posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 08:18 PM
Does anyone here really believe that they are "above good and evil"? It is such a strange thing that people can be taken in by such a notion. Do you
not notice yourself pursuing the objects that elicit good feelings? Don't we all prefer good feelings, or coherency - however complicated that may be
I personally am afraid of evil - and my admitting so seems to be a fundamental tenet of a recursively ordered phenomenology. I know that whatever I
become attached to is equivalent to anything I am enlivened by. My belief about the nature of that process is irrelevant: if you feel good i.e. become
'attached' to an object, then you will potentially feel a depression if the object is lost. This is the most basic way of thinking of how Yin and
Yang exist in our feeling life: as we feel one pole (the expressed pole) there simultaneously exists a counterpole with potential energy.
Yet, as Martha Nussbaum notes, life is so good that were willing to accept a little evil - a little suffering - for the sake of enjoying the thrills
of living. I am in very much agreement with this view - and hence, the project of human progress is primarily about reducing human suffering as much
as possible. So far, given the world we live in today, we appear to have progressed relative to the religious fantasies that have existed over the
last 4,000 or so years. That said, the majority of us still do not have any inkling of any inkling of a science of biosemiotics - mind and body -
which promises to become a sort of scientific psychological alchemy - where the ingredients of our being are understood and manipulated for growth.
Alchemy of course is a legitimate technology for the development of consciousness; on the other hand, the epistemology, or ontology, it bases itself
upon can be wholly out of touch with actual reality. The simple truth is that love is everything, and love is expressed in the moment by how we
represent the expressive needs of the other. If we feel love, and we are truly sensitive to other's needs, we grow. But this is not an easy
situation, insomuch as it entails a mental acrobatics that is very cognitively subtle, and also, scientific in its categorization and 'naming' of
things. Both Judaism and Buddhism have attempted a 'semiotics of consciousness', with relatively similar 'results' - albeit, one is profoundly
theistic, the other, atheistic. Both nevertheless land on the same ethics, and pursue the same spiritual truth.
The problem lies in the pretense that the "human is the universe" - taken literally, even though the facts of living and being affected prohibit
such an extreme interpretation. In any case, when the human imagines they are no longer affected by intrinsic social dynamics (an impossibility) by
assuming an identity that identifies with, and as, the universe, this results in a copious growth in feeling an emotional and social power over
others, with the predictable consequence of utterly obliterating a coherent psycholinguistic representation of reality. People with these beliefs
evolve to become psychologically amnesiac: they forget what they did the day before because the psychoemotional direction of a subsequent self-state
is incompatible with an earlier one; they were "different selves" expressing different truths within a mind that is unable to bridge their
oppositeness through a coherent narrative. But of course, the intellectual maniacs have a narrative: the gnostic dualist narrative. Pythagoreanism and
Hermeticism; "elite" narratives that have evolved elsewhere - in India, Persia, Babylon, Egypt. The synthetization of these beliefs in
Pythagoreanism and then in Neoplatonism brought much of these elements together for a super-duper 'metanarrative'. All of this narrativizing happens
within the context of a social asymmetry between haves and have-nots; the mind of each agent-actor is "pressurized" into accepting narratives that
persuade the self; this results, or leads towards the creation of an 'overarching' "ruler" that regulates consciousness. For gnostic "amoral"
Christians, Christ may "freely give" his grace to you regardless of how you treat other people, and so this narrative helps to quell the guilt of
the people who subscribe to it i.e. Evangelicals. Or, if you preferred narrative is pagan, Wotan is the "state" of permanent alienation; akin to
Cain in his 'wandering' - the wanderer is a nihilist who has been driven by life's traumas into a sadomasochistic warrior bent on satisfying his
primal urges in whatever way he wants.
The narratives up for grabs are many, but they only work or succeed in their function if other people aren't criticizing how stupid and idiotic they
are. "Magic" is about the unconscious biosemiotic relations that bind human minds into a single function - or state. Those who understand this are
always working to 'create' a response by ceaselessly presenting what they call a 'talisman' or a 'sigil', but which is just a visual or audial
or olfactory object which cues a certain emotional response; magic is far less 'mysterious' than its advertisers try to present it: it is simply
about the subtleties which lie deep within the intersubjective semiotic matrix which bind human nervous systems into a single 'metamind'.
Take the Egregore concept. This is clearly what Michael Tomasello, a leading anthropological psychologist, calls "shared-intentionality". How do
people come to share the same intentions? Through identifying with the same identity. Tomasello explores the psycholinguistic elements of this dynamic
without addressing the affective or motivational dimensions. Magic, or people who talk about egregores, understand these entites as 'group' mind
thought forms that are created by belief. In other words, they are worshiping an identity state, and wishing to make it appealing to other people.
More or less, the people who "do magic" this way are concerned with manipulating other people, and do not much care about the technicalities of what
a 'egregore' is. It feels "independent" of them insomuch as it exists between them. It is the same force anchoring each nervous system - it is
"between" them, but it is embodied and expressive of a biological dynamic within the brain itself.
I see humans fundamentally in their motivational ways, and so should you. What else does it mean to be wrong, and not recognize why you're wrong? We
can have bad motives; we can value the world in $hitty ways that express a selfishness that we are probably going to have to account for. To be
responsible is to be "able to respond". To respond to information - to meaning - and change course, is what responsibility means.
To not be sadomasochistic, but to seek to understand why you are that way, is to "get beyond the feelings" and their truths, to the elements which
created these feelings. Were talking about why and how pleasure and pain became synergized, and how, to get away from this social and relational
toxicity, one has to look upon ones past with a fresh gaze, with a look of understanding and care. But where can such a perspective come from, one can
well wonder, but from someone else looking upon your pain with a face, voice and attention that you've never personally experienced? Have you ever
been called to account? Or does your guru always tell you the opposite - persuading you that he too isn't human, and isn't needing to regulate his
incoherency with his own narratives.
The thing about being wrong, when your human..