posted on Mar, 17 2018 @ 06:38 PM
Is this possible, or are we simply idealizing - that is, wishing against the facts of nature (our own nature) - because we are hardwired in really
screwed up, high-entropy generating ways, and so, to defend ourselves from our scary emotions, we posit something with very little probability of
being good or valuable for us?
Idealization and dissociation of trauma are sequentially linked processes, such that anything that triggers the latter will trigger some 'species'
of the former. Everything you have ever been exposed to has produced a probabilistic response based in this very basic idea. The simplicity of the
brains "search for coherence", which for the animal is simultaneously the "search for safety", results in human beings, at least In this society
of ours, in a self-organization 'schema' with a particular 'attractor' - or value - organizing how the dissociated (traumatic) elements connect
with the idealizing (self-regulating) images they're related to.
Don't be Bad!
The German and general European emphasis on will expresses a common history between these two peoples. There is a great deal of suffering that has
been resolved not through mourning, but in the stubborn (and arrogant) denial of weakness, and the heroic and noble value of 'fighting against
nature' to the very end.
This situation is held together by a philosophy. There is a philosophy - lets call it the 'perennial philosophy - which operates as a value attractor
for very 'refined' philosophical minds. But these minds, no matter how unwilling they would be to admit to it, have been constructed by a
canalization process that has specific patterns at each developmental stage, and which when the environment permits, lands on the same sorts of
'attractors', or 'archetypes'.
Archetypes are an important idea that is barely understood by most people who relate to it. The idea of a basic and simple pattern is not recognized,
so that the expressed pattern - whatever archetype in question - is exaggerated as a pattern with some sort of metaphysical basis to its existence,
when it is nothing other than the emergent property of actual human behavior. Archetypes are therefore fundamentally expressing what has
happened in the past; furthermore, it knows nothing more than what is good for it to know.
The human, insomuch as we can veto stupid thoughts and stupid relations, can know that the archetype is an effect more than it is a cause. And
although it emerges or exists within the context of biological functionality, it is 'existential' in the sense that it constitutes an existential
relation the human being takes - and wills to take - vis-a-vis reality.
But every human being emerges ino this world through the same archetype, or archetypal 'attractor', which is as a circle inside a much larger
circle: the schema, or 'value', of signfiicance, is the mother: to bed held and contained by the mother. Even at birth, then, the entirety of your
being expresses the primal archetype of a self 9or circle) being encompassed by a MUCH LARGER AND GREATER SELF (or circle).
This more or less means that something like a Russian doll exists within every human being. The external levels are fake and superficial. They are
masks that were put on for a reason - and not the one machiavellians like to tell themselves (i.e. as "choices") - but rather, as defensive
mechanisms. Nothing cognitive happens that doesn't have its origin in some socially-based situation.
So, "have no fear" is a strange statement. Its a mantra designed to help the human, and yet it dissociates the human from those processes which
generate feelings of fear. The fundamental symmetry of self-organizing processes in the physical universe is not treated as an important referent for
functioning, even though its the ideal which our functioning will fundamentally be 'judged' by.
There is no 'judge' either. The ideal only means that nature produces living beings in terms of a very complex and rare confluence of elements, and
taht when they grow very complex, as in us, it becomes very important to know what the ideal is - how the organism works, and how to judge the value
of our living.
So, if there is fear, there is good reason for its existence. Relying upon cliches like "have no fear", might work to counter some of the effects,
but since the source of fear is typically social-in-origin, and relating often to how we were related to by others, how we've come to relate to
others, and how we've come to relate to ourselves, simplistic statements like these will eventually be exposed as just another mechanism used by the
self to get away from what it needs to be responsible to: to how it works.
We should always ask ourselves why we feel the way we feel. The fantasy that there is no reason behind our feelings is amply disproven by the
neurosciences and psychological sciences, all of which find an intelligent basis for feelings in the multidimensional interactions we experience at
the homeostatic and socioemotional level with our environment.