posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 04:25 PM
I sometimes wonder, given my preference for science and detail over mysticism and wishfulness, what would be the physical correlates of "the dark
side" and the "good side"?
The question sounds weird especially when it is posed from a "top-down" perspective - as the whole idea of imagining we have absolute meaning of the
structure of reality appears incredibly presumptuous. For example, my computer is currently making a rumble right now - rumbling like it was running
in a particular way i.e. as a function of how computers work. No higher meaning here - the computer doesn't "fit" within any higher dimensionality
- at least none which science is anywhere understanding.
Ok - you may say I choose an artificial/technological example. Fine. There is a feather moving through the wind, a rock which flows along a river, a
cloud which flits in the sky: what is the meaning for all this movement? None. There is no meaning that can be discerned, and to imagine there is is
to give preference and priority to magical speculation - speculation that can go in thousands of different ways depending on the mind which conceives
Herein lies the trouble, I think, with ascribing meaning to those parts of existence which lie beyond our linear-understanding: it seems totally
subjective. I mean this, btw, in the worse possible way: things which are subjective are basically untruths - lies. Of course, from the perspective of
the actor who prefers lies over truth, there is a "truth" in needing to believe what you believe, and there is also a truth that the person who
interacts with such a person needs to understand the nature of this persons quandary. But even here, in this position I've just described, lies an
objective fact: we are creatures which operate through symmetry dynamics, which is to say, when one person understands another person in the way that
the latter person needs, it feels good. Feeling good is always related to some form of symmetry, even if it is sub-optimal. The symmetry in
question here is brain synchronization, where what you do and what I do are "correlated" by processes within our brains, atop of which our
perceiving, conscious minds emerge. Affect and feeling, remember, always forms the ground of our being, and so always underlies the decisions we make.
Objective sciences say this is so, even if the subjective conscious mind, for instance, the mystically inclined mind, might imagine that its "will"
is above its behavior, that is just mystical fantasy - fantasy made worse by doctrines like the sephiroth which place "will" above emotion - as a
metaphysical system, and a way of conceptualizing reality through the adults "sense" of the different gradations of self-experience, an adult
nevertheless always operates through the existing dynamics of a brain that emerged way before its consciousness came forth. As I say, this has to do
with "what motivates you" to begin with. Fear, or love?
Geezelouis wrote a thread lamenting the sometimes quixotic attitude that "trauma is good for growth", but my feeling is that humans tend to
exaggerate that - starting, it seems, with Nietzsches phrase "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". No, unfortunately - this is just not so.
Nietzsche, again, was telling lies he himself needed to believe: sometimes trauma just f*cks you up worse, given that it becomes a part of your
brain-wiring, and no matter how much "emotion" exists, it can never seem to 'get at' those parts of our experience that preceded our conscious
knowing. Indeed, it seems to me that people with seriously traumatic early-life experiences with others seek to completely escape the physical world
all-together to find their peace - which is eminently understandable, given the physical world has been recorded by their brain to be a dangerous,
unsafe, and threatening place. Escaping existence, moving back into the "void" of paradise (which only seems paradisiacal to the person who hates
existing) seems to me a sad thing - as connecting, growing, and being with others is genuinely more enlivening than anything else.
Why do so many people think they "know" the nature of existence? Some people here deride the science I sometimes bring forth as evidence, as if
anything else could exist towards the goal of building up true objective knowledge.
In any case, hubris, or narcissism, seems to be a relational state that derives from a state of deficiency, as Abraham Maslow recognized long ago. The
mind which "pushes far", or seeks to undo or undermine the way reality works, only does so because he is acting from states that lie beyond his
accessible perception: he has constructed walls within himself, or others have constructed walls for him - and these walls, in being metaphors for
dissociation of feelings, meanings, and memories, are so scary, so destabilizing, that the "will" simply hides from it - hides as if the walls are
genuinely stable structures - structures that will always be there for the person to protect them - as if the waters wont grow, and the self, one day,
be too weak to withstand the force of the waters that come rushing forth upon them.
I would build a great wall, and no one builds walls better than me, believe me, and I'll build them very inexpensively" - Donald Trump
When I first read this quote, I laughed-out-loud, because I knew exactly what Trump was talking about - as if he himself is quite aware at how
delusionally out-of-touch he is with the Others' he relates with.
The great wall-builder feels like wall-building is a useful process - but I am skeptical that anyone really wants to build walls: rather, the concept
of wall-building only appears desirable to people who feel they need to place up walls to get away from something they don't like: whether it be
invaders of the outside world, or the inside world i.e. feelings/memories which dysregulate self-experience.
The thing, I have noticed, about life, is that perspective is everything, but that perspective needs to be understood not as a subjective singularity,
but as an objective interaction, or interface, between one thing and another thing: perspective is what makes an experience seem heaven-like, or
hell-like. Perspective is what allows us to feel in control, alive, and strong (full-of-will) or, conversely, it makes us feel completely
out-of-control, as if we have no control on the flow of events, and instead, experience ourselves as subject-to-the-conditions acting upon us.
Psychosis is the ultimate example of "losing control". A psychotic person has no ability to regulate his affective processes, but is instead taken
up by them - swiftly taken up, so strongly and so powerfully that whatever "observer" self can be said to exist is purely and entirely enslaved to
the feeling-processes which work through him.
Having experienced both sides of reality - with particular nasty memories from my teens of being "taken up" into a psychotic state of perception,
and knowing how horrifying it can be to lose yourself in such a way, I am pretty sure that anyone in their right mind wouldn't ever choose to build
walls to maintain the illusion of invincibility - trust me: you don't want to know what exists when you lose all that control, when anxiety takes
over, and the mind "feasts" on the fat of its body, depleting its structure in a way that is possibly faster than any other weight loss strategy.