Our human mind is created by a point counterpoint structure, interweaving biological function with human semiosis, our every thought has a bodily
component (point) and our thinking, reflective part (counterpoint).
Notice this quality, as each thought moves from reflected to embodied thought, back and forth, as each new perception frames and composes a different
response from the thinking mind, from the position of a feeling mind.
This is the basic backbone of our conscious process, and each part is an emergent property
, something ontologically real, which exists as the
'end point' of a neurological and biosemiotic series of a manifold of structural transformations. Each thought constitutes a 'teleo', or purpose,
which reflexively erupts from the midbrain, which generates a 'reaction' against itself at the cortical level, and so, the two part process is
paralleled by the mid-brain and frontal cortex.
The thing about brain growth is that the most important parts - the beginnings - are under the control of the people around us. As embodied and
intrinsically reflexive creatures, our perceptual systems become entrained to those environmental objects which induce enlivenment. The facial
features and vocal qualities, or the essential 'gestalt' which results in enlivenment, becomes internalized in the early infants brain, which means,
in effect, that the structure of the brain is always perfectly 'fitted' to the faces and voices of its lived environment
Such correlation between inner and outer reveals the essential physical nature of the human body: we are designed so that we know one another
reflexively, and to a degree that could almost erase the difference between us if we sought to deeply develop it.
Yet, of course, the mission of the elite appears to be directed towards preventing any such possibility. However wise and understanding these people
believe themselves to be, they are still nevertheless, and in the end, merely expressing the cause-effect logic inherent to the very beginnings of
human civilization, some 12,000 years ago (the Bible is thus half-way off; but as narrativizing creatures, we can't help but to enact, it appears, a
good vs. evil historical dialectic) where the synchronous and symmetrical coincidences of living in the forests, where we naturally experienced one
another as great friends, and probably had an inner freedom paralleling the movie "trolls". In short, before civilization began, we gave up easy
going consciousness, with an openness and pleasure in our own ability to partake in the meaning-creating of the cosmos i.e. "subjective magic", for
a process of "squaring the circle" - the dream of "making better" the evident failure of the creator.
Squaring the Circle
Its amazing - and a tad amusing - how human beings self-organize according to the external modes and visual metaphors of its lived environment.
“Domestication of food sources also domesticated people. The formation of states as a highly competitive form of organization established steep
hierarchies of power and coercive force that skewed access to income and wealth. Political inequality reinforced and amplified economic inequality.
For most of the agrarian period, the state enriched the few at the expense of the many: gains from pay and benefactions for public service often paled
next to those from corruption, extortion, and plunder. As a result, many premodern societies grew to be as unequal as they could possibly be, probing
the limits of surplus appropriation by small elites under conditions of low per-capita output and minimal growth.” – Walter Scheidel, The Greater
Leveler, pg. 5, Princeton, 2017
– Walter Scheidel, The Greater Leveler, pg. 5, Princeton, 2017
Clearly, such conditions foster belief systems and self-narratives that counter the effects produced by such a social asymmetry; to have more than
others entails a certain way of feeling yourself, which emerges largely as a counter-response (remember point, counterpoint) to the sense of injustice
in others at your having a certain power over them.
Nevertheless, it would seem to be naïve to eliminate from this equation the matter of subjective-magick, by which I mean, it is a mistake to equate
the subjective influence on reality of our own species specific self-structuring,
for a real, bone-fide, objectively understood expression of
what is real about the universe around us.
The reason for this prohibition is understood by anyone with a scientific attitude towards knowledge acquisition. The issue, inasmuch as science is a
methodology first and foremost, is about clarity, and the what clarity, or clearness, means. And what is that? Clarity is accessibility. Something is
only properly known when it is accessible to the others to whom we make the claim. It's a correlation process. If my mind can see something, you can
see it to, so long as you and I share the same references to the object in question (point, counterpoint).
Theres also a fundamental equality, and so, respect, that exists in this form of knowledge. The laws of nature established by Galileo, Newton, Darwin,
Maxwell, Einstein, etc constitute theories of nature that are so reasonable i.e. accessible to any reasonable human being, that they last the test of
time, precisely because they are coherent with the observable facts. The representation in the mind-brain, in other words, is consonant with the
ontological nature of the observed reality (i.e. gravity, electromagnetism, light etc).
Since human beings are made of the same point counterpoint dynamic that animates all meaning-making beings (aka living organisms) it makes a lot of
sense that the philosophy and belief system of the higher class is nothing more than a plausible just-so story, made up to satisfy the emotional and
affective conditions from going so squarely against the circular laws of their own self-organization.
It is not lost on me that Freemasonry has the circle/square thing going on in its symbolism, and that the G in the middle, perhaps
"God/Gnosis/Geometry", their trifecta of the truth, expresses the nature of the god which they believe in.
The idea that numbers build structures, and that mathematical knowledge enables the power to "inspire" and induce "awe" upon others, became united
in the first builders of cities, who used their "magic" to control the people around them, whether through the awe of their competence, their
magical abilities, or their own surety in having the 'truth' about reality, as revealed to them by the mystery of the numbers.
Are numbers real? Or is the human imagination more real than numbers? How can a reality which works and functions and self-organizes its every state
from a circularity, supposed to be 'made better' through numbers, the square, or technology?
Granted, I am truly impressed by the human process, at least as technology is concerned - especially the technology of our modern era. No doubt, what
we have gained has made material existence more interesting and compelling, and indeed, to a certain degree, it is absolutely necessary to harbor a
skepticism towards things which cannot be proven i.e. God, and so, to understand that just because reality is composed or functions in a certain way,
doesn't mean we have to impose upon ourselves an official 'dogma' about what is real.