If there's anything I consider myself good at, its understanding the minds of human beings, and the reason I claim this (and hopefully, other people
sense it) is because I recognize the existence of something called science.
But can science be as liberating for everyone as it has been for me? Some peopled here when they talk, use language to persuade others on a point that
isn't based in reason, and I find it profoundly heartbreaking. What makes someone think that language doesn't follow its own sort of logic - as the
"grammarians" point out, the predicate and the subject is the essential elements of speech, yet some people (and I'm desperately constrainig myself
not to drop any names!) use language, and when they use it, make a point which is only understandable from the "mysteries" of the perspective they are
operating from. That is, from a place "outside language". This cliché of "non-communicable" mysteries is from my point of view a complete
Yet when people speak, do they make any extra effort to clarify how their experience differs from others? Alas! This most obviously reasoonable way of
being is not even pursued by people with this sort of habit of thinking. They may claim their experience is the "ultimate truth", yet saying so
doesn't actually make it so in fact - and it is this epistemological gap between experience (and how its formulated) and communication (and what that
does for human beings) which makes far right philosophies so fundamentally destructive: they do not respect the interpersonal gap that exists between
us; but rather, the intense 'right brain' experience seems to have transformed them into flaming megalomaniacs with minds and beliefs that are frankly
speaking, profoundly dysfunctional. And why do I say dysfunctional? Because it is not communicable, and so, DOES NOT INCREASE INTERPERSONAL
Every time someone is accused of being a pedophile, I spend some time observing their eyes - and a large majority of the time, they have profound
ocular asymmetry; and yet, do these people see this asymmetry on their faces? Or are they in the least bothered by its presence? Its quite likely that
they experience their asymmetry as an example of a "turning away" - the numerical value of a Hebrew word with just that connotation has the value of
666. Solomon in his hording of gold is said to have collected 666 talents of it. 666, apparently, is a popular mystical idea associated with "turning
away"; and yet, from my modern neuroscientifically inclined mind, I can only see these things in terms of development - and the sheer fact that NOBODY
IS ESSENTIALLY ANY WAY - but have to first experience the responses of others to their needs to be known. It is AS A RESPONSE to these situations that
the self and its needs form.
This is why I am absolutely certain that truth will - and must - prevail: mythological ways of thinking are #ing Insane, PERIOD. And the bearers of an
ocular asymmetry deserve to be pitied for needing to believe total nonsense about reality because a demon/spirit/etc told them.
This site is pure nonsense, and is chalk full of people who haven't developed their dialectical mind one lick. The problem, undoubtedly, is that
intense affective experience in their right brains has completely arrested their capacity to represent (i.e. in language) they feel the way they're
feeling. Projection is the preferred way of being - despite the obvious injustice of pretending the problems you have AREN'T YOURS! Pretense -
mythology - games - trickster consciousness. This is a testament to a profound mental illness in our species, and is something that will sooner or
later need to be addressed if we ever hope to evolve beyond our present state of affairs.
Traumatized Minds: Stay Away from Kundalini!
I believe that early life relational trauma contains semiotic realities that represent 'absence' so that the self forms around core feelings of
emptiness. This was the situation of the children's writer Roald Dahl, who lost his older brother and father in a 6 month span when he was three years
old. Can you imagine the intensity of the loss for his mother? And for Dahl, who else was there to comfort him but her? And could she have been there
- effectively? Its likely that the face he saw was one which was empty of affect; despair-ridden; and thus, an image NOT TO BE LOOKED at if
development is to occur normally. Nevertheless, Dahl has the screwy eye issue, and was more or less popularizing a genre of thinking that he himself
admitted, in a quaint little nursery rhyme:
“I guess you think you know this story
You don’t. The real ones much more gory.
The phony one, the one you know,
Was cooked up years and years ago,
And made to sound all soft and sappy
Just to keep the children happy.”
All of this nihilistic, black magic obsessed thinking would never have entered Dahl's life were it not for those losses; and what would have happened
to Dahl had he known how such a loss would affect his consciousness? What would have happen if his mom received the mental health support she
Would magic have been appealing? Would the obnoxious assumption that "life can't be worse" then what you've gone through have persuaded him to follow
such a self-destructive path - where corrupting others was experienced as fun?
There is nothing sensible about thinking you are "other", or "alien", when reality has never worked like that. Every mystic who has ever written has
been a HUMAN JUST LIKE YOU AND ME. They have NEVER been perfect in their knowledge; and have always had to make due with the cultural material they
had assimilated in their growth.
This is a fact - but far too few people have the mental wherewithal to see how obvious this is.
edit on 2-12-2017 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)