posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 08:20 PM
To be a hypocrite is to become a mind that can't know itself honestly.
Why is that? It could appear - albeit, to a naive person - that we can act one way in one context and another way in another context. For instance,
consider Kelly Ann Conway - a person who pathologically lies and yet seems completely fine and confident with that. Why is that? Why does she feel so
invulnerable to the sorts of feelings which emerge - and scourge - the mind for its incoherent behavior?
Some people may be inclined to interpret my last 2 words in the above paragraph - incoherent behavior - and ask themselves, why? "Who are you to say
what is and isn't incoherent behavior", and being raised in a cultural which operates from the 'theory of individualism', it would be
understandable that they would feel that way - given what they know and whatever they consider coherent is exactly a function of the affordances
offered to them in their growth and development as a self.
How can a person honestly not see that chance affordances are the basis of what they experience as their "sense of self"? If you operate from any
other assumption, you can only be considered by coherent people as ignorant - as in, not understanding basic physics (quantum theory, big bang, cosmic
evolution) or the geophysics-biophysics that underlie the emergence of living beings:
In essence, if you were to 'rewind' the universe, Humans would be seen to be a natural phenomena that follows the same basic laws of matter.
“From quanta up, all “things” transform and the transformations have characteristic rules. Those rules are the four fundamental forces and their
historical derivatives.” – Camelo Castillo, Origin of Mind: A History of Systems; pg. 31, 2011; Allardice Creek Press
The "historical derivatives" is all that emerges from the constraints imposed by the 4 physical forces. All of life emerges in this way. You, me:
our being happens through the circular dynamics of being a system in the context of a larger system. Van Goethe captured this principle with
his 'starry night' - intuiting with his style of painting the fundamentally dynamical - moving - ceaselessly responding nature of reality - each
'thing' connected like a puzzle piece into the world around it. The world is structurally connected, yet the mind can live as if that wasn't
I've suffered much in my life - enough to know that it probably isn't wise to orient yourself to reality in an antagonistic way. Yet that is
precisely the attitude of some adherents of an individualist philosophy.
Firstly, and this can only be recognized by people who don't mind spending lots of time alone - is that our mind has 'two' general fluxes. First,
we can be receptive to the world around us. The psychiatrist Dan Siegel refers to this as "conduition" - or 'conduction', where the frontal
cortices (or observing self) pays greater attention to the world around it. In doing so, it experiences its attending self in a way that may be
described as "passive awareness". In this state-of-awareness, the self is 'abnegated' as it calmly (and without any ulterior motive besides
seeking to know the world truly) "takes in" reality as it reveals itself.
Siegels analysis also recognizes a second state - or the "predictive" and "agentic" state of awareness, which is active, and calculative, and
interested in making 'internally coherent' the environment it internalizes and seeks to cognitively 'control' through language and narrative -
usually as it is received by others. This state of awareness is concerned with the needs of the self, which it represents in the assertions and
propositions of its speech. This is active awareness - a world projected and imposed on the world around it.
Herein lies the conundrum. In masculinistic cultures, the ego - or agentic, and cognitive self - the active self - is so involved with its own
ideation - its own fantasy - because of the effects of trauma and competition on the way and manner the brain-self organizes. Imperialist
cultures traumatize themselves without every realizing that they are doing so. The mind loses its internal "balance" - wherein the conscious, active
self Pays Attention to its Passive Experience, and utilizes that knowledge in its relationships with others.
This process is obviously intuitive and a basic feature of Human becoming - every Human on Earth 'self-organizes' in this way when the context
permits. Obviously, lead paint and other environmental toxins can disrupt normal neurological development - leading to behavioral consequences as
a function of a nervous system being "stressed" by the heavy element lead. The culture that emerges from this toxic background could then be cited
by racist opportunists as an example of an "intrinsic dysfunction" - i.e. with references to blacks - but this, of course, is not true.
Indeed, racist, elitist Humans are just as damaged - and governed - by the force of culture on the way and manner they self-organize. But in
being so egotistical - and actively cultivating a culture of pride, egotism, and ruthless disinterest in the suffering of others, they disown their
passive awareness of self as if it didn't still play a role in their functioning as a system. This amuses me - because the egotistical
mind is so 'full of itself' - meaning, preoccupied with its own affects, anxiety, and fears, yet never 'naming their occurrence', or recognizing
that their motivation in acting derives from the inchoate , difficult to understand feelings which arise in them.
Tramatologists - neuroscientists with the deepest sensibility of how Humans work - recognize the symptoms of dissociated and repressed trauma as
transforming within the mind-body as feeling-states which their active-consciousness, or "ego", doesn't have a language or culture to understand.
The reason for the staunch dissociation is the absence of whats called a holding environment. If the trauma which formed you happened in the
context of abuse, your body will always consider the other party you're relating with as a manipulator - someone not to be trusted. Abuse
rules the body - determines the feelings it will feel - and the mind is nothing more than the "emergent witness" of what it's body records through
the process of living.
I love science. I think it's language - reason - is transcendent, because it speaks in philosophical ways that give priority to empirical realities -
things which each of us have equal access to, and so allows us a "common reference" in our relating. Science produces knowledge of the highest
order: and I truly believe that it has a deep spiritual core - it will lead us back to what we actually are: to know truly, and not fear - and
continue to misunderstand the nature of suffering.
People who subscribe to 'occultism', to my mind, are mentally ill people who mythologize their existence in the garb of a narrative used by
primitive peoples - peoples living in a day and age which didn't understand the nature of reality. Now, when I say "nature of reality", I
mean "the nature of matter". To live in this world - to be a body subject to disorder and to be around other things with system-like properties -
indeed, to exist within a larger system we call "nature" - is to be of this world. The dichotomy presented between