posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 10:37 PM
It is more than just the concept of symmetry; and more than the concept of cycles - although everything in nature is organized in terms of a dynamical
balance (geometrodynamical symmetry). In Humans, there really is only one relevant parameter to hammer into peoples heads - again, and again, and
again, until the facts of the matter becomes as obvious as the facts of visual perception of the outside world.
What is this truth? Since truth is being butchered today, the truth which matters most, I hope, should become more clear to people.
This truth is related to the golden rule. It is remarkably simple, yet when your reflexive cognition is controlled by cycles which are linked to the
whole body homeostasis, your unconscious reflexive mind may not want to change.
Knowing something is not the same as embodying something.
Since pleasure - and the pleasure circuitry of our brain - is a function of something else i.e. a donut, a computer with internet, the thing it is
connected to is literally a part of the regulatory process of your homoestasis - indeed, as a central 'top-down' parameter which 'releases' the
pleasure you so desire.
This situation of course means that it is hard to detach yourself from something you become pleasurably attached to. The dynamism of an entire body
acts like fricton - a heavy constraint - on the will of your mind. And no more how hard you press, the body's will is the ultimate will. You
cannot 'fly out' of your body when your very consciousness is an emergent product of its activity.
Because of this situation, sanity and mental hygiene entails knowing your body as well as you can, which means paying attention to the sensory signals
that arise in whatever way that it does.
Truth is really this: getting to know the semiotic terrain of an existentially aware, socially self-conscious mind, reflexively 'reading off' the
effects of its own internal human body, as it relates with other minds like themselves, similarly contextualized as a social being, also 'reading
off' the effects of their body.
Truth is predicated on psychological coherency: if someone is traumatized, really crazy, dangerous, and rotten ways of thinking can grow just like a
virus grows in a body. The virus is a narrative which 'coherently' makes sense of experience, yet in a profoundly entropic and inefficient way - at
the expense of the environment, other people, and other organisms.
There is thus just one truth - one, profoundly simple reality. When one is expressing the ideal 'geometrodynamical' symmetry, you are
experiencing, the world in a way that is profoundly relaxed, coherent, and astonished - or in awe - but in a way that is more pleasurable,
rather than the sort tinged with fear from unresolved traumata - the sort of awe stereotyped in the phrases like "mysterium tremendum", where fear
of 'falling apart' is imagined to be an essential feature of reality, as opposed to the influence of unresolved social-interpersonal traumas which
interfere with the brain-minds representation of spiritual reality.
This dissociative tendency really runs throughout all myths - and that's what makes them so tremendously useless with regards to semiotic coherency -
or "getting us on the same page".
Myth, or fantasy, of course, is a perfectly fine device for playing with reality. But reality is always vulnerable to being changed - that is, the
human brain-mind can change itself - if it fails to remember that playing happens in an ACTUAL FACT BASED REALITY. The circularity of the process of
self-organization means a person can easily 'shift' with the shifting baseline of their affective states, because they fail to pay attention to
how they are changed.
So, in order to preserve democracy, you need to understand that reality needs to be better represented in peoples minds vis-à-vis the "fun and
games" which popular culture tells people to indulge in.
Because the Buddhist saying "you are what you do" is evidently the truth from the perspective of complex systems theory, the mind needs to be
'mindful' of itself as it relates to other minds, and in particular, needs to ask "why I am feeling this way", in situations of conflict with
other people; our minds - because of our brains - are always organized from the "ground-up", which means that in any social situation our body is
reactive to the autonomic states of other people - the pace of their breathing, their posture, their vocal prosody - so much so that we can barely pay
attention to any cognitive content if the autonomic state communicated is anxiety inducing i.e. the person is feeling uncomfortable.
So when a guy says he "couldn't tell" if the girl didn't want it, it's largely because of a dissociation of the cognitive story-telling mind from
the autonomic realities which 'ground us' to the same conditions of being.
Too many people today are caught up in dissociative "just so stories" - which any well read person can easily recognize as painfully naïve crutches
-an act of faith by a person who would rather not see the religiosity and fanaticism in their commitment - the gaps in their logic - the
romanticization of the irrational - all there to "complete" their sense of not being whole.
So much of what is wrong today comes from the consequences of world war II on the self-organization of human beings, but these 'consequences' are
traumatologically contiguous with the identities that existed in earlier eras - the same idealization and dissociation that serves to 'ground the
ego' has existed for millennia. But after the trauma of world war II, a naïve moral relativism emerged in the sixties which seeded a way of thinking
that is directly implicated in todays culture. Post-Modernism, which added to the confusion, gained esteem largely because of the extremism of a
cartesian dualism which created what is today called 'scientism'. Post modernism is the dialectically produced demon of a scientistic ontology - a
belief that reality is just mechanisms and no deeper meaning.
Obviously, the sixties was naïve, and the people it produced either came to realize the destructiveness of its extremism, were prematurely killed off
by that extremist way of living, or became like Harvey Weinstein - have got ahead at the expense of abusing and emotionally traumatizing other people;
for people like Weinstein, his 'entropy' is continuously shuttled into the bodies and brains of those he harms.
Bob Dylan once attempted to describe a human life like a 'rolling stone'. The rolling stones, the band, were probably invoking the same metaphor in
describing themselves in that way.
What is so prideful about that? A "rolling stone" is not acting with wisdom, insight, or understanding, but is merely romanticizing a now very
cliché image which, when truly appreciated, is profoundly selfishly abusive of the environment and other people - not to mention incoherently out of
touch with "what causes what" - and thus, the implausibility that their "will to power" is really anything other than a fantasy to overcome what
cannot - and even more importantly, SHOULD NOT - be sought to overcome: a reality falsely accused of being wrong, simply because the addict can't
conceptualize a reality which doesn't "feel" the way reality feels for the addict.
Things can and do change. But it takes work; and yes, faith - but faith in that which truly deserves faith: reality as it is.