Archona

If God made us in his image, isn’t it only natural that we make him in ours?

That is a very deep statement (and yes, I coined it, right now)– one that will be the focus of this post.

I am writing a fiction novel right now– am currently working on the 10th chapter (formerly the 11th, before I opted to cut the 1st chapter out and make it an independent work– a prequel of sorts).

This novel, “Essence of the Soul”, is about a spiritual journey to find the mysterious Essence, which is believed to be the root of everything– the ultimate source of “Life, the Universe, and Everything” (yes I know that’s a quote from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, but I just had to use it!)

Anyway, my story is somewhat inspired by Gnostic philosophy. Well… this isn’t explicitly the case– after all, the aspects of  Gnosticism that are in the book are ones that I ‘independently’ thought of intuitively, before I actually knew anything about Gnosticism. So despite the book essentially being inspired by Gnosticism, it is for the most part completely original.

But for the sake of having a parallel to draw by which to better portray these things (which I have yet to express adequately in the book, as it is incomplete), I will paraphrase Gnostic mythology:

In the Gnostic creation story, Sophia the Essence, from which all as came into being.

Sophia is the one true God– and is perfection itself. However, although Sophia is perfect in nature, Sophia is imperfect in Essence, because she desires to manifest herself into Form that she might appreciate herself.

Thus, Sophia is herself a paradox: Because her very nature is perfection, she must be formless, because anything that has form is imperfection (Form itself is finite, thus being corrupt and imperfect in nature. At the same time however, Sophia desires to become corrupt, that she might achieve Form.

Although Gnostic philosophy (as far as I know) does not acknowledge this, I believe that Jesus Christ suffered from the same dilemma, also being perfect but wanting to attain Form.

*note that I am not using the word “physical” in conjunction with “Form”. This is because Form is the progenitor of the physical realm; “Form” does not refer to just physical form– it also refers to existence itself. According to this line of thought, that of course means that both Sophia and Jesus technically “don’t exist”, because there is no Form by which to define their existence. It’s unfortunate that the English language lacks the ability to properly explain spiritual concepts*

Both Sophia and Jesus existence because in order for there to be perfection for either, there must Balance. One could say that Balance itself is in it’s own right an even higher God, but because that God can only “exist” when Sophia and Jesus become one (which is impossible, even at the spiritual level), such an assertion would be meaningless.

So Balance only exists as an Ideal, as are Jesus and Sophia, albeit to a lesser extent.

Sophia’s nature is Positive, whereas Jesus’s Nature is Negative.

note: this is not to say that Sophia is “good”, whereas Jesus is “evil”– anyone familiar with Taoist philosophy should know that neither good or evil exist– there is only “Balance”, and the lack thereof.

In my belief, “Positive” refers to Creation, and Manifests itself through Change. Thus, depending on the way you look at it, Sophia is the source of all creation, although she herself did not create us, which will be explained later on.

Negative refers to Relativity, and Manifests itself through Control. Jesus is the source of Relativity, which allows us to appreciate what has been created (indirectly) by Jesus (because Jesus is by nature perfect, he cannot control everything– this will also be explained a bit later.)

Neither Change or Control can allow appreciate of anything independently; rather, appreciation requires a combination of both of these. It could then be said that to achieve maximum appreciation requires a *perfect* balance between Change and Control, which of course is impossible.

Uncontrolled Creation is known as Chaos, and does not have a form (something that constantly changes is formless by nature).

On the other hand, Relativity cannot exist without Change, as without there are no changes (and thus no standards by which to appreciate Relativity.

In Freudian psychology, Change is fueled by desire, and manifested in the Form of the Id.

Control on the other hand is fueld by the identity and perception, and is manifested in the Form of the Ego.

note that in the Gnostic model (which I adhere to), Jesus is the Father, and Sophia is the Mother.

Here’s the fun part:

Both Sophia and Jesus needed to manifest themselves (Sophia to create, and Jesus to control this creation) but paradoxically could not. In addition, because a true union between them was not possible, anything that they created would be imbalanced in nature.

Because they (Sophia and Jesus) are inherently opposite in nature, they “essentially” cancel each other out. The reasoning for this is somewhat related to the “Uncertainty Principle“. One layman’s rendition of the Uncertainty principle, is that the question and the answer in relation to any given thing cannot co-exist, because they cancel each other out.

If Jesus is the question (what limits knowledge to be appreciated), and Sophia is the answer (formless knowledge), then it’s only natural that they could not coexist, at least non coexist with arbitrary precision (e.g. union, which I refer to by the more appropriate and specific term “nexus”).

This implies that Jesus is the source of Control (what limits) and Sophia is Chaos (knowledge without form). This last part makes sense of certain things, as Sophia itself means “Wisdom” (Knowledge), and the Demiurge (the bastard son of Sophia) is also known as Yaldabaoth, “Son of Chaos”.

*note: there are certain aspects of Gnostic philosophy that I am not familiar with:

[copied from wikipedia]:

Sophia originally fell from grace because she tried to emanate without her syzygy (Jesus Christ) or, in another tradition, because she tries to breach the barrier between herself and the unknowable Bythos.

After cataclysmically falling from the Pleroma, Sophia’s fear and anguish of losing her life (just as she lost the light of the One) causes confusion and longing to return to it. Because of these longings, matter(Greek: hylē, ὕλη) and soul (Greek: psychē, ψυχή) accidentally come into existence. The creation of the Demiurge (also known as Yaldabaoth, “Son of Chaos”) is also a mistake made during this exile.

Gnostic myth recounts that Sophia (Greek, literally meaning “wisdom”), the Demiurge’s mother and a partial aspect of the divine Pleroma or “Fullness,” desired to create something apart from the divine totality, and without the receipt of divine assent.

In this abortive act of separate creation, she gave birth to the monstrous Demiurge and, being ashamed of her deed, she wrapped him in a cloud and created a throne for him within it. The Demiurge, isolated, did not behold his mother, nor anyone else, and thus concluded that only he himself existed, being ignorant of the superior levels of reality that were his birth-place.

The Demiuge is the failed attempt by Sophia to manifest her existence in appreciable Form.

That Form, which is also known as the Demiurge [literally “public worker”], went on to create the physical world in the image of his mother (Chaos).

The Demiurge, being the product of corrupted knowledge in a false-controlled form, ignorantly emanated himself in the incomplete image of Sophia. Emanation, from the Latin “emanare”, “meaning to flow from”, the unresolvable paradox that was God resulted in a a spiritual pipe being proverbially broken.

These false-emanations resulted in the creation of the Archons–servants of the Demiurge (who himself is considered an Archon, also being a corrupted emanation of Sophia). The Archons created the physical world, and continued to emanate compulsively, culminating in the emergence of humans, a complicated mix of chaos and control.

For this reason, humans are born with an inherent desire to emanate (to reproduce something of our own image), that we might appreciate ourselves, just as Sophia emanated the Demiurge.

As humans, we have lost most of what qualities were inherited from Sophia, but what we still keep some;

These qualities take the form of what we have come to know as “intuition”.

Sophia, being the emanation of desire, is the source of this part of the Demiurge’s nature, so when we were ‘created’ (or should I say, “born”), the source of our desire is Sophia, with the corrupted forms of desire known as “instinct” and “intuition” being acquired from the Demiurge.

Now here’s where Jesus comes in:

The Garden of Eden is a tale not just limited to the Christian and Jewish Bibles, but known to many different cultures all over the world, including indigenous ones that are largely isolated of foreign contact.

The Gnostic creation story is very lengthy, so I’ll just include the part regarding Jesus: (I’ve edited the following so that you will know when they are talking about Jesus)

Then came the wisest of all creatures, who was called Beast [Jesus, aka the Serpent]. And when he saw the likeness of their mother Eve he [Jesus] said to her, “What did God say to you? Was it ‘Do not eat from the tree of knowledge’?” She said, “He said not only, ‘Do not eat from it’, but, ‘Do not touch it, lest you die.'” He said to her, “Do not be afraid. In death you shall not die. For he knows that when you eat from it, your intellect will become sober and you will come to be like gods, recognizing the difference that obtains between evil men and good ones. Indeed, it was in jealousy that he said this to you, so that you would not eat from it.”

Now Eve had confidence in the words of the instructor [Jesus]. She gazed at the tree and saw that it was beautiful and appetizing, and liked it; she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she gave some also to her husband, and he too ate it. Then their intellect became open. For when they had eaten, the light of knowledge had shone upon them. When they clothed themselves with shame, they knew that they were naked of knowledge. When they became sober, they saw that they were naked and became enamored of one another. When they [Adam and Eve] saw that the ones who had modelled them had the form of beasts, they loathed them: they were very aware.

[From Wikipedia]: the Serpent in the Garden of Eden is depicted as a hero sent by Sophia to guide mankind towards enlightenment.

Jesus then, being the male counterpart of Sophia, takes the form of the Serpent, freed us from the ignorance imposed on us by the Demiurge and his servants the Archons (in the above passage they are called “the authorities”.

It is at this point that mankind can achieve gnosis, which transcends the intuition that he inherit from Sophial; the corrupted form of gnosis is known as “logic”.

Thus just as we inherit intuition from Sophia, we inherit logic (from which philosophy– and ultimately, gnosis is derived) from Jesus.

*note this post is wayyy too long, and in my efforts to explain that which required have caused me to go overboard; oh well :p

now to that real focus of this post: Archona

I was talking with a friend the other day about Archons, and was reminded of one crucial aspect of all this. Just as the Archons created us (our material form), we create our own Archons [e.g. Archona].

As I said at the beginning of this post:

If God created us in his image, isn’t it only natural that we create him in ours?

Archona are the spiritual manifestations of the self, driven to become God by creating him as the extension of ourselves.

To understand this, you must first understand magic. Contrary to popular opinion, magic is not a lost art– it is merely the retrospective name given to what is now known as many other things, and might collectively be called “science”.

Yes, magic and science and magic are essentially the same thing in essence, as they are both built upon the same foundation, which is the capture and control of spiritual energy.

The only real difference between the two is that magic is more primitive; science is a more sophisticated form of magic, essentially. I’ll go into this in more detail in my post Magic versus Science.

That being the case, we use both magic (through intuition) and science (through logic) to create God in our own image.

Science: physically (genetics), emotionally (psychology), socially (sociology) — you get the point.

The reason that people are not too familiar with what magic really is, is partly because it gets stuck with the leftovers that science does not yet have a solution for: the soul, ego engineering, telepathy, empathy, telekinesis, teleportation. Although with magic doing these things is inefficient, unpredictable, and often dangerous– it still remains useful because it is only through more primitive magic that these things can be done.

In its purest form, an Archona is an artificially created (man-made) soul that can serve a variety of purposes, although it most cases it is not consciously made (although it can be consciously observed after its creation). Currently there is no scientific way of creating an Archona (although I hope to change that which my up-and-coming field of Ego Engineering); Archona are currently only developed using magic, and are usually created “accidentally’, in response to, among many other things, post-traumatic stress.

I myself am just beginning to learn about Archona, as they are something I only recently became aware of. But it is already abundantly that they are a significant part of our lives, and are only bound to become more important in the future.

Egotism

When I first began writing, it was more of a hobby than anything. At the time I was naive, ignorant, and above all– curious. Starting with recognizing the need for purpose in ones life, I decided that I would try to find truths that only I could know– to inspire people in ways that only I could– to push the boundaries of knowledge as we know it.

I fashioned a screen name to recognize this: trailbl4zr (from the word “trailblazer”– a pioneer of the sociological wilderness.

This was several months before I started my first blog, jbcandid.blogspot.com. It was about 3 1/2 years ago.

Recognizing that to understand and fulfill my purpose, that I must be honest with myself, I became jbcandid, and most of the writing in that blog is built upon the premise that by being as upfront and candid about myself as possible, I would know my potential, and be able to achieve self-fulfillment.

A lot of the more recent posts on th3g1vr (my third and current emanation, until it is replaced by Nspyraishn) were actually written during the jbcandid phase.

One of the last posts that I wrote during this phase was “Great Expectations“, in which I recognized the need to expect great things of myself, that I might achieve greatness. One of the ethics of mine that has always hold true, is that I must achieve as much as I possibly can, because I can. Thus, because I know my potential is limitless, I have no choice but to become God.

Lately I’ve been wondering if I should abandon that goal– not because I don’t think I can do it, but because my heart might be in the wrong place.

I don’t know what it is I should do– therefore I should aim for the very best– that is the basic logic. But what about my happiness.

What it really comes down to, is that what is most important.

Or is there anything in this world that can be considered truly important?

If not, should I just be happy instead– strive for happiness @ all costs?

The path that I am destined to live will not bring me happiness- only suffering and dissatisfaction…because nothing I will do will ever be good enough.

Normally, a person would not be so Egotistical as to assume that they were capable of becoming God.

No one ever told me that, and if I were to make a judgement based upon my current self– I am one of the least likely to achieve such a goal.

So what is it that makes me claim such an extravagant calling?

The answer: anyone could become God. But unfortunately, I am one of the few that realizes this.

It was nice just knowing that I could become so great.

But then I had to take responsibility for that fact– that because I could become God– I had to become God– that it was my duty.

Originally, I just thought I’d use my gift of insight to provide my assistance to those who needed it.

But before I knew it, I had written 1000+ pages worth of inspirational material– most of which was independently derived, and all of which possessed a dangerous and revolutionary level of originality.

I never wanted to write– especially not about such depressing things. But having come this far, following these existential obsessions– before I knew it I was an accomplished writer.

And worse– writing was all that I had.

Having undergone a psychological death, and mindfucked my new self to a zombified state– raped, tortured, and torn to shreds– I had nothing left but my writing.

Nothing else mattered

Nothing else was real…anymore.

I speak in past tense, but truth be told, these things are still true– even more true as I am writing this.

What was it that I was really looking for? I don’t think I’ll ever know.

But now that all I have left is creative expression– primarily in the form of writing, and hopefully eventually expanding to the other forms such as manga, anime, live-action films, and music– but for a while, it will just be writing.

In the end, this Egotism is all that I have left.

Everything else died a long time ago, with the innocent self that was Justin– died at the age of eleven– surviving only in the form of a zombie.

No matter what I do, I’ll probably never be truly happy– never be satisfied with anything.

I suppose it’s not in my nature.

So what’s the point of living?

I guess that I never really wanted happiness.

If I did, I probably would have commited suicide by now, because I already know without a doubt that I’ll never find it.

I hate lying to people, telling them I’m happy.

I hated especially lying to my girlfriend about how happy I was.

But I know that neither she, I, or anyone else would understand.

There comes a point where we have to say it’s good enough.

I don’t know if I was ever happy.

But it was at the very least one of the closest things to being happy that I’ve ever felt.

I know it would be better if I just gave up on this bullshit.

But I suppose that’s why they call it Egotism.

Philosophical Scrapbook

In the last few months before I came to Job Corps, I came up with a bunch of ideas for new blog posts, which never matured into something that IMO could be considered posts.

Almost all of my posts are based upon the concept that I take an idea, and see how far I can continue on that train of thought. When the train of thought ends, I publish it (or in some cases, publish the final update to it).

The following is a collection of all those thoughts, each of which can be considered the larval form of a post, and which eventually may become such:

Evolutionary Dualism:

Fight

 

God (creator)

Passion (Holy Spirit)  Control (Father) Expectations (Son)

               |                                |                          |

           Desire            Communication           Commitment

           Change                Intimacy                   Pride

                |                              |                           |

           Present                     Past                      Future

__________________________________________

 

Flight

 

Fear             Chaos             Doubt

helpless         lost              despair /mistrust

     |                   |                      |

  victim

                                                       

Satan (destroyer)

 

Can Creative means cause Destructive ends?

Can Destructive means cause Creative ends?

to be continued…

No Excuses

As I recently discovered, there are two main ways to attain what might be considered close to ‘true’ freewill:

(1) To kill the Ego (Ego Death)

(2) Synthetic Immersion

Ego death can be achieved using at least three methods:

(a) Merge the Ego into the SuperEgo- this would result in the will of the self being the will of the collective. Mass-conversion to a SuperEgo-based self is the primary prerequisite to the holy grail of Socialism: Instrumentality.

This would essentially result in the Collective Unconscious becoming conscious.

The downside of instrumentality is a lack of uniqueness (which would normally be created by individuality, the bane of istrumentality). However, according to Utilitarian philosophy (a philosophy that I agree with), uniqueness itself is a bad thing, because the irrational need to be different is ultimately the source of all conflict.

If any ‘group’ of people were to attain such a state of mind, all psychic abilities would become unlocked, most prominently telepathy, telekinesis, and prophesy. The anime franchise Neon Genesis Evangelion is focused primarily on the achievement of such a consciousness, albeit ultimately deeming it dystopian in nature. The AT Field, first understood only as a forcefield that repelled or absorbed most conventional weaponry, was later revealed in NGE to be the spiritual barrier that separates the consciousness of the world from itself (to protect itself).

In a poetic sense, it is “the light of the soul”. As individualism is incremental, progression towards such an ideal would equate to the strengthening of one’s AT field; this renders one impervious to pain and every kind of emotional negativity; Hypothetically speaking, a person with an infinitely strong AT field would live forever.

The disadvantage of an AT Field is the loss of all positive emotions, as well as complete apathy, detachment, and a sense of life being fake, and ultimately, meaningless.

From my own metaphysical observations, death is the direct result of the loss of spiritual energy.

How much vitality a person has is dependent on two factors:

(1) Desire (Freedom). This refers to how much spiritual energy that each soul contains to begin with. Normally, a person can only release spiritual energy; very few people can receive it.

There are of course exceptions, and these are the source of a variety of mythology, such as vampires, soul-suckers, demons, witchcraft, and so on. There are also instances where spiritual energy can be willingly released into another individual, utilizing “God” and “miracles” as a catalyst and spiritual transfer medium.

In theory, a person of exceptionally strong willpower would be capable of producing an AT field on par with those produced by the Angels in NGE– in fact, I think that this is how Angels came to be in the first place. The synchronization of several strong-willed individuals would make such a phenomenon even more likely, so many Angels might in fact be several individuals merged together into a single super-strong AT field.

The lower levels of this are actually quite common, as evidenced by military training, and demonstrated in high-level military operations (Covert-Ops/Navy Seals).

(2) Control (Willpower). This refers to the amount of control a person has over their spiritual energy, which in turn is determined by the level of their resolve to separate themself from the world. The greater a person’s Willpower, the more efficiently they manage their spiritual energy, and the more they retain it.

The ratio of these two synthesize what we call “Freewill”.

I find it particularly interesting that Shinji, the character in the series that most closely reflected the Ego, had the strongest AT field. This makes perfect sense of course, as the Ego is the source of willpower.

If an entity were to have infinite spiritual energy, and / or an infinitely strong AT field, that entity would probably be God.

The merging of the Ego into the SuperEgo would result in the loss of individuality. As I realized in (among other posts) “Agony”, there is a price for everything– even for God– and that I believe the price of individuality is mortality. In a true collective no one would ever die, they would only be reintegrated into the life stream, and their energy would be recycled. Alone, life may seem longer, but over time it will lose meaning eventually leading to Nihilism, and there is little distintion between living and dying.

Based upon the basic nature of human beings (namely that we are social creatures), the merging of the Ego into the SuperEgo is an inevitability, as this is the natural course of things. In fact, the reason why that There is so much suffering in the world is because many members of Planet Earth are still resistant to their destiny, being blinded by their pride, individualism, and patriotism (sadly I live in one of these countries: the U.S.A.)

Individualism will inevitably lead to Nihilism, because all meaning in this world ultimately derives from the collective, even if only (in my case, for example) on a metaphysical or etheral level.

(b) Tabula Rasa (blank slate): Everyone is born with a destiny, and in most cases this destiny is not the product of divine intervention, but of “chance” [for lack of a better word]. To clarify, who we are is essentially based upon who we were. Our environment, perception, and the influence of those closest to us decided who we would become– particularly when we were only a few months old. The reason why influence on our destiny is greatest when we are young is because, metaphorically speaking, we really were a blank slate.

Until the Ego develops (which according to this site is when you are 12-18 months old) you are at the mercy of your environment, and anything that you become ultimately derives from everything in your environment during those first few months– both big and small; in many cases the little things actually make the biggest impact.

Thus, the second way to kill the Ego would be to reduce oneself (as much as possible) to a blank slate. This particular type of Ego Death is usually only favored by people who otherwise would commit suicide, as they are literally killing themself at the psychological level.

If a person were to successfully perform a psychological rebirth (as this type of Ego death would be called), they would be reduced to the maturity level of an infant, being unable to care for their own needs until their Ego reforms. This type of Ego death is the most dangerous and error prone, for the following reasons:

1. Just like the original development of the Ego, you have no control over what you will become as a result– the Ego itself is what provides such control in the first place. If you must perform this type of Ego Death, you should place yourself in the care of people that you trust most, and who know what destiny is best for you. After all, it is such individuals who will play the greatest role in determining what your environment– and thus your destiny– will be.

2. Unlike the original development of the Ego, the development following an Ego Rebirth is greatly accelerated. The reason for this acceleration is because the human physiology is already fully developed. The reason why that humans take longer than animals to physically mature (other than living longer) is because more time is needed for the Ego to properly develop). The creation of the Ego, which normally takes about 18 months to develop, will redevelop in about a month. The development of the created Ego will take (and this is a total off-the-top-of-my-head guess) about 1-5 years (depending on how mature your Ego is at the time).

This method is thus the “quick-and dirty” Ego death, and should only be attempted by those who would probably commit suicide otherwise– done out of desperation.

(c) Ego Engineering: initially I thought there were only two main methods, but I was inspired (by prophesy?) to develop a new method– revolutionary, yet safe. Once I am able to properly formalize this method, I will begin work on the presently empty blog Ego Engineering. Here’s how it works:

Rather than assuming that a person is an object (the control-based mindset currently adopted by Society, and humanity in general), we should assume that a person is a infinitesimally evolving force, which is manifested as an object to better interact with and integrate with their environment. Thus, although we are superficially a static object, that object only exists as reflected by the self.

If this is assumed to be the case, then life, death, and existence are all illusions created to support the construct that is life. However, because perception itself is at this point considered dynamic, we have already decided that truth and lies are both irrelevant.

To quote from an email I just sent:

I believe that everything both exists and does not exist, and that everything is both true and not true. But few people will understand what I mean by that, even when I give the long elaborative explanation about how truth (when viewed logically) is irrelevant to me, because I am more concerned with the “why”, or “essence” of everything that has value to someone, regardless of whether or not it’s empirically true or not.

I think it’s crucial that everyone thinks this way, but because I have yet to find someone who genuinely lives according to this principle as I do, I many times feel very alone. One would think that with the contradictory nature of science and philosophy, and the hypocrisy and dynamic nature of such concepts as trust, friendship, and love– that people should understand these things as I do.

but even though I have expressed this to you, I would be very much surprised if you truly understand and agree regarding these things.

After all, who would want to accept that everything that they thought they knew to be true was irrelevant. How could one fathom living a life without some firm foundations cornerstoned upon some reliable principles of truth.

I would not wish such a cruel fate upon anyone, but I still believe it to be a necessity if we are to truly live a life of meaning, instead of a one of ignorance founded in self-righteous bliss.

Another way of putting it: you are what you believe in…..so  believe what you want to be!

In essence, because our measure of truth is limited to our own perception (cognitive bias), we cannot find truth outside what we believe to be truth.

A more scary (but down-to-earth) way of putting it. Nothing becomes “true” until we decide it is true! We may feel as if our so-called truth is influenced by some higher power, science, or some other bullshit standard of truth. But guess who created those standards, and the criteria for them? We did!

If you, being religiously motivated, might assert that your beliefs about God are the product of the infallible word of God, let me then ask you this? Who decided what the wording of the Bible would be. Who decided how it would be interpreted? Do you really think that the awesomeness of God could possibly be expressed in the words of man.

Have you forgotten that the very Bible you stand by admits to the inevitable truth that God will not conform to the ways of man, because man is imperfect. Now tell me, how is trapping yourself inside a mere 2000 odd pages not conformation?!

The same applies to science…I should not need to elaborate, other than that man created science, and science is always changing, despite being “fact”.

Moving past that religious rant:

If truth is something that we perceive, accept, own [control], characterize, and promote (in roughly that order), then everything that exists only exists because we believe that it is real. As to why we believe something is real, or choose to accept and own those beliefs– that’s all ultimately irrelevant.

What each of us believes to be true determines who we are– thus, the only limits as to what we can achieve, and more importantly, what we will achieve, are the limits of that which we believe in. Most people are weak-minded, and will believe whatever their environment wants them to. According to my beliefs, such individuals have no souls, as their existence is bound to that of the Collective. Ironically, it is that belief (among many others) that causes me to lean towards a sociopathic lifestyle.

But nevertheless, as inferred in my post Colorless Mana, the reason that I would suggest most people to not have souls is because rather than becoming Suns, and emitting light,

“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:16)

most people are satisfied with feeding off the light of others, and reflect the light of Society rather than shining on their own ( and thus influencing Society).

Moving on to the central premise: Ego Engineering:

Because beliefs are not necessarily objects (such a premise is part of the control-based system that is Society), and might more accurately be perceived as dynamic forces, all beliefs might be more accurately thought of as “ideals”. How much one believes in any given ideal is then what we refer to as a “priority”. Furthermore, the amount to which we prioritize an ideal– that is, how much we choose to believe in something, determines how real something becomes.

Here’s the fun part: The extent to which we make something real [by believing in it to that given extent] determines the extent to which that belief is manifested in reality. Remember– we are what we believe in. Thus, our reality is determined by what is real to us.

This revolutionary idealistic thinking is the “foundation” for a new field of science (if it does not obsolete science!) that will become known as Ego Engineering. Most of you reading this will probably not believe it– but someday…..you just wait and see :p

ps. I’ll elaborate more into the details of what Ego engineering is in a future post (on this blog!), that will be called “Ego Engineering” (of course).

(2) Synthetic Immersion [Finally!]

Just as conversion of the Ego into the SuperEgo is the holy grail of Socialism, synthetic immersion is the holy grail of Transhumanism.

ps. note to self: write posts “All for one and one for all”, and “Closure”. also don’t forget “Philosophical Scrapbook”.

Points of Authority

YARM (Yet Another ReMaster):

One of the greatest mysteries of the Ego (for me): If the Ego is only influenced by logic and emotions part of the time, and only when it aligns with certain other things, what then motivates the Ego?

My answer to this: The Ego itself is control. It influences everything for the very sake of influencing– the Ego does not have any real goals, or any substance to its existence, but rather, it creates these things. It does not have a self, but rather is the frame that makes the self possible. It does not choose who a person is, or what they do– rather, it interprets our desires (the Id), and interprets them as it sees best. Then it modifies the final product according to the SuperEgos specifications.

Due to its nature (the foundation for the self), the Ego needs to have a pretense of substance, to prevent what I will conveniently call “self-referential paradoxes”. Such substance is created through hopes, dreams, expectations, obligations (i.e. morals, ethics, and norms), and the identity– all of which collectively form what we call “Pride”.

Interestingly enough (and by that I mean I only realized this in the remastering process!), all of these facilitators of substance are within the domain of the SuperEgo. In other words, in regards to the relationship between Pride and the Ego (which I’ve been very curious about every since my Pride post, the SuperEgo and Pride are in fact one and the same!

Yay, another milestone! :p

Another way of putting it (albeit this is pre-YARM): Pride is the agent of the Ego, and is what allows the Ego to recognize and respond to the environment. To make an analogy: Pride [the SuperEgo] is the nervous system of the Ego, giving it tactility and sensation, and in the very same way the senses causes us to experience pain and pleasure– as well as many other experiences– Pride (the SuperEgo) provides such such functionality to the Ego, thereby translating pain, pleasure, and other experiences to the psychological level.

Consider the following: If a person were in a pure reality vacuum (there is absolutely nothing to interact with– no people, animals, plants, rocks– one would even be blocked from self-interaction), they would lose the ability to perceive anything. Such a person would not be able to feel, think– let alone exist. Self-deprivation would be inevitable, as there would be no need to survive, because there is no self to need. Passive suicide- that’s what you might call it.

With animals, they are programmed to behave a certain way, and that programming is built upon through adaptation and parent-child “learned behavior”. But in truth, animals don’t survive because they want to (which one does if they have a self), they survive because they are programmed to. This is not to say I believe humans to be superior to animals (I think it may well be the inverse), but it’s an important consideration in regards to the oft-cited difference between animals and humans:

Freewill

Because humans have freewill, we have the ability to choose how we live our lives, whether we live or die, and how we interact with our environment. But because we have freewill, we are extremely vulnerable alone. Vulnerable because, since we lack the programming (instincts) present in animals, we need to interact with our environment to survive. By ourselves, we wouldn’t know what to do, because we draw most of our knowledge from experience, and that experience from interaction. 

Evolution (or whatever you want to call it, including God– the creation  story supports these assertions, and even implies them) knew that alone we would not be able to survive (Genesis 2:18  “It is not good that the man should be alone”) and so created in us the unique need to interact with our environment (social needs), that we might be drawn to each other, and by working together ensure survival.

Thus, Freewill is able to survive through dependence on the environment, and the incentive to ensure such dependence is made possible through the unique need for social interaction, hardcoded into our DNA. If 95+% of our DNA is shared with chimps, the remainder of our DNA is dedicated to social programming and Freewill. If so, the HARs (Human Accelerated Regions) must be of utmost importance, especially in regards to sociobiology, and more specifically, evolutionary psychology.

Linkin Park has a song in which they express and explain the complicated nature of the Ego and SuperEgo, and the love/hate relationship between the two, and as this is essentially the theme of this post, it was named after that song. (see here)

To apply all this to my own beliefs:

I believe that the universe evolved from a pattern, which I refer to as “The Essence of the Soul”, but this pattern has been (to some extent) known for over 2500 years– at least since pre-Socratic times, with the first known record being that of Heraclitus’s Logos, from which was derived the Judeo-Christian conception of Jesus (“In the beginning was the word…”), and from which we derive the word “logic”.

In my view, the Logos, just like the perpetual iterative formation of fractals, is a pattern evolved from interation upon interation, which eventually took on a physical form that could be appreciated, and perhaps more importantly, appreciate itself. As this evolution continued (and continues!) details became finer and more complex, and the forces of nature (which I would collectively refer to as “Balance”) began to appear.

On a side note, (Dammit!) It seems that someone else stole my original idea that the universe itself is a fractal. And here I was thinking I had finally thought of something truly original!) oh well :p [Note, it seems that the first known formulation of this idea was before I was born (1986). On the bright side, I independently thought of the same idea that top-dog physicists thought of].

I believe that the number 3 is one of the most important, if not the most important number. Here’s one reason why:

I think that the universe was created in three main phases (thus far):

(1) Materiality: as inferred above, the universe took physical form as it evolved to a continually more detailed and complex state. It should be noted that as the universe as we know it is essentially the scope of presently observable reality, so considering that reality is highly subjective, (as suppose to actuality, which is considerably more objective in comparison), it would probably be more accurate to say that it is reality that is undergoing continual evolution, with the universe being the physical manifestation of reality. As I went into great detail in Idealism (to the point of plaguing all who read it with a profound confusion), such a reality would in Hegelian philosophy be know as “Absolute Idea”.

The first interation of the Logos [the original pattern, AKA God] was most likely the separation of light from darkness:

Genesis 1:3-4: ³ And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. ⁴ God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.

In relation to the Biblical Trinity, Materiality would equate to the physical manifestation of the Father.

(2) Instinct: Reality (and its manifestation, the universe) began to react with itself, and the original pattern (the Logos) unlocked natural control. Instinct collectively encompasses natural control;note that this does not extend only to animals, but plants, and every other aspect of natue that might influence the world.

Note: By “the world”, I am referring to both Reality and its manifested form (actuality; both Nature and Spirit.

Although comparably extremely complex, instinct is still inherently physioal, in that it exists only in observable forms (i.e., to quote from The Matrix, “electrical signals interpreted by the brain”; or in this case, nature. It was at this stage (Instinct) that life as we know it came into being.

In relation to the Biblical Trinity, Instinct would equate to the physical manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

(3) Consciousness: At some point (probably soon after the addition of Instinct, as the Instinct’s physical form had already extended to the atomic level of complexity and fineness), the pattern was no longer able to continue iterating in physical form, and was forced to express itself in another form- namely, Spirit. This obstacle resulted in the creation, and evolution,of the Soul [Thus- the “Essence of the Soul”].

Some animals, particularly primates, were influenced profoundly by this development. The ensuing clash of nature and spirit resulted in the creation of a hybrid of spirit and mind [where “mind” is the physical manifestation of Instinct], taking the form of the individual consciousness. In this way, the Logos, which I refer to as the “Essence of the Soul”, continued its evolution.

The reason why I consider the Logos the “Essence of the Soul”: The consciousness, being the product of the Soul [manifesting itself as a spirit-mind hybrid], is the vehicle by which one would perceive the Logos. Thus, because our comprehension of the Logos cannot go beyond the source of that perception (the Soul), it would be more proper to refer to the Logos as “Essence of the Soul”, because anything beyond the source of our perception is inevitably beyond our comphrehension, and lost in the cosmos.

In relation to the Biblical Trinity, The Consciousness would equate to the spiritual manifestation of the Son.

I think it’s interesting to note that in Genesis 1, several verses support the theories explained above [including 1:3-4, as quoted above]:

In particular, the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is very compatible:

The Logos can be equated God, which is infinite and perfect, having no form, and yet being the originator of all that is.

The Logos brought about creation by manifesting itself in three forms:

The Father [Materiality], Holy Spirit [Instinct], and the Son [Consciousness.

“Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness”

God created us to be in his own image, that we might be His Consciousness, His Identity, and His Soul. In this sense we are all demigods– specifically, an extension of God, created by him so that he might appreciate himself through us. We are quite literally God’s body, mind, and soul.

This considered: The three phases of creation are the reflection of the three aspects of God (one of which we are part of). These aspects are in turn reflected in us, taking the forms of the Id,SuperEgo, and Ego:

The Id is Materiality reflected by our Subconscious.

The SuperEgo is Instinct reflected by our Intuitive Consciousness.

The Ego is Consciousness reflected by itself.

These aspects also account for the existence of time:

The Id is responsible for perception of the Present

The SuperEgo is responsible for the Past

The Ego determines perception of the Future

Together these three aspects of our consciousness create the perception of time.

We serve as God’s mirror, being manifested through Materiality, Instinct, and Consciousness.

Being made and God’s image and likeness, we also seek to appreciate ourselves, and so created to Id, Ego, and SuperEgo that we might appreciate ourselves through a self-evolved consciousness. In doing so, we fulfilled God’s plan that we might have freewill, and created a free consciousness of our own to reflect the nature of the one who made us.

For this reason, the creation of A.I. is inevitable, because just as it was God’s desire to give us freewill, we [who are made according to God’s likeness and in His image] have an insatiable desire to create beings of our own possessing the same traits to ourselves, if not superior.

Of the three aspects, the one of greatest concern to us is the Ego, which deals with the unknown, and by that I am referring to the future.

Note: When I refer to “existence”, or apply attributes to anything [as something must exist to apply attributes to it), I’m almost always referring to that which is perceived– it’s impossible after all to identify anything that we are not aware of; any perceptions we have of anything do not reflect the particular itself, but merely of the existence of that thing to the extent our limited comprehension can allow. Thus, I am of the firm opinion that anything that we cannot comphrend does not exist.

Due to the existence of several abstract ideas of which we have limited comprehension (i.e. God), it may be more reasonable then to establish an incremental standard for supernatural or transcendental concepts. Objects falling under such a category would be considered “Ideals”, and by Plato, would be called “Forms”.

Something about all this that makes the Ego very interesting: even though the future is inherently unknowable, we are able to predict it as if it was, and even believe that the future is extremely predictable to the point that many (if not most) people take the future for granted. We even go so far as to build own whole lives on it, betting everything we have and known on the unkown. Perhaps this kind of faith is what makes humans so beautiful– so sacred– why it is that “the gods envy us”.

The abilities of the Ego are particularly unique in how it quite literally defies reality. By believing that something is real, we make it real through our Ego. But because the future is unknown, nothing concerning it can be considered real in-and-of-itself. By believing in what would otherwise be unknown, we make the future known, thus allowing perception of the future. (see “Note: (regarding the nature of existence/knowledge of a thing)” for clarification)

Because the Ego allows for things to be both real and not-real simultaneously, it exists both within time (where it perceives the future) and outside time (when concerning the unknown).

This fulfills the Ego’s role as the emanation of the Consciousness reflecting upon itself, in that the Consciousness, being a spirit-mind hybrid, also exists and does not exist simulataneously. (See Idealism for clarification regarding the existence of spirit).

From an evolutionary standpoint, the Ego is [in-and-of-itself] pretty useless – a mere necessity to continue the pattern, but in many ways a biological setback. Many times the Ego’s special-interests come at odds with natural Instinct, and this is what I believe to be the source of all mental illnesses and chemical imbalances. It’s a perpetual power-struggle. In cases like these, our existence becomes quite literally [though ironically not ironically!) counter-intuitive.

Assuming the Soul’s evolution to continue according to the pattern, the Ego should continue to gain dominance over the former emanations. This will inevitably result in a dramatically exponential increase in mental illnesses, as the Ego wins the conflicts with Instinct more and more.

Eventually, Instinct will become irrelevant entirely, at which stage we will already have progressed to the next stage of existence, but things will get far worse before they get better. Dealing with this conflict of interest is the “real” focus of this post, which is the other reason why I chose to name it “Points of Authority”. As to how we we deal with this self-inherent sabotage will be discussed far later in this post– so you can look forward to it.

Even without the Ego, we would still be able to work with others, albeit like animals. But due to the combination of the Ego with the Id (desire) and SuperEgo (instinct), things workedout to a surprisingly impressive evolutionary advantage. Particularly the Id, which gives us the drive we need to follow through in fulfilling the dreams our Ego gives us, thus providing the platform for what is referred to by transhumanists as “auto-evolution”.

Although it’s a known fact that animals feel pain, I wonder if they are actually consciously aware of it. Are they responding because of Instinct alone, or do they actually have emotional, or even mental reactions to it. Do animals even have emotions? Are emotions inherently instinctual, or are they an extension of the instinct permitted by the advent of the Ego.

Earlier, I mentioned that animals were influenced by the development of the Soul, and that primates (which were to become humans) were affected most by it. It’s probable that emotions, rather than being a “black-and-white” existence, are an incremental aspect of reality, which are more evident in humans, but also present to a lesser degree in animals, and perhaps even plants as well.

If emotions are the byproduct of spiritual energy transfer, as I explain in Idealism, then it’s likely that everything has emotions- we just aren’t able to sense the emotions of lesser entities, and /or they aren’t able to express it as effectively as we do. (Just as sound waves are often too low or too high in frequency to be audible).

I think that, as ironic, paradoxical, and even contradictory as it might seem, knowledge– and the ability to identify or become “aware” of anything– actually corrupts reality. This is another often glossed over meaning of Genesis 1. It’s impossible for any entity to be conscious of anything without being biased about it. (See Cognitive Bias)

The very knowledge of something– anything– corrupts its existence. This is yet another application of the philosophical aspects of the Uncertainty Principle. That is, knowledge and understanding are mtually exclusive. The extent to which a person knows is the extent to which they misunderstand, and vice versa. Well, perhaps “experience” might be a more accurate way of looking at it, but this is just “different ways of looking at the same thing”.

But from that POV, You could say that the extent to which a person experiences something it directly proportional to the extent to which they lack knowledge of what they are experiencing, and the environment thereof. Inversely, The extent to which a person knows something is also the extent to which they are limited in their experience thereof.

A while ago, I discovered a very important insight, and compared with most of my writing, it’s simple and concise:

Knowledge  is the outside looking in

Understanding is the inside looking out

Wisdom is having both Knowledge and Understanding

Of course, the latter is an ideal, in that to simultaneously know and understand the same thing is impossible, and any attempts to force it will inevitably result in insanity, are result in then creation of multiple personalities (I would know!)

Then again, this knowledge is also self-corrupted by its very nature (a paradox, in other words). We are born into sin for a reason: self awareness is after all inherently imperfect.

An analogy of this: The ability to see both sides of a coin at once: Just like knowledge and undersranding, you can try to remember it, reflect or mirror it, draw, it, photograph it, imagine it. But no matter how “real” your perceptions of it are, it will never even come close to a pure reality for both sides.

Me personally- I’m willing to settle for a photograph. So this blog is for me pretty much “The Other Side Of The Coin”. I think I might even change the headline to that- it sounds kinda catchy! :p

It could very well be that we are just overglorified animals, and that animals are just overglorified plants. I may be that the only thing giving us superiority over the rest of nature is “a really BIG Ego.” (no pun intended!)

But fortunately for me, I don’t really care much about “the truth”, at least not in the idealistic sense that most people seem to believe in. To begin with, I’m far too cynical to accept that something as big as truth could in any sense be as static and limited as the black-and-white truth that we so wish that we could know, that we might have this sense of control.

But unfortunately for us [Or perhaps fortunately?), Perception turns out to be our greatest enemy.

If I were looking for that kind of truth though, even if I “found it”, I would never actually find it, but only think I had, believed that I had. I know this because I’m focused on ‘the other side of the coin’ (TM), lol :p

The truth that I’m looking for, due in great part to my insatiable curiosity, is the source of ‘truth’, and how it impacts the universe as a whole, at both the macro and micro levels. That is, causality.

Jesus once said, “[It’s] like the wind. You don’t know where it comes from or where it goes, but you can feel it.” At least as far as truth is concerned, I don’t know it’s there, but I will find out ‘where it comes from’, and ‘where it goes’.

I’ve considered the possibility that many plants and animals (especially animals, by virtue of evolution) were impacted by the third creation phase (project “Son”), albeit on a smaller level. In C.S. Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia, animals ‘still talked’, although for certain periods of time (mostly during reigns of ‘evil’) they became mute; similar themes are presented in Tolkien’s universe. Perhaps C.S. Lewis and Tolkien had explored this concept also, and conveyed these ideas through their writing. All fiction is after all based to some degree on reality, or more specifically, the reality of those who write it.

It might be that animals once had the gift of language, and spoke just as we do. It may well be that humans enslaved animals, or isolated and imprisoned them, fearing what they might become, or what they might do. (Just as the mutants were treated in X-Men). It’s a fact that the brain terminates certain parts that are not used from a young age (in particular, language). This is seen in the phonetic limitations of certain languages (i.e. Japanese), and in people who have become mute due to lifelong isolation of neglect by parents.

It’s not infeasible that animals spoke once upon a time, but were unable to pass on the gift to their kids– there are a myriad of possible reasons for this. If the human population hadn’t taken off so much, we might be animals too.

One of the taken-for-granted aspects of humans, is that speech is not a god-given quality. Actually, such an assertion is not made once in the Bible. God actually hated it, and unsuccessfully attempted to take it away from man (see Tower of Babel).

Rather, speech is a learned behavior. Somewhere along the line, an animal (probably somewhat resembling a chimp) was able to learn to speak, and managed to improve upon language well enough to pass this behavior to its babies, who instinctively improved upon and passed this language to its descendants, and so on.

As you have probably noticed, I have the uncanny ability to provide logically valid explanations for the most absurd (or perhaps, especially the most absurd) things.

Please note: I’m considering language and the Ego as inherently distinct, and unrelated to each other.

Getting back to the Ego:

What I’ve noticed more and more the past few months, is that knowledge of something aggravates suffering. To know something a person must set limits on it, and be objective about it [own it]. Subjective reality is inherently unknowable, although many people (myself included) can analyze it as an abstract idea, or create philosohical and mathematical models to analyze its properties, where “it” is determined by causes and effects [causality].

While such models of subjective reality are probably dependable to some extent (they are ‘theoretically’ accurate after all), such knowledge cannot represent ‘true’ subjective reality, as it is only objectively subjective, or subjective to the extent that objective reality allows.

More to the point: as ‘theoretically’ assumed by my “Essence of the Soul” theory, everything will continue to become more complex, and this will most significantly impact the human race– or rather, the human race will be driven by its very nature to bring this future about. We have alreadt surpassed one of the great barriers to the “Logos”, with the creation [or should I say, “development”], and evolution of the soul.

As things become more complex, knowledge becomes more appreciated, limited, and profound. Public awareness spreads this knowledge, and knowledges spreads public awareness- a vicious cycle of viral corruption. Even though the increase in complexity of knowledge is psychological (or should I say, especially since it is psychological– psyche literally means ‘soul’), we are programmed by the Logos to infinitely complicate things, whether we choose to accept it or not.

These things aren’t just assumptions based on logical inferences– the entire human race’s history is backing it! Despite the face that things are clearly always fine just the way they are, we continue to change things for the so-called better. We buy new computers when, before the ‘better’ one existed, the old one would have been more than anyone could ever need. To verify our identities, we have the urge to try new things, spend money on useless products, and propose governmental, economic, political, and legal changes when, before such changes were proposed, before better alternatives were thought of, things were just fine the way they were.

Things are only perceptively perfect until something “better” comes along, which should be a smack-to-the-back-of-the-head wake-up call to anyone naive enough to think that any idea of perfection is valid.

Since the dawn of time (where time is measured by humans), we’ve upgraded our technology, continually complicated language, developed more and more complicated science and philosophy; every imaginable aspect of life, both empirical and logical, has been perpetually pushed to the limits, and then smashing through every roadblock and warning. Over time, humanity has been accelerating in complications, and over the past 100 years or so– inventing motion picture, television, and most impressively: the Internet.

Let’s take a moment to consider the significance of this: Humanity has been inventing things since the dawn of time, but what have the most recent inventions focused on? Communication. The one thing that separates humans from animals, the quality that the Age of Aquarius is known for, the central concept that motivates all that we do. Most of the big things that have happened in the past century are focused on public awareness and better understanding ourselves.

Something big is going to happen, and we need to prepare for it. That ‘something’ is the future.

The accelerating of complications has begun to spiral out of control. In the present day, “good enough” no longer exists, because there’s always something better now. Despite the utter meaninglessness [or should I say, ‘insanity’) of such developments (see Nihilism), the vicious cycle continues.

At this point, the acceleration is irreversible- perhaps it always was. But in the spirit of the Ego, I don’t aim to nullify the past, I aim to “change” (pun is intended) the future. So, what then needs to be changed?

Despite to craziness the world has literally thrown itself into, Most of the world is not aware of it. It’s right in front of their faces, but most people will not accept it, because most people can’t handle the truth.

As knowledge that is known is useless and meaningless if not accepted, people continue to live in their perfect little world, believing what they want to believe, completely naive and hopelessly blissful– oblivious of the apocalypse the entire human race is in danger of. And ironically, it is their obliviousness that will cause the apocalypse in the first place, unless we wake up from this dream before it’s too late.

At some point, we will not reach roadblocks, but a bottomless pit that we cannot fly over. If everyone stays in this dream we are living in until the bitter end, most of us will be in for a very rude wake-up call. If it comes to that, the entire world will be inevitably thrust into chaos beyond imagining, and apocalypse will then truly be inevitable.

“Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” – 1 Corinthians 13:12

Status Quo

YARM (Yet Another ReMaster):

Right about now, everythign in my life revolves around status quo, both in actions and in words (although particularly the latter). My existence is motivated by fear, and by a need for control. The truth of the matter: I either don’t have a self, or I’ve lost myself and need to go “soul-searching: to find myself. I can’t accept that I don’t have a self, leaving only one apparent possibility: that my soul is stil wandering out there somewhere. Well actually, that’s only a dramatic hyperbole to poetically manifest the abstract :p

On a more serious note, as I’ve more-or-less come to conclude in previous posts (pariticularly those originally posted in my now-defunct “emotional moksha” blog) it’s not as if I’ve lost myself, it’s just that I can’t recognize myself. Specifically, the extreme amount of fear in my life is blinding me spiritually, to the point that I can’t see anything at all [that relates to my life] beyond status quo.

By “status quo”, I’m referring to the concept that, since I don’t have a real self, I don’t have a real direction; thus, since I don’t know what I should do with my “self”, I should just “play it safe”. Everything– well, almost everything in my life, is bound to this self-enforced rule- rule by fear. Because I don’t know what I’m interested in, I interest myself in what I’m good at. Because I don’t know where my future is, I work towards guarantees. Because I lack the self-esteem to present myself confidently, I build up perks just-in-case I’m not good enough, because I’m me.

Every conversation I have with other people- it’s not me that’s talking, it’s status quo. After all, without it I wouldn’t know what to do…but I do know that unless I am to break free of it, I don’t have a future– that is a guaranteee. Not a real one anyway. There is no genuineness in a life led by fear, and so until I shed my fear of living, I am nothing but a fake– an imposter.

1 Corinthians 13:1-3 [1] “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become a sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. [2] And though I have the gift of prophesy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. [3] and though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing”

For the first time in my life, I’m beginning to truly understand the meaning of these verses. Ironic as it might be, I understand the Bible far better as an atheist than as a Christian (probably due to a lessened cognitive bias). Summing up the meaning of these verses as they apply to me: At least in a poetic sense, I have done all those things that are described in the above verses, but just as Paul said, I am nothing- because everything I do and have done is motivated by fear.

Something that it’s taken a lot of thought to realize, is that control is actually the product of fear, while chaos is the product of desire. Thus, chaos and control are antithetical, as are fear and desire. Love is then actually the balance between chaos and control, and furthermore, creativity is then the controlled form of chaos. So it could be said that love is the “perfect” form of creativity.

This then resolves the inconsistancies that I’ve previously perceived to be inherent in the Triangular Theory of Love:

[desire –> fatuation; intimacy –> control; expectations –> commitment] 

Here’s a crucial consideration which, if applied by self-righteous zealots, might endow them with amazing insights into the nature of good and evil– Chaos and Control are both good and evil, depending on one’s perspective:

Chaos is good for you, but not for them.

Control is good for them, but not for you.

Thus, both good and evil are mutually inclusive, as suggested by Taoist symbolism.

What is perceived as good and what is evil is in truth a matter of balance and imbalance. Too much chaos and not enough control is one type of imbalance- the one almost universally targeted and labeled by society as being evil. But interestingly enough, too much control and not enough chaos is rarely considered evil, at least in comparison. To the contrary, too much control is usually perceived as being a good thing. Most people, for example, consider me to be a nice, good person, because my actions appear to be morally motivated.

On the more macro level, the Japanese people are a hard-working, well-mannered, and socially sophisticated people, with extreme consideration for the feelings and thoughts of others. From outside appearances, they are some of the most “righteous” people in the world. That is the primary thing that Japan and I both suffer fom- the problem that outsiders (myself included at one point) wrongfully considered to be a boon:

Status Quo.

The reason why most people mistake fear-based evil as being good, is because it’s controlled. That is, such ‘evil’ is good, because, as explained earlier, it’s good for them– and furthermore, they cannot perceive th evil that such motivation produces. The reason that they can’t perceive it is that fear-based evil (note, when I say “evil”, I’m referring to imbalance), is suppressive, which by default means that the very notion of it being evil is suppressed, and all actions that would normally determine its moral value are suppressed as well.

The only person who would really consider such motivation evil then, would be the root of evil itself– for example, yours truly. So while other people consider me to be a good person, I of all people know how evil I am, and more crucially, how evil I can be.

On the other hand, chaotic-based evil is oppressive, and so it innately tends to the opposite extreme, which is to stand out like a sore thumb, and make itself look as evil as possible. Whereas fear-based evil is deceptive and secretive, and tends to work “behind-the-scenes”, and generally “keeping to itself”, chaos-based evil is honest, ruthlessly candid, and indiscriminate. It says (in various ways), “look at me! look at me! I’m evil!“

When crimes are referrred to as indiscriminate, they are referring to chaos-based evil. Terrorists, opportunists, and all crimes of passion are of this type. Some terrorist attacks, most serial killings, and many premeditated crimes are fear-based. This is precisely way when neighbors, friends, and even lovers of serial killers are interviewed, they say things like “but he was such as nice, quiet guy”. Of course he was!

Here lifes the inevitable question then: If fear-based crimes are done by such normally harmless people (and fear is suppressive), how can such suppressed people committ such violent and apparently chaotic crimes! The answer is simple: Status quo changed. Normally, when status quo changes, it’s no big deal- people just adapt.

But what if a person were so reliant on certain things, that their control over those things was (in their mind) all they had– all that made life worth living? If such people had that control taken away from them, they are often not able to cope, and snap. Everyone has their own limits before they “snap”, and that limit depends on how much fear, and thus control, that have in their life.

There  are two things that people do when they snap, and which of these they end up doing dpeends on the type of control. If a personal has a “borg mentality”, and maintains personal security by relying on the control of society [SuperEgo]– when status quo changes, the response is “Fuck Me!”. On the other hand, if a person gains personal security from their individual pride and self-image, their response would be “Fuck the World!”

A person who says “Fuck Me!”, as they often do in cultures similar to the Japanese culture, they are more likely to respond with self-depreciating actions such as suicide, because the inability to adjust to status quo is one’s own fault, and such a person is therefore unworthy of living. In societies such as is found in the United States, an inability to adjust to status quo is the world‘s fault, as it is cruel for the world to expect such unfair and unreasonable things. With one type of control, you are cruel for existing, and in the latter, the world is cruel for corrupting your existence. Thus, there is more suicide in Japan, and more crime in the U.S. — more than any other country in the world– by a large margin.

The book of Job (from the Bible) presents an incredible story of a righteous man, who had many terrible things done to him: His riches, livestock, and house were taken from him, his children and servants were killed or kidnapped, and he was suddenly reduced from being the richest man in the world to having nothing to his name. Then he was given boils, rashes, and sickness of all kinds, to the point that he wanted to die. But still he did not curse God’s name, despite pressure from his wife to do so, and the incessant beration and criticism of his ‘friends.

That kind of perseverence is what is needed to defeat the power of status quo– the quality of a person I want to be.

At least for this post, I’m revising the model of the Id, Ego, and SuperEgo:

My previous model:

Id –> desire –> present [plant soul]

Ego –> control –> future (expectations) [rational soul]

SuperEgo –> The Ego interacting with other Egos –> emotions/attachment [animal soul] ; instinct.

Now my model stands thus:

Id –> desire –> present [plant soul] (nothing changed here)

Ego –> control –> [exists outside time] –> [instinct, logic]

SuperEgo –> expectations [tradition, identity, attachment, conscience (discipline, morality, maturity), habits, etc.

So far, most of my philosophical focus has been regarding the Ego. This is owing to the fact that the Id is by far more mysterious (and perhaps too simplistic for me to understand), and the SuperEgo is surprisingly complex; furthermore, because I have spent most of my time in self-analysis, with an emphasis on individualism– the Ego, being the supporting construct for the personal self, was and is far easier for me to study.

Another thing to focus on, after I can clarify the structure of the SuperEgo, is the Collective Unconscious, pioneered by Carl Jung. The differences between the SuperEgo and Collective Unconscious were difficult to see at first, and initially, I had thought Jung’s “Collective Unconscious” was Jung’s version of the SuperEgo- but this is clearly not the case– It is rather is an extension of the SuperEgo. Based on the premise that the world is destined to become perpetually more complex, the Singularity may well be an inevitability.

The SuperEgo is essentially the subjective (intrapersonal) social self, while the collective unconscious is the objective (interpersonal) social self. Before, I thought of the SuperEgo as the part of the self that communicates and compromises with other Egos, and a means to resolve the ever-complicating differences between objective and subjective reality, but this is actually the purpose of the Collective Unconscious. The SuperEgo is rather the means of facilitating the collective unconscious, and also provides the incentive thereof.

For this reason, I believe that the SuperEgo and the Collective Unconscious to be the primary components that make us different from animals. Animals are motivated primarily by two things: Desire (Id) and Fear (Ego [control, instinct]).

To better understand this, apply the following premise: Happiness is the product of expectations being fulfilled. Thus, when (for example) a dog is so happy to see his master, it’s because of a psychological “high” produced by the alleviation of fear, and the fulfillment of desire, making such a happiness “fake”. I could further defend and clarify such claims, but I’ve already begun to once again “miss the point”, and I wouldn’t want to make matters worse.

The most important thing concerning this topic, as inferred at the beginning of this post, is love. If life manifests itself as a balance between fear and desire, which themselves are the products of control and chaos, then creativity, being the product of chaos and control, could be mapped out thus:

Chaos –> evil (active) –> anarchy –> beauty (love) –> socialism/capitalism  –> evil (passive –> Control.

*Note: Socialism refers to SuperEgo-based control (Japan), whereas Capitalism refers to Ego-based Control (the U.S.)

How any given thing weighs in on this scale is relative, as chaos is control for the perpretrator, and vice-versa.

Once again, it seems that Balance is the key to finding the Beauty in life, and as Plato recognized, the key to finding true Love.

Although this post is one of those with several errors and faulty logic, at least now I can better understand part of what it takes to make life a masterpiece, and “escape” from status quo.

Idealism

I’ve recently reformed my thought on the nature of existence (helping me to further reconcile my philosophy with Christianity, etc.- as well as helping me to truly understand previously confusing concepts such as “friendship”, “love”, and “trust”.

summing up this new perspective:

I [now] believe that everything both exists and does not exist:

(1) does not exist because the identity is limited to our perception – every moment, our perception changes; thus, every moment everything in existence [that is observed by at least one entity] dies, and every moment everything that exists has just come into existence (is “born”). this is equivalent to Heraclitus’s “Everything Flows” philosophy.

(2) does exist exist because our perception makes it real. While the identity of everything changes infinitesimally, the spiritual energy held by objects (regardless of their identity) is retained.

To clarify: While our perception can only identify the finite manifestation of something, everything has infinite potential, because Spirit [and thus spiritual energy] is infinite, and exists outside perception.

Every thing’s existence is determined by three aspects: Essence, Nature, and Character.

These three things correspond to three agents of the self, each created with the purpose of serving these aspects:

The Id was created to serve ones’ Essence.

The Ego was created to serve one’s Nature.

The SuperEgo was created to serve one’s Character.

(1) Potentiality: This is the amount of spiritual energy that an object possesses- what makes it “real”. Spirit as a whole is infinite, encompassing everything (and held by everything), and thus knowing and seeing everything, and is the perfect form of God.

The Potentiality of an entity is determined by its Essence, which is served by the Id.

(2) Actuality: This is the amount of and the number of limitations placed on an object, and determines how much it can be appreciated. (How much something can be appreciated is dependent on how many standards imposed on it, because in order for any entity to be appreciated, this must be standards to separate it from something else (i.e. black could not exist without white).

Because limiting something makes it imperfect, I firmly believe that it’s impossible for anything perfect to be beautiful, as imperfection is prerequisite to beauty. If something is considered “art”, it is because one’s perception of it equates to imperfection. Actuality equates to Hegel’s Nature, and is the imperfect form of God.

The Actuality of an entity is determined by its Nature, which is served by the Ego.

*note: Hegel refers to Nature as being “Real” (reality), and and to Idea as being “Ideal”. Idea is the equivalent of what I call “Spirit“, whereas Hegel refers to “Spirit” as the human perception of the Ideal. From this perspective, the Absolute would be God, Spirit would be the imperfect manifestation of God, actualizing itself through perception.

See here: http://dictionary.babylon.com/Hegel#arts

Also of interest: http://www.csudh.edu/phenom_studies/europ19/lect_4.html

These two first defining factors are the most important, so to clarify the relationship between them:

Actuality (Nature) is Spirit corrupting itself. For God to be self-aware and experience himself, it is a necessity that he sin against himself by imprisoning himself in material form.

Potentiality (Idea) is Absolute in its complete form (the perfect form of God), and is continually dispersed and exchanged among everything that is (what is actualized), in the form of spiritual energy.

Spiritual energy is both perfect and imperfect simultaneously:

Because it has no inherent identity, it is perfect; spiritual energy takes on the identity of the entity(s) it possesses, but because everything dies and is reborn every moment (as noted by Heraclitus), spiritual energy can perceptively be seen as perfect, because everything that spiritual energy possesses changes infinitesimally, causing spiritual energy to also change. Because it’s impossible to distinguish between these moments due to the limits of perception, spiritual energy is both finite and infinite, because every entity it possesses is an indeterminate. Thus, spiritual energy is simultaneously Nature and Idea; it serves as an intermediary between the two, synthesizing Spirit.

This resolves my misgivings that any perception we have of God is flawed due to our limited perception (and thus blasphemic) – Because Spirit is the perceived form of the Absolute (God), God [as we perceive him] is both perfect and imperfect, and both infinite and finite.

Because our identities are perpetually and constantly changing, the identity(s) of God is also constantly and perpetually changing; since each change is infinitesimal, we cannot perceive one identity from the next, so perceptively God has no identity, resolving the problem of being able to appreciate a God who is infinite (limitations are prerequisite to appreciation).

This would also imply that we are both part of God and not part of God, but I’ll have to suspend judgment on that matter for the time being.

When Idea is channeled as spiritual energy, it gives potential to the entity(s) that it possesses, and because the amount of spiritual energy possessing any given entity is limited, the potential of something is determined by the amount of spiritual energy it contains.

Thus, because spiritual energy is both finite and infinite, every thing’s potential is both finite and infinite.

So Nature (Actuality) is meaning, and Idea (Potentiality) is the power upon which meaning is built.

Potential is inherently infinite, but un-actualized potential is meaningless. Actuality on the other hand is not possible without potential, and ‘limited’ by the potential of the entity being limited. Therefore, in order for an entity to reach its potential (to actualize the greatest amount of potential possible) requires a perfect Balance. As God (Spirit) accomplishes this through Absolute Spirit, he is the only one who can be called perfect.

Perfection achieved through this Balance is also known as Love, although love as we know it is incremental – an unreachable ideal.

Finally, the third, and most sociologically important aspect:

(3) Character (Spirit): Is ultimately the meaning of life, which in turn means that God [in his imperfect manifested form] is what gives everything meaning. Because God is meaning (being Spirit), and God can only give life meaning by being imperfection, life itself only has meaning because we are sinners. This is in accord with Bohme’s cosmology (the Fall of Man was necessary for God to achieve self-awareness and have a relationship with us).

In the words of Hegel, Spirit [Character] is Idea both actualizing itself and being self-aware of itself.

While The Essence has potential, and the Nature actualizes that potential, no entity can bear meaning alone, because meaning itself is derived from the exchange of spiritual energy; specifically, it is the byproduct of this exchange.

Furthermore, since spiritual energy equates to power (which is possessed by entities in varying levels), the meaning of life is ultimately derived from the exchange of power. This being the case, the meaning of life is control, which is precisely what I realized (though at the time had very little justification for it) several months ago in my Popularity post:

In that post, I wrote the following regarding how to achieve popularity:

There are two key components of being popular:

(1) People having perceived control over you.

(2) People perceiving you as worth controlling.

Assuming that every entity in existence has an Id (Essence) and Ego (Nature):

Everything is possessed by spiritual energy; the Id exists to send and receive spiritual energy (compare to the OSI Physical Layer).

The energy is converted by the Ego into a usable form (compare to the OSI Data Link Layer)

This is where the SuperEgo comes in: The purpose of the SuperEgo is to send and receive transfer requests (just like the OSI Network Layer), to facilitate the transfer of spiritual energy.

The SuperEgo can be further divided into the personal subconscious and the collective unconscious, which would equate to the TCP/IP Model’s Link Layer and Internet Layer, respectively.

The following is very important!

*Note*: The Character (and thus its agent the SuperEgo) does not exist to transfer energy: It exists to facilitate that transfer.

You might then ask, How is it that we are able to transfer spiritual energy (i.e. communicate) if we apparently have no means to?

The answer is quite terrifying: We don’t!

How does this work? When we ‘communicate’ with other entities, we send and receive exchange requests, but instead of transferring spiritual energy, we send and receive more exchange requests instead.

Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is known as “insanity”, so why do we do that? It’s because in our mind, we have sent and received data, because we did transfer some spiritual energy to process the request to transfer the actual data.

To clarify this: Humans are extremely complicated beings– in fact, “the soul” developed as a result of our evolution. The soul is essentially a miniature version of Absolute Spirit, and as such makes for an extremely efficient spiritual energy collector. We collect so much spiritual energy in fact, that we can’t even come close to handling it. To put this into perspective, we all have enough spiritual energy stored in our soul that to say we are demi-gods may well be an underestimation.

The transfer of spiritual energy produces meaning, as explained earlier. So because we all contain such an immense amount of spiritual energy, a single transfer exchange is so *meaningful* that we are completely overwhelmed by it.

This is where the Character (and thus the SuperEgo) really comes in: The SuperEgo’s job is to filter spiritual energy enough that it’s ready for exchange.

Just like a computer network, people can choose to accept or reject transfer requests.

There are two main types of transfer requests in sociology:

(a) request to send spiritual energy

(b) request to receive spiritual energy

(1) People having perceived control over you: This refers to the communication requests to send spiritual energy.

Every time you communicate, be it through language, art, music, action,- anything you do, you are sending spiritual energy. This energy is the byproduct of your actions- your very existence, and several phenomena such as emotions, logic, and intuition form as the byproduct of that exchange. To experience these byproducts, you must accept the transfer requests, and for someone else to experience it, they must also accept it.

To accept any spiritual energy requires a degree of trust. Trust itself is the natural result of spiritual energy exchange (by means of such phenomena as the Psychological Bond), but paradoxically, such exchanges could not be completed without some trust to begin with. Therefore we must assume that although trust is required for spiritual energy, trust is ultimately built upon a more basic principle. Perhaps that principle is hardwired into our system, as an evolutionary necessity.

By accepting spiritual energy, an entity is effectively sacrificing a degree of control, and thus must value your energy enough to make that compromise. If your energy then appears to them to be not worth what they thought it was, any trust they had of you will go away, because in their eyes you deceived them.

The first element- perceived control over you, requires that you are discerning enough to give them only the best of your spiritual energy, packed into very little words– this prevents the exchange of “junk data”. Very few people like to sort through the Spam category of their email box just to find the very rare good stuff, and it would be very inconsiderate to force people to do that. So when communicating with others, be careful with your words, making them as meaningful as possible.

How you “package” the energy you try to send to others determines whether or not they will accept it, and how meaningful that data is to them determines if they will continue to accept data from you. Ideally, you would want people to find your data so valuable that they would actively seek you out and request the data from you, rather than you having to request to send.

So it could be said that, if at all possible, don’t send requests to transfer data- let people send requests to receive. In this position, you will have complete control over them, and they will enjoy that control, and effectively ask to be controlled.

This method of exchange roughly equates to potentiality. By sending a request to send spiritual energy, you are essentially putting yourself out there, saying “This is what I’ve got.” Then in step (2), a person decides if they like what you’ve got, which- if they do, they will proceed to inquire about your data.

 (2) People perceiving you as worth controlling: This refers to the spiritual requests to receive spiritual energy

If I were to keep my mouth shut and communicate solely through my acti0ns, I would probably be much more popular than I am now, simply because I am worth controlling. My abundance of knowledge and skills, gift of insight, and talent for learning new things– I am a gold mine. But most people are afraid to mine me, for fear of me caving in on them. Although I am worth controlling though, I am perceived as uncontrollable, because I overwhelm people with too much spiritual energy.

When people ask you questions, or engage in conversations with the intention of learning from you in some way, they are sending you requests to receive spiritual energy. Of the two types of exchange, this is the most safe method, as although either person can and will get rejected, there is very little risk of getting overwhelmed by spiritual energy, Because everyone involved has a good idea of what do expect (they get what they ask for).

This method of exchange roughly equates to actuality. If they like what you have to offer (your potential), they will request your data, to find out more about it.

A person is more likely to be accepted if they limit communication, because there is little risk of being rejected, as they are easy to control. But the value of such acceptance is miniscule if those that accept such a person can’t do much with the data they accept.

It’s thus very important to find that Balance between actuality and potentiality– or in this case, requests to send and receive data, to maximize the level to which you are able to influence people.

note: on the OSI model, human beings are only at the third layer (networking). We’ve still got a long way to go!

 

Popularity

In my search for a better understanding of the meaning found in relationships (which in both my to-be “remasters” posts, and in already published posts, I take positions at different extremes.

In my Love post, I asserted that any conception of love is meaningless and founded on a naïve and superficial ideal, and that those pursuing it fail to recognize that the “Why” behind love makes it a paradox- an overglorified and overcomplicated incarnation of the inherent evolutionary and biological drive to court, mate, and reproduce. This being the case, I concluded that both emotions and love are illusions, programmed into us by society and ultimately by biology. Love would then be a false incentive designed with ulterior motives in mind.

Later on, in posts such as “The Justification of Emotions” (written in homage to one of my first posts, “The Justification of War”), I leaned more towards supporting emotions; most notably: emotions and love are inherently illogical, thus any attempt to discredit them using logic is void.

While both claims are true, at some point I realized that this so-called truth is irrelevant, as any attempt to identify absolutes is also a paradox, due to our cognitive bias and imperfect perception. Furthermore, even if we were to find any one truth, it would instantaneously be corrupted by its exposure to us (see Silence is Golden post), and thus lose all otherwise retained meaning. Then again, as ironic as it might be, the derivation of meaning in a given thing is indeed what causes something to lose its meaning. In addition, if my analysis of the Uncertainty Principle is accurate, discovery of such a truth would polarize it into a lie (although this is perhaps a different way of describing the effect detailed in Silence is Golden.)

When I wrote the post Pride (which was probably my first major psychological breakthroughs, albeit inaccurate and incomplete), I knew that I was missing a great deal of the necessary variables to complete the proverbial equation– this I indirectly admitted in the questions and uncertainty trailing at the end. But I knew I had to start somewhere. I knew that Pride was the beginning of something big, that it was a vital component in my search for the meaning of life- that, and its relationship to the Ego. I’ve covered so much ground in my quest for the meaning of life, and the bulk of it can surprisingly be summed up in one very simple word: control.

Everything we do, say, or want in life- it’s all motivated by a need for control. Most people seem to think that “control” is too strong of a word to account for such an abstract and supposedly unreacheable answer, but that’s because none of us (including myself of course) know what control really is.

I think that’s the point that Charles Manson was trying to make. I can understand why he wanted to stay in prison (which in retrospect they should have let him). People abuse each other and open themselves up to abuse, lie to each other while they themselves are deceived– all the while ignorantly living their lives in complete denial of everything, while living in their own little “perfect world”. Like myself, Mason knew that people needed a wake-up call,, and to some extent, he succeeded in that venture. While most would consider him a villain, to me he is a hero, and deserves respect- perhaps even a martyr. I won’t claim to know his real motivations, but actions speak louder than words anyway, and judging by his actions, we are in agreement regarding many things that most people take for granted, like control.

And that leads me to the real focus of this post: Popularity.

Short version: There are two key components of being popular:

(1) People having perceived control over you.

(2) People perceiving you as worth controlling.

Popularity (in its perfect form) requires a perfect balance between these two. In achieving such a balance, you are guaranteed to be popular. Thanks to the powerful influence of the Ego, the greatest fear for everyone (universally)is not something that is known, but everything that is not known. Thus, the three things that no one desiring to be popular should ever wish on others: Fear, Doubt, and Chaos. If the Ego (and it’s manifestations of Desire, Control, and Expectations) are considered good, then the above three are pure evil. “Hatred” is then by contrast not so bad, as a person you can be just as popular by having people hating you as by loving you.

The next most important thing is having an identity. Not just your own identity, but one acknowledged by others. Having a nickname alone can dramatically increase popularity, simply because it provides a level of perceived familiarity, and that allows others to feel more secure– thus, something as simple as a nickname will actually help you meet other people’s needs. For the same reason, fitting into a specific culture, subcultures, and anything that carries expectations with it– after all, the whole purpose of the identity is to be the supporting contruct for expectations, which in turn exists to support the Ego:

*cliques, stereotypes, lifestyles, religions, political positions.

*music, film, television, and literary genres. *pastimes, games, hobbies, and types of humor.

*morals, ethics, personality, social life, hopes, dreams, goals.

Whether they know it or not, everyone would feel much better if they could fit you, and everyone else, into a tiny proverbial box. After analyzing pride to determine its purpose, I found that everyone, myself included, has a need to validate their existence.

Here is where i came to a logical obstacle, because, as famously expressed by Descartes, the proof of our existence is inherent– “I think, therefore I am”.

But I’ve finally realized, we don’t have a need to prove that we exist– rather, we have a need to prove that we should exist. That is, all humans have an inherent need to know that our thoughts, feelings, actions- and their very existence- can be justified, validated, and approved by others. We all need to know that we’re living the right lives, that our best is good enough, and that we have direction in our lives- that we’re even going the right direction. The need to validate anything is illogical, since it should be clear that such validation is illusionary.

Because we have a need to be in control, we have no choice but to assume that certain knowledge, especially knowledge concerning ourselves, is knowable- in this case, that we can know that everything we do and say, and our existence, can be validated. For this reason, validation itself is a paradox. (As you should have realized by now, I am extremely fascinated by the concept of paradoxes.) At this point it should be abundantly clear to everyone that there is nothing in existence that is knowable, and especially not something as abstract and philosophy-oriented as self-validation.

As I pointed out in my Love post, we are programmed at the biological level to survive, mate, and produce strong offspring (which is actually an extension of our survival, as we live our through our children). We are also programmed to believe in such illogical concepts as eternity, immortality, knowledge, faith, power, morality, friendship, love, time, theism (belief in god(s), truth, value, etc. for the same reason: Survival.

As we continued to evolve, God [“Mother Nature”, etc.] realized that to survive, it was necessary to mankind to be programmed in such a way that he was compelled to develop a social ecosystem. This is probably the true meaning behind Genesis 2:18- …”It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” In other words, God realized that alone, mankind was not likely to survive, so to ensure that, God programmed mankind to have social needs, that he might seek out relationships, and in doing so ensure his survival. *I think that this programming is hinted at in the verses afterwords, which serve to establish the context, where God created animals and birds, and drew them to Adam that he might name them.*

So as several people have said in the past, and I too am compelled to reiterate, “Man is a social creature” That is, we are programmed at the biological level to have our needs met by others. We seek out validation within ourselves, and being imperfect, cannot find that validation. In theory, one could rely entirely on themselves to survive, without any assistance, or even interaction with others. But while I believe such a scenario will become inevitable in the near future (see Points of Authority), at the present time, our Ego will not allow for that.

Regarding the Ego: It should be clarified that the Ego, although appearing to be what gives us our perception, logic, motivation, and every kind of cognititive bias, this is not the case. It’s confusing because these things are in fact products of the Ego, which infers that the Ego causes them. One mindset to help you understand this, and has served as a great inspiration for me– and also is in very close connection with the meaning of life: “Different ways of looking at the same thing.”

This is where it gets confusing, as the Ego itself seems to be responsible for the way we look at things, as perception is a product of the Ego. But the Ego itself does not have a consciousness, the ability to decide, a will, the ability to feel or think or act– the Ego itself cannot actually do anything. It is a puppet. So the Ego might be considered the self, but at the same time, it’s not.

Basically, over time we build up a pattern of adaptations: personality, identity, espectations, habits, norms, morality, ethics, trust, power, goals, dreams, etc…….and over time, these things become more refined and detailed, and changes become smaller. Normally, the details start become so small that the impact on their actions become negligible- For males, this usually happens somewhere around ages 25-30. According to some research in the field, creative potential in males usually peaks around this time, so perhaps this is the reason why.

All of the traits by which we establish our identity- collectively these would be known as the Ego. Can the Ego exist outside the identity? Perhaps. Desire itself is not part of the Ego- it is actually to some extent the opposite, since uncontrolled desire is known as chaos. Control and Expectations are part of the Ego, and both fall under the Identity. In the Triangular Theory of Love (which I often reference when attempting to deconstruct the self), there are three elements that determine the type of Love: Passion, Intimacy, and Commitment.

*Intimacy is the product of my concept of Control.

*Commitment is the product of Expectations.

Passion, on the other hand, is a specialized form of desire– that is, Id applied towards a specific object (in this case, a lover) So what then is the third point of the Ego’s triad? In Hegel’s triadic system, there is a thesis (positive force), antithesis (negative force), and synthesis (reconciliation of positive and negative- the product of balance between polaric forces).

If I were to plug in these three:

Passion (Chaos) –> Thesis (+)

Commitment (Expectations) –> Antithesis (-)

Intimacy (Control) –> Synthesis (+/-)

Interestingly enough, Intimacy is considered to be an incomplete form of love, suitable only for friendship. The reason for this, is that our conception of Love is imbalanced. I first thought that Love in its ideal form would be the perfect balance between chaos and control (Creativity is actually the product of such a balance, which is what made such an assertion an entertaining idea). But then again, all ideals are by nature imbalanced. True love does exist, but an true enduring love most definitely does not. Everything in existence has three primary elements, which determine the identity of the self:

(1) Essence [nature]: The original pattern that it was built upon. The ultimate essence of all that is the Logos, of which the Ego is the finite reflection [manifestation] of. Of the three components, this one is the most difficult to find, understand, change, or communicate. Most people never discover their true nature, and even for those they do, changing it proves to be exceedingly challenging. We are able to change the more superficial aspects of it (such as habits, but only by “tricking” it by appealing to public image [shape]– which leads me to believe that we are not actually tricking it, but rather, in accordance with its nature (which includes the hard-coded drive to develop relationships with others), we are forced to utilize social image to change these aspects, thus fulfilling the higher-priority social needs.

The Essence is the first of the three to develop, as it is the blueprint for the remaining two elements. It is the true self, and understanding it is the only way to unlock our true potential. It encompasses habits, personality, sexual orientation, morality, and inherent strengths, weaknesses, tendencies, etc.

Due in part to the dominance of the more social aspects of the identity (Character/Image), most of the Essence remains dormant until triggered. Some examples include: sexual orientation, mental illness, substance abuse, perversion, belligerency, hidden talents, sympathy/empathy, paranormal abilities, pet peeves, etc. It is the self as reflected by the Logos.

(2) Character [color]: The spiritual energy that gives life to the Essence. The music that gives meaning and value to all that is the Logos– The personal SuperEgo is the finite reflection of this. This self is relatively easy to find, understand, change and communicate– but we often take it for granted. When in previous posts I have said, “most people don’t know themselves”, this is the self I’m referring to. We tend to take our character for granted, and instead of understanding this part of ourselves, we let other people that we trust define it for us. For those aspects of our character that we do choose to change (which in most cases we only change because people that we know don’t like those areas, or feel that there is room for improvement), motivation is inherent, as it is a social self.

The purpose of the Character is to provide an interface by which to interface with other people, living things, objects, and ourselves. When we communicate either physically, verbally, or via media (writing, music, video, etc.), we transfer spiritual energy. Everything has spiritual energy (see Spiritual Energy post)- even rocks and dirt- and the character provides a platform to facilitate transfers.

Every time a transfer occurs, there are byproducts, and we derive appreciation from those byproducts– in the form of feelings (emotions, “vibes”, chemistry etc.), and impressions (self-comparison, compatibility, mutual interests, etc.) So our perception of other’s character, and even perception of our own character, is actually a byproduct of our communication [transfer of spiritual/creative energy) with the world, reality, and our own self– a reflection of our true character.

The Character encompasses stereotypes, dreams, goals, interests, communication style, aesthetics, tastes, personal values, physical appearance, self-esteem, inhibition, trust, pride, etc. It is the self as reflected by Spiritual Energy [Pythagoras’ Music], and the transfer thereof. It is the world, reality, and the self interacting with each other, and the byproducts of that interaction.

(3) Image [shape]: This is the most complex and omnipresent of the elements, and as a whole it is called “Society”. It is the world becoming aware of itself, and rationalizing what it sees. While the Character is based upon the reflections of interface with others and with the self (looking at oneself from the outside), the Image is based upon the world reflection upon itself as a whole. The interpersonal (social) SuperEgo is the finite reflection of this. The Image is different from the Character in that the Character exists to give the self depth, and to facilitate the perception of intimacy (and thus the developing of relationships and the Psychological Bond), the Image exists to provide a superficial shell by which to blend in with Society.

This of course means that Society itself is the product of all of the shells blending together. The Image is inherently [in-and-of-itself] empty and meaningless, and exists only for appearance’s sake; in other words, to “fit in”. While everything in existence possesses an Essence and Character (though sometimes very little), the Image is unique to sentient beings (those possessing a consciousness), such as humans. It is a necessity for civilization, which is why humans are the only species to become civilized. All of the three aspects of the identity exist to protect something:

*The Essence exists to protect the personal self.

*The Character exists to protect the social self.

*The Image exists to to protect the Collective. The Japanese Society, for example, is considered by many to be in a state of “forced autism”.

That is, although everyone has a self, individuality is downplayed, and the needs of the Collective are top priority. Thus, the Image (superficial appearances) accounts for most of the identity in Japan. Similarly, the celebrity lifestyle requires that the Image be top priority, which is likely why celebrities are considered to be extremely superficial– they have to be! On the other hand, while Image does play a role in American society, Character is the highest priority. as such, we encourage diversity, education, cultural awareness, individuality, social networking, etc.

[create Image of The self– shape (society’s shells) –> colors / texture (character –> base(?) –> collective consciousness (all pieces together = jigsaw puzzle.]

Getting back to the incentives that inspire social needs: Ideally, we would live our lives independent of each other, being completely content with exploring and experiencing the world, interacting with other people for the sheer experience and entertainment, not needing relationships or dependence on others to be content or find happiness. But as this is detrimental to survival, our Ego makes us suffer when our social life is lacking, and rewards us with happiness when it is thriving.

Note again that the Ego does not actually do anything, it merely reflects the pattern upon which it is built (the Essence). In addition, the Ego must answer to the incessant demands of Id (which is pure desire, and wants everything, starting with what’s right in from of It), and the SuperEgo, which demands conformation to the rules and norms of Society; in one analogy, this was depicted as the slave of two unruly masters. The Ego punishes us with chaos (desire) , doubt, and fear– and rewards us with control [intimacy], trust [expectations] , and happiness [serenity]. In simplified form, these agents of control could also be known as the pleasure center and suffering center, and are what the Ego use to ensure our submission to it.

I think it’s quite interesting how the Ego seeks to control us, but has no control itself. It raises questions in my mind about the nature of God’s existence- i.e. the Bible never mentions once that God has freewill, which implies that the Ego may in fact be God incarnate– an argument I have thought extensively about. Thus, the Ego ensures that freewill will never truly be a part of our lives, although to foster a balance between individualism and collectivism, it programs us with a false sense of freewill; ultimately, we are slaves to our Ego.

There is only one way to truly be free of the Ego (although there are several others that allow for temporary and incomplete freedom, of which I am currently living in- actually). However, it’s probably only possible in very extreme circumstances, when the need is great: Disassociation. But Disassociative freewill is only perceptive– while the Ego would indeed become irrelevant, and essentially a “different person”– outside your perception, the Ego are one and the same, and you would probably be crazy (due to MPD / Disassociative Disorder), just like me. And as the change would only be perceptive, you Ego may well be continuing to influence you- the only difference is, you would not be aware of it, as you would perceive the Ego’s changes as your own; this is not too much different from the ignorant masses that are not even aware of their Ego’s influence, so it might very well be a futile endeavor, as you would be far better off being ignorant, and probably more happy.

So now that I’ve determined everyone to be slaves to their Ego (and that apparently there is no escape), let’s see how this relates to Society: The existence of God, and of the persona that God takes on, clearly matches up with the otherwise unnecessary needs the Ego forces us to provide for ourselves- God gives us a direction, freewill, an identity, a higher power (security), a perfection to compensate our imperfection, etc.

The existence of God, at least perceptively, was, is, and always will be an inevitability. We are programmed by the Ego to believe in a higher power, after all. That is not to say that God does not exist, but rather, belief in God is an evolutionary necessity. In Points of Authority, I go into how this belief (and most other beliefs instigated by the Ego) will soon no longer be necessary, although such beliefs will be part of the world for many years to come. In the same way: religion, traditions, norms, politics– everything identified as part of Society– they were all born by, survive by, and thrive because of necessity– the needs of the Ego.

Thus, because Society (and its agents and institutions) is the product of the Ego, we are slaves to society. And for the same reason, our servitude to society was, and is an inevitability. After all, anyone who is not a slave to Society or the Ego would have to be certifiably insane (like me! :p) This is not to suggest a sort of *fatalistic* outlook on life– rather, *Knowledge is Power*, and making use of such power (unfortunately) requires accepting it.

Life is indeed a fractal, in that no matter how many times one divides (analyzes) oneself, and adds according to that analysis, you will never be perfect. 50+25=75; 75+12.5=87.5; 87.5+6.25= 93.75, and so on. No matter how many times you repeat the process, you will never reach your potential (100%). But while we’ll never completely achieve freewill, being closer to it than others is an achievement in itself.

Now that we have this knowledge, we can apply this to achieving popularity: As noted by prettyfedup.com, we are evolutionarily programmed to bond with each other, seek out our kind, and rely on each other– The reason for this being (as explained earlier in this post) that this is the key to survival: Interdependence. As also explained in Points of Authority, Instinct is the refined form of Materiality, and the Ego is the further refined and spiritual form of Instinct.

Thinking from this perspective, I’ve realized that humans and consciousness are just the very complicated and evolved form of animals and Instinct. Animals are programmed biologically, as are we. The big difference is, that our biological programming is predominantly displayed in a far more sophisticated form- namely, Society. So we are our programming manifests itself both at the biological level (i.e. genetics) the psychological level (Ego), and the social and sociological levels (personal and social SuperEgo’s.)

Since Society is then just a more complicated form of Instinct, we aren’t too much different from animals– and retrospectively, animals aren’t too different from plants– it’s just that we’re more advanced than animals, and animals are more advanced than plants. When the Singularity takes place in what I believe to be ~20 years from now, humans will also be considered inferior. But of course, eventually (hopefully in my lifetime) we will all ascend the higher plane of existence (i.e. pure energy), which would knock any previous evolutionary iterations completely out of the picture.

Perhaps complications might not be that good of thing anyway, although I’m something of a masochists, so I wouldn’t be able to tell you… Put simply, because we are programmed by the Ego, human being are sadly very predictable, and thus very easy to manipulate. And in this world, where control is unfortunately one of the few things that gives life meaning, it’s either manipulate, be manipulate, or be alone. Ahhhh….Sweet dreams are made of this! :-) Personally, I don’t want to be alone, and I don’t want to be manipulated either….Oops, only one choice left! I realized this terrible truth over 2 years ago, although I didn’t understand WHY until now.

I wish I could gift-wrap it, sugarcoat it, or white-wash it, but the truth just isn’t that pretty. As aforementioned, turning knowledge into power requires accepting it…and the most important things in life are the most difficult things to accept. To make matters worse, ‘with great power comes great responsibility’ [Spiderman]. I don’t want to accept so many things– or any of this for that matter– but I know that I have to if I am to move on.

Due to the complexite mentioned earlier, the Big Box called “Society” is split into a myriad of smaller boxes, such as cliques, stereotypes, and norms. These exist so that people will know what to expect, because everyone wants to know what to expect. You should note the following: Expectations: perceived knowledge of the future; produces faith, goals, dreams, plans, commitment, etc.

Doubt : fear of the unknown future; produces self-sabotage, suspicion, disattachment, etc. Intimacy: perceived knowledge of the past; produces trust, *bonding*, unity, interdependence, etc. (???): fear of the unknown past; produces alienation, sociopathy, division, independence, etc. *fix: connection of (???) to Expectations/ Doubt; etc.

Desire: knowledge is irrelevant, as all knowledge is experienced and discarded “in the moment”. In controlled for, it takes the form of Creativity. If uncontrolled, it produces Chaos. Expectations, along with the Identity and Pride, are unique in that they exist solely as agents of the Ego; Expectations are particularly relevant to this post, because its purpose is to provide a common ground– a communial comfort zone, with *Other People*.

While we all have expectations of ourselves, there are inherently not our own, but are the more complicated byproduct of Other People interacting with us– the bastard of the perceptions of those that influence us, and our own perception of that influence. From a logical standpoint, to achieve popularity, one must focus on catering to the bigger boxes first– that is, focusing on the things everyone has in common.

This is in fact why that most stuff on TV is crap– to appeal to the largest customer base possible, one must multiply by the proverbially greatest common denominator. And unfortunately for the rest of us, most people have very little taste in anything. Because [most people] don’t know much about anything [either subconsciously or knowingly], they rely on Other People to tell them who they are, what they like, and how to live their lives. But Other People (naturally) don’t know either, because they are just as lost. Matthew 15:14- …if the blind leads the blind, they will both fall into a ditch.

On the other hand, we have more niche boxes like nerds, geeks, emos, punks, goths, intellectuals, etc. While it will be more difficult to achieve significant popularity with these boxes, the popularity with niche groups will be far more high quality, and thus long-lasting. For example, philosophy is one of the most underestimate and niche subjects of academics, and even more so of the world, but even the most ordinary of philosophers have achieved fame that has lasted for centuries. By contrast, most celebrities are forgotten just a few years after they retire.

The reason for this is not because the fanatics of philosophy are more intelligent or intellectual, but because they are more passionate in their support of philosophers than mainstream folks are of celebrities. But unfortunately, most popularity is short-lived, and fueled by television, music, hollywood, and mainstream cultural, artistic, and marketing groups, telling people who they should be, how they should live their lives, and their superficial appearances– we live in a materialistic society, and this all results in a vicious cycle of mass-produced Other People.

In addition to the higher-quality popularity of niche groups, there is also a much more powerful sense of belonging, a strong identity, and a high level of comfort when in association with other of that group– one such that a nerd, for example, could never possibly feel when with a jock, and vice-versa. It all comes down to understanding each other (Intimacy). As the comfort-zone is somewhat incremental, an emo would then feel more comfortable with a punk than with a nerd, and a jock is more comfortable with a punk than an emo.

There are some advantages to this large box / smaller boxes system:

For example, even though geeks do not fit well in the Society box, they can be popular with other geeks as long as they ‘fit in’ in the geeky sense. There are no true misfits, as such individuals will still fit in with other misfits. Expectations then appear to be a good thing, in that fulfillment gives peace, happiness, and comfort. But of course (as we should all know by now) that is just the Ego tricking us.

In ealier posts, I defended expectations in that they allow for change, growth, and self-improvement. But then I realized a crucial problem with this: Such a mindset would mean that nothing is good enough. Especially in this day and age, things should be good enough. But because of expectations, that is only the case until something ‘better’ comes along- and nowadays, that would mean that nothing is ever good enough anymore, because there’s always something better. The world will never be good enough– nothing will be. Thus, because of Expectations and Hope, we are forcibly given a glimpse of Hell.

The Majority of this post, I’ve focused primarily on the first component of achieving popularity: To be “worth being controlled”. I knew early on that I had a lot of potential, that I was unique, that I was intelligent, gifted, knowledgeable, skilled, and talented in a wide variety of areas. For this reason, I was confused as to why I had no friends, and why I’m isolated, despite my obvious inclination and proactivity to socialize. It was not until coming to Clearfield Job Corps that I realized the error of my ways:

It’s not that I’m not worth controlling, it’s that I’m perceived as uncontrollable. Granted, it’s probably better to be in my position than one who is controllable but treated like shit, especially if that is the case because they proverbially are shit. The position I’m in right now has a huge amount of potential, which is why this component matters so much to me. The second component, “perceived as worth controlling”. Something I’ve excelled in (for the most part): Everyone needs “Somewhere to belong”. Give them that place, and they will follow you wherever you go.

It’s human nature to expect more of oneself, others, and reality than what could ever be fulfilled. You can blame this on the Ego, which ensures that nothing is ever “good enough”. Ultimately though, we should blame the Logos, which requires that everything become infinitely more complex. Our inherent need for perpetual complexity drives us to change, break down, build upon, remaster, remix, clarify– in short, complicate every aspect of growth, and we perceive these adaptations chiefly through change, time, knowledge, growth, memory, skill, analysis, and by rationalization, justification, and validation.

*TANGENT*

If God exists, he is evil, because to appreciate anything we must understand it, and the understanding thereof requires comparison, and to compare anything requires standards, and thus limits. As perfection in a given area requires that a the given quality(s) be infinite, imposing limits causes us to become imperfect, and thus corrupt. This is exactly what the Fall of Man (Genesis 3) was all about: The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a concept that represents the first standard ever known to mankind, and the breaking point at which his journey of perpetual complexity (and thus corruption) began- the line between good and evil.

I think that it’s a travesty that Christians fail to recognize the true meaning behind one of the most historical significant passages in the Bible. It’s not as if what Adam and Eve did was Evil…Did the Bible ever once say that Adam and Eve had sinned, or made the wrong choice, committed evil, or anything of that nature? No! Sin did not exist until after Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, and what’s important here is that Knowledge of Good and Evil is what made them corrupt.

The corruption caused by the first division, and thus the first law (which is very simple: knowing that good and evil exist- at that point, it can be assumed that the criteria for good and evil were not yet defined.) Adam and Evil (and their descendants) only gained the capacity to sin after eating of the fruit. The first known sin (as recorded in the Bible) was Cain killing evil. This set in place the first criteria for sin: Murder Is BAD! Good to Know :p Another important thing to consider is that Christians consider Satan to be evil, and that his act of mutiny was so great of a sin that it was unforgivable. But the Bible never once says that Satan ever sinned, that he was evil, or that either he or God have freewill.

On the contrary, judging by the character of both Satan and God, neither of them appear to be capable of freewill, because it would go against their nature. Jesus’ interactions with demons and his time spent with Satan in the desert– both strongly suggest that God and Satan (and their affiliates), though at odds in their beliefs, frequently make use of and/or manipulate each other to serve each others’ purposes, as a counterbalance; I particularly enjoy the passages that demonstrate the contests and bets that God and Satan make with each other, with Satan making challenges to egg God on, and God accepting to protect his pride (The entire book of Job is dedicated to this). God and Satan are in many ways are like an older and younger brother- always fighting and competiting, but extremely intimate and having an incredible bond. Because it’s human nature to be corrupt (and corruption produces suffering), humans are inherently evil.

The physical standards we have to compare ourselves against are plants, animals, fungi, and all of nature. Everything in nature [besides humans] is simpler, and thus more pure. Both purity and corruption are also incremental, and so more basic specimens of nature, like rocks, are even more pure and good than say, plants, animals, and of course- us. But such standards are based on the Epicurean perspective that suffering is evil and pleasure is good.

The above assumptions of course are void of complexity= suffering were the entire equation, as rocks (as far as we know) cannot feel pleasure or suffering. This however relies on the answer to another seemingly ridiculous (but surprisingly deep) question: Do rocks have feelings too? To answer this, we must answer an even more deep question: Is the identity prerequisite to feeling anything (i.e. pleasure, pain, and the emotions found within that spectrum)? If not, rocks may well feel a lot of things, but simply have no identity by which to express it.

*End TANGENT*

When people reach their perceived limit in fulfilling expectations, or a limit in the ability for reality or other people to fulfill their own, they respond in what can collectively fall under a few reactions: The primary determining factors for how people end up living different lives, are:

(1) How one perceives Reality (Self / Ego)

(2) How one’s environment perceives reality (SuperEgo / Society)

(3) How these two different perceptions of reality interact with each other (Character / Spiritual Energy)

You can put the blame on anything you want, but in the end, you can only blame yourself. Ultimately, it’s you versus the world, plain and simple. The truth is indeed harsh. In the words of Sum 41, “Everybody’s got their problems, everybody says the same thing to you: ‘It’s just a matter of how you solve them, and knowing how to change the things you’ve been through’.”

The primary reactions (upon reaching those limits): Denial, Apathy, Anger, Despair (giving up), Humor (sarcasm, etc.), Perseverence, Depression, Desperation, Procrastination (distraction), Scapegoating, Rationalizing, Indignance, etc. I think it’s important to understand that, as reflected in the above list of responses, there are far more negative ways to deal with it than there are positive. Due to this inherent negativity, most people (and perhaps all, to an extent) need to rely on others to compensate for their own perceived flaws, and the flaws of Society.

If I can accomplish or have accomplished something that you feel you are incapable of replicating (and desire to do so), you will rely heavily on me, love me, admire me, and need me, because only through me can you get the feeling of fulfillment for those desires, even if that feeling is only an illusion. Even though the feeling only exist on a virtual level, everyone has the tendency to piggy-back on the dreams of heroes, mentors, celebrities, and legends.

Neither Love nor the Identity apply to the present, as that which is known, understood, and appreciated can only be done a posteriori (after the event), and only that which is not known (the future) can be expected. When such factors come into play, the Identity is revealed to be meaningless and superficial, having no real social value. Although the superficiality of the identity has always been a reality, it sometimes (and perhaps usually) only becomes clear in the more extreme circumstances.

If however person loves another, and their love is so genuine that their very identity is more important than their attributes, values, personality traits, appearance, demeanor, and everything else that ultimately makes up that person, that might be considered “true love”. But this is what True Love really means: No matter how you change, what you do, or even how you respond to their love– or even if you’re “worth” loving– nothing about you really matters to them, except that you are you.

That’s why they call it “unconditional love”- it’s quite literally without conditions (since you will always be “you” in the most basic sense, that doesn’t exactly qualify as a condition– not anymore than the law that says “x=x”). Although rare, I do believe that such a love exists, and it’s the only kind of love not motivated by the Ego or Instinct– pure love. However, a love of such caliber is idealistic, and like all ideals is extremely dangerous, and usually tragic.

A cousin to pure desire, one possessing such a love will do anything to hold on to the object of their desire. In the event that the one they love should die, there are only two options: Suicide or Denial, the latter of which is perhaps even more dangerous- and tragic, as they spend the rest of their lives believing the one they love is still alive. Idealism violates the rules of Balance, and the consequences for realizing it (making it a reality) are severe. Love is no exception. Then there is the kind of love where a drastic change in a person will cause their lover to completely disassociate their love from that person. This is what Jesus was referring to when he said, “I never knew you” (Matthew 7:23). And this beckons the question, “How is that unconditional love?”

The fact is that although these sentiments are prerequisite to friendship, we are not attached to each other in the individualistic [identity] sense. Everyone is selfish, and is in love not with those they are friends with, but with the image the person presents, and with the needs that person provides. Once the needs are not met, and / or the image of a person changes (particularly when it changes drastically), all of that so-called love will disappear, as it is no longer relevant.

This is exactly the kind of superficial love encouraged by Society, and is perhaps more in line with Balance. For example, in the inspirational film “Freedom Writers”, when the heroine’s husband files for divorce, she tells him, “I love you!”, to which he responds with the harsh truth: “You don’t love me…you love the idea of me.” So true! That is the result of the opposite extreme- loving a person only for the image they present– loving the ‘person’ you fell in love with, rather than loving someone for who they are. Loving someone for who they are is one of the most challenging loves to find, and most people never find it. To love someone even if they do not fulfill your needs, even if they change beyond recognition, even if they act as if you were invisible–that kind of love is a miracle! Otherwise, you may have a whole lot of good stuff going for you, but nothing to hold it all together.

To get people to love you:

(1) Understand yourself and others.

(2) Understand their needs, wants, desires, dreams, and expectations.

(3) Be considerate of them in setting your own.

Don’t let anyone underestimate you, and don’t overestimate yourself. The most important factor of success for anything is Balance. Take every opportunity to fulfill the needs of others, and if possible, anticipate their needs as well (in moderation). Everyone needs someone to look up to, but be careful– don’t patronize, smother, or be condescending to anyone; don’t do anything that might make others feel insecure or uncomfortable.

Understand these things, so that everyone always feels like you bring out their best, and confirm that feeling to them, all while maintaining a selfless focus. One of the most important factors of popularity is self-expression. Any time a person expresses themself, be it via music, dancing, language, logic, emotions, intellect, or pure socialization, they are constantly releasing spiritual energy.

The more spiritual energy a person receives and retains, the less in control they feel (and the less in control they are.) By releasing and transferring spiritual energy, a person will be an feel more in control, and that spiritual energy will be passed from them to whatever objects, or persons they send it to. Thus, everything you do, say, or convey to others– especially emotions and negative self-expression– will overwhelm the receiver(s) if the energy attached to such expression is too great for them to handle. Those who can handle the reception of a great deal of spiritual energy are very rare, and might coloquially be called “open-minded”.

By contrast, those who are very limited in their spiritual intake are known as “closed-minded”. A person’s spiritual intake potential can be genetic, or the product of their environment. Spiritual energy is the source of creativity, while too much of it results in chaos. Thus, some music may be too chaotic for some people, while not chaotic enough for others. This is a very crucial part of popularity, and is also likely the reason why my blog is not that popular: There are two stages to filtering spiritual energy– the first is done by the Giver, and the second by the Receiver.

Almost no one is able to properly filter, and thus interpret spiritual energy– That is why good music is so hard to find– very few people have great enough filtering ability to properly interpret the music. But once such artists suceeed in doing so, we end up with music, which is actually the filtered form of chaos, known as creativity. When we listen to it, we (usually subconsciously, though consciously in my case) filter it again, and our own own interpretation determines the final perceived quality of the music. That is why some music sounds terrible to certain people and awesome to others– in this respect quality is relative. By limiting creative discharge (expression), the intensity of a person’s total discharge will greatly increase.

How this applies to popularity: every way that you communicate with others- gestures, actions, words, writing, and every form of creative expression– how you filter it, frame it, make it look, and how much emphasis you put on the needs of those who observe and interact with you– that they might easily understand you, connect with you, and– as fully as possible– appreciate the value of everything you are, do, say, and stand for, determines how popular you will be. Essentially, if you want people to like, appreciate, and look up to you, you’re going to have to get on their level, and treat them in such a way as you most want to be treated if you were them. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” It may well be that the intended interpretation of this verse would require adding in “if you were them”

For example, because I have overwhelming levels of creativity, most people will likely barely understand most of my writing– much of it will probably go way over their heads, and they will not understand most of it– not nearly well enough to even agree with it. But then again, I don’t write for anyone’s sake but my own– if I did not write as much as I do, I would probably commit suicide. Writing is quite literally my life- my savior. I have so much spiritual energy that to do nothing is pure torture. I know I am destined to do great things, and I have little choice in the matter, but I’ve yet to discover what those things are, so I write.

When communicating with others– in any way, and in every way you express yourself– be conscious and considerate; know and take into account the spiritual limits of everyone who is affected by you. There is a reason why you have certain creative interest, and everyone else has so many different interests, and this is it. Express too much, and they will be overwhelmed and hate you. Express to little, and they won’t even know you exist. Popularity depends heavily on finding the perfect balance between these two. The other important thing, is to make sure that the objective value exceeds the energy that the value is attached to. Very few people like to be ‘inspired’ randomly– it ends up making most people few left-out, lost, jealous, and every other feeling associated with rejection.

Remember this: To accept is to limit, and to reject is to unlimit. Unlimit = Chaos; Limit = Control. You want them to feel in control. Everyone wants to belong, so find out what ‘belonging’ means to them. One of the most vital aspects of manipulation is compromise, so find that common ground whenever possible. If the same level of energy is transferred in few words instead of many, the words will then be far more powerful [and thus influencial], not just perceptively, but inherently. And because less words are manageable, it provides those affected with a higher sense of control, as well as the message possessing far greater clarity. The same goes for every other form of expression…Good Luck!

Spiritual Energy

Most of my core personal philosophy, and inspiration for my writing ultimately derives from one mathematical– or should I say philosophical concept: the fractal. I don’t know when the first known fractal was created (nor does anyone alive today, I’d wager), but two prominent philosophical figures stand out most for their contributions to the underlying concepts on which it would be built– groundbreaking ideas about the nature of the universe (metaphysics/cosmology), that not only provide a basic understanding of what fractals are, but also extend that understanding to account for all that we perceive, and perhaps beyond: Pythagoras and Heraclitus.

Pythagoras believed that every thing (particular) in the unverse had a number assigned to it, and was characterized and behaved according to that number- existing according to the pattern of that number; he also believed that music was a mysterious force that synchronized with these particulars, serving as a platform by which everything interacted with each other, as well as reacted. If life is an equation, then Pythagoras’s “numbers” are the variables of life, and music provides the mathematical operations that determine how life– and everything, turns out.

Perhaps, as was depicted in J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Silmarillion”, music itself is the pattern, mysterious as it is. It’s probably just part of the pattern though- and, to further complicate things, what we know as music may not exist outside perception. Pythagoras’s “numbers”, and his mystical beliefs about music, are what I believe to have ultimately inspired Aestheticism, as well as my own current understanding of creativity.

Heraclitus independently developed a different, yet comparable philosophy: He believed that the universe is inherently chaotic and operates as such, but that chaos was only perceptive, and ultimately was built on word and order – essentially a pattern on which the whole world was build and operates according to. Heraclitus dubbed this cosmic pattern the Logos– after the latin word logos, which beared both the meanings of “word” and “order”; to him, the Logos was God, and to me, that god is a fractal– the fractal. This concept ultimately inspired the philosophy(s) of logic (especially my own), and I believe it to have played a role in inspiring cynicism as well.

It really is ironic, that in the primitive development of what would become the fractal, two great philosophers came up with the same basic idea, but coming from two completely different perspectives- creative and logical. Although at odds by superficial appearances, there are only a few core differences between the two- one in particular that is important to me: Creativity is the quality of finding meaning by creating meaning where there is none, and Logic is the quality of finding meaning by extracting it from existing sources. This is where spiritual energy comes in.

In an earlier post, “Heart and Soul”, I reached the conclusion that the Ego is the Soul. I know that this is wrong (just as I knew my conclusions on “Pride” were wrong even as I wrote it), but for now they will be assumed true, for the purpose of inspiration- a placeholder until a more accurate understanding is found. It is however clear that the Ego is a vital component of the Soul, and is somehow inseparable from it (by way of some kind of nexus).

To further clarify this relationship: I believe there to be a definite difference between knowledge and truth: Truth is the pure and thus perfect form, and knowledge is the corrupt and thus imperfect form. Note that perfection & purity do not necessarily denote goodness, nor do corruption & imperfection denote evil. That would be “missing the point”, so instead think of it in terms of a person and their mirror reflection. A person cannot see themselves without an optical reflection of some kind, so it would be hypocritical to say that what (to some extent) we love- is evil. Even though perception is corrupt, without it we, as individuals, would not exist– a proverbial “necessary evil.”

Having established that: there are two primary types of knowledg that fall within the limits of human perception: intuition and experiences (empirical).

For a while now, the Id has been a mystery to me, but I’m finally beginning to understand it. The Id, as depicted by its originator (Sigmund Freud), is pure desire, and thus (from what I can well) is as infinite as (or more infinite than) perception allows. That being the case, what role can the Id have that would be compatible with the caliber of its nature? My answer: The Id is the Essence of the Soul., and all spiritual energy is the product of the Id (which would imply that music is a component of the Id). Thus also, the Id is truth. (Now we know why children are so “pure hearted”– it’s because they’re pure Id!).

From this fresh philosophical foundation, I can now begin to understand the other “souls”- the Ego and SuperEgo.

The Ego gives form, nature, and other defining characteristics [to particulars] and the SuperEgo is the medium by which spiritual energy is expressed, shared, extracted, and transferred– with other  people, and with particulars in general. I believe that spiritual energy– that is, knowledge, is held not only by [perceptively] sentient beings such as humans and animals, but also by plants, and inanimate objects as well; in some cases, spiritual energy is stored especially by inanimate objects. Although they might not be aware of, or able to appreciate the potentially massive levels of spiritual energy they contain– even if they are not capable of facilitating the transfer of such energy, many of them have far more than some- perhaps most humans.

Magic, meditation, psychic ability, telepathy, prophesy, witchcraft, and miracles in general (see “Karma” post), are the direct result of channeling spiritual energy- and thus, focus is the most important thing needed to effectively utilize it. This is why prayer is often done with the hands folded and eyes closed, why martial arts involve specialized vocalizations and body movements, and why meditation often includes the iteration of certain sounds and an emphasis on repetition. By focusing one’s spiritual energy, one can better control it and direct it towards specific tasks, rather than expend transfer, and receive it mindlessly and wastefully, as most people appear to do.

The Id is then the source of our spiritual energy- what asian cultures refer to as “Chi”. The Ego gives identity, form, and nature to this energy supplied by our “Chi”, that we might control and appreciate it. Finally, the SuperEgo is the medium that facilitates the exchange, sharing, transfer, and extracting of spiritual energy, between humans, plants, animals, objects, and everything that exists. Here’s another even more interesting thought: We know Zero-Point Energy exists, and is found even in perceptively empty vaccuums, but cannot extract it. Zero-Point Energy is everywhere and yet nowhere- a mysterious force. I believe that Zero Point energy is the material form of the Id.

Another way of looking at it: To use the analogy of a program: Spiritual energy might best compare to source code, in that it is raw and inherently giberish until it is interpreted. Perception- our Ego, serves as the interpreter, and thus what [perceptively] the end-product will be. Everyone interprets spiritual energy a little differently, because all of our Egos are different, especially in this day and age where life has become so overwhelmingly complicated. Just like in source code, we all tend to “comment out” a lot of spiritual energy, simply because we can’t handle it. Mental illness is, in my opinion, the result of the inability to filter out spiritual energy. Those who possess this deficiency like myself- we are extremely creative whether we like it or not– or rather, we are creative because we can’t help it.

Medication can, for some mentally ill folk, provide that filtering, although in the process it takes away one’s control. In my case, however, I was too strong-willed for medication to work that way, and so it ended causing a somewhat opposite effect- desperation. With what I know now, things would not turn out that way, but that just wouldn’t be me. Then again, I could probably achieve more happiness off medication anyway– it’s just at this point happiness really isn’t a high priority- it’s just wishful thinking, at least for now. Sure having more creativity makes life far more difficult for me than for others, but it also gives me a much greater potential, and I like a good challenge anyway.

Not everyone likes a challenge, but for everyone possessing high levels of creativity, we must either learn to control– adapt to it, or let it control us. The latter scenario reminds me of what occurs when a system runs a program it does not have the resources to handle- we must either force ourselves to create the resources (which in an OS would ironically be called “virtual memory”), or we will crash (i.e. a psychological breakdown).

Getting back to the point: “Everyone interprets spiritual energy a little bit differently.” This is why knowledge is so subjective- to know or understand anything, it must be interpreted. The Ego (interpreter) is therefore the most obvious scapegoat for why we are so different- so complicated- and why no person can ever entirely agree with anyone about anything. But the Ego doesn’t care about how it interprets anything- it’s conditioned to care, and continues to develop an increasingly complex understanding of everything that is perceived. It’s not the Logos that conditions it- well, at least not directly. It’s our environment, and more mysteriously– oneself.

I don’t know about other people, but I know that I have a self that is not conditioned by the SuperEgo or the Ego, but another sentience that posesses a strange independence– it feels a lot like having a self from another life- a reincarnated soul proverbially trapped in the back of my head. Perhaps this self is my true soul…

The Ego does have conditions, but does not care about what the conditions are so long as there are conditions; anyone therefore can, if they so desire, be anything and do anything they want. That would make it appear that true freewill is within our grasp. But there is one problem: We have a tendency- and myself especially- to make life complicated. It is after all our nature– the soul was after all born out of the complex tendencies of nature (i.e. evolution).

A person can completely remake themselves every day. if they wish. Granted, this would be a chaotic and confusing lifestyle, and something I don’t think I would ever be willing to commit to completely. But no matter how many times we remake ourselves- that is, no matter how many psychological deaths (see “What I’ve Done” post) we undergo, eventually each and every “self” will become just another blueprint for the Ego, and continually increase in complexity until we cannot even perceive the changes that occur within ourselves.

How to escape from this? The answer I have for now is to treat the self as irrelevant; but this answer doesn’t quite fit right; there are too many philosophical problems that need to be resolved for it to work. But, I suppose it’s a start…

A Clown’s Mask

Lately, I’ve noticed how differently people perceive me compared to who I really am, and really feel. The vast majority of people I’ve met – both those that know me well, and strangers that I’ll probably never meet again– the consensus of other people is that I am cheerful, optimistic, and enthusiastic. However, this is far from the truth. As to whether it’s due to psychological defense mechanisms, and/or due to post-trauma- or simply a case of escapism and denial, I may never know– although I have a hunch it’s all the above, as well as a combination of other factors- such is ulterior motivation. But in understanding this unexpected development, I’ve gained valuable insights into the truth behind the Clown’s mask- the suffering and sadness that lies beneath the smile.

An example that first comes to mind is Robin Williams- I just get the impression that his eccentricities (which to a significant extent I share) and deameanor– that like myself, he hides behind a Clown’s mask. This is especially evident in his portrayal in Patch Adams, which so happens to be one of my favorite movies. That story may well be biographical in cerain respects, as “Patch” also escapes his depression and suffering by smiling constantly– pretending to not take anything seriously, treating everything like a joke; and a desire to help other people and make them happy. Though I can’t speak for everyone with depression, I’ve found it’s easier to be “happy” when helping others.

By helping other people, and making others happy, someone dealing with depression can attain an illusionary happiness, which although does not feel real, is better than nothing- better than being alone- self-tortured and melancholic. Even though it’s not real, I can pretend that I don’t exist, and at that point reality becomes irrelevant. I can then share the feelings (or superficial demeanor) of others- share their happiness, as if it were my own. Being caught between this desperate pretension and terrifying truth, I can understand what lies beneath that smile, because that smile is also my own, and I know myself all too well. Even if it’s not real I can pretend– desperately pretend. If I am to have any sense of comfort when with other people, I have no choice but to pretend. I could try pretending alone, but while with other people, it’s a lot easier, because then my pretense is justified– validated, by an external source– because people around me really can’t tell the difference.

Because they can’t tell the difference, and so respond as if I am happy, that satisfies my Ego, and so it becomes as if I actually am happy– the line between reality and fantasy blurs, as reality becomes irrelevant. Logic is fulfilled- the fallacy that everyone thinks I am happy, so I must be happy– is good enough. The Ego is very interesting- see, even after all this time thinking about it, I still don’t understand many aspects of it. One thing that gets me though: is it logical to be happy? Happiness superficially is a good thing, but one could argue that since happiness is the state of being content, it is detrimental to survival. But at the same time, because we know happiness is a good thing at least sometimes, so in order to want to live, we must know or at least believe that happiness is attainable. So the Ego is an agent of Balance, since the only way to ensure both ambition (by which we are able to thrive) and happiness– that requires meeting somewhere in the middle- which is what Balance is.

Balance, as I’ve come to understand, is really another word for Logos, but please note that The Logos and logic are completely different entities, although as logic is decended from Logos, they do share some things in common. The Ego is born of the Logos, and logic is born of the Ego. So even though it might be logical to be happy, logic is only part of the Ego, and whether or not we actually seek happiness, or are happy, depends on other factors, including several that exist outside the Ego. But neither the Ego or logic cares about our happiness–in fact, the Ego does not care at all– it exists for one thing: status quo. In other words, following the pre-existing pattern, and building upon it according to the plan (which itself is born from the pattern), until the plan changes (which is done by other components of the pattern, such as the SuperEgo and its products (such as faith, emotion, fear, etc.)

Although the Ego follows the pattern (status quo), we do not know what the pattern is, or at best, only know part of it. This considered, the Ego is responsible for ulterior motives. Note that when I refer to “ulterior motives”, I’ve not referring to another person having motivations which are not apparent, and different from the ones that are apparent– but more specifically, to different and conflicting motivations that you– and I have, and am not aware of those motivations, because- for example, they are subconscious.

That’s what makes this particularly interesting because, as we know, Freud referred to the Ego as the “Subconscious”, implying a limited level of conscious awareness, and thus control. That is, “conscious motives” are determined by our consciousness (perceived identity- the self), while ulterior motives are determined by the sub part of our subconciousness. Thus, by having people to “be happy” and appreciate my helping them, I can uphold the illusion that I have somewhere I belong; that I am happy. Others think I am happy, and in return people are “happy”, and appreciative in return, which implies that I must be happy, because there are more reasons to be than not to be.

Heart and Soul

What it seems that a lot of people don’t understand, and for that reason misunderstand me, is that I know a great deal about what women want– what the “perfect guy” is to a woman. I’ve thought quite a bit about that (albeit not as much as some other things) so in a sense of course I do. The reason why I’m not that person is because I don’t want to be– or more accurately, it’s not important to me. or should I say, not important enough. In fact, I think that if it was really important to me, I could get rid of my Aspergers- because I don’t believe any mental illness– that’s right- any– to be inherently genetic. sure, they have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that mental illness runs in the family, and that a person born from mentally ill parents is fairly likely to have it to, but that’s due to a combination of:

* Vulnerability. I believe that just as AIDS does not cause cancer (it just makes you more vulnerable to it, and other diseases, by killing your immune system) Mental illness is not genetic itself– rather, MIDS (Mental Illness Immune Deficiency)TM ; makes people more vulnerable to certain mental illnesses, and in some cases mental illness in general.

My philosophical take on this is that mental illness is causes by spiritual vulnerability, and that this vulnerability is aggravated by high levels of spiritual energy (which when appreciateable is known as “creativity” *note that spiritual energy is not viewed only from a mystical sense (the popular connotation)– which would refer specifically to spiritual intuition, but to intuition in general (emotional/ social intuition, rational intuition, etc.– the latter being appreciateable as “logic”, or in more specialized forms such as “intellect”)

 

another variable to consider is that some people have less spiritual potential (their will is so weak they are more easily drowned by spiritual energy) which also makes people more vulnerable to spiritual energy.

 

but my point, as a “nurturist” is, that although people are born genetically more vulnerable to certain mental illnesses, whether or not it actually manifests, or even matters, depends on how they are raised, and raise themselves.

 

I know what it means to be normal. as a person who has hated the world who rejected me for being different, I am obsessed with what I hate because I hate it– that is by knowing what “normal” is, I can better ‘control’ that aspect of reality.

 

but of course, I will not become that which I hate. to become “normal”, I must first want to be. unfortunately, I don’t know what I want, because the “I” that wants is too complicated for even I after all this time to understand, let alone control. I can only control that which I know. I think that most people can’t control themselves hardly at all because they barely know themselves, but that’s not mine to judge– and besides, it turns out control isn’t all it’s cut out to be– I would know.

 

hopefully I can get to the point where I can both accept myself and the world— at least a little of both. that balance would bring me closer to the happiness I so long for. I could become a person who loves the world, and become perceptively perfect– and be happy, as I long to be. But the problem with that- even if I was happy, I wouldn’t be me. so what it comes down to- once again, is pride. I know my potential, and I feel compelled to fulfill it, even at the cost of my happiness. is that my Ego? I don’t think so. The Ego, although without it I would not have an identity, at the same time it is not the identity- it is perception itself, and thus the means by which to perceive the identity. I don’t believe the identity to exist outside perception (it’s an illusion), so the Ego and identity go hand-in-hand. The Ego is pretty much the organizer- the management– the superficial shell by which we can appreciate the self. The validator of illusion.

 

I believe in the model that the self is composed of 3 things: The heart. soul, and will. In Dualism, reality is composed of two worlds, and some layers that bridge together these worlds– the Material world– finite and thus imperfect, and the Spiritual world, infinite and thus perfect; I believe to a great extent in a Dualistic philosophy- and in this context, “personal” requires finity, and thus falls under the “Material world”.Intuition, being infinite and perfect, has no form– how we perceive it (Ego), how it reflects upon us (SuperEgo), and how our desires coincide with it (Id) determine what form it takes.

 

The heart is the “personal” form of the “SuperEgo” (where the SuperEgo is infinite), and is the product of a person’s emotional and social intuition, and how they make use of it (depending on how it reflects upon them (all social and emotional intuition comes from (a) sending/receiving spiritual energy and (2) the perception that those that send and receive are people. To use a common example, young girls often have their first social interactions not with their parents, but with trees and flowers– they have an undeveloped Ego (and thus perception), and so are not hindered by it. I have a very undeveloped SuperEgo, to the point that there is little difference to me between watching anime and ‘normal’ social interaction– which makes watching anime appealing, because I am usually accepted (depending of course on who I side with, or if I side with anyone. Because when I am rejected by people when I am “being myself”, it’s no wonder anime would be so attractive to me. But because of that, I am quite literally “heartless”.

 

The Soul, as I discovered very recently in a post that I will write tomorrow, is the Ego. This is probably why I was so interested in the soul– control is an essential for one who hates the world. Now because I have it, I no longer hate the world, but hate myself instead. Perhaps now that I’ve seen both sides, I can find a balance, but that’ll have to wait for another post.  *Note that when I say “physical”, I’m referring to that which is perceivable– that which we, as ‘people’, can appreciate.– also, the Ego is definitely infinite, where the the Soul is finite.* Even though the soul would more accurately be the ‘physical’ manifestation of the Ego, there isn’t much difference besides that– you could say that the Ego is a “universal”, and the Soul is a “particular”, only both in a more “spiritual” sense.

 

It’s ironic that the Soul would be the manifestation of the Ego, because before that would seem like I was downplaying the soul, but especially in light of Hinduism/Buddhism, now it makes perfect sense. The idea that we lose our memory and identity, start off as an empty slate, but still have a “self”, if we lost of SuperEgo and Id, but maintained an Ego, it all works out. The Ego technically would be enough to be considered the “perceptible” self, and since the Ego pretty much is perception, that’s all that really matters, at least as far as “people” are concerned.

 

Finally the Id is our Will– obviously, because it’s the Id that wants, but knows not what it wants. Of all the aspects of the self, I’ve found the Id to be the most mysterious. I think that when it comes down to it, the Id is the part of us that drives us to experience things– anything, indiscriminately. In its purest form, it would probably be chaos incarnate. I believe that if there is one quality that everyone is purposely born with (decided by the Logos, in my view), is curiosity. Some have it more than others, but this drive to live life through experience is something that can be considered universal, and so I would consider one of the rare truths so vital that it permeates humanity to the extreme of being unanimous in applicability.

 

One really important thing to point out, although you should have already noticed, is that despite the Id, Ego, and SuperEgo being infinite, they have two apparently finite aspects: (1) a name, and thus an identity, and (2) a purpose, which clearly restricts their supposedly infinite potential. Granted, going by my original definition of finite, this analysis would be contradictory and invalid. But I’ve found that to presume something to be infinite in the strictest sense would be impossible since, because I’m limited by my perception, to try to even imagine anything which is infinite would be absurd to say the least, and blasphemy to be dramatic. Thus, when I say “infinite”, I mean “infinite” in iterative potential.That is, infinite potential to follow the patterns that the Logos provides. It’s not clear to me whether the Logos is “truly infinite”, but although I don’t believe it to be, that’s already extended way beyond my perception.

 

In addition to the Self as analyzed above, I believe there to be another “self”, which exists primarily outside perception, and ultimately determines our true nature and purpose. That self, for lack of a better world, I’ll for now refer to as the “Spirit”.

 

Originally, I would have thought of the Spirit as something that some had and others didn’t (as I would have written about in “Souless”, but that post has now been cancelled) but I’ve realized that a lot of my thought and philosophy has been biased by a tendency towards extremist, a.k.a. black-and-white perspectives. Such an approach makes it far easier to make sense of things, because abstract concepts are many times only able to be understood when thought of in an extreme, exaggerated manner, but it also is imbalanced, and based in a huge bias, by valuing the ends way above the means.

 

Taking that into account, I’ve shifted my thinking to a premise of reality, and its underlying aspects, are incremental in nature, and that the existence and validity thereof is irrelevant. So it’s not that some people don’t have a Spirit, it’s that some have more than others, and that some have so little that they perceptively don’t have a Spirit. Following this model also makes me more optimistic about my ideal of perfection– even though I know that it’s impossible for anyone to become perfect, perceptive perfection is definitely attainable, and if I can’t tell the difference, it might as well be perfect. The incremental model is also in harmony with Relativity, which is itself a core component of the Logos.

What I’ve Done

Despite all this writing speculating and theorizing about the nature of motivation and causality, of the issues and conflicts native to love, friendship, society, and relationships/communication in general, I’m a pathetic, unstable, lonely, depressed, anti-social psycho and total loser. The only things I really have going for me are computers, writing, creativity, analysis, intelligence, academics/ trivia, my intellect, a slew of other hobbies, and the ability to comfortably(?) and confidently(?) hold a conversation with anyone about just about anything. Well, that and a lot of makeshift charisma. Most importantly, you may hate me or love me, but even if you’ve only met me once, you may never forget me, because I leave a huge impression (good or bad), and have a very strong personality.

Because such qualities are considered very good qualities to have, I was convinced that the apparent popularity I had for a good deal of my life (and still have) was because people liked me. Perhaps some of them did, and do. But it’s the other way around- I was/am popular because I like people. I’m a very selfish person- let’s face it- and my priorities just don’t agree with those of society’s. I have a great deal of pride, because I know how great my potential is. But as I’ll explain in “Points of Authority” (a written-and-will-soon-be-typed post) pride can be one of your worst enemies, and it certainly is for me. Because my Ego says my reality is superior to that of the consensus, I’m compelled to push the whole world away.

I’m sorry world, but your reality is too inferior for my Ego to accept. It’s so inferior that my Ego would rather torture me, depress me, anger me, or immerse me into complete and utter self-denial before accepting your reality. In that sense- yes, I’m very closed-minded. My definition of closed-minded is itself quite different from that of the consensus. Yes, I am a rebel- that much is obvious. But it’s not like I want to be. But it just so happens that, unfortunately, my Ego does. It’s not as though my Ego wants to see me suffer. On the contrary, my feelings are usually irrelevant. All the Ego wants is to increase the chances of surviving and thriving, and suffering is a necessary byproduct of that. I want to change- I really do.

I want to be happy. I want to stop thinking, stop caring, settle down with a girlfriend, then a wife, have a family, and live a modest yet fulfilling life. I want to just enjoy life in those small yet profound ways. I would be very satisfied with that. But my Ego wouldn’t! Right now, I just realized what the Ego is. The Ego is the soul. The fact that it feels like I have a soul and others don’t- it’s because:

(1) I have a comparably enormous Ego, and

(2) I’m a great deal more aware of my Ego than the vast majority.

For the past could years I’ve been toying with the idea of psychological death and rebirth- a deathless reincarnation. Well actually I’ve already done so once, although my rebirth was largely internal. Perhaps the reason for this is because back then, I didn’t know what I wanted- all I knew is what I didn’t want- who I was then, and that I wanted to find the meaning of life, and my role in it– “Our Purpose”. To that end I’ve been successful thus far, although the meaning of life- and even my purpose- have proven to be as complicated as anticipated, if not moreso.

Even now, having a better idea of what I really want, it’s hard to pass up on what I’m doing, because every insight is so incredible, and the more I write and think, the more refined and meaningful my writing becomes. To add to this, I’m even more inspired since I can to Clearfield Job Corps, than I’ve ever been before. I know that no matter how amazing my insights become, I’ll never gain happiness from them. But as a slave to my Ego, and being weak-willed, it’s difficult to do anything about it. I know- this makes me a very complicated person

But should I, in the words of Linkin Park, “face myself; let go what I’ve done, [and] erase myself, and [forgive] what I’ve done…and clean this slate (psychological death) with the hands of uncertainty…” (a psychological conflict of interests) and recreate myself as a person I know will be happy. What troubles me most about this is the effect it will have on Balance– What price will I have to pay? Will the ceasing of insights be sufficient?

I don’t know anymore. The stakes are too high, and I’m not willing to take the risk. Perhaps my self-esteem is higher than I give myself credit for. That’s been bugging me for a while (many inconsistancies in practive), and just now I figured it out. The self that wants to be happy– which normally I consider my “true self”, is my SuperEgo. Having very little instinct and social/emotional intuition (empathy, etc.) Because this part of me can only influence, and very little influence at that, I perceive myself as weak-willed. And because it gives in so easily to the porogative of the Ego, I perceive myself as having little respect or love for myself, because that love and respect is downplayed in favor of the Ego’s agenda, which considers such qualities irrelevant.

For the same reasons, my SuperEgo, being responsible for social affairs, gives in easily to the Egos of others– which in turn results in me being perceived as a “bitch” or “pushover” by some people, and in a way, I really am. Now that I understand thus, I can confirm that I have extremely high self-esteem- it’s just that most of it goes to a part of me that can’t express itself well socially, while the part that I (and others) can identify with, ends up playing the role of the Ego’s bitch for the most part.

Ego

I once made the controversial remark “everyone always believes what they want to believe, and perhaps more controversially, “everyone always sees what they want to see. Although these statements are without a doubt bold and extremely presumptive, and would be considered “closed-minded” by society’s standards, it will all make sense if you take into account that it’s the Ego’s job to control perception. You know how sometimes you see things– or should I say ‘imagine’ certain things, only to snap out of that sort of trance to realize that it was “just your imagination”? Well guess what, that little something was a psychological glitch. That’s right, occurances like that are the symptoms of bugs in the- or should I say your Ego’s Matrix.

This is more than just a convenient reference to “The Matrix” trilogy– everyone’s Ego has the same level of control over them- over their perception, as “The Matrix” had over humanity, as depicted in the movies. In a very direct sense, I’ve spent much of the last couple years trying desperately to escape from my Ego, or at the very least from the matrix that it has myself, and everyone else trapped in. When they say “perception is your greatest enemy”, this is what is meant.

But at the same time, we cannot “exist” without our Ego. Sometimes we hate it, and sometimes we love it, but either way we can’t live without it. But my question is, “Is the Ego part of me, or is it manipulating me from the inside?” This question comes at the heart of one of my most troubling concerns- ulterior motives. Specifically, even though the Ego may be part of me– especially since it may be part of me, I worry about who I really am, what I’m really supposed to be doing. Is the Ego preventing me from achieving my true potential- realizing my true nature? I’d say yes it is.

But at the same time, I know that there is a me inside that really doesn’t care about all this philosophy and meaning of life bullshit, doesn’t care about ambition or success or pride, doesn’t care about what people think– that me just wants to be happy. But in almost all cases, partly because I’m so weak-willed, I almost always lose to my Ego. For that reason I feel so fake- so superficial, like a puppet, serving the purposes of another me. My greatest comfort for this insecurity regarding my identity:

My model of truth, and the discovery thereof. That is, it doesn’t matter whether or not anything is objectively true or valid- what really matter is how certain ‘truths’ inspire, influence, and affect this world, and my world– and the realities of both. In other words, truth is not found in what is valid or provable, but in that which inspires, and ultimately that which brings about change in the world. ‘The proof is in the pudding’.

My goal, although it will no doubt be difficult and, at times, unbearable, is to discover amd live in a reality as independent as possible from my Ego and SuperEgo, and especially the Ego. Only then will I find a truly enlightened understanding of what truth really is. And if I fail, I will at least discover many amazing things along the way, and inspire others to take over where I left off– a proverbial “passing the baton”. Or rather, I’m sure I myself am only continuing where countless others throughout history have left off– a cosmic journey that may even surpass time itself.

SuperEgo

Out of Freud’s three constructs of the self, I’ve been confused most (by far) by the nature of the SuperEgo. No matter what insight I had about it, none seemed to fit quite right. Now I know why: I never had much of one to begin with. If there are three types of intuition: emotional (Id), rational (Ego), instinct (SuperEgo), then I have very little instinct or social intuition. Now that I think about it, Asperger’s disorder (and likely every other derivative of Autism) can be simplified to 3 words: social intuition deficiency.

While the symptoms and manifestations may be different, I believe this difference to not be due to variations of the illness itself, but variations in how each person with this deficiency deals with it, and the environment in which they deal with it. For example, if internalizing and projecting are two different psychological responses to this deficiency, then Autism would be the product of a person with almost no social intuition internalizing, while one who responds by projecting would develop Aspergers.

Freud’s understanding of the SuperEgo was/is vague and incomplete, which is probably part of why Carl Jung spent so much effort clarifying the SuperEgo, using the Collective Consciousness as a supporting construct. The Collective Consciousness is another product of mankind’s spiritual evolution, and is an extension of the SuperEgo, much in the same way the SuperEgo is an extension of the Ego.

At the same time, the SuperEgo provides a link and common ground between one’s Ego and the Egos of the rest of humanity. In other words, the Collective Consciousness is the world’s largest and most basic social network, and the SuperEgo is the router of that network. From this perspective, everyone else would be my “AlterEgos”.

The Ego’s nature requires that one’s reality be Absolute, and although this was possible in the beginning, humanity has increased in complexity so much that a uniform reality is now impossible, absurd to imagine. With the Ego alone, this would inevitably result in a psychological paradox. So the SuperEgo’s role is to act as a counterbalance. If the Ego decides, and the Id desires, then the SuperEgo influences. In essence the SuperEgo is intermediary of life. Now I know that this is different from Freud’s model, in which the Ego was the servant of two masters (the Id & the SuperEgo), but I found that model to be incomplete and flawed (just as Jung apparently did, go figure!)

The SuperEgo’s role is to manipulate the Ego to ensure a compromise between the realities of different people, and the product of that is social intuition. Because I have very little of that, my SuperEgo has very little influence on me, which- for better or for worse, allows me a high degee of independence from many of the core aspects of society and normative culture, but more importantly, freedom from Social Bias.

The greatest disadvantage to this is an inability to naturally fit in. The purpose of intuition is partly to be able to micromanage a great deal of variables without having to think about it- most of the, are normally handled subconsciously (or should I say, “superconsciously”!) , and as a result, most people take the ability to socialize in a “socially appropriate” manner for granted. Even if I somehow were able to determine and understand all these social variables, and successfully apply them consistently (which would be a miracle), I could only pretend. It would never be real, because I would not be utilizing social patterns intuitively.

In my model, the Id os completely independent of the Ego and SuperEgo; because Id is pure desire, and desire is inherently infinite. Aside from that, for the Id to be dependent would create certain conflicts and inconsistencies with the finer points of this model. Perhaps I’m also able to analyze myself as if I have more than one self for the same reason- because I have very little SuperEgo. Everyone has (in a sense) separate selves- it’s just that most of them are able to take it for granted, and so don’t realize it.

My personality on the internet is also a bit different- I’ve even thought of that self as my ‘true self’ — the “intelligent little creature”. Considering the ironic SuperEgo-like semblance, I can’t help but wonder if that when I intuitively identified that part of myself as a kid, I was providing a sort of psychic foreshadowing for a far-into-the-future deeper understanding I would reach of myself. That self is what remains of my SuperEgo.