Do You Think You're Invulnerable?

Life is made of particles. So many - shaped in such complex ways, following such complex rules, that only the idiot is led to assume "life is a mystery", and yet at the same time aver that everyone "stands alone".

In Lewis Carrols Through the Looking Glass, the Red Queen tells Alice:

Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.

This is how some human beings live. Some of us are so averse to change - so motivated and controlled by torrents and torrents of fear-feelings, that every last bit of lifeblood they put into living is done in the service of extraction: to take some surplus here, and bring it into themselves. To build up - even if the very goal is unwinnable and becoming more and more explicitly unwinnable in the age of modern science, there still remains something which can only appear to a sane person - the vast majority of human beings on Earth - as being of the quality "pathetic", "repugnant", "staggeringly tragic".

As human beings, all of us created by physical contexts that lie entirely outside our capacity to control - for a simple reason as well: there is too much ordering beyond our awareness - beyond what we can say "I know that" - so that we always walk forward into our actions with a frustrating dearth of sanity - if we knew, that is, what sort of laws exist, we wouldn't be so glib about the things we do, given they portend consequences which we'd otherwise prefer to avoid.

Feelings are Expressions of Physical Dynamical Qualities

The deconstructionist efforts of postmodernism, in advancing a culture of 'transgression' for the sake of transgression, is so mindbogglingly out-of-step with natural law that one could very well wonder what sort of biodynamical processes are structuring these philosophers into thinking reality really works the way they think it does.

It's simple actually. If all things are symmetry processes, when we act in a way that is counter to what constitutes human symmetry - recognizing the contextual conditions that organize the behavior of the Other - we put our brain dynamics into a quantum 'coupling' with the other, such that the other experiences itself as "effectively known" - the result of which is a feeling of goodness.

If we desire goodness, why in the hell do we support a culture that undermines morality? Because the leaders are the most confused among us: after all, isn't it fundamental to the process of civilization that a special elite which owns and controls the means to produce are already themselves caught up in a metaphysical fiction that places them in a special category vis-à-vis the human beings they live with and around? Its a chicken vs. egg issue, which only finds resolution by applying evolutionary theory, which puts the chicken (or organism) before the egg; similarly, the human being precedes civilization, yet once the process started to shift and bifurcate so that an externally modified environment acted back upon a human beings self-organizing awareness, that the human being was prompted into the same thought-forms as those which preceded them. Each generation adding to and modifying the percepts of the last, creating new external forms, moving, inexorably it seems, towards more and more complexity.

Civilization, of course, cannot be conceived as an error, as a whole new vistas of exploration i.e. outer space, the fabric of matter, the way and manner our body and brain works to create consciousness, and how this dynamical process electrodynamically links up with other processes - have only be possible because of the human beings which came to take on an elitist belief system.

Consciousness, or the brain-mind, is also very complex - allowing for different sorts of experience of self-in-the-world, as Julian Jaymes, for example, believed, the ancients may have experienced their "daimons", or their own unconscious, as a 'guide' to their self-in-action. Plato, of course, claimed to be such a person; and many today look upon this ancient way of knowing as if it were superior to the theoretic-empirical mission of science, which is the only form of knowing which can build up a material world that is worth living in i.e. understanding so that we can better live with it.

It was by killing, to put it bluntly, this idea of "magic" and the mysterious, that mankind has moved to an even higher-plane of existence: understanding that what was earlier experienced as "mystical", and subject to something we termed "gods", was, and is, and has always been, an expression of the dynamical configuration's that emerge between brains-in-interaction - brains that map one another's self-other relations, so that a common 'attractor', or common organizing vector, can be recognized as the 'other-side' of the self-organizing process which occurs through matter: in other words, the SINK which guides the flowing of energy within the physical world (the relations between self and other).

This is not, however, an independently existing, external element: since dynamical processes in the material world are based in symmetry and entropy - or ordered and disordered matter - the "sink" constitutes the Whole that the Parts move towards. The Parts, in moving in a particular direction, do so because of the wider-world, or the ecology, which has acted upon the structuring of your brain-body since you were born.

Thus, probability, or Bayesian probability, underlies every single instant of your experience. The cells within you move along the 'path of least resistance' towards that which your body considers "coherent" in terms of the functional/motivational needs of the moment, as it relates to the environmental affordances around you.

Perfectly understandable all this is.



I'm pretty sure George Lucas knows that Yoda is Hebrew for "to know". If knowing can be "computed" on the inside, as a relational mode of attuning-to, as expressed so well by the German biologist and philosopher Johann Von Goethe in his study of light and of organisms, it seems like true knowledge is always about "connection" between subject and object.

But this isn't the point of this thread. My point is far more logical: why do you, or humans, trust themselves? Is it because of fear, and fear cripples us? Is it because fear makes us angry? And anger, in making us feel strong, feels like a preferable emotion than to one which leaves us feeling weak and small? Is it the thinking? The non-stop thinking? Or is the people we surround ourselves with? The "friends" which, only we could get away from one another, would find happiness in another (and different) persons company?

Huddling as one group, and feeling strong because of it, is fine so long as you aren't hurting others. Yet, of course, much of modern human society is built by a group-logic that turns people into inevitable enemies of one another, primarily because there is an antagonism against knowledge, and a lack of awareness of, or appreciation of, the way knowledge controls feeling as much as it does believing. Good knowledge - good actions - really are correlated with feelings of goodness - simply because what is "good" from the perspective of our body is achieving those states of teleodynamical correlation which underlies the normal lifeworld of the human being.

There is only one truth, and it is the human truth: our bodily form and lived environments.

a reply to: Astrocyte

I liked this paragraph:

This is how some human beings live.

Some of us are so averse to change - so motivated and controlled by torrents and torrents of fear-feelings, that every last bit of lifeblood they put into living is done in the service of extraction: to take some surplus here, and bring it into themselves.

To build up - even if the very goal is unwinnable and becoming more and more explicitly unwinnable in the age of modern science, there still remains something which can only appear to a sane person - the vast majority of human beings on Earth - as being of the quality "pathetic", "repugnant", "staggeringly tragic".

''

I would paraphrase Buddhists here with - we are a conditioned product of such feelings, speech and action. Fearing change (the unknown) we try to FORCE reality into a certain configuration - by whatever means necessary as individuals then collectively as groups.

I dont follow where 'symetry' comes into this. As long as we cannot be comfortable with CHANGE and learn to accept it as it is - we will always be violent towards one another.

a reply to: Astrocyte

I think it's more the other way around. We are ALL exactly the same. If we were too unique we would not be able to have sex with each other and procreate. I think what everyone needs and whats is exactly the same. That is why the propaganda is so effective in programming public opinion:



As part of the propaganda the powers that be have to promote the idea we have nothing in common with each other otherwise people would unite together in unions and crush the CEO oppressors. If you keep everyone under the delusion we are all unique and no else is worthy of your respect the boom you have total control over the masses.

If TV advertising did not work people would not spend billions for it!

a reply to: Astrocyte


Which truth do you think it is? Do you think humans are infinite or finite?

I mean its possible that what we today understand as Infinity is not Infinity but some construct that is amenable to our level of comprehension.

a reply to: Astrocyte

It probably depends on who "you" and "I" truly are, and how you define the self through identifying factors, memories, perceptual capacity, temporal locality of consciousness, as well as the possibility of multiple self consciousnesses and varying conscious awarenesses of these consciousnesses.

This study confirmed the previous evidence proposed with the STSR by Dr. Cazzolla Gatti showing that "dogs distinguish between the olfactory 'image' of themselves when modified: investigating their own odour for longer when it had an additional odour accompanying it than when it did not. Such behaviour implies a recognition of the odour as being of or from 'themselves'."

www.sciencedaily.com...

a reply to: Kashai

Taste is ,for me anyway, the most accurate of the body's senses in "clairvoyance". Dunno the right word
"clair-tastience"?.

Taste and smell are close, but I have an educated hunch a preditor would say "I know what you taste like" rather then "I know what you smell like".

So the study is probably right.

There are many different types of sociopaths, some of them are in groups and organizations, some of them are not. As you might have heard but not internalized, they don't feel fear beyond what might be a temporary fight or flight situation. They are said to had no sympathy or anything else, and this has nothing to do with background as much as personality type does. As this often is a case for simple forensics and doesn't play into personal bugaboos such as maybe, yours, and because we can't have all people trying to diagnose across the internet or it'll all turn into a (hint hint) petty little contest, it's best to leave it all to the officials. They live in a world of cold hard facts of personality types and CATCHING BAD GUYS, not necessarily ego games all over the net where we can pretend we have it all licked up. I said we, but "we" can go ahead and take a hint.

Anyways I wonder what your purpose here in internetland is, of suggesting fear over and over again, wonder if it's not a futile exercise to bring the conversation to you and your hidden hurts, as well as wondering why you lump all people into groups that seem so localized to specifically you that they are too obscure even for most modern day political landscapes let alone the underground ones. You know two things, that certain *people* have egos, and that certain words, phrases, etcetera, tick them off. Well. Good for you. I'd suggest that the groups you link are a fantasy, and only something you use in this instance to "play" in other words you want to force dialog for the sake of interacting with something you see as reactive goo and not necessarily human. I'd give you a five out of ten but you need to make something other than you the driving force. Hey, maybe you can meet up with some of these groups you claim exist and see if any of this stuff you say goes on. Instead of pulling people from online into your own particular little song and dance.

Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.

When are you? Now!
Where are you? Here!

Notice how much movement you appear to do - yet you never move from here and now!

originally posted by: Astrocyte
But this isn't the point of this thread. My point is far more logical: why do you, or humans, trust themselves? Is it because of fear, and fear cripples us? Is it because fear makes us angry? And anger, in making us feel strong, feels like a preferable emotion than to one which leaves us feeling weak and small?

Thought may say that you feel strong when you are angry but it is known that angry people are week with fear. Weak and small feeling is true but you have logically concluded that it makes you strong.

Is it the thinking? The non-stop thinking?

Is there trust when there is non stop thinking? Where is the peace?

Do you trust that whatever appears will be not be denied?

It seems that there is a running away from 'what is'. Does fear cripple? Or is it the turning away from what is appearing that makes you cripple?

The sensation that is happening is what there is but stories made of words lead one to believe all sorts of things that are not true - no matter how logical things seem to be figured out. True life consists of sensation......always here and now.