Science and the Pleroma

Science can only progress when people do it for the beauty of knowing the truth, and not for any other unconscious or dissociated reason.

That is, people can only do science properly and effectively when they are immensely self-aware. The ability to 'know the truth' is dependent on having a long and complex relationship with falsehood. Falsehood is very much the norm amongst humans; therefore, truth conceals itself deep within the evidence of 'what is', to which our unconscious, affective systems are routinely misleading us so as to keep us in line with our 'gods'.

Within each of us lies this:



A confused, multiplicitous mass of self-states. Each governed by their own 'attractor', or value system. Each 'paired' with a particular string of objects and people which embody the value. The people and their relations are the source of the values existence; but the objects they associate with become embodied representations of the value; the value therefore is 'embodied' in the object: seeing or observing the object will trigger the organizing presence of the value in your neurobiological system.

You cannot do science - or anything that involves truth or coherency - without contextualizing, restraining, and controlling, the complicated dynamics that come from living in such a diverse and different world.

My values versus your values

Can we agree that there are multiple values, but not all of them are equal?

Since our nervous systems emerged and are reactive with the world in terms of 'three relational feelings', the logic of how we relate should be couched in terms of which feeling is present in anything relational we do. In this world, a great deal of our consciousness is regulated by 'fun', or the desire to play. When your texting people; when your surfing the net; when your watching T.V: all these cognitive relations are mediated through the feelings of 'fun'.

Now, other feelings accompany and exist as well; but they are not motivating impetus The impetus is clearly 'to have fun', or 'to entertain the self'. The self moves in much that it does out of a need to play.

On the other hand, fun is almost never occuring alone, as it seems to be regulated by 'care'. Care is so essential in everything that a self-conscious agent does that we can almost justify its usage in anything we do: I 'cared to do it' that way, for instance.

I care to have fun; I care to enliven myself; I care to masturbate. The last one integrates a motivational system that long predates consciousness, yet plays such a huge role within it. Care emerged on top of, and in relation to, sexual energy. And indeed, much of what we do as a society, or the way and manner we regulate sex, has much to do with the wisdom of 'correlating' to what causes distress; a society out of whack, or out of tocuh with how all our various needs operate, gives priority and precedence to sex, particularly at the expense of care.

Fun can drive this attitude. The motto "mirth is king", for instance, comes from an attitude that puts sex and fun ahead of care, more or less forsaking truthful knowledge in the process since it is care and care along that allows us to know the world truthfully.

But in any case, care is essential, and hence, is described by me as mediating a logical relation between the 'yearning for fun', and the 'awesomeness of contemplating existence'.

Awe is the feeling which emerges when one gets subsumed in existential thought. A positive reinforcing dynamic emerges as the self's inward reflection on the ability of its knowing seems to lead to a deepening of that feeling. But this applies to both ones own knowing as well as the external world itself: the world triggers awe by being so wonderfully and incredibly ordered. Its sounds are beautiful; its sights are beautiful. It draws our attachment to it and in the process stimulates our consciousness in a very consequential way - a way which, if allowed to fully complete itself, has a profound effect on the personality, nevermind its capacities and abilities as a self.

Yet, the world exists, and it wasn't you who created it. You and I exist, but can we know how much more exists beyond our vista? The horizon is ever there, ever blocking the unknown - and so, a strange paradox: the change in being that accompanies the awareness of "I am the universe knowing itself" is still nevertheless delimited by its own physical embeddedment and embodiment in a specific location in what, according to cosmology, is a universe far greater in extent than we appreciate.

The grandiose conclusion leads to a mind that seems to prioritize fun and awe at the expense of care. It's as if nothing else were real; other peoples feelings, their sufferrings, their histories: the fact that everything is structured means we are all the way we are for good reason; but to think that that exempts us from the responsibility of acting in ways that help, as oppposed to hurt, others, is childish self-serving nonsense that appeals only to the most undeveloped minds - minds that apparently haven't been 'roasted' enough by anxiety and fear to know whats good for it.

Pleroma

When a person acts within the limits of what is, they are not feeling as if 'something is wrong'. If something is wrong, a reason exists - and it isn't a very 'sexy' one either.

The pleroma is the belief that the human being in its natural state experiences reality as a 'fullness', as perfect the way it is, which more or less means, if 'it' tells me something, I adjust myself to its shift, no if's and's or but's.

The megalomanical attitude that sees the physical 'external' world as "maya", or "demirurge", is setting itself up for disaster, as you are a function OF IT, not the other way around it. Human societies precede you; and those societies imprint you with their structures - no if's and's or but's. Brahma or the Biblical God are irrelevant; real human societies preceded us, and it is they, and the knowledge that they had to work with, which we've inherited.

If one is sane, one can appreciate that a society with exponential levels of more knowledge than previous societies is likely to have a more profound and coherent representation of how reality works - and indeed, modern science has painted a profound picture which allows us, if we only care to help ourselves (and our progeny) to live more accurately, and therefore, to live so that we increase our physiological wellbeing, our experience of enlivenment as social animals, as well as 'children of God', or the awareness that we, as conscious animals, have come to exist in a way where our consciousness can itself be integrated into our social relations with one another and the world but in terms of a higher level efficacy - where thought can transform (but not create) matter.

Hopefully too, the physical and technological sciences can grow side by side with a more complex scientific spirituality. All of this follows from the logic of caring - of allowing care to organize our various states, so that neither awe nor play turn us into megalomaniacs or people fearful of the spiritual.

When you trust nature, you trust that at your core lies a goodness. This goodness is spacious, if only the mind will realize it doesn't need to run from what disturbs it, but rather, should question what causes it disturbance: the methods of mindfulness, of asking "what is the nature of this"...

is a beautiful gift of the East to the western world. Buddhism's radical skepticism is a natural adjunct to a scientific psychology which also see's mental states as driven by homeostasis and interpersonal expectancies, and therefore, the mind is best understood as a 'psychodynamic system' of self-states, each governed by a different value.

If care, and consideration, for scientific facts - for how cause and effects make us - is at the top, then we will be very spacious and open and tolerant of viewpoints which we don't necessarily like or agree with, but understand that necessity requires we show tolerance.

Not all views can be reconciled with this spaciousness. Some views - for instance, satanism, alt-right, etc, is deliberately seeking to undermine coherency and symmetry, and therefore, such views are inherently self-defeating and destructive to human well being. The confused logic utilized by people who subscribe to these views is evidently still rooted in 'avoiding insanity' i.e. keeping the self-system in check by not questioning the values which motivate them.

Care allows us to, for instance, recognize the legitimacy of sports, play, dressing up, going to the beach, or nihilistic comedy. Many people "can't take a joke", which meant to mean, I think, they confuse the intent of the party who is joking this way.

Take family guy, and its exploitation of the contradictions that make things funny. The more wrong - the funnier, it seems. When we engage in this behavior, is it not 'wrong', or inconsistent with our other values? To me, the question confuses the issue: if making jokes feels good, and it enlivens us (a good) then the issue is how something that feels so good, and can be such an impulsive need of the human, be experienced as so bad by others?

The issue arises because another person's suffering should be acknowledged and commisserated with. For good reason do people who, for instance, lost someone in 9/11, feel outrage when they hear a 9/11 joke. Think of anything you've personally dealt wiith, the suffering it caused you, and now consider how you would feel if another person were to talk coarsely and with pride about that experience? Ideally, your system values 'symmetry': it wants the other person to show tact around issues that traumatize you. More often than not, the value emenating from the mouth of such a speaker reacts with the suffering part of the self, to produce a 'rage' or anger response.

These two views can be reconciled when we respect the value of context. So long as I am not any place where something I say will irritate or trigger the traumatic history of another group, I will grant myself the freedom to enjoy myself.

In this sense, a "watchful eye' sits atop the pyramid of my other self-states, keeping 'eye' on the appropriateness of where I am and what I'm doing.

With children present, its important that adults be aware of development capacities, and therefore, the reality of how a child relates to adult humor i.e. they do not have the wherewithal to regulate their awareness the way we do, and hence, we should adjust our speech/behavior around kids.

This way of thinking is consistent with liberalism, but demands much more from people at the psychological and phenomenological level - ultimately though, to their own growth and betterment as human beings.

It is kind of interesting when you consider the golden rule of satan: 'Do what thou wilt' - shall be the whole of the Law.

So that is the underlying theme of satanism.

Do as you will.

If we really think about this golden rule, what does it mean? Would the adherents to this philosophy understand what it truly means or will they misinterpret this wonder guiding light?

I find this philosophy to be a freeing of the human soul, in a multitude of ways. This golden rule is not one of receiving, but one of giving. The individual person can never receive this philosophy, but only give it to others. There is no way to demand free will. There is no way to control other people. You can only control yourself. So this rule is basically reduced to the giving of free will to others.

How is that done? That rule will only work out if everyone, that has some form of control over your destiny, observes this important tenant. So how do you create the perfect world? You respect other people's free will. You give compassion, freedom and understanding unless the recipient does not live by that ideology and proves unworthy. Then you do not seek revenge in anger, you simply make it so that person no longer has access to your world. If everyone was on the same page, then the necessity would be to take those who do not respect another person's free will and remove them from interaction (I haven't worked through that aspect yet).

The flip side of this is the fake golden rule, 'treat others how you would like to be treated'. What happens if the other person thinks you should be clothed from head to toe because 'religion'. Would you really like to be treated by their standards or would you like for them to simply respect your free will and leave you alone? What if the other person feels really bad that you have a piercing or a tattoo and decides to kill you before you can do more harm to your everlasting soul?

I would rather just be left alone as long as I am not encroaching on the free will of others.

All other methods are trying to justify an ideology to suit everyone from the eyes of one. Look at all of the chaos and wars the abrahamic religions have caused over the last few thousand years.

Maybe science and technology are very dangerous to beings that are spiritually undeveloped?

The solution: complicate things less.

God is the most fundamental creative force, evil is whatever is against life in the big picture of life. Everything else is opinion and people are too stupid to waste time on.

a reply to: Astrocyte

I would really like to have a conversation with you. For better or worse, It sounds like you think as much as I do.

My only confusion is your view on consciousness as an incident of biological matter. If consciousness is an accidental or incidental emergent property of matter, then there is really no benefit from pioneering the workings of the mind philosophically, since with that view it implies that consciousness is a mere accident, only meant to serve the body. If we view it from the other way, as in, the body being a servant to the mind, and the body being the way in which our spirit manifests on the material level, then we open up a whole new realm of meaning, and existential conversation becomes relevant.

If consciousness is an accident, then I see no reason to even speak or listen about anything. Even if there is no meaning to consciousness, no greater purpose, it is still better to pretend there is, because at least it gives us something worth talking about, rather than submitting to the pessimistic idea that we are a material accident. And if it turns out that our self-awareness is meaningful, then we have the potential reward of self-realization through the philosophical pursuit of our purpose. such fulfillment would be the recognition of the pleroma.