.

As many people have noted, we are ruled by Humans with a 17-18th century epistemology. They have not revised their views in light of the evidence from the sciences.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: JD163

True. Some people are sufficiently disconneced from the effects of their actions for others to not experience a 'conscientious' state like guilt. Guilt is a function of an unconscious dynamic between two self-states, or beliefs. For instance, I may be very interested in helping people or a charity, but when not able to do it, I want to explain to myself why I can't do it - and the Human being tends to do that through conversations with others. I thus seek to explain to you why I can't do it to control the subtle feelings which drive me to not want to give money.

Point being, a person who makes an effort to communicate like this is attempting to increase awareness inter-subjectively, so that the sort of factors which make people unable to give money can be known to the person in question.

To give you an example of a difference in processing experiences like this. My sister actually had the above situation happen to her. I on the other hand, like you, find myself able to end conversations like this because of a lack of sensitivity in me to the issue at hand. This lack of sensitivity, mind you, is money-based: I don't have money to give, therefore there is no point for me to even carry on in this conversation. Yet, I can also acknowledge that there is room for improvement here: I can be more considerate than I typically am.

People just need to be real about how they act: we very rarely recognize the unconscious source for our behaviors, and the only way to improve upon this condition is to become aware i.e. educate yourself as to those myriad factors which influence the organization of our motivations, such as the experiences we've had, how they've affected us (against species typical attractors) and following this sort of explanation every Human being can be 'slotted' into some situation of unresolved and unprocessed delusion - fantasies, wishes, which serve to protect us against negative feelings. Furthermore, these ways-of-believing are socially learned i.e. assimilated into brain-mind functioning for the purpose of FUTURE adaptability i.e. to better predict how to self-organize, and thus make your own self-experience coherent.

My present project - what I am doing and have been doing for 5 or 6 years now, is to attempt to fix the human sciences so that the political sciences of our day reflect the best science, which I define as an approach to explaining Human behavior in terms of existing principles that precede the existence of the Human being, i.e in origin of life studies - a bophysical science - which ultimately speaks to the complex phenomena of adaptive systems.

The amount of delusion which capitalism - and elitism - and the obsession with power - has sowed in the social sciences and the bio-anthropological sciences - in even providing some blanket justification for present elite behavior i.e. such as in the contemporary obsession with the 'machiavellian political mind', itself based up on the shockingly inaccurate 'selfish gene' theory - derives from the social input of a pre-existing aristocratic culture among elite - aristocratic in the assumption that they are possessors of the correct knowledge - and so naturally the emphasis in the sciences was 'competition' and 'geneology' - not how the organism works, which is itself a source of incredible awe: no - the focus was on coming to make sense of how elites were better and 'naturally selected' over the common people.

Reality, of course, has shown utterly impoverished this philosophy is. Non-African humans are more genetically alike than
any two groups within the mitochondrial 'haplotypes' of Africans - basically whats known as L0, L1, and L2. he L3 haplotype - originating in the Bantu people of southern Africa, and possessed by Semites and semi-semites, is what the majority of Human beings derive from.

Elitism is not a philosophy with any basis in biological reality. At the very most, perennial elites may be severely psychologically unstable - and so on an fMRI it may not be surprising to find greater bi-lateralization of the hemispheres i.e. if there is no effort to attune and make coherent meaning of the signals of others - and if the selfs interests begins to take precedence over a mutual and reciprocal society of self-other equivalence, then perennial elites may have a brain that is structrually different, simply because the social-environment they constantly manipulate affords the material and epistemic advantages they maintain from one generation to the next. The individual self does not make a consistent effort to makes its relations with others reasonable and just.

The problem with this philosophy - in light of climate change, and what it means in terms of the limits of growth, because we exist within a bounded system (a planet) - is that it necessarily relies upon extraction i.e. exploitation, of others, to bring about their enlivenment. Materialism is not in-itself problematic: whats problematic is the subjugation of a relationship that means more (human relations) to the desire to claim ownership, control or power over some system as a way to enrich the self.

In short, people who don't share come to HATE sharing, and come to experience people who speak like me - with hatred, annoyance, cynicism, or apathy. My words constitute a "threat" to their coherency system - and their system will pre-consciously filter out my intended meaning because thats how we work: our brain filters our conflictual information so as to 'set up' coherency.

That is some really deep stuff, and tbh I think you might be over thinking just a little?

You got me in a tailspin, thats for sure,....I get the idea that you somehow feel that by not explaining you are somehow guilty of some bad juju karma? And to restore balance back in the universe the only honorable action is to give a 2 hour lecture on why you would if you could, but you can't so so shan't?

Emmm, are you not presuming that the caller is

1) interested
2) have the time to spare
3) That maybe, just maybe the caller would prefer to attempt more calls, so that , emm ...fund raiser?
4) If your instinct originally is not to drag a simple call into a life crisis hotline, and that cop in your story obviously rolls that way......how do you see that forcing yourself to do the unnecessary due to perceived guilt over some imaginary sense of duty and forcing someone to pretend to be interested is an improvement? You start of with a win/win,.....but you went all ....fk that sh!t, lets just FUBAR the FK outta this situation..

I really don't get it bruh

I've been attracted to violence all my life because I don't TRUST you people to include family. I had to do it MYSELF so THAT is how I did what I thought would be a good fit.Nuke family NOT one would be with the other,COLD as hell .
All the good stuff.
Absent depression era parents in the next room,brother somewhere ,sister the same,in and out of ALL the Mental professions because NO HUMAN on the planet could tell me why I couldn't perform math ,earning unending calls that it was my fault, GUESS what that did?
Strength was a BY product a TOOL to be an Army Scout.
I was good at and it is a source of pride that I was successful. from a couch potato stoner..which I am retiring as (MEDICALLY my question is this:
CAN a BIRTH defect in the left lower brain do that?( I have it but it's an alien language IT ONLY killed math and nothing else).

The thing is intentional oppressing is a lesser act,NOW it's HIDDEN behind generations of lies and deceit,but the individual soldier is hardly service to self.When YOU will NOT leave when your hand is blown off that isn't any position of strength or power it's HUMAN AFFECTION.
YET the most DEADLY men on the planet are the nicest people.
I actually REALLY know an SF guy who is also a ninja, he's a medical professor now.
HE'S like a KID
Where as I am dark yet sane according to my VA Dr..

originally posted by: Astrocyte
As many people have noted, we are ruled by Humans with a 17-18th century epistemology.

There has never been any good Universal all inclusive definition of 'knowledge', until Now!

They have not revised their views in light of the evidence from the sciences.

Have you?

The resolution of 'epistemology';

The new, critically updated, all inclusive, Universal definition of 'Knowledge'; "'Knowledge' is 'that which is perceived', Here! Now!!"
All inclusive!
That which is perceived by the unique individual Perspective is 'knowledge'.
All we can 'know' is what we perceive, Now! and Now! and Now!!!
'Ignorance' is that which is NOT perceived, at any particular moment, by any particular unique Perspective! Here! Now!

Nietzsche was EPISTEMOLOGICALLY NAIVE - as is anyone else so unfortunate not to realize or understand the point I'm making.

Trumpish logic?
"If you do not see my point, you are a (fill in the blank)?"
Your ad-hom statement is philosophically naive.

My theory of human self-organization positions "being positively known" as the bar - the intrinsic teleodynamic 'standard', the sine-quo-non of...

"If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle them with jargon!" *__-
What, exactly, means "positively known", as you mean it (especially as I don't think that you had a good definition of Knowledge before this post)?

We do it to ourselves and we have help and encouragement to do it and continue on doing it to others...

What exactly is it we do to ourselves? We keep inheriting and accepting the inheritance of those that came before us... this is an inevitabiity; right here right now is a culmination of all life that has ever lived.

Whats more is it is only here is because it was dependent on what has lived; that it continues as far as life goes? The same... we are as life dependent on life itself to live. If all life except humanity was exhausted we would literally cannibalize; humanity already ideologically cannibalizes each other and has been for thousands and thousands of years... in the idea that there can only be one make believe character responsible for all of everything; when we as life itself are the ones responsible for life itself.

Matter and energy are present everywhere in the entire all of everything known and unknown... consciousness itself animates with a purpose. Of course, ideologically we try to give and set a purpose to others not oneself... of course there is an illusion of choice; of purpose. Society ideologically demands a purpose to fall within excepted frame works... yet believe in framesworks that do not exist, and then demand society live by or at least with the make believe framework.

Communism said no to religion booted it right on out; seeing it as poison and a corruption of government and reality, as it vying for power kept undermining what the people actually needed from government as a reality. All belief aside; it moved just as ideologically mechanical in stamping out such a thing, as well the crusades did in destroying anything not Christian, same as Muslim ideologies etc. for thousands and thousands of years now.

So what is the difference when they all end up doing the same thing... one belief based and one reality based? Both have a purpose both give people a purpose. So obviously none. Reality or make believe still move and operate the same way as a group when moving towards ideological purposes.

Government being in the middle, of citizens of the state and those of the world.

Not splitting hairs? All citizens of the world; first and foremost. Of course; many will likely disagree... but that only goes back to what I said earlier: "We keep inheriting and accepting the inheritance of those that came before us..." obvious that the whole world is involved in that... Despite any inherited fealty to whatever statehood one was born into. Some call it culture, some call it patriotism etc. whatever the case... it is an inheritance; because all of this "knowledge" including all the negatve bias etc. was here when we got where ever it is we were born.

It is circular and we do keep going round and round; knowledge is knowledge... all of it the same. Ignorance is simply unawareness, unconscious.

Many people live unconsciously, but to have life it must have consciousness right? So it loops back around... if knowledge is knowledge; it is simply a subject, something to study and observe and understand. For that to even occur there has to be awareness. Conscious of it or unconscious of it in any sort? Matters not as when one observes life one can see... conscious action and unconscious action, hear... conscious words, unconscious words, taste... consciously or just shoveling it in unconsciously.

So what is the difference? Awareness... but the mind ruminating on the external internally with the mind or world of thoughts; instead of with the eye, the ear, the mouth etc? unconscious. Because it is unaware of what should be the focus... that is what the unconscious is, subconscious is the memory of all that was taking place and not fully conscious of it... because the mind was engaged somewhere else.

The mind has caused us to lose our five senses... where has it gone? Into the mind or sixth sense itself. It goes into labeling, judging, evaluating, discriminating, thinking about thinking itself... discusively discussing everything taking place with some inner dialog. Even when some people are not even aware of the inner dialog taking place... oh yes, but I was listening.

Cognitive dissonance is an unconscious mind on auto-pilot, doing and reacting to input over and over by the same script it has taught itself and lives by... the self being expressed as a script of habitual programming that not only others have taught ourselves but we have too by simply having to cope with others...

Herd animals? Scavengers is more accurate; we have contrived labels for every single thing in contact in many different languages... we invent and make use of every single thing we possibily can as well as exploit every single last thing that was here when we got here down to the smallest grains of sand: concrete, poop gets called fertilizer, electron guns shooting at sh!t seeing what it does... hunting seeking scavenging off of everything.

We are entropy itself... the mind is driven or taught to do this and it has been and will continue to come at the cost of all life until there is no possible way for it to exist any longer. Even if we managed to wrangle ourselves into android or robot bodies... we would still run ourselves under the same programs that we do now.

When is there an end to such madness? When one sits down and just stops. Classic meditation, stops what? That 6th sense running around groping all over any and everything it comes into contact with like a scanner, judging or computing it's value or worth against some self and other chosen ideology... we want to make excuses for all we do: morals and ethics.

Some think them the same thing; they are not. Easy divide? Ethically, no one has any right over another human beings body in any way shape or form without consent. Morally, humas think they have a right over anothers body or life consent or not. That's the difference; ethically no man has any right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body, morally that seems to be all men have done to women for thousands of years majoritively over the course of humanity.

Why classical meditation of stop? It shows that you do not even have control over oneself... so if one can not accomplish complete control over themself? Pretty unreasonable assumption and expectation; that they should even think that they have any right or authority to control another. Of course when one practices long and hard enough and gains complete control over themself? What do you think the side effect is? The last thing they would want to do... is control another.

What would one think such a person would want to help others with? Realizing that trying to control anything and everything not oneself; is a futility... we keep trying in our groping, scanning and judgement of value, to find something permanent and lasting... but once we have something that makes us happy it fades, we think oh it is because of this that or other, when that is just more groping, scanning and judgment when the feeling of happiness, sadness, love or hate arose within oneself... but nope it has to arise from out there somewhere.

The labels can be universal in meaning, even if all laguages became one language... but to the individual perciever? Not universal, the reasoning is that attachment to that 6th sense... that external that has been internalized, same as computers used to require a disk to operate; programming.