posted on Jul, 28 2017 @ 05:49 PM
There are basically two factions that seem to exist: both "gnostics", but of very different orientations.
Theres the leftist "pleromas" who are progressive - but asininely so. Most of their views are good, but then there are views that are so radically at
odds with instinctive and reflexive perceptual signs
that they begin to antagonize others in a very counter-productive way.
These are the liberal "tards" who, frankly, in their un-self-aware mindlessness, deserve to be experienced as "thought police" and "political
What is so irritating about them? It's actually quite logical and simple: the source of their "knowing" is an experience they've had. Being religious
and essentially subscribing to the idea of the ontological superiority of "revelation" over reason, they imply ignore all those semiotic cues which
arise within their experiences and which their gnostic world-hatred, or basic skepticism towards the semiosis of nature, puts them simply at odds
Now, of course, if we are to judge people by what they intend,
the gnostic "pleromas" mean well, even if many, if not most of them are
egotistical narcissists who subscribe to a viewpoint which affords them a philosophical/political doctrine which they've become far too-identified
with. What are these irritating doctrines, based in falsehood and metaphysical speculations? Most of them are hierarchy driven, and put together,
strike one as the meaningless nothingness of John Lennons "white world" of his "Imagine" music video.
Hetero-conformism. This view is probably one of the most obnoxious views that this cult produces. It says that it is morally wrong to
believe that natural or biological categories set anything in stone about a persons mental gender experience. Do you see the inherent, a priori
dualism? Gnosticism, in splitting the world down the middle, splits the humans mind from its semiotic tethering with others and the world. It is
always, and judging by the iconography of much of Christian history (though not all), fundamentally sadomasochistic, inasmuch as conditions seem to be
far too chaotic, moribund, and stagnant, for a new understanding of self to emerge. In any case, hetero-conforming is a ludicrous, anti-scientific
doctrine that is tendentious when its defenders imagine that have scientific evidence for a defense for it. The facts are simple: psychological
discontinuity in self-other experience, as in communication processes, can become severely malformed if the caretaker doesn't respond to the infants
cues for communication. Since connecting with others activates and energizes the infants brain-mind through affective dynamics, a brain that
experiences repeating disconnections with its environment will come to experience an "absence" in their experience of their bodies. Such absence, as
development unfolds, will become unconsciously transformed by the changing external (conscious) relations with the environment. As identity forms, and
values become implied, both sexual and gender identities can become warped such that the natural continuity between self and other becomes
interrupted. The mind doesn't feel "right" with its body. Ergo, the male may not feel right with its supposed "complement" - the female. Or,
conversely, the male may become directed by a different identification - again, working from the same discontuinity between mind/body, and this time
landing on a secret-wish to BE the Other. Again, the solution is a lie that is incompatible with the real semiotic construction of the state in
question. The brain continues to house the real trauma - the disconnect between mind/body, which is really just a stand-in for the disconnect between
self and other.
This is all brain science. The branch of neuropsychology dealing with trauma is based in something known as the polyvagal theory, which describes how
the brain-stem vagal complex, which ties autonomic brain-functioning with heart rate and breathing dynamics, becomes structured in early life in such
a way as to determine the "window of tolerance" for future perceptual, cognitive, and self-experience.
So heteroconformism is a ridiculously outlandish claim, which is why even as society continues to fall apart, and the LGBTQ movement is being treated
as the most important movement of all by the mainstream media, such coverage will only stimulate an anger in people with "traditional" values who
rightly recognize the wrongness of pretending natural categories aren't important or necessary to acknowledge.
In general, it is the fanaticism, the fact that these people have a priori convictions, and don't bother subjecting themselves to reasoned
debates, that makes this position - this cult - fundamentally dissociative i.e. ignoring that which doesn't want to be recognized.
On the other end of the Gnosticism spectrum lies the nihilists. Unlike the pleromas, they don't have an end-goal based in Hindu or Christian fantasy.
This website, of course, seems to largely cater to people of this position. They are mostly people with harsh histories and difficult early-life
environments, and so hence, the harshness of their viewpoint on life.
The political right represents these people, and like those on the left, some on the right are religious fanatics with their own version of the
"imminentization of the eschaton" (a term coined by Eric Voegel). The Bushes, I wouldn't be surprised, are a part of this crowd. This may, in fact, be
regarded as the establishment religion for some people (mostly protestants). What about the alt-right, though? Aren't the "bohemian grove" people
against them? Since webspinning apparently is a big deal for these people, and web-spinning, or considering "arachne" superior to "Athena" (in
mythological terms), it wouldn't be surprising that some sort of conspiring could be going on, however treacherous it would be to prove.
Nevertheless, I don't see the meltdown in the whitehouse or the disconnect between people to be a conspiracy, but just a function of human idiocy -
short sightedness, and lack of understanding of how short and large scale dynamics interact. People who grow in different worlds and around different
people see things differently. Does Scaramucci really hate Reince Priebus and Steve Bannon? Its plausible. Bannon and Priebus are members of a
different culture from Trump, so I could see Trump favoring the guy who reminds him more of himself, and likewise for Scaramucci. Thus, people
"naturally" differentiate one another, and so, the ability to plan and/or manipulate world events isn't perfect, even though people may be trying, it
seems more likely that this is just one-big-clusterphuck of a process that is based in idealization and dissociation - where people think they can
"have it both ways", even though such a difficult juggling act would require a meta-cognitive self-structure that intimately knows itself and so can
prevent violent internal conflicts motivated by hubris.
Alas, the greeks knew themselves well enough to predict the consequence of their system: tragedy.
I love much about the western world, but its love-hate relationship with meaning, constraints, and responsibility, is something that needs to be
clarified and rectified if our world is going to profit from the spoils of technological civilization.
edit on 28-7-2017 by Astrocyte because:
(no reason given)