Have we been focusing excessively on politics lately? I don't know. As far as I'm concerned, when I write about political philosophy, the spirituality is implicit, whereas when I write about spirituality, the politics is. It's just a matter of rotating the ball of consciousness within the cognitive plane that bisects it -- which is why one can only be consciously conscious of one thing at a time.
There are a multitude of horizontal planes that cut through the sphere of consciousness, and each of these is relatively autonomous and complete -- especially if one forgets about the ball! But only the ball encompasses the whole, which is perhaps why O should be thought of as a sphere rather than a circle. And which is why there are infinite ways to be a flatlander living out on one of those dry and dusty academic planes.
One might think of each of the horizontal planes as a kind of operating system one uses to recognize and "read out" the content of O. Each is a discipline, but if you fail to maintain discipline and become a disciple of just one plane, you won't be able to pilot your plane above or below your abstract little errpart.
Again, it would be an elementary error -- of both epistemology and ontology -- to confuse one's operating system with the actual totality of O, but when has that ever stopped people? Some of these operating systems are as crude as can be -- materialism, Darwinism, rationalism, existentialism, Marxism -- while others at least have the umlauts to know that in this post-Gödelian world of ours, a consistent philosophical system will be incomplete, and vice versa.
While we typically think of an unconscious "below" and supraconscious "above," these are merely spatial metaphors borrowed from the 3D world to try to make sense of the holographic order of O. For in reality, the unconscious is not below but within the conscious mind, and vice versa.
In other words, consciousness as such is somewhat analogous to the "total flowing atmosphere" of the earth. If one looks at a cloud in the sky, for example, one is generally not aware that what is available to the senses is actually a small visible "ripple" standing out against the backdrop of a much more encompassing meteorological process. (For those of you in Rio Linda, "meteorology" is not the study of meteors.)
It turns out that the subatomic realm operates in this fashion as well. A subatomic "particle" is not actually a separate entity, but the local manifestation of an oceanic, wavelike reality which is nonlocal and unmanifest. In my view, thoughts can be seen in the same way, as analogous to the clouds produced by the total atmosphere, or subatomic particles floating atop (so to speak) the oceanic field of quantum energy.
Just so, if O represents the ocean of total consciousness, (k) is a little grain of sand tossed upon the shore of the local ego. There is always a complementary relationship between O and (k), just as there is between wave and particle. This relationship "cannot not be," any more than there can be time without eternity, horizontal without vertical, interior without exterior, male without female, Toots without Herman. And this is why it is absurdly naive to posit "facts" in the absence of an operating system that recognizes and places them in a greater context.
In his earlier metapsychology, Freud envisioned the mind as "layered," so to speak, with the unconscious "below" and the conscious mind "above." In his second model, he developed the idea of different "forces" pushing each other around, namely, id, ego, and superego.
The point is that both models clearly borrowed from a domain with which we are familiar -- the physical world -- and transfered concepts appropriate to it to the study of the non-physical world. But of course the mind is not an object and it doesn't have layers. Whatever the mind is, it is not a machine, or a layer cake, or a bag full of stuff, even though we often look at it that way (and fruitfully, I might add).
It wouldn't at all be going too far to say that immersing oneself in psychoanalysis -- or any other ideology -- is very much analogous to using a different operating system to navigate O.
In order to think about O, or to translate it into local knowledge, we require an operating system. This is where "all the trouble arises," because people tend to fall in love with their operating systems, and not realize that there are other systems -- some very good ones and some very, very bad ones.
Islamism is an example of the latter. On the oppsosite end of the spectrum, our classically liberal founders came up with the best political operating system ever devised. It will never be surpassed in its essentials, since they had the wisdom to root it in certain truths that can never be surpassed, e.g., "all men are created equal." Any competing system can only fail to reach this truth, never surpass it.
Obviously, leftism -- or any philosophy that can trace its lineage to Marx -- is also a horrible operating system, partly because it legitimizes some of the most regretable characteristics of human beings -- both innate and parasitic -- but also because it poses a more or less permanent barrier to obtaining the true operating system (which can only come from the being who created the computer). It warps reality, but even worse, it gradually perverts the person who uses it.
Or, a point is reached at which you are no longer operating the system, but it is operating you. It begins by envying others, but envy eventually corrodes the soul of the envious. To say that it makes true happiness impossible is perhaps redundant.
Marx, like Freud, was informed by the best mechanistic science of his day, so that his conclusions and prescriptions are wrong a priori; indeed, they are not operative on our planet or for our species.
Nor, despite Obama's best efforts, can this operating system be adapted to the present, because it is completely at odds with reality -- economically, psychologically, historically, spiritually, politically, epistemologically, morally, ontologically, and comedically -- which is why leftists are such angry and humorless bores. As you know, nothing pisses you off more than when your operating system goes down. And bear in mind that the most sophisticated computer in the world is nothing without a good operating system.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Theme Song
27 comments:
I would like to put in a plug for the intuition.
I believe that faculty represents the cutting edge of human psychospiritual evolution.
My suspicions is that human beings can make decisions two ways: independently using programming built up by nature and human intelligence, or utilizing a second "fly-by-wire" direct guidance system from a remote source.
The remote source is O. My thesis is that O is willing and able to provide detailed, real-time decision making support to sincere people who stumble across the correct method for using it.
One can experiment with direct guidance (DG).
Hop into the car and begin driving. Do not try to decide where to go. Let the car go where it will.
The results of these intuitive driving missions can be astonishing, perhaps even revolutionary.
Once a solid link has been established, one can "fly-by-wire" on an as needed basis, mostly in response to challenges that are not amenable to standard decision making efforts.
Someone in the midst of a relati0nship contention that is not being solved, someone with a dilemma that keeps them in a state fo anxiety, can benefit from DG.
The method is to seek out a place where the energy feels good, look skyward, and say out loud (or inside the mind if desired) "I need direct guidance now please." Consciously direct the request to O.
Then, be prepared to act on your impulses. Don't try to censor them for content.
There will be some errata but that has to be borne.
My predicion is that people will use DG more and more until it becomes normative.
Sorry to go long.
There is something to what you say, in that one must definitely abandon oneself to nonlocal attractors -- various archetypes and essences -- in order to escape the grip of the ego's narrow operating system, which is rooted in such things as certainty, security, prestige, acceptance, imitation, conformity, tenure, etc.
Rick
Ironically, it is for the same reason the church has its homosexual priest problem. Darkness is attracted to the light.
"One might think of each of the horizontal planes as a kind of operating system one uses to recognize and "read out" the content of O. Each is a discipline, but if you fail to maintain discipline and become a disciple of just one plane, you won't be able to pilot your plane above or below your abstract little errpart."
And it is so easy to do, if you forget to look up and around you, your facinating little plane is doomed to become plain boring.
"Obviously, leftism -- or any philosophy that can trace its lineage to Marx -- is also a horrible operating system, partly because it legitimizes some of the most regretable characteristics of human beings -- both innate and parasitic -- but also because it poses a more or less permanent barrier to obtaining the true operating system (which can only come from the being who created the computer). It warps reality, but even worse, it gradually perverts the person who uses it. "
Yep, perverts the person who uses it, who then passes it on like a STD, to the next person. I put up a short comment of a post this morning, and a book I've just started reading, from a fellow named W.H. Malleck, an Englishmen from the turn of the 19th-20th centuries and a favorite of Russell Kirk. He notes from way back in 1908 when he wrote this that,
"... Socialism, on the other hand, has risen and spread thus far, not as a system which is threatening to supersede capitalism by its actual success as an alternative system of production, but merely as a theory or belief that such an alternative is possible. Let us take any country or any city we please—for example, let us say Chicago, in which socialism is said to be achieving its most hopeful or most formidable triumphs—and we shall look in vain for a sign that the general productive process has been modified by socialistic principles in any particular whatsoever. Socialism has produced resolutions at endless public meetings; it has produced discontent and strikes; it has hampered production constantly. But socialism has never inaugurated an improved chemical process; it has never bridged an estuary or built an ocean liner; it has never produced or cheapened so much as a lamp or a frying-pan. It is a theory that such things could be accomplished by the practical application of its principles; but, except for the abortive experiments to which I have referred already, it is thus far a theory only, and it is as a theory only that we can examine it..."
Even way back then Chicago was a center of STD's.
Krenshaw said "My suspicions is that human beings can make decisions two ways: independently using programming built up by nature and human intelligence, or utilizing a second "fly-by-wire" direct guidance system from a remote source."
I think it's also the leading edge of Humor and Eureka! moments.
Gotta be careful though, while it can lead you places, some of those places may be fender benders.
Krenshaw, what you describe is essentially (⇅).
However, you being you I'd add the caveat that just because nonlocal operators are standing by, doesn't mean they all have your best innerest at heart. "If it feels good, do it" is just as foolish in the vertical as in the horizontal.
Those whom O loves, O chastises; progress comes as often at the end of a massive cluebat as anything else. If all your guide ever does is ply you with spiritual pleasures, you may want to check what's on offer against some older, wiser references (any of the books at the Raccoon store, for instance. Or simply the Bible, especially the hard parts that sting when you read them). If your experiences don't leave you feeling genuinely humbled, that should be a great, flashing warning sign that you're headed nowhere fast (32' per second per second, if memory serves).
Darkness is attracted to the light.
I wonder if it comes down to a question of possession? What I mean is, Darkness doesn't want anything to do with the Light, which would annihilate it, but at the same time it hungers for it. So instead, it fixates on that which reveals and reflects the Light (that is, the smaller light of individuals oriented toward the Source; light doesn't come from them, rather it shines through them), trying in various ways to contain those gleams within its own darkness - which will always and inevitably fail.
Or in a word, I could have just called it envy...
Krenshaw,
I used to think I knew something about everything. Then I thought I knew something about a few things. Now I realize I know nothing. That makes it easier to "fly-by-wire." I don't have as much ego getting in the way. Although it is a struggle to keep silent enough to hear the call.
Julie,
"Those whom O loves, O chastises; "
Thanks for the reminder. :-)
James:
So, you are a DG user. Tell me more about this.
Julie: Point taken. The correct road is often the difficult one. The cluebat strikes hard. This brings up the question of the ultimate aim of life.
Although ease and pleasure cannot be ultimate goals, nevertheless it is sensible to seek them; to seek pain would be absurd. Pain should be, logically, the side effect of seeking pleasure.
It is difficult to parse.
Julie said: So instead, it fixates on that which reveals and reflects the Light (that is, the smaller light of individuals oriented toward the Source; light doesn't come from them, rather it shines through them)
Which also reminds me that anything the light doesn't shine through casts a shadow.
The darkness makes much of the shadows -- "See, you are just like me."
Van said: ... not as a system which is threatening to supersede capitalism by its actual success as an alternative system of production, but merely as a theory or belief that such an alternative is possible.
I don't know if Obama is Napolean, but I'm pretty sure George Bush is Snowball.
Krenshaw,
There is no technique, just humility and prayer. It is simple, but not easy. I don't comment here much anymore because I realized I usually don't have anything meaningful to add. I always wanted to be the smart guy in the room. I am uber Geek, hear me roar! But O is beyond mere rationally. You can't think your way to salvation, nor can you can you contain the Good, the True, and the Beautiful with your mind. Letting go of needing to be right, or appear like the smart guy was a big step for me. It's a funny paradox that only buy giving up Intellectualism, are you able to truly become an intellectual. I hope this helps.
To James re:
"I always wanted to be the smart guy in the room. I am uber Geek, hear me roar! But O is beyond mere rationally. You can't think your way to salvation, nor can you can you contain the Good, the True, and the Beautiful with your mind."
Think you are on to something. I always wanted to be right and enjoyed a good argument. I was raised to be a warrior. Now I realize that I may have been intended for other things. I believe being humble is generally being right or at least in the right ballpark. That is not to say I won't mount my steed and charge now and again when riled, but that I may be moving from the infantry to reconnaissance or intelligence. Finding an observation post to assess my surroundings is preferable to slogging it out in the trenches. Its also more fun.
Rationality is over rated. In reality, how many arguments have you actually won as compared to how many friends you have lost?
Tigtog and James:
For some, debate is a calling, and the more acrimonous, the greater the sense that something important is at the heart of it.
The habitual debater must be over herself to even get started.
Then, with heart and mind no longer prejudiced with the need for any particular outcome, enter the debate.
SBT enters into contention for the art of it all, for the acrimony, for the stirring of emotions and thoughts. It is an end unto itself.
I have no bombs in my sack today, because the post must contain debatable postitions that are sen to have weak spots. This one does not.
Back to the pub, in a short dress, knickerless, to get the jollies some other way. G'day.
To Smelly re:
"Back to the pub, in a short dress, knickerless, to get the jollies some other way. G'day."
I am I to understand that you are woman, in a bar, with a short skirt sans skivvies? Where might this pub be? Is there some reason your blog name is Smelly?
Tigtog said "I am I to understand that you are woman, in a bar, with a short skirt sans skivvies?... Is there some reason your blog name is Smelly?"
It's not obvious why?
I have a terrible time staying away from debate. No, not likely to convince people by being combative...but seeing people who *ought to know better* unthinkingly swallow pure darkness just irritates the fire out of me.
I need to get away from the "you ought to know better" attitude. But really, anybody who reads the Bible with any seriousness of thought OUGHT to know better when it comes to foundational, principial issues in which it's not just a "matter of interpretation." (I get so tired of that cop-out po-mo answer!)
Whereas with people who really have no reason to know better, I tend to try to be more winsome, or just plain silent.
Susannah, I think in the case of the ones who ought to know the problem is less a lack of knowledge and more a lack of will to align the self with the knowledge they already have.
It's kind of like with someone who has tried diet after diet after diet, only to inevitably end up each time worse off than when they started. It's not that they don't know how to eat healthily (they may even have amassed as much knowledge about dietary health as the average nutritionist), it's that they're unwilling to implement that knowledge in such a way as to maintain a healthier weight over the long term.
With such a person, argument is futile. Mind parasites are at play; they already "know better," but they are also adept at turning the argument around so that they can excuse themselves for any number of reasons from behaving more healthily.
For instance, suggesting to a diabetic family member that maybe they should at least try the sugar-free ice cream if they're going to eat it every night just doesn't work. The rationale? The chemicals substituted for the sugar aren't "real food," and might cause some kind of mysterious and unknown harm. Never mind that the short term pleasure of the real stuff is extremely likely to result in the well-known long term pain of cataracts, heart attacks and missing limbs. And untimely death.
It's not that they don't know, it's that they've girded themselves so strongly against the reality that they're damn near impervious. I know I still try to reason on occasion, but I also know it's probably futile.
Eventually, there comes a point when all you can really do is pray for them while learning from their mistakes.
One might think of each of the horizontal planes as a kind of operating system one uses to recognize and "read out" the content of O. Each is a discipline, but if you fail to maintain discipline and become a disciple of just one plane, you won't be able to pilot your plane above or below your abstract little errpart. "
I find my ayepad seems to help. :^)
Susannah said...
I have a terrible time staying away from debate. No, not likely to convince people by being combative...but seeing people who ought to know better unthinkingly swallow pure darkness just irritates the fire out of me."
Sadly, lefties think they do know better which is why they always try to impose their own delusions on reality (if they don't flat out deny it) and on us, always with disasterous results.
And because they do think they know best, THIS time all their (repeatedly proven) failures will work and reality will bend to their every whim (sarc).
Just like the Coyote tryin' to catch the Roadrunner only not as funny or as deep as the Coyote.
I cooncur with you and Julie.
"Sadly, lefties think they do know better..."
That's what bothers me. My left-leaning Christian friends seem to think they can turn it all over in one generation--that they can somehow innovate out of their gut, with no guidelines, essentially ignore (by "interpreting" away) what's fixed in the eternal...and somehow, some way, their freestyle improvisations are supposed to defy reality and bring heaven on earth. Frankly, why bother with the "interpretation" part? Why not just go full leftist?
I argue with these people. I shouldn't, I guess. But I figure, esp. in written form, others should be able to witness that one doesn't have to knuckle under to the nonsense.
Oh, and it always comes with a nice dose of disdain for traditionally orthodox brethren. Constantly, constantly, wagging a finger at the church, while with the other arm embracing people who have nothing but out and out hatred for it, for obvious reasons.
What kind of Christian votes for a guy who doesn't even blink at infanticide, believing that he's somehow going to "reduce abortion" with his magical, mystical nation healing powers. If you can do that, where does your allegiance really lie?
Julie, I think it's more a matter that God's revelation doesn't conform to their leftist sensibilities. So, out with whatever doesn't agree with them. For some reason, they feel obliged to go through the machinations of "Paul didn't really mean what he actually wrote," or "The red letters have priority over the other letters," but really, as I said, why bother? Might more easily and honestly just pitch the whole thing and make your -isms your god.
Susannah,
If you can do that, where does your allegiance really lie?
With the lie, of course.
Might more easily and honestly just pitch the whole thing and make your -isms your god.
Which goes back to my earlier point about light and dark. The Truth is dangerous - to face it and accept it means to try to conform oneself to it, a process that is often difficult and painful. A great many people would rather cling to a lie which allows them to follow their pleasures (and even better if they can claim that their pleasures are sanctioned by scripture) than accept a truth which requires constraint. But since the truth is always there, its messengers (of necessity human and with their own flaws) must be attacked.
Same as it ever was.
Susannah said "they can turn it all over in one generation--that they can somehow innovate out of their gut, with no guidelines, essentially ignore (by "interpreting" away) what's fixed in the eternal...and somehow, some way, their freestyle improvisations are supposed to defy reality and bring heaven on earth."
Ask them to describe what it is that a tyrant does... and what it is that makes one not a tyrant?
The problem, for them, of course is that what a tyrant does, what makes him a tyrant, is that they follow no fixed and eternal rules and just " innovate out of their gut, with no guidelines, essentially ignore (by "interpreting" away) what's fixed in the eternal...and somehow, some way, their freestyle improvisations are supposed to defy reality and bring heaven on earth"
Ask them to point out an instance when tyranny has ended well?
When they answer that "Well... it's not like that today, Obamao wants to help the people and care for them!", ask them to point out an instance when a tyrant came to power with the support of the people without claiming that he wanted to "help the people and care for them!".
And my personal favorite, ask them what they would say to a well cared for house slave to entice them to leave their comfortable situation, to escape and risk capture and losing their cushy status, in order to come to the world they're concocting... how would it differ from what they're already experiencing?
I've seen it help a few honest fools to flick their lights on.
"I argue with these people. I shouldn't, I guess."
Buffalo cookies. You don't need to debate them, but you should correct them, and the more people who overhear you the better. They aren't living in their own private Idaho, their uninformed and ill-considered 'common sense' is a real threat to you and your family now and for generations to come.
Call them on it.
Post a Comment