An Amoral Society?

Umberto Eco was one of those few minds who stood in relation to what exists - the social world we inhabit - from the vantage point of what is most probably existent. This contrast is the non-real against the real. With the non-real essentially a problem that arises from Human immorality deriving from self-other relations. Social or interpersonal incoherence is the problem.

Eco is also willing to go deep into the world of his characters - which I truly do suspect is a sideways glance at the Milan society he himself formed within. Everything is narrative - exaggerated and exciting, but to the point of total insanity. Not making explicit the "playful" nature essentially keeps the implicit explicit; life is a game, fun, crazy, and his main characters always have this ironic semi-involved though "not really involved" attitude to the matters they involve themselves in. Making assertions from excitable states of mind are common-place, indeed, the very ground from which almost all of his characters move from is gnostic and alienated and removed. A traumatologist understands this state to be dialectically and historically derived from an actual relational trauma in the past - from which the present day consciousness is being semiotically driven from - but the world of Foucaults Pendulum, or The Prague Cemetery, appears to be already dominated by a conspiratorial and monstrously speculative philosophical culture which is far more 'practical and pragmatic' in what it wants to do to society (via collusion with others) than "practical and pragmatic" with regard to how the mind grows, functions and exists.

In other words, the alienated way of thinking about the human condition is no longer valid or possible in a relational ontology which expresses qualities in terms of historical interactions with other structures in its development.

Is this not obvious? I am unequivocally opposed to any sadomasochistic "Gnosticism" that posits a priori the badness of physical reality or a separation between the observing self and the world it grows and develops within.

To insist on this metaphysics is to ignore the significance of modern science - from quantum mechanics to neuroplasticity to mindfulness and the healing power of human relationships for the psyche. The "alien" metaphysics is a diseased, traumatological attitude to take to the world which does nothing but indulge in pleasure and ignore the self's own responsibility to the situation it exists within.

Since change is possible - i.e. through an attitudinal shift - human beings can actually create the utopia we all hope for; but this can only happen by situating our awareness at a higher level i.e. at the commonality we all share as a singular being existing in a world of duality and multiple complexity. Peirce conceptualized all first as raw and unordered feeling; but this 'feeling' is the satanic feeling which is literally 'without any order', and so, fundamentally destructive to self and other. Rather, the feeling Peirce would refer to, and which I refer to, is a "triadic function" which works from the following dynamic.



I have the human mind very worked out! And it pains me to resist revealing my research since I know how coherent it is, and therefore, how helpful it will be to people who don't see the profound order within our human condition - and who need to be inspired to recognize how awesome it is to exist and exist in such a way where we - and no one else - need to work together to negotiate intelligent solutions to our problems.

Every animal can be understood in terms of three categories: first, the world and organism 'split' into two, which forms the basis of human reality; the organism becomes structured by its own autopoietic closure and internal formal and final mode of causality which seeks to attune again and again to the external order. This is what I call the "species attractor" i.e. coherency. The system knows what it needs, which is basically to maintain its internal coherency in terms of how it "structurally couples" to those parts of the environment which provide the resources for reconstruction.

But the environment selects; Darwin was very right about the significance of the environments determinative power. Every organisms is constrained by something called an "environmental selection pressure" to which the system of the organism is entrained. von Uexkull, that German-Estonian noble, described it perfectly as a near infinite series of point-counterpoint interactions - creating a grand universal harmony, or musical piece.

In between selection pressure and coherency there emerges solutions. In human beings, or according to the whole logic of how we self-organize, shame and pride are those two qualia which operate as the "stop and go" of our phenomenological consciousness. This understanding is slowly dawning on us - and it is a huge phase shift in itself for consciousness to properly recognize how something like a 'social context' - or a "higher order" -might form the very parameters of our individual consciousness. Makes no sense whatsoever to orient to reality when your very orientation semiotically refers back to those semiotic conditions which once tormented your own growth and development.

In anycase, this chart is not by itself; there are triads more basic than shame-pride-compassion which operate underneath these conditions. For instance, shame is induced by outsiders, and so, derives from the fundamental condition of entropy, or chaos, or uncertainty. The environment induces change, and change induces asymmetry between system and the environment it exists around. The order of the system - an order deriving from an "ideal form" - is driven by symmetry. Yet the entropy of the outside world turns the ideal into an unreal thing, because the real i.e. the outside world - constantly perturbs the systems idealism.

Pride is what our system wants; no one will deny that. Shame is what it is afraid of: it is the chief "control parameter" which shapes how the personality grows and what it allows itself to think and feel. Shame and Pride are opposites, and so, phenomenologically and neurologically, are mutually antagonistic i.e. referring and inhibiting one another's activity. It is only through compassion, or the application of the principle of love, which originates in the early attachment with the mother, to ones own experiences of self and identity. Identity is emergent between human beings in relation; and so if one wants a coherent identity, one must, in fact, rely upon the quality of compassion and love to learn the art of bearing and tolerating that which perturbs. In todays world, the idea of "bearing" or "tolerating" seems impossible, when distraction and attraction are powerfully harnessed to a consumerist society which facilitates dissociation and idealization - so long as the resources keep "flowing" - however long the planet, as it were, can tolerate it.

Can such a way of being occur, or are we destined - because the powers that be are too wanton and psychologically damaged to see otherwise - to continue one fantasizing that an "amoral" - though decent - society can exist. Laws exist and are justified in their existence only when people have an embodied understanding of the conditions which force laws into existence: when the relationship is superficial and seems to emanate from nothing but raw authority, you get what Lacan...

...would describe as the "big Other" - where language, law and society is characterized as a sort of 'demiurge' - an evil that the self is intrinsically motivated to extricate itself from.

Lacan didn't much care for science or fact or developmental psychology - so he should be ignored as a guide for creating a better future; that said, his confusion about law/society/language is ultimately about not getting that interpersonal and intersubjective communication with others INTERMEDIATES between the human self and the world of law, language and society.

Lacan didn't think realistically, and nor do most people, when it comes to how we are and how we became this way. The first 2 years is the "magical time" - the period where the worlds subjects subjectivize themselves through interactions with the growing brain-minds of infants. This period is the time period where narratives are attached to the body; where before the narratives of Gnosticism, for instance, become attached to the self-absorbed communication styles of parents that are inconsistently related to their children, and so, training them through exposure to their own emotional nature, to become what we are.

Attitude is where change begins. You need to want to change before change happens; and you need to learn about yourself - about its dissociativeness in terms of its part-system structure, so that threat-safety determines how we become - nothing more.

a reply to: Astrocyte

I have the human mind very worked out! And it pains me to resist revealing my research since I know how coherent it is, and therefore, how helpful it will be to people who don't see the profound order within our human condition

Share away. I think many of us enjoy your thoughts.

(those) who need to be inspired to recognize how awesome it is to exist and exist in such a way where we - and no one else - need to work together to negotiate intelligent solutions to our problems.

When reading history, it's interesting to note the great amount of intelligent decisions made in the past. Lately, it seems as if that process has come to a standstill.

What does Facies hermetica mean?

Attitude is where change begins. You need to want to change before change happens;

Everyone wants to change something about themselves already. Maybe it is what they want to change about themselves that keep the change from happening.

and you need to learn about yourself - about its dissociativeness in terms of its part-system structure, so that threat-safety determines how we become - nothing more.

Could you explain a little more about this part? I am not quiet sure I understand this.

a reply to: Astrocyte
Did you use a random word generator to produce the epistle? It is incoherent gibberish and makes no sense. If you really understand what you posted on here you need to seek professional .... well you know.

a reply to: Astrocyte

It's all part of the master plan for human evolution, Astrocyte, as basic animals, we are too much into the physical and not strong enough in the mental. We must move toward rejecting the material persona and accept only consciousness as the proper and desired state of being for the future of humanity.

Accept my succinct supposition that the ETIs of the UFOs have enabled the millennials (mostly) via DNA changes in the abductions of their parents. The results are milder, less aggressive and more empathetic/compassionate humans are going to be the norm eventually. That gives you an accurate snapshot of the current situation. As I'm fond of saying, you can easily recognize them as they self-identify as progressive democrats.

my succinct supposition that the ETIs of the UFOs have enabled the millennials (mostly) via DNA changes in the abductions of their parents

Well that's more believable than everything else you wrote.

a reply to: Aliensun

You can't prove that by the millennials. They are overly materialistic and mired in narcissism.

I see very little thought for others beyond themselves unless it involves useless virtue signalling to pridefully boast about how much they purport to care.

originally posted by: 3daysgone
Everyone wants to change something about themselves already.

The idea that there is some 'thing' that can be changed is the issue.
Are you a 'thing'?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: 3daysgone
Everyone wants to change something about themselves already.

The idea that there is some 'thing' that can be changed is the issue.
Are you a 'thing'?

It would depend on what your definition of "thing" is.

originally posted by: 3daysgone
Everyone wants to change something about themselves already.

Is it possible for 'you' to change 'you'? How many of 'you' are there?
Is there really a 'you' that is separate from existence itself?

It is now everywhere and now is happening - is there a 'you' that can change now?

The knower of now and the appearance of now are not two things.