The Fate of the Idolator

0

Zero is the universe; the circle; the source and fate of our being. Or at least it is felt as such, because we transfer "self-experience" states from one modality (dissociation) into another one (recognizing in zero something of the former). Zero can thus be metaphorically described as a true visual dynamical representation of an internal 'mental' experience.



But what is the source of the dissociation? The mystic is ignorantly uninterested in this, and that is a deeply unfortunate situation to be in. More scientifically, an ethologist, or animal behavior scientist, would deduce that the dissociation state (as an individual state of brain-mind which produces 'states of self-experience') left-overs of a defensive procedure: why "zone out" if not but to 'get away' from something negative? Animals can dissociate - or the effect can be induced by physically abusing them, or, exposing them to negative sensory cues like sounds, images, or textures that agitate them. The final 'end-state' of doing this after awhile is 'dissociation', where the 'motivational' system that usually organizes consciousness is 'taken over' by another, more alien sort of 'motivation': the motivation not to feel or know. Dissociation is fundamentally about 'controlling' the attachment systems which 'seek to know' external reality. All social animals, and thus, all mammals, are at risk of dissociation, but it is primarily in human beings, with a secondary, ontological unit called 'language', who can become genuinely lost in the words and meanings of the narratives they create with other people. They become prisoners of their own narratives - forced to idealize an unlikely result all the while experiencing the conflict it creates with their bodies - which have a 'standard' for truth the constantly produces 'judgements' within our perceiving mind.

This insane situation of not communicating and making sense of emotional (embodied) feeling states has everything to do with not having a language or a feeling of trust that must accompany any divulgence of self-experience. If you don't trust people, you don't speak. If you don't speak, you maintain the lies and falsities which guide your living. Sex, drugs, and 'rock n roll' is a typical trifecta that breeds unhappiness, because the perspective really speaks to a limited perspective of our being.



Human 'relational' affects are basic; they are 'three'. Fun-play emotions coincide with the cliché 'sex, drugs, rock n roll'. A person who attempts to live according to this idealization sometimes realizes that care, as in relationships with other humans, as well as awe, or a sense of existential relation with oneself in the big wide universe of being, cannot be excluded from the equation without seriously dysregulating ourselves. Fun is not meaningful enough to support health and wellbeing; if the person attempts to build up and maintain his worship of his idol, this comes at the heavy price of rendering them 'affectively' insensitive - unresponsive - to the actual semiotic realities they generate. This spiritual punishment is really bad enough, but if the investment is "this world", it's a great investment.

Nietzsche, and then Heidegger, spoke most clearly to this sort of experience of reality, where the "way things are", as for example, stated so clearly in writers like Pascal (this bothered Nietzsche), and the way they experience reality (the "German, modern" western intellectual) forced them to work from the existing mythological and religious mysticisms which see the "now" as the 'salvation' from the tortures of 'being'. The "tortures of being", of course, work from real life experiences, from attachment conflicts in early life, and asymmetrical relationships where the self is depleted of its sense of safety - and thus, its embodied vigor - and compelled to form an image - which is simultaneously a unique brain-network with established pathways that can only be "undone" by complicated and painful dynamics - which allows them to "make sense" of reality. Their way of being is the 'code' that they use to 'unlock' the potentials for self-advancement. The tortures of being derive from arrogance and weakness. Nietzsche actually spoke of it being the "shame of a God" - where the "God" is the Human beings existential relationship to itself, and its 'shame', being its embodied knowledge of its own perverse 'wiring'.

Ok - so that is Nietzsche: a man monstrously self-aware of his own perversity, and maintaining his idolatry to the very end:

“The man is indeed pneumopathic, he is sick in spirit, and the matter can now become complicated by the fact that he is aware of this swindle, as is very clear, for example, in Nietzsche, who speaks explicitly about this problem. He constantly suffered from the fact that he swindled, because he knew what reality was from Pascal’s case. The constant debate between Nietzsche and Pascal is stimulated precisely by his recognition of genuine reality in Pascal and his knowledge of himself as having a false idea of reality and that he constantly lived in this tension between the image of the swindle he is pursuing and the reality he admires in Pascal.” – Eric Voegelin, Hitler and the Germans; pg. 109; 1999 (1964); Missouri

Nietzsche helped build the "philosophy of the future", which is the postmodernism of today. All this insane, errant, delieberately asymmetrical relations to the world - even though it will ultimately make every 'idol worshiper' - or idealizer - suffer in the end, is the 'celebration' of the idol, the god, the falsity, all the while the "animal within" - the mind which chooses this insane relationship - is unable to tame the demons - the established nerve-pathways, that roar their thunderous biosemiotics - the truths they 'carry' within their complex branches, of how one has lived.

The false ontological claim that the self is "self-sufficient", that it doesn't need to acknowledge its ontological dependency on others i.e. to cultivate an image of itself as happily connected with others, is a pernicious myth that is profoundly powerful in todays world: it is an 'egregore' of immense proportions, with an evil and deranged underside that will be unleashed if the world economy ever falls apart:

“It is the problem of the simple man, who is a decent man as long as the society as a whole is in order but who then goes wild, without knowing what he is doing, when disorder arises somewhere and the society is no longer holding together.” – Eric Voegelin, Hitler and the Germans; pg. 105; 1999; (1964) Missouri

Voegelin is describing psychosis, and psychosis is a purely understandable process, relating to attachment dynamics within one self-state (and its historical, neurological-psychological elaboration over development) and existential dynamics in another state, which commenton the former state, for instance, in philosophical rumination, artistic creation, or religious worship, there is a meta-cognitive 'knowing of' which acts to regulate that state in the brain. When the self's attachments and its idealizations are frustrated enough - and the self refuses to give in to reality and accept its rules after a stress-threshold has been crossed, psychosis develops. Its a law of nature. And its worth knowing it.

I think I figured out w the problem is with the way you word or view things. You criticize too much a swath of people, literally, for going out and doing things.

I get being antisocial it's not anything I haven't seen before. But at this rate you are literally criticizing everyone. And for someone who claims to not have cultivated a social circle of their own, and just places thoughts this comes across as dismissive. You've literally just insulted social-dom and told everyone why they're flawed for breathing and liking things. You've gotta at least have a pitch. I'll deal with:flawed human who would rather just sit and play Jenga. Ok fine dude but would you lighten up?

Literally. Go out on the beach and have a mai tai. Cultivate a circle of friends. If it's information you want to know, you have to be there, and if it's a pitch you're trying to give at least be a little more specific about who or what you're fingering. Because what I get from this is this: you don't like:

Social people.
People.
Antisocial people.
People who think things.
Nietzsche (Ok sure cool whatever.)
Anything that moves.
And anything.


...

Em like epp

a reply to: Astrocyte

i liked this very much. thanks.i liked the diagram too

originally posted by: Astrocyte
Voegelin is describing psychosis, and psychosis is a purely understandable process, relating to attachment dynamics within one self-state (and its historical, neurological-psychological elaboration over development) and existential dynamics in another state, which commenton the former state, for instance, in philosophical rumination, artistic creation, or religious worship, there is a meta-cognitive 'knowing of' which acts to regulate that state in the brain. When the self's attachments and its idealizations are frustrated enough - and the self refuses to give in to reality and accept its rules after a stress-threshold has been crossed, psychosis develops. Its a law of nature. And its worth knowing it.

"Every stable system has the property that if displaced from a state of equilibrium and released, the subsequent movement is so matched to the initial displacement that the system is brought back to the state of equilibrium. A variety of disturbances will therefore evoke a variety of matched reactions." W Ross Ashby

"A social system learns whenever it acquires new capacity for behaviour, and learning may take the form of undirected interaction between systems." Donald Schon

I don't like being told anything.
Instead I like to be told the truth if there is any.
Diagrams are for numbskulls.

If you don't know, act like it

.

a reply to: Pinocchio

nvm