Thursday, July 02, 2009

When Egos Attack!

Sherrard notes that the scientistic reduction and bifurcation of reality into reason and matter ultimately results in the spiritual nadir of Obama worship. Well, not exactly, because he died in 1995. But he might as well say it, because again, as a result of this bifurcation, what is specifically excluded from reality is our mirror of the Real, i.e., the nous, intellect, psychic being, or what I prefer to call (¶).

In one way or another, the elimination of (¶) is always Job One of the left, whatever sophistry they try to hide behind, e.g., "separation of church and state," bonehead Darwinism, multiculturalism, feminism, moral relativism, the "living constitution," etc. Once (¶) is out of the picture, the field is cleared of objectivity, of higher standards, of adults, of timeless truth, of our nonlocal telos, of the very reason for man's existence.

In short, what you end up with is "the triumph of the Demos expressed in such clichés as 'my view is as good as your view'" (Sherrard). You end up in the ironic situation of a "reality based community" that simultaneously believes that "perception is reality." Thus, a scientistic Queegling and hard-left Kosbag find common cause in their magical denial of reality in all of its modes and dimensions. Or, to put it another way, they have a common enemy: reality.

Again, reality "takes place" between O and (¶). We can never know O. As I explained in my book, anyone who is naive enough to think he can contain O within his reason -- no matter how brilliant -- automatically renders it Ø. Thus, the scientistic clown -- Dawkins, Harris, Queeg, et al -- is always talking about Ø, not O. For him, Ø is reality, the reason being that he is identified solely with (•).

I hope this is not getting too obscure or complicated, because my purpose is to cut through the complexity and to literally present things as simply as possible (but no simpler).

Yes, in a certain relative way, perception is obviously reality. That is, we can only know as much reality as our being will permit. A dog lives in a very different reality than a human being. There are many things a dog senses that a human cannot, but many more things a human can know to which a dog has no access at all.

As I have said before, I am not one of those who believes that the ego is intrinsically "evil," or that it is the repository of fallen man. Rather, I believe it serves an evolutionary purpose (which we'll get into later). In the grand scheme of things, it is like a launching stage for further psychic growth.

Indeed, this is why I use an empty symbol for it, (•). It's rather like the body. It's good or bad, depending upon the use to which it is put. Also, the body can become "bad," so to speak -- or at least an impediment to psychic growth -- if we are completely identified with it, like an animal (when man does this, he renders himself lower than an animal).

I routinely see patients who are more or less identified with the body. Usually they are from third-world countries or from lower socio-economic classes, but not always. Really, it's more of caste thing, as I have described in the past. What does the world look like to such an individual? I don't know. A Big Mac. A vagina. A basketball court. [Sounds good to me! --C.D.]

I once thought about writing an article about the idea of a first world, second world, third world, etc., only applied to the psyche instead of economics. Because there surely exist different "worlds" to go along with different degrees of psychological development. This is why we cannot simply say that "man is the measure or all things," because there is no "thing" in the absence of a psychic container. For example, a shoe is a radically different object if contained in the mind of a dog vs. a person.

Likewise, for an illiterate person, a book is just an object. It is not even as interesting as a shoe is to a dog, unless there are lots of pictures.

Now, I have a huge library. Much of it is filled with books on psychoanalysis, religion, theology, mysticism, and metaphysics. For me, they mirror and disclose various worlds. But to the reified (•), they are just meaningless objects. They do not disclose any reality.

Here again, you can appreciate how this attitude leads to the triumph of the spiritually vacant boobieoisie. But what's really going on beneath the surface is an all out attack on O. If you stand back and look at it abstractly, you will see that it actually takes the form of (•) attacking (¶). You can see it in our trolls. Their dispute is not with me. Rather, it is with (¶) disguised as me -- and ultimately with O.

Likewise, this is the basis of my dispute with Obama, who is really a big Øbama. He is a big vacant somebody who is the result of a lot of big nobodies making him into one. But Ø + Ø always adds up to Ø.

Time's up. To be continued....

18 Comments:

Blogger Van said...

"But he might as well say it, because again, as a result of this bifurcation, what is specifically excluded from reality is our mirror of the Real, i.e., the nous, intellect, psychic being, or what I prefer to call (¶)."

Yes indeedy, which means,

"...they have a common enemy: reality."

Exac-a-tact-ly!

7/02/2009 09:55:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"I once thought about writing an article about the idea of a first world, second world, third world, etc., only applied to the psyche instead of economics."

That's a very interesting idea.

7/02/2009 10:09:00 AM  
Blogger robinstarfish said...

Øbama...is a big vacant somebody* who is the result of a lot of big nobodies making him into one.

*Who apparently doesn't even have a real birth certificate.

7/02/2009 10:18:00 AM  
Anonymous Alan said...

Excellent post - I keep remembering the importance of the use of symbols in your book e.g. ¶.

The title of the post just got me thinking of "Egos Gone Wild" - with crowds of people shouting show us your t***.

Sounds like a good description of our celebrity-focused culture.

Perhaps there's some similarity of both the need for succor and the inversion of the Good from our crowds following celebrities.

7/02/2009 11:44:00 AM  
Anonymous bob f. said...

Have a good Fourth, folks, and don't forget to have some TEA.

7/02/2009 11:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Sean said...

btw Bob, how is the big puppy dog?
Prior to children dogs get first world love. Kids have a way of bumping them down the spectrum, no?

wv:dicsilos....post Obama defense cuts

7/02/2009 12:32:00 PM  
Blogger walt said...

"I once thought about writing an article about the idea of a first world, second world, third world, etc., only applied to the psyche instead of economics."

This sort of approach is intriguing, since a reader is trying to "organize" your ideas on the fly, and it might help all involved. But then there's the risk also of the reader focusing on your pointing finger, and not what your pointing at.

Your amigo Mr. Chopra published a book 8 or 9 years ago called How To Know God that tried to explain God in relation to the part of the brain that perceived Him. Seven levels, or "worlds." I'm pretty sure that yours would be more useful.

On the other hand, his information doesn't cost very much: 444 used copies available for $.01.

7/02/2009 05:03:00 PM  
Blogger walt said...

Speaking of books, I've really enjoyed the passages from Phillip Sherrard. I read his Wiki bio and the reviews on all his books, and am intrigued that he collaborated with Kallistos Ware.

One book the Wiki bio mentioned called Human Image: World Image, I didn't see listed with his other books, but I tracked it down. It also looks interesting.

Oh, good/oh, darn: more books to read!

7/02/2009 05:17:00 PM  
Blogger Fido said...

HeckifIknow. I placed music and rap in the same category once.
And I'll do it again too.

7/02/2009 05:51:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

No access for you. 7 years!

7/02/2009 05:55:00 PM  
Anonymous notthatanonymoose said...

to paraphrase:
So you will know them by the fruits of their (.)???

7/02/2009 06:56:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Prediction:
Harry Stein’s book isn’t as funny as the thought of our DL reading a survival book for living among the libs.

7/02/2009 07:31:00 PM  
Blogger mushroom said...

Likewise, for an illiterate person, a book is just an object. It is not even as interesting as a shoe is to a dog, unless there are lots of pictures.

The last, and no doubt worst movie John Candy ever made was called "Wagons East!". It's like the "Plan 9" of Westerns but worse. It does, however, have a couple of interesting scene. In one, an illiterate low-life walks into the bookstore and wants to buy a really big book. The proprietor offers him one of Jane Austen's novels. The buyer doesn't want to pay for it until he tries it out first -- so he heads for the outhouse. He returns in a few minutes and pays for the book.

7/02/2009 07:57:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

I believe there is a similar scene in Dances withe Wolves.

7/02/2009 08:00:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Thanks Bob!

This post answered a lot of the questions I had.
I look forward to more revelations about mind parasites, and everything else you're led to write about. :^)

7/02/2009 09:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Walt,
I found Human Image, World Image to be Sherrard's best.

Fred


wv: helldopi--"Hell Dopi, Sleeping Beauty isn't interested in your ass!"

7/03/2009 06:33:00 AM  
Blogger Ryan said...

I never thought I'd see the sublime work of Sherrard used for banal American liberal/ conservative vitriol. To put his words to such a purpose is really to miss his point. The entire political spectrum- left, right, and "moderate", is an expression of the same demonic worldview.

7/18/2009 09:04:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Why surprised? This is what demons do. What, do you think I sit around all day pining for the middle ages?

7/18/2009 09:32:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home