Psychic

As I’ve mentioned or inferred in several posts in the past, I believe myself to, some extent, have psychic powers. This will be the first, and presumably only post that is completely dedicated to such an assertion.

A few weeks ago, when I got my iPhone fixed (even though it was outside warranty due to a Jailbreak, the guy at the counter generously ignored that fact) I installed and tried out the game “Reaction!”, to kill time during a Caltrain trip. It was then that I found my first concrete evidence of my psychic abilities, and started to take them seriously. Before it was just entertaining thoughts, but now I know for sure there is definite potential for application to real life.

Here’s how it went:

(a) I tested my reflexes with utmost concentration to get the best reaction times.

with this method my average times were 400-600 milliseconds, with an occasional 3.

(b) I emptied my mind as much as possible, waiting not for the physical change, but instead expecting a particular sensation: this sensation, depending upon my state of mind, the circumstances, and the environment, can take the form of a sound, an emotion, a sense of being jerked, touched, etc., and in most cases, it’s a combination of these. Once the presence of this sensation becomes clear, I concentrate on the nature of it’s existence (i.e. what kind it is), and what it’s telling me about the object in question- which in this case, is the mechanics of the reflex game.

Using this method, I consistently (even after hundreds of tests) achieved an average of 200-400 milliseconds seconds, with an occasional 1.

*Note that with both methods, “occasional 1/3” refers to between 100-200 milliseconds, and between 300-400 milliseconds– i.e., About 150 milliseconds for the latter*

I also pushed my luck by using my “powers” to achieve lower times with my eyes closed. This would remove all doubt that the powers were psychic, since such coincidences are essentially impossible to achieve by conventional means. Although the results were far from consistent, it was with my eyes closed that I got the occasional 1. I did not get any lower than 200 milliseconds with my eyes open.

It is a widely held belief that (a) intuition exists, and (b) it is inherently unreliable. But I think that is a misconception. It is not intuition that is unreliable it is us. If intuition is spiritual knowledge manifested in us (which I believe it to be), that would make it the knowledge of God– that is, knowledge that takes into account everything- all that is. Human beings are imperfect, and we constantly make mistakes with our own knowledge. So then, since God’s knowledge is so far beyond us, if we are to apply God’s knowledge to our own lives, despite being imperfect, our imperfections will be extremely exaggerated, that it might match the gap between the knowledge that we comprehend, and that knowledge which we never will, since it is so far beyond us.

If intuition is that far beyond us in scope, it’s only natural that we, using that which we will never understand it, might perceive it as unreliable. For me, the example that first comes to mind is a person, having never used computers, trying to create a blog using wordpress.org software. While it is arguably the most powerful blog software in existence, the learning curve is insanely high to a novice, so it would be impossible for a newbie to use. So on that basis, the majority of people might say that wordpress.org software is critically lacking. It’s not that wordpress is lacking, or that intuition is lacking, it’s us who are.

I believe intuition to be infinite in application– how we apply it depends on our own potential. Whenever I see an opportunity, I train my mind, that I might be able to more consistently utilize my inherent intuitive (and by extension, psychic) abilities. If I’m able to fine-tune them to a reasonable level, it might even get to the point that I can safely walk outside, cross streets, and get to and from destinations, blindfolded; I may be able to sing songs I’ve never heard perfectly without the lyrics; or I may be able to absorb information, without reading it, but simply following it with my fingers. Of course, there are more idealistic goals like mind-reading, spiritual awareness, etc.- but for now I think I’ll stick with what I seem to specialize in: prophesy.

While I’ve found my evidence in short-term prophesy (the reflex game), I’ve been more-or-less aware of my prophetic gift for a few years now, although I did not begin to understand it till fairly recently. It started, ironically, in the relm of dreams. I believe that all dreams are, in one way or another, prophetic, and that they all play some role in regards to the future– if its use does not become evident to the initial dream, they, and their reincarnations/etc., will dream it, or variations of it, as many times as possible until it comes to terms with its purpose. As the saying goes, “where dreams end, reality begins”

This has been the case especially with me. I’ve had several dozen recurring dreams, a few of which I could list off the top of my head. Of these, there is one that particularly stands out, and that which has no evident link to anything I’ve experienced in reality (that is, outside a dream-state or “episode”): Although there are several variations of it, there are a few traits in common: (1) suffocation (2) helplessness (3) agony. But by far the most distinctive, and most important trait: those three traits only occur after a certain stage in the dream: (4) Become aware that it is a dream, and subsequently wanting to forcibly wake up from it. I also get the feeling that #4 is also ultimately the reason the prior traits are experienced, which is also of significance. I go into great detail regarding this in Kurushii.

Probably the first time I had that kind of dream was when I was 7 years old, and the most recent time was just a few days ago. But I think that, now that the dream has fulfilled its purpose, I won’t have it anymore. But the first time that I became aware of my “powers”, although at that point I had not identified them as such, was after the most extreme variation of this dream- one to which I quite literally woke up screaming and vomiting simultaneously. It was after this that my mind began to race– and these symptoms quickly escalated into Bipolar. Thinking back on it now, the timing is too convenient– this all took place at the same time that the growth hormone that I had been taking went into effect. So even if indirectly, my taking of the growth hormone caused the manifestation of my mental illness, and thus what caused my aunt to abandon me.

But after this point, which was around the time I entered King’s Academy (transferring in the second semester of 8th grade) I started becoming very stressed, attached, obsessed, and insecure. Or perhaps, I was already, but just was given a glimpse, for the first time, of who I really was. Perhaps my past was the price for this gift- I don’t know. Even back then, I was not at all aware of my feelings, or even my thoughts- perhaps it was because I didn’t want to know. I was content, in spite of all that, living in a blissful ignorance– looking back now, you couldn’t blame me. I was completely innocent. Sometimes I still long for that innocence, but I know what I really want is that kind of simple-minded happiness.

Eventually I began to hear what I called “the voices” which, although incoherent mutterings– which come to think of it are surprisingly similar to the “Culling” sound of the Wraith in Stargate Atlantis– of which I understood, and was overwhelmed, not by the voices themselves, but the emotions I sensed in them, calling out to me– all of a negative sort of desperation- not much different from the emotions I’ll describe in my Kurushii post.

In retrospect, every time I’ve had that recurring dream, and every time I’ve heard “the voices”, something life-altering happened, although- especially considering the vagueness of it all, that’s completely open to interpretation. But in either case, in one way or another, “the voices” have made incredibly drastic changes in the course of my life, which otherwise would not have been possible. The existence of them should therefore not be taken lightly.

Another manifestation of my prophetic abilities took place in my writing of the latter half of the 1st chapter of “Essence of the Soul”. The experiences I’ve been going through lately are the fulfillment of that.

Well, there are other examples of this kind, but I’ve tend to try to stay away from including too many examples in my blog posts, since it seems to redundant for my taste. So that’s about it– I’ll just be training my psychic abilities now. ps: although I already mentioned this in the previous post, just to make something clear: When I use the word “Psychic” I’m not just referring to commonly defined psychic abilities– when I use the word psychic, I’m referring any manifestation of intuitive abilities– thus: witchcraft, meditation, hypnosis, improvisation, speed-reading, and any manifestation of such kind is also psychic to me.

Philosophical Rambling

The following was originally intended to be an email, but towards the end of it, I realized that it would probably just overwhelm them, as was mostly intended for self-edification. so I decided to put all this rambling together as a th3g1vr.com post, since most of the stuff here is, like it or not, for my own self-edification too anyway…

It’s rambling for the most part, but here’s some good news for the (likely non-existent) subscribers to my blog: this post is a sneak peek of at least 5 posts which, although I can’t guarantee I’ll post by today (assuming I do have subscribers, they would know how inconsistent my posting time-frame tends to be), but I will definite post at some point, and without a doubt within the month.

Note: At the time of writing this post, I am a bit confused regarding the relationship of subjectivity to objectivity. So keep in mind, when I use the words, although I am referring to the philosophical usage, I have applied my own meaning to it, and that meaning is destined for a harsh evolution, so take that particular part of this post “with a grain of salt”.

I believe that how we perceive other people- their thoughts, actions, words, persona, etc.- and how we perceive the thoughts, actions, words, persona, etc. of God– or for that matter, of anything that we perceive, or potentially can perceive as sentient, or even anything we perceive in general, are not how those things actually are, but ourselves reflected off of those things.

now that was pretty much me trying too hard to fit a lot of information into one sentence. so let me break it down:

In the simplest of words, I believe that it’s impossible to know the objective reality of anything or anyone. But that really is beside the point- because the point is Why it is impossible: that is (in my view) because what we perceive to be objective reality (although perception is [in my view] always subjective– how we perceive things [the nature of our own perception, as determined by ourselves] is always objective– this is in fact why I believe subjectivity and objectivity to be self-cancelling paradoxes)

–perhaps I could better explain this with an analogy: Why is the sky blue? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_sky_radiation

it’s pretty much because most of the light scattered (reflected back) in the atmosphere has a short wavelength (450-495 nm)

Color	Wavelength
violet	380–450 nm
blue	450–495 nm
green	495–570 nm
yellow	570–590 nm
orange	590–620 nm
red	620–750 nm

during sunrise and sunset, and certain phenomena, other colors are shown, not because the wavelength ratios change, but because

light has the travel farther than short (i.e. blue) wavelengths can reach. interestingly enough, this would imply that such phenomena as aurora borealis would require an extremely high amount of balance between the different wavelengths, which makes it nothing short of amazing!

also of interest (on this topic) is how similar plants are in regards to light: while plants are usually greenish in color (due to the green pigment generated by chlorophyll) in the fall many plants change into a variety of colors– the reason for this is because the chlorophyll “runs out”, essentially making plants “naked”– but I can’t help but see the similarity, in that things being “stretched too far” results in the skewing of our perception.

I consider this concept one of my universal principles, meaning that has a theoretically infinite amount of potential applications:
to make such an application to our own perception of things- or more importantly, of sentient, or perceptively sentient beings:

In the same way that while we perceive the sky as being blue, it only appears that way because that most of the light reflected is within the blue wavelength of the spectrum– everything we perceive, regardless of whether our perceptions and reality coincide–

these perceptions are not reality, but reality reflected back to us. that is, our perceptions of things is the product of how we react when reality and us come into contact.

although it’s impossible to know what reality is, it is possible to know a great deal about ourselves- thus, we potentially have control of at least half of objective reality, and possibly more than that, depending on the actual nature of reality (i.e. if reality is largely intuitive, and it is possible to have psychic abilities (which in my opinion include witchcraft, psychic, meditation, hypnosis, prophesy, general intuition, etc; I will explain this in detail in future posts, which ideally I will write today).

thus, if as person is depressed, objective reality, and thus the only reality that we can be aware of, will change– I have occasionally be so depressed that the colors of Willow Glen change so much that it is completely unrecognizable– I have also been so disillusioned that I could not even recognize myself. I didn’t understand the latter until now, and- knowing now the nature of these things, I’m sure that other people have had similar experiences.

so what then, is subjective reality? when I ask that question, I’m clearly not asking for a textbook answer, although that might shed light of an actual answer. In the past, I have said “knowledge is power”, and written about it in several posts, but over time, knowledge has come to mean such that this might no longer be accurate. see, if knowledge is what I write, than it is power, but not for those who read it, but for I who writes it. that is because, although those who read it might know it, they do not understand it, and so that knowledge is useless. thus, what I write is not for others benefit as much as for my own. To apply the Epistles of the New Testament (although I’m paraphrasing) unless there is an interpreter, praying in tongues is not for the benefit of the church, but for self edification. (the original verses are 1 Corinthians 14:1-19)

thus, when I write, although it is my desire that others might benefit from it, ultimately it is for self-edification. ideally, all of such self-edification will be limited to blogging, that I might reserve my more emotional yearnings for those that might be important to me, and I to them.

But in regards to subjective reality, I’ve finally come to an answer: subjective reality exists, but its existence is, in the same way of tongues or my own blogging, only for our own benefit. To understand this, I appealed to the basics of mathematics, or the very least, algebra. Mathematics, and algebra in particular (I don’t know much of the nature of the higher levels of mathematics, but I imagine that calculus is even more abstract.)

so in other words, subjective reality is an abstract existence, an illusionary construct we created (or, like language, became intuitively aware of) in order to understand objective reality. If it is the latter (intuitive awareness of) as I believe it to be, would that not imply that subjective reality exists? it depends on whether existence requires perception (i.e. if a tree falls and no one is around, does it make a sound?) but I think it also depends on if you agree with the controversial opinions first asserted (historically speaking) *I can’t remember who, and can’t find who it was right now*– “nonexistence is a particular”– that is, “non-existence” exists.

but what is the nature of non-existence, if it “exists”? I think that, like variables are in mathematics, “non-existence” exists only as an abstract object, and thus only “subjectively”, so that we might understand “existence” I think it is in this way that everything exists and its opposite, if only abstractly. What reality actually is- that’s besides the point– if God wanted us to know it, or if it was something we should know, we would. there is definitely a reason for why we perceive things the way we do, and for me that reason is because such a perception fulfills God’s will for us.

but getting back to the point (for the umpteenth time– and surprisingly umpteenth turns out to be a word) perhaps it would be better to concentrate not on objective reality, but on objective perceptions of other people:

our perceptions of other people, regardless of whether they coincide with actual reality, are reflections of ourselves, and the product of our contact with others. that premise in mind:

who other people are, at least as far as objective reality is concerned, are essentially who we are, not who they are. Or more accurately, they are a representation of part of who we are- that part being the one that exists only at the moment of a particular moment of contact, and only when in contact with each certain variable (environmental factor). Because there are theoretically infinite factors, and theoretically infinite moments, that means that what we call “the identity” is an illusion, presumably supported by intuition- that is, because God has given us that “knowledge” so that we might have an identity.

I am of the opinion that God does not have a logical identity (something that is infinite cannot logically have an identity, because- being all that is, there would be no standard by which to establish ones identity; although we have certain certain standards of God- these are not who God is, but who we perceive him to be– furthermore, most of those standards are the inevitable natural result of God’s status as the creator (i.e. because he is the creator, he decided what is true, what is right, and what is wrong– etc., so it’s impossible for him to lie on sin, because he’s the one that established those standards in the first place- even if he were to lie or sin, it would not be lying or sin, because the moment he did it, his doing it would render it true and righteous, because he’s the one who judges those things in the first place.)

If that is the case, it’s likely that God created us so that he might work through us, thus having an identity. so indirectly we are God, in that we are God’s identity. Of course, such a role is in par with someone that has temporarily assumed a role (i.e. acting Commander in chief) in that we are easily replaceable– but this does help me to understand why God, and infinite (and thus presumably perfect) being, would create us. After all, at least from our perspective, something is not created unless there is a need to create it, meaning that God needs us. I can’t easily accept religious perspectives on the nature of God point-blank, partly because I have a great concern for the nature of God. it’s my own ego yes, but that also helps me understand who I am, because I am after all made in God’s image, and thus am a reflection of God.

ps. “made in God’s image”– brings up the visual of a person looking in a mirror so they know what they look like– I can’t help but think that those verses support my thoughts above.

but if, in the same way, our perceptions of others are a small part of a reflection of who we are (in the same way as we each reflect a small part of who God is), then knowledge of oneself can only accurately be obtained by understanding (or in my case, analyzing) the nature of each such connection, and the nature of the reaction, as well as the source of each such connection– and not only of those between other people and ourselves, but also of all environmental factors, including nature, society, culture, and even animals and inanimate objects. that is, to understand ourselves, we must not only study who we are as an isolated variable, but also who we are as determined by our connections, reactions, of the causes of such connections with all aspects of reality that can potentially be deemed relevant.

note that the identity, and in particular God’s lack of, is only measurable in the way explained above logically–which has inevitable limitations due to the lack of logical comprehension of God– that is, God is for the most part illogical..from my perspective, he is primarily intuitively known. if that is the case, then God may intuitively have an identity, but because intuitive knowledge comes from God, our knowledge of God is limited to what he tells us. but what we do know intuitively is what God intends for us to know, to fulfill his purpose for us. thus, because I know that most of what I write is largely intuitive, the fact that it conflicts with traditionally-held Christian beliefs, tells me not that I am misled, but that God’s purpose for me requires such differences….after all, it is not for us to judge whether or not a person’s beliefs are right– we can only guide others according to what we believe, and trust in God to lead us according to his purposes.

I surrender all

About 3 years ago, I stopped going to Crossroads Bible church, and about 6 months after that, I renounced Christianity. Although there were several factors leading up to this decision, it was for the most part very sudden, and everyone around me was taken off-guard by the level of resolve I had then- to the point even I was surprised. In retrospect, I recall the stereotypical drama scene in which lovers break up, because one of them realized that they had fallen out of love. I can empathize with such an individual, in that I had fallen out of love with Christianity, and I too had not realized it until the last moment. I had realized something that I did not want to- that the passion that I once had for serving God, and having a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ, it had faded away, becoming nothing more than a relic of the past. By renouncing Christianity, I was not giving it up, but acknowledging that I no longer had it- a proverbial “burying my dead”

Since then, I dedicated myself to analyzing various concepts, most of which concerning motivation. After acquiring much knowledge and understanding, my journey began to learn more in the direction of self-analysis, and eventually I began to see how empty I had become. The more I tried to understand myself, the more I realized how much I was lacking- how most of “who I am” had become nothing but superficial conditioned responses. I was merely surviving, and motivated primarily by fear.

The more that I realized this emptiness, the more I longed for what I knew had filled it at one time- a personal relationship with our Lord. To achieve this, I tried to rationalize theories that justified a belief system that was compatible with my present theories and Christianity…a venture that failed miserably. Even after pondering it for weeks, there were still irreconcilable differences, and ones that I could not further compromise on- so I gave up.

A few months after this, I decided to go back to Crossroads, not to serve a God that I did not completely believe in, but to make friends, and through their support, expectations, and accountability, improve upon my own deteriorating life. Through the leaders of “The Ruckus” (our college group), I succeeded in this goal. But from the moment that I returned to Crossroads, God had already begun to work good in my spiritual life.

Through the guidance of friends around me, and my own genuine prayers to God to show me the way, I was able to be more honest with myself. I was able to see the fear, doubt, and chaos within my own life, and the scales in my eyes crumbled away. I was drawing towards despair, overwhelmed by my own unrighteousness, corruption, and the emptiness inside- those terrible feelings that I had denied all this time. But seeing that I had finally acknowledged my sin, God unburdened me from it, and at that moment it quite literally felt like an immense weight had been lifted off my shoulders.

It was then that I recognized God’s still small voice. I had heard God’s voice several times before, but I was so saturated by sin, and so bound in a protective castle of my own making, that I did not recognize his voice, being so self-absorbed in not getting hurt. Until then I heard, but did not understand. Now that I can lay myself bare before the Lord, I can hear his voice. Even now, when I acknowledge those feelings which plague me, I feel that same wonderful feeling, a refreshment that is amazingly similar to casting off a great burden. Now I can understand what Isaiah experienced when writing this verse:

Isaiah 40:31 (New King James Version)

But those who wait on the LORD
Shall renew their strength;
They shall mount up with wings like eagles,
They shall run and not be weary,
They shall walk and not faint.

Today, I once again acknowledged my guilt, and asked the Lord to show me the way. God spoke to me again, and revealed to me where I was lacking: Pride. In these last couple years, I had dedicated myself not to serving God, but to justify a world where his existence was not necessary. One thing that I wanted above all, was control. Through my own reasoning, I built up a concept of life where God’s existence was not necessary, one that- in my own mind, I was in complete control. By gaining knowledge of motivation, I gained confidence in my own understanding of things, and my behavior was of one that assumed himself to always be right, taking pride in my own self-proclaimed enlightenment, and approaching concepts with perspectives that I believed only I could truly claim ownership of. I did not think in this manner, but looking back now, how I did think was merely a cover by which to justify my conceited self-righteousness.

Now I realize that even if I could reconcile my own theories with that of Christianity, it would not make any difference, because such a relationship would be one-sided. If God’s existence, nature, and purpose is only valid under my terms, to be that kind of Christian would only be mocking God. If I am to serve the most High, I must surrender all. A true relationship with God requires that I give up my pride, and let God take control of my life. God does not compromise, so I cannot serve him under my own terms. Revelation 3:15-18 (New King James Version):

15 “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. 16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. 17 Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked— 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see.

Through pride I was driven by fear and doubt to sin, but through trusting in the Lord, surrending all to Him, I can act with love driven by my desire to serve him, and in doing so bring about His righteousness. Without love, I am nothing.

Trust Fall

Intuition

“Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever” (Genesis 3:22)

Since I was a young child, and even now, the first impression that I got from this verse, is that by eating from the tree, man had acquired all knowledge- effectively becoming omniscient. But this does not appear to be the case, as we do not know everything, and if we did, life would seem rather pointless.

But what if we did know everything, but were only not aware of that knowledge? It is my belief (and this is one that the Bible appears to support, and several times throughout it) that God hides knowledge from himself, so that he may first be able to appreciate himself (which from my understanding of things would otherwise not be possible), and second so that he might develop his relationship with us naturally (which otherwise would not be possible because God would already know our destination before we are born, as well as everything else about us- such a relationship would have no merit to it)

If we are made in God’s image, and we have knowledge of all things, then we would likely hide that knowledge from ourselves for the same reasons. Not only that, but our physical, imperfect, and mortal selves would not able to hold all of the knowledge in the universe- at least not uncompressed.

That’s right, uncompressed. There is no known limit to how much it’s possible to compress information, and I think that there isn’t one. From my experience with archivers, however, the extent to which we can compress data is limited by the system resources, in particular those of the memory (RAM) and the processor (CPU). We already know that some of our memories are easier to retrieve than others for this very reason- it takes more brainpower to extract memories that were made years ago, and ones of things that are less important to us. Everyone can relate to the experience of suddenly remembering things that happened a long time ago, and sometimes for no immediately apparent reason.

But what I noticed in particular about the nature of memory extraction, is that there almost always is a good reason for why we remember anything. Education is in fact build around this framework- it’s always easier to recall memories if there is some object or concept in the present (right now) to serve as a catalyst to recall these memories. That’s also a proven means of amnesia recovery.

I believe that we are effectively omniscient, but the unfathomably vast majority of knowledge is locked away in our brain. To unlock all of the knowledge of the universe, supposing that is the case, would be impossible because anyone would die long before we even scratched the surface, even if we were to develop a means of extraction in the first place.

That is where Intuition comes in. Be it physical knowledge (instinct, etc.), emotional knowledge, spiritual knowledge (i.e. psychics) logical knowledge– intuition is how we access those infinite depths of knowledge, without “knowing” it. I like to think of it is the human version of Direct Memory Access (DMA). Well then again, comparing intuition to DMA would do it an injustice- it’s completely out of its league.

That is, we “intuitively” access whatever knowledge we want, on an as needed basis. But using intuition requires a catalyst- that is, there has to be a direct reason to access that knowledge- I think that we have a natural safeguard in place, to prevent “biting off more than we can chew”. This is a milestone post, as I’ve been thinking about this for a while. One of the first posts that I wrote about this is here, and these thoughts were also reflected in the first chapter of Essence of The Soul.

It’s very interesting thinking of it like this– I keep getting visuals of the replicators feeding on Daniel’s knowledge of the Ancients and Stargate SG-1. Pretty much, we are (objectively) one Soul, but are subjectively separate individuals. As the Soul attains more knowledge, we evolve and reproduce to better accomodate that knowledge. Just as replicators might access their knowledge through a link, we subconsciously access what knowledge that we [truly] need, using intuition.

Spiritual Warfare

When I began to break down the walls of my heart, and was overwhelmed by the explosive release of mixed emotions, I did not first hear the voice of God, but was first plagued by Satan. Consumed by these feelings of fear, chaos, and doubt, I became panicked, anxious, and depressed– an “emotional breakdown” you could say. At the time I did not recognize the voice as being Satan’s, just as I had not recognized God’s, but I believed that voice, and resigned myself to it- I was giving up. All other options were dead to me at that point- it got to the point that I wanted peace so much, that I was willing to die for it. I might have gotten that bittersweet wish, but God had other plans, and had already put them into place long before, although none of those plans were clear to me until I was ready for them, ready to hear God’s voice.

To hear God’s voice, I had to also hear Satan’s voice, but I know without a doubt, that even if I had not heard Satan’s voice, even before that he was working evil in me. That is why it’s important to recognize Satan’s voice, so that you may fight against it, by appealing to God’s voice. Right now there is a battle within me, between my old flesh and new spirit- between the fear, chaos, and doubt lurking within me, and the passion, peace, and hope that will overcome.

Although Satan may cause hardships for me, through these hardships God is working good in me, building in me (to paraphrase Romans 5:4) perseverence, which in turn produces character, and of character comes hope. That hope definitely isn’t disappointing me, because through it God gives me the strength to continue on, with the expectation that, through Him, I will definitely win this war within me.

As I read the Bible (which until these past few months, I had almost ceased to do) I feel doubts welling up within me, telling me to give up, that this newfound grace is too good to be true, that I’m not good enough. But then I remember that it was never about that in the first place, that all I need to do is trust in God, in his word, and in his Voice, and He’ll take care of the rest. So everytime that I have these negative, destructive thoughts feel my heart, I’ll first acknowledge them, and then release them to God.

In doing so, I can once again hear His voice, and be reassured. In doing all this, I gain the strength of God to move forward, to live for him, not because I want his grace, but because it is my pride as his creation. By taking pride in the God who created me, I also gain pride in myself- for only when I love myself can I love God, and others.

Experiencing God

In the last post of my blog emotional moksha (“Emptiness”), I acknowledged how lacking I felt about myself, and by releasing that burden to God, I was able to hear God’s voice for the first time. Well more accurately, I was able to recognize it. At the moment I realized these things, I remembered several times in the past that I had heard God’s voice, “the still small voice”, but I could not recognize him. I have been fervently pursuing God the last couple years, and a few months ago, in my desperation, called out to him, to help me find the way, to know what to do. About a month ago I started emotional moksha, but when I started it I did not realize that it would play a role in helping me experience God. I realize now that I could not hear God’s voice, despite my desire to, because I was so overwhelmed by the fear, doubt, and chaos shrouding my heart.

With all that has happened to me in the past, I’ve built up walls around my mind, within my psyche, to protect myself from the trauma I went through all those years. Those walls did save me in the long run, but I did not become aware of them until a few months ago. Because of those walls, I could not remember the emotions of the past, and could not recognize the emotions of the future. I felt neither fear nor passion, doubt nor affirmation, chaos nor peace. Or more accurately, I could not fully comprehend these feelings, though I felt them.

In doing so I had shielded myself not only of my feelings, but also of any influence. I did not change, and time went on without me. The armor of my heart protected me, but at the natural price of lacking the resolve to move forward, to improve upon myself. This armor of mine prevented me from hearing the voice of Satan, but I couldn’t hear the voice of God either (by hear I mean “recognize”). Furthermore, I could not truly understand others around me, because- just I could not feel my own warmth, I could not feel the warmth of others. I could not be hurt, but for the same reason I could not be comforted.

Even though I did not realize it, being numbed by the armor around my heart, I still had emotions- a great deal of them, and of every kind. Even though I was not aware of them, they were there, waiting to be released. After I asked for God to show me the way- no, even before that he had prepared the way. Thinking about it now, there are thoughts I had and people I encountered which, although it seemed at the time to be another step in my own thought process, or another inspiration in writing a book- sure I knew these things were significant, but I did not know that God was using these things to prepare the way for me, as I realize now. Since I heard God’s voice, I began to better understand his purposes- got to know him a little bit better.

One thing that I think is not emphasized enough, it what it truly means to be in a relationship with God. For example, “Why does God need us to pray to him, if he already knows what’s going to happen, even before we are born?” This is where my own thoughts about motivation come in. God created us for a reason- that is, we have a purpose. From what I’ve seen, the meaning of being part of God’s purpose is often ignored, when it shouldn’t be.

If God has a purpose for us, it means that- for whatever reason, he needs us. If God wants a relationship with us, it’s because he desires such a relationship, which means that such a relationship is of benefit to him, because it somehow assists with fulfilling that which he needs. One can also not love unless it fulfills a need- from which we might draw the conclusion that either “God can love and is imperfect”, or “God is perfect and cannot love”.

But that fails to take into account that God is the creator of all that is– which means that God alone decides what perfection is. God can be perfect and still need us, because he is God- that reason alone is enough. If anything, we perceive weakness and need as imperfect, simply because we are imperfect and our view of things are distorted. I believe that God intentionally created imperfect beings despite being perfect, so that he could appreciate his own perfection, through his relationship with us.

Once God had prepared the way for me, and I had realized in full the existence of the armor covering my heart, for the first time I faced myself, honestly and earnestly stood beside my own reflection. It was painful, troubling, terrible. Over 10 years worth of emotions, including a great deal of emotional trauma- began to implode from within, and I was overwhelmed. All of the feelings that I convinced myself to be lacking, including those of hatred, bitterness, anger, melancholy, loneliness- mostly negative feelings, after being pent up all those years, overwhelmed me.

But even before this, I had considered starting a blog about my emotional self, that I might better understand that part of me which at the time was still a mystery. I remembered the verse

Psalm 55:22 “Cast your burden on the LORD,
And He shall sustain you;
He shall never permit the righteous to be moved.”

And started up emotional moksha, and each time I acknowledge the emotions overwhelming me, I literally feel like a tremendous burden has been lifted from me- it really is an amazing feeling- each time like a miniature-miracle. And in the last post (the 3rd one total), as I wrote it, I experienced God for the first time.

It was then that I realized that the armor around my heart had prevented me from seeing my emotions, and that by acknowledging my emotions, and giving them to the Lord, I had been freed from what had prevented me from having a true relationship with God- what had prevented me from recognizing his voice. By giving up my fears, doubt, and chaos to God, for the first time since I was a child, I could appreciate the passion, intimacy, and commitment that can come from knowing God. But unlike as a child, I can now appreciate the beauty of it, and no longer take it for granted.

Hot Air

Considering that the primary focus of this blog is motivation, this will probably be the biggest breakthrough that I’ve written in a while, and will be for a while:

Lately I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the source of good and evil, and found a far greater clarity when studying it under the assumption that good and evil are not decisions chosen independently by sentient beings of their own accord, but are spiritual forces that greatly influence our actions. But of course, I don’t consider “spiritual forces” a religious concept- umbrella terminology might be a better way of putting it. So, to put it more “broadly”, good and evil are everywhere, like the air we breathe.

But I think of it like this: There are certain forces in the world- we do not cause any of them, and perhaps they were always there- in essence immortal, and without a doubt omnipresent. These forces that I am referring to are very similar to Plato’s Forms– in fact he was a great inspiration in this theory. That is, good and evil, sadness and happiness, beauty and ugliness- all of these various things were not created by us, but rather we are, to some extent, created by them.

One might assert that, in the case of (for example) ugliness, that we create the standards for ugliness, and thus without our standards ugliness would not exist. But this fails to address the fact that we would not create the standards unless there was a need- which means that this knowledge, despite having no valid emotional or logical benefit for it, knowledge of it exists. So in my own theory of forms, anything that such an assessment applies to is what I consider a “Form”.

So if our motivations are reliant upon these Forms, then what determines which forms- in this case “good” or “evil”, are we most heavily influenced by? But first, it’s important to determine what “good” and “evil” are: While good and evil are considered different in different cultures, nations, and even individuals- one thing is certain: The reason why a person considers something evil is because they (as a person, or in agreement with a group) perceive that thing, behavior, thought, or influence to be inherently destructive- that is, it in nature destroys certain thing(s) perceived as good. On the other hand, what is perceived as “good” is so because it is inherently creative- that is, it creates things that do not destroy, and/or creates things that destroy evil. Notice the irony- it’s actually important.

Regardless of whether this is actually the case, thinking of good and evil as omnipresent forces instead of antithetical but independent choices based in freewill- this new perspective brought to light a new and very enlightening understanding, regarding precisely why some become good and others evil:

A more recent determination was that the id, ego, and superego determine the means, and good and evil are not Forms, but rather measurements of the ends. But such an assessment is fundamentally flawed in that it fails to take into account the fact that some have good intentions, but destruction results- and that some have evil intentions, but they inadvertently contribute to benefiting humanity on some level.

I realized that a better way of looking at it was “balance” versus imbalance:

Thus, if we are to take into account the means, ends, and what’s in-between, it would be more accurate to think of it as “Negative” and “Positive”

Although I’ve drawn a chart that explains this much more thoroughly (and in time will become even more complete) Here are the primary motivating factors of both good (positive) and evil (negative):

Good: Passion, Control, and Expectations.

Evil: Fear, Chaos, and Doubt.

If you noticed that in the current order, they appear to be opposites, you are correct in that assumption. If you noticed that these correspond to the Id, Ego, and SuperEgo, we are definitely on the same page.

But, although Fear, Chaos, and Doubt are the primary motivators or destructive behavior, due to their nature they usually cannot manifest themselves in-and-of-themselves.

To put things into context. note that- from an evolutionary standpoint, motivators of “good” are close to the “Fight” response, while those of “evil” associate with “flight”- that is, good and evil, at least as influences, can be attributed to the “Fight or Flight Response“, although of course I’m also using that as an umbrella term, so don’t take it literally :P

What I like about this theory is that, even though it’s logical, the inevitable logical conclusion is that good will triumph in the end- that is, such an assertion is in fact logically inevitable if these assumptions are correct (and these assumptions are unbiased).

Why is such a conclusion logically inevitable? You’ll see…But first, an analogy:

The basics of firefighting (and I actually referenced a volunteer firefighter on this) cover, among other things, the three primary needs of any fire: ignition, oxygen, and fuel.

Personally, I don’t think there’s any better example for this post than that- because, as you might notice, it’s not too hard to compare them to the Id, Ego, and SuperEgo- which conveniently would fulfill similar roles. That is, the Id (Passion) gives us the initiative to act (ignition), the SuperEgo gives us dreams and expectations by which to live out our passions (oxygen), and the Ego gives us the foundation, security, and thus control upon which to build our dreams and passions (Fuel).

So, having absorbed that information, consider the following:

Oxygen is normally considered a good thing (a necessity of all sufficiently complex living creations)– But suppose that, in an extremely high concentration of a good thing– what would happen? a huge explosion, and likely a fire- which lacking the control of a designated fuel source, is a bad thing.

It is ironic that, although good will prevail, that good is the very thing prevalent manifestation of evil possible. But I believe that this is a necessity.

But one thing appears certain- pure Control, which is based in an emphasis on acquiring knowledge indiscriminately, cannot be good or evil in-and-of-itself. But pure control, although it is something that I have reached to some degree, is impossible to attain in full, because humans are not perfect– not to say that such an attainment would amount to perfection- but that an imperfect being is inherently incapable of maintaining one sole emphasis in their motivation- especially considering the great number of ulterior motives present in humans, and likely all sentient beings.

But From what I can tell, the reason why a person might commit good or evil- these are dependent upon the catalyst (ignition), control (level of vulnerability) and dreams (expectations, conscience)

as far as whether or not someone is good or evil by nature, this new way of thinking makes it clear that, ultimately, this is determined by expectations. But this does not cure the problem- rather it has the same effect as medication has on mental illness- it only minimizes the symptoms- the problem still exists.

If dreams were reality, what determines the impact? When I created my own definition for “dream”, I was thinking something similar to this question. If we do not have control of our dream, that automatically means our dream is chaotic. If it is not a good dream, it is a bad (evil) dream. If dreams were reality, they would determine the direction of life-as-we-know-it; but the magnitude and impact of the dream depends on the strength of our desire, or conversely our fear. This is what I believe Revelation 3:16 “So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.” was referring to.

Thinking about it like this makes sense of many things– for example, why it is that anti-racists actually antagonize things rather than reconcile them. It’s common knowledge that throwing water on an oil-based fire will only spread it. It might appear to put it out, but appearances are deceiving.

Consider Hitler, who killed and/or caused the killing and torture of thousands of Jews. Do you think that Hitler really hated Jews that much? Well he might have, but I don’t think that was his motivation. Hitler saw an impoverished country, an already-existing hate for Jews, and an evident desperation. Hitler wanted power so bad that he would do anything to get it. When such a strong passion exists, it outweighs any conscience, expectations, or self-control that might disagree with it. Although this is just my theory, Hitler wanted power so badly that he was consumed by it, to the point nothing mattered.

It’s not as if we cannot relate to such circumstances- we can definitely empathize on a small-scale. Anyone who has killed “enemies” in war should at least be able to understand Hitler’s feelings. In such circumstances, it’s “kill or be killed”, and survival takes first priority. As much as we might cherish the value of human life, human rights, personal morality, ethics, and so-called humanity; all of these are good as nothing- utterly irrelevant in the face of survival. Perhaps this is to be expected, but consider this: If we will do anything in war to protect our own lives, so much more anyone might do for something they value above their life. It could be said that Hitler wasn’t evil, he just had his priorities mixed up.

But what we consider good or evil is not because people actually are good and evil- such thinking is merely justification for pre-existing standards. When it comes down to it, what is considered good or evil is considered thus because, at least to those observing these standards, such definitions are for the best in terms of benefiting humanity. For example, there are many traffic laws that, for a skilled driver are not necessary. Why then is it evil to break the law? That is because the purpose of the law is not the following of it itself, But the impact it will have on everyone’s conscience, regardless of whether they break it or not. Laws all exist for one purpose: control.

Even though Passion is a good thing, it made Hitler evil. Why? Because too much of a good thing can be, and will inevitably be bad:

Too much passion results in corruption, too much control results in neglect, and too much commitment and expectations results in suffering- and in Japan’s case, suicide. Although I passionately love Japan, it seems clear that, overall, the U.S. has one of the best balances, and so might be considered “better” from an idealist perspective.

So it seems that an accurate view of good and evil would be difficult to isolate, as there are many unreconciled inconsistencies to be understood and properly interpreted. But in either case, it’s clear to me that it’s better to do something wrong then do nothing at all- It would be a waste to miss so many opportunities because we pondered whether or not they were the right ones.

Misfit

I haven’t written for a while (again), partially due to personal issues, and also because I’ve been thinking about enough different things that by the times I’m satisfied enough to write it all down- it will take the form of several milestone-class posts. In fact, only a small portion of this post is based on these thoughts- the majority was thought up within the last couple days, or sitting dormant for several years. *you’ll see what I mean by “dormant”*

A wise man once told me, “about 80% of all communication is body-language.” My immediate thoughts on this (which I vocalized) were “If that really is the case, then I’m missing out big-time!” To be honest, when he first said it, I thought it was a hyperbole— it was a bit disconcerting to realize that that might really be the case- after all, I am incapable of reading most body-language.

But thinking about it now, it makes sense. Most of communication between individuals is by means of culture. As I’ve  briefly gone over in the past, Culture is basically made up of two things: expectations, and those who live according to them. The group of people can be any size, depending on the common interests of the culture– from global culture (the largest unit), to a clique (the smallest unit).

In any culture, expectations are an inevitable and crucial prerequisites to identifying with one- that is because expectations are the foundation of any culture, of a necessity of any civilization. One such expectation that is believe to be what enabled civilization to exist- is farming. At some point nomads settled down and took the risk of starvation, trusting in the expectation that the crop will grow. Although nomadic culture existed prior to that, and still exists (i.e. homeless people), civilization requires culture, and by extension expectations. For a person to be identified with a particular culture, they must meet those expectations- which are more specific in cliques, and more loosely-defined in a broader range of people.

Of the expectations of culture, most are not said directly, but instead communicated through body-language. This is because, among other reasons, those of a particular culture group are expected to already know– Those who don’t know already don’t need to know, since they are not part of that culture (not meeting the expectations). If we are not part of a culture and want to be, we must either figure it out on our own, or directly request info on that culture from someone who is part of it. Although this does make communication more efficient, I think that the primary reason things work this way, is also unsaid- that is, because it’s unnatural and overcomplicated to interpret everything to be understood universally.

This is where, for me, the problem lies: Although smaller cultures are optional and and specific, global culture is universally mandatory for anyone who identifies as human, and is collectively known as “common knowledge“. I cannot read most body language, and so my common knowledge is limited to what I have taken the initiative to learn– which in turn means that if I do not even know about the existence of something, I am not even capable of learning it unless someone tells me, or I find out about it by chance.

People that have similar problems are those with Asperger’s Syndrome, which in turn is sometimes synonymous with the stereotypical geek. Although I do not know if my own issues fit well even in Aspie culture, the lack of ability to read body language has adversely affected me, in that because most expectations are communicated through body language, and other culture-specific methods, I am unable to appreciate, or even be aware of the vast majority of expectations that other people have of me.

In my previous thoughts concerning what other expected, and expect of me, and how that impacted my own expectations (our own expectations are the cumulation of others- we do not (usually) gain more complete independent expectations until adolescence), I decided that it was because my family had very little demonstrated expectations of me. This perception was also based on the fact that my dad avoids confrontation of any kind, and tends to communicate passively- that is he rarely spells out anything directly, implying his preference instead of asserting his will. Aside from the fact that I spent most of my adolescence (the most crucial period for developing expectations) with people that (from my perspective) had more demonstrated expectations of me, I’ve realized a much more pressing concern:

If, as it appears, about 80% of communication uses body-language and other culture-specific methods, that means that I am completely oblivious to 80% of what is expected of me, and thus cannot appreciate, acknowledge, or (most importantly) apply and benefit from the vast majority of what is expected of me. Considering that, prior to adult-hood, our thinking is more simplistic and we are more easily influenced, such a deficiency would have a drastic impact of the development of individual expectations.

In fact, in my entire life, the expectations that this wise man had of me, and communicated directly so that I would know in its entirety– It seems to be the first time I felt that anyone expected anything of me. That is, prior to that, I was aware of many expectations that people (in particular institutions, like school and work), but expectations cannot be appreciated logically or even empirically, but must be known, (quoting The Matrix), “you just know it, through and through”.

This is very unfortunate, because expectations are a crucial aspect of not only culture, but essentially every aspect of interpersonal relationships. A person without expectations cannot develop [reciprocal] friendships, and their ability to love is limited and imbalanced.

Expectations are also a necessity in mustering motivation for any task that does not immediately accomplish the goal(s) one might work toward. This can be understood by applying the Triangular Theory of Love, developed by Robert Sternberg:

Love can be split into three primary aspects: Passion, Intimacy, and Commitment. as I will explain in future posts, these correspond directly the Sigmund Freud’s Id, Ego, and SuperEgo (in that order- the Id being our source of passion, Ego of intimacy, and SuperEgo of commitment.

The SuperEgo seeks to improve upon itself or others, which in turn requires change.

*note: as I will also explain in future posts, the SuperEgo may conversely seek to destroy itself or others– this is because, just as “the means” (the shape and quality of what is accomplished) is determined by the Id (level of passion/ desire), Ego (level of security/control) and SuperEgo (level of expectations), “the ends” (the ultimate result) can either be creative or destructive. Although religions tend to assert that good and evil are objective, I think subjective would be more accurate- but regardless of whether of the nature of their existence, it would be more accurate to think of good and evil as “creative and destructive”, because not only are there things that appear creative to some and destructive to others, but to some extent, creating anything requires destroying other things, and destroying anything requires creating something else- this is a natural consequence of change, which is why all change has risks.

In other words (The following describes the consequences first of the creative SuperEgo, then of the destructive SuperEgo BTW.):  To progress in the future requires digressing from the past, and to digress in the future requires progressing (emphasizing) the past (FTR progressing the past sounds a bit confusing, which is why we use “regress” to describe that).

If commitment is achieved through expectations, any long-term goals are impossible without oneself and/or others having the expectation that the goal will be accomplished, and of course the individual(s) the goal concerns must be aware of those expectations. I find it interesting (and very surprising) to realize that friendship does not require expectations- that is, a person doesn’t need to be important to be a friend. In and of itself, the level of friendship is dependent on the level of intimacy (since friendship is the product of intimacy), and intimacy, in and of itself, is motivated by the Ego- that is, the need for security and control. When I previously defined friendship, I was too idealistic about it- “true friendship” as we know it is produced from reciprocal fulfillment of the need for security and control (intimacy), that is complimented by reciprocal fulfillment of the need for expectations. So interestingly enough, my previous thoughts regarding friendship (see my Love post) although harsh and oversimplified, were more accurate than I had thought. “True friendship”, according to the Triangular Theory of Love, is the product of “Companionate Love”.

But here’s the crucial dilemma (and the original intended focus of this post): How should one (i.e. myself) go about living life if they expect very little of themself, and do not know (and thus cannot appreciate or benefit from) what others expect from them?

Well– actually, come to think of it, there is a dilemma that is far more severe, and the worst part about it is that I know just how hopeless it is:

I believe that, in accordance with balance, to change any characteristic of oneself, it requires the same amount of effort (be it conscious or subconscious) that was put into developing those qualities to neutralize them, and twice the effort to develop qualities of the opposite nature. To put into context– History demonstrates how, in spite of centuries of research and experimentation with various treatments, in most cases the success rate for correcting homosexual attraction is either 0%, or close to it. Since homosexuality is not genetic (if it was it would have died out over 4 millennia ago), it must be behavior. My explanation for why sexual behaviors are so (impossibly?) difficult to treat is because sexual desire is the first type of behavior to develop in life, beginning with the first love (normally the mother) *note when I say “sexual”, I’m referring to libido. To clarify- Those who conform of Freud psychology believe babies are pure Id- they know they want, but know not what they want (Ego) or how to get it (SuperEgo).

Freud introduced the controversial notion that human development is ultimately motivated by sexual desire (and due to complications in justifying the theory, became a major enemy of feminists (see Penis Envy), so that leads me to believe that “libido” could also mean simply “desire”- but it makes more sense to me by putting it like this: Id is the part of our consciousness motivated to gain back what we lost. Thus, from a broader perspective, desire is born out of a need to regain something which, even if only in our own mind, we once had in some form. Considering the simplicity of a baby’s mind (and their life in general), after weaning is completed, the primary thing to get back is obvious.

With gays this would not (normally) apply- so, from what I can tell, the desire (and thus the gay attraction) normally originates in an early childhood memory. That is because the earlier the attraction originates (memories), the more years of effort (in the form of desire) have accumulated in that direction, making change virtually impossible (not only would you have to have to desire to change, but the change cannot occur until present desire accumulates to match and exceed the total amount put in the past.

The dilemma I have now, is that in my entire life up till now, I was not aware other the vast majority of others expectations, and so I was not able to appreciate or benefit from them, and behaved as if very little was expected of me. It’s very likely that I gave a bad impression of myself as a result, and my natural talents and love of acquiring and sharing knowledge did not impress people around me as it would have if I had met, or at the very least acknowledged all their other expectations. I did not realize this until relatively recently, and did not understand it until now– but now that I know this of what good is it to me? It’s not a simple feat, after all, to undo and redo 20 years worth of living, and even if I could accomplish it, would it really be worth it? Even if I am a misfit, I’m satisfied with myself, which really doesn’t give me any motivation for such an aspiration the first place. Before I could begin such an endeavour, I would first have to know what is expected of me in the first place, and I wouldn’t even know where to begin with that!

Depression Treatment

*note this is one of the old posts I actually wrote a long time ago– just FTR*

*…But as I am writing it now, I’ve modified it significantly so as to blend better with current thought, and also to incorporate recent concepts when relevant…*

As I explained in Playing the Victim, one of my co-workers was suffering from acute depression, and asked for advice. The solution I gave her was *obviously* to stop “playing the victim”, and accept responsibility for her life – thus empowering herself and providing the psychological leverage needed to deal with the other issues, and begin progressing with life again. Although this solution is logically valid, I’ve become to realize more and more how much truth cannot be logically justified -so, for lack of better feelings, I should  “be more considerate of her feelings”- for lack of better phrasing – So this depression needs to be handled more gradually, using “gentler” methods :P

Due to the ever-constant chaos already eminent in her life, dealing with it logically would be impossible, because logic has already become irrelevant. I assured her that I would see what I could do in finding a [irony alert!] more *reasonable* solution, and fortunately, I think I’ve found one. Well, from the looks of things the *best* solution is a work-in-progress, but at the very least it’s something to work off of. Of course the solution has nothing to do with drugs. I was medicated for several years in the past, and although I definitely had, and *have* the illnesses I was diagnosed with, I found I did far better without them. Come to think of it, the several different medications I was given did little more than sedate me. As far as I can tell, that was about it. Don’t ask why, I have know clue :P

As I mentioned in that same post (“Playing the Victim”) I was able to deal with my psychological issues best (by an overwhelming margin) without medication; if anything the medication just made things worse. So although I cannot speak for anyone else, From my person experiences I would definitely recommend against the ingestion of psychological drugs of any kind. Treatment is frequently contrasted with “Cure”, being only a temporary/partial solution (i.e. to minimize symptoms)- Cures are permanent.

I think the fact that medication only minimizes symptoms is particularly interesting- after all, “Symptoms” are the proof that the body/mind/etc. is fighting against the disease/etc. If the symptoms disappear, that doesn’t mean the person is better. In fact, if the disease/etc. still exist despite symptoms, that should be considered a bad thing, since the immune system is essentially being suppressed, allowing the disease freely roam, resulting in far worse [in this case] mental health. Well, that’s just speculation on my part, but such an opinion is also implied in “I Never Promised you Roses”. In the cases of depression, the “cure” might well be to deal with the problem as described in “Playing the Victim”- however, for now, a temporary solution [*treatment*] should suffice.

Among many– more minor illnesses, I have Bipolar- previously known as “manic-depressive” disorder. The previous name is much more descriptive, but I guess they’re trying to be more politically correct :P I regularly go through cycles- between depressive and more manic states; I maintain a more “normal” demeanor in-between. The upside and downside of Bipolar is the same: the cycles are predictable. That is- I only get depressed or manic “when I’m supposed to”- this makes cycles very predictable, and I can schedule accordingly, since it works like clockwork. But of course, no one likes getting depressed– well, I’m sure plenty of people like getting manic though :P Then again, I don’t ever get anxious (for certain reasons that I’ll cover in later posts) so I don’t have to deal with that part of the manic cycle…but for whatever its worth, that’s the downside.

A while ago I realized that I could completely thwart the depression cycles (although the manic isn’t so bad) by making a habit of automatically rejecting the logical validity of all negative thoughts. Although I did not realize it then, I had already been doing such a thing for a few years now. But I have also realized that, in accordance with balance, to disregard any emotion logically, I had to lose my emotions; this is because to logically get rid of emotions, one must believe any previous emotions to never have existed- this is necessary because emotions are the backbone of passion and desire- no decision can follow through without one’s emotions backing it.

Getting back to habits though, as I detailed in [insert post], it’s possible to force oneself to change the perception of anything you want, even if it is the exact opposite of the original and natural perception. In that experiment, as I was walking in the freezing cold (of last winter, to be exact) I decided to imagine the pain as being pleasure, and concentrated on the cold being a good thing, setting aside all “common sense” in favor of this perception. The result was a bit surprising- by concentrating the pain completely went away- it was very exciting seeing how perceptions can be manipulated this way.

The only thing lacking with this is that one must concentrate to experience the conversion. That’s where habits come in. The purpose of habits is to keep of memory of thing that are done often, and usually require a degree of concentration. It is an adaptation that allows us to perform tasks better the more that we do it, because those things we’ve already concentrated on a lot are stored in our “cache“, which frees up our “memory” to focus on the finer details, or other tasks. Although perhaps I’m a bit partial due to my hobbies, I think that the human brain is strikingly similar to the computer- or, even more likely, the other way around.

As a result of these habits, I have not felt depressed for a few years now.

*Note “felt”- “depression can mean more than one thing; “felt” meaning that I have not had any sad or depressing thoughts for a while. In retrospect BTW this is not a good thing- to accomplish this required “unbreacheable” psychological walls to be put up, resulting in an almost completely nonchalant perspective towards everything; the root meaning of depression (“to slow down”/ “fall” / “be undone” /etc) is still true even now- the depression just does not include the emotional components (i.e. sadness/melancholy/etc.)*

There was one brief period a while back (see Self-Awareness post ) but that only last half an hour. I was thrust into a terrible depression, due to not being able to prepare a decent resume (I had no work experience at the time). But, seeing that I needed it to get done, I forcibly moved myself forward, and was able to pull off what had appeared to be impossible, thus effectively ending that “episode“. Recalling this incident has also played a key role in determining another, more “reasonable” solution to my coworker’s problem.

All of “today” (*see top*), as expected, I experienced the usual wave of depression. Well, I say depressed, but (as explained above) the only symptom I still experience is a complete lack of motivation to do anything productive. On these days I might normally do nothing but watch anime- and in WCS even lack the motivation to play games. But even when I have such days, going to work is not a problem. Actually, on these days going to work is actually more of a vacation, anyway. Much of the reason for this is explained in Opportunity– that is, working each day with the awareness that half my pay is not in the salary, but in the opportunity to work. As I’ve discovered over time, the reason why working can be so fulfilling- is because of expectations- knowing that our coworkers and supervisors expect us to do the job well, and fullfilling those expectations, fills us with a wonderful sense of pride. The way I see it, this is “running away from ourselves”- here’s why:

Who we are- that which we perceive ourselves to be, and also who and that which we perceive others to be, is dependent on memory, which also means that we can only see ourselves and other people as we were in the past. That is because we are contantly changing and growing, clarifying and building upon who we are every second, although the changes may not be noticed for years. Because of that, the person we perceive ourselves to be, is actually the past, and is not entirely accurate. The irony (and amusement) of this, is that we are able to change in the first place for this same reason. See, to move forward and grow, we must leave our past behind us, which I believe is a necessity due to balance. Interestingly enough, it is also a central theme for reincarnation. So “running away” from ourself in essence means “leaving behind the past” to move towards a better future. So perhaps a more optimistic phrasing would be “running to” (although that would totally kill the visual)

Since I am a restless individual, lacking in patience (although I have aquired a significant patience these past few months, in recognition of the need) I first dealt with my lack of motivation by being confrontational (i.e. a complete ass) with my roommates. Thinking about it now, that initial approach is strikingly similar to Linkin Park’s song “Breaking the Habit”. From what I can tell, this journey I’m going through has an extremely close likeness that the journey that Linkin Park depicts in their music, so I often listen to the words of their songs for guidance. As the contributers (of that song) in Linkin Park did though, I realized that there were better ways of dealing with it, that I needed to ‘break the habit’.

So I started settling down, and played games with them instead. Here I realized another way of self-treating depression. Summing it all up, a person’s psychological health is primarily dependent on one factor- pride. This is why it’s important to not play the victim- depression is caused by insecurity. The opposite of insecurity is self-control. Taking control of a situation is an active way of alleviating insecurity (and thus depression), but it’s likely that in most cases of depression, the person’s state-of-mind renders them incapable of taking the initiative- thus a passive response is necessary. By playing games with my roommates that I knew I would win, and by following through with that expectation, I am able to alleviate my insecurity in a passive manner. That is, it required no initiative, because they already wanted to play- I only had to say “yes”. Thus, one of the best ways to alleviate depression passively, without initiative, is to put oneself in an environment where we will succeed, and have the expectations of others to drive and support that success.

With both the resume incident and the days that I played games to relieve depression, the key factor is power. In one way or another, empowering oneself plays a vital role in allowing us to move on. To put in another way, the most efficient way to get over depression is to “pet your ego” by showing off your strengths to others. Pride is, after all, one of our greatest needs as humans, making this a reliable “quick fix” for depression

Agony

In general I find very little merit in assholes, but there is definitely one thing I appreciate about them that is universally reliable, and that is that they will always challenge me. Not necessarily challenging my opinion, although the redneck type seems to a lot IMO. Well, in this case, a redneck asshole who is freeloading at my house (’cause my dad is too nice for his own good…and no this is not about redneck-induced agony…although that is also sometimes a problem!) – When I said that I believed that the whole Bible was misinterpreted, and that most of it- if not all in some respect- should be interpreted metaphorically- or more accurately, not literally. (i.e. a passage in the Bible might be historical truth, but also to present another underlying, and usually far more important (and spiritual) meaning– similar to the masterpieces of Linkin Park.

I have been, off and on, extremely anxious these past few months, likely due to delving too far into the secrets of my spiritual self. I’m disturbing the spiritually dead, proverbially speaking, and it’s not someone else either- it’s my dead self. Well of course this is all speculation, but in either case- as far as I’m concerned, I’ve willingly asked for a glimpse of Hell, and now I’m agonizing over whether it was really worth it.

I began this journey of self-exploration at first just to turn the nothing I was into something in the future; then, once I realized that it was not that simple, I began seeking out what that nothing was, because you cannot do anything you know nothing about, because even nothing is something

Well, all that abstract talk is just me being melodramatic…eventually, I found that the more I discovered about myself through this inference-based reasoning, the more I was able to improve upon myself. I started with internal change (opinions, morals, perspectives), and eventually harnessed these changes into habits/etc., to the point my transformation could not go unnoticed by those who “knew” me. But noooooo…that wasn’t good enough for me. I had to find the unfindable answers, relying on the forbidden intuition that I should never have had- well perhaps I’ve just being “played” by myself- this illusion of soul-torture that I’ve forced upon myself due to expecting something.

But really, the possibilities are endless, so why doubt my doubts when I can “suspend judgement” on those matters- and focus my attentions on these far more engrossing and apparently irresistable obsessions. But, as you may have noted, these obsessions have really done a number on me. Why is it that I must have such depressing, such inevitably hopeless obsessions.

Now that I know that we all are motivated by the desire to run away from ourselves- or more accurately, we won’t be happy unless we do everything to run away from ourselves. No- that’s not even accurate. I mean “our other self” – might be our “Ego”, might be our “soul” or “spirit” or “psyche”- well, it’s arguable that all those words mean the same thing anyway. Perhaps- and this is most definitely the case, we are running away from something far bigger that that. But really, is that even possible, or does it even make any sense, considering at this point it’s all just semantics.

Actually, I wouldn’t even be able to write this post had it not been for the spontaneous impulses (that’s redundant BTW) of my brother- by which I was able to clear my head sufficiently to actually think straight for the first time in 2 days. Now for some revised definitions “for the road”:

Sin: Self- you know, the “other self”. like I said, all semantics…

Agony: Seeing self, or a reflection/glimpse thereof- for what we really are, an eternally tortured self.

Hell: In “God’s” presence we see the ugliness that we really are:

desperate, hateful, dependent, miserable, melancholic, masochistic/sadistic, vengeful, malicious, lonely, obsessed, perverted, greedy, lustful, irrate. All scum that is depicable and distasteful.

As to how such a hellish curse was eternally forced upon us, there are many possibilities, but this is my theory: Balance has always existed- it is the true God. But “in reality”, Balance is only rules- just as Pythagoras’s numbers did not create anything, but only organized what already existed. We, our “original” self- also existed, and were thus governed by Balance. But to gain self-awareness, our soul- as I’ll call the “original self”, had to pay an equal price- that is after all necessary to maintain Balance. The “Adam and Eve” story of Genesis 2-3, is IMO, a story that originally took, or more accurately, takes place outside time and a space- humans would not exist if “original self” did not become “original sin. Update: Time did exist- since it is a fundamental necessity of balance.

There are many Bible verses which support this interpretation, in several books, both the old testament and new. Although I really don’t have motivation or time (b/f going 2 bed) to cite specific verses (although I probably would have if I didn’t spend so much time procrastinating on Uncyclopedia- it’s way to funny for my own good! see side-panel links for reference!)-

In Genesis, Isaiah, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastics, Revelation- just to name a few…

In the account of Jesus’s death (found on all 4 gospels, though only a couple in sufficient detail), Jesus dies for our sake- taking the sin of the world upon himself.

I pity those millions (Billions unless it’s “all for show”) of Christians that completely misinterpret the Bible- it’s not like I’m even close to accurate (obviously!) but at least I’m on the right track. Honestly though, how can anyone take what they call “God’s Word” at face-value. It’s sickening how simple people can be about things so far beyond themselves- what an insult to God!

Back to Jesus: In taking the sin upon himself- I strongly believe that this refers to the evolution of man. See, before man- there was just animals- no self-awareness.

To further understand- I’ll shed some more light on my theories regarding the Soul:

The Soul is running away from itself- in denial, just as we are. That is because, in order to create life, death needed to be created. To create ecstasy, despair needed to be created. This was the price of Balance. The soul took upon itself those ugly qualities (the ones listed halfway through what I’ve written so far) so that it might give birth to the positives. The Soul did this so that it could have meaning, and because it was inevitable- it was in its nature to bestow benevolence. This soul is our God, and is always a part of us….Okay, for the time being ending creepy mystical mutterings…

Naturally, the Soul could not bear this state of being (hell), so it thrust itself into its creation, and became ignorant. The soul enjoyed bliss in this ignorance- animals, plants, and all life at that time, had naught but instincts, and thus had no reason to find the Soul. This is not unfeasible, as most humans today have the gift of self-awareness but do not use it, leaving it dormant.

But, in accordance with Balance, the Soul innately struggled to correct the imperfection of its beasts, and these struggles took on the form of evolution, with its battle-scars taking on the form of mutation, and its confusion was mirrored in natural chaos. As the struggle became exponentially intense, a split occurred within the Soul- this was also a necessity of balance. The struggle had reached a level so great that it threatened to destroy Balance, and an innate failsafe defense mechanism was activated within Balance, resulting in the first miracle. This miracle, having split the Soul into two, formed what I will call the “Thesis” and “Antithesis”. Both the Thesis and Antithesis seek to be reunited under a Synthesis- but, in accordance with balance, this is not possible because that desire is neutralized with an equal and opposite force.

*Please note: Contrary to Augustine‘s theory that God exists outside time, my account, assuming “God” to be “the creator”, exists within time– Balance always exists, therefore time does. Even though God has always existed, he did within time, because Balance is also eternal. My “God” is also not infinite, and is bound by the laws of Balance.

The desire for synthesis is mirrored in our own lives to this day, because it is necessary for Balance. One might ask the question, is there then the possibility that there is also imbalance?- But if the answer was yes, that would be a moot paradox, so I wouldn’t bother. (see Illogical)

Also, these events are somewhat reflected in the story of Cain and Abel.

Eventually, amid the struggles between the negative and positive that is the Soul, life evolved into increasingly complex organisms. But, in accordance with Balance, existence must be sustained by non-existence- thus, As many who are born must die. Because the animals were reproducing and flourishing, more were being born than were dying.

*Please note- keep in mind that although the Thesis and Antithesis are fighting, neither are self-aware of it, as their self-awareness is dormant within now-primitive life. Their subconsciousness’s are dualing, and they are only aware of the effects, in the forms of chaos and mutation.

*Also- these circumstances are reflected in the story of Noah’s Ark, particularly Gen. 6:1-7.

Now Balance was approaching the failsafe point, and- aware that the Soul had self-awareness, corrected the deficit by calling out the Soul (Antithesis and Thesis) to make a choice: allow the creation to be destroyed (which would be the second miracle), or make another sacrifice to correct the Balance in their stead. Because the Soul was now two different beings, the choice would have to be made separately. This decision could have been the long-awaited Synthesis, because both the Negative and Positive desired for life to continue flourishing. But Synthesis did not come to be.

The Positive Essence decided to sacrifice its self-awareness eternally, taking the form of Heaven or, more accurately, Nirvana.

The Negative Essence decided to keep it’s self-awareness, but eternally resigned its right to ignorance, forever tormented to the ends permitted by Balance- its unhappiness mirroring the happiness of life, and vice versa. Thus, in order for life to be happy, it must be unhappy- we essentially depend on the unhappiness of the negative essence. It took the form of Hell or, more accurately, Samsara.

*Please note that there is a big difference between ignorance and self-awareness. The Positive Essence did not become ignorant by losing its self-awareness- if fact, if I understand Buddhism philosophy correctly, losing self-awareness is essential for losing all ignorance.

*As you probably already guessed, the Positive Essence’s sacrifice was mirrored through the life and teachings of Gautama Buddha.

*Also note- The irony: Buddha discovered that the cause of human suffering was ignorance, but this is only one type of truth, which is derived from the Positive essence. Just as our well-being mirrors Samsara, our self-awareness mirrors the Positive Soul’s lack thereof. Thus, because the Positive Soul is statically in a state of Nirvana, Balance must correct our ignorance with suffering, in accordance with Nirvana’s complete lack of ignorance. On the other hand our ignorance can also grant us happiness, as ignorance makes our creator (the Negative side) unhappy. In other words, two negatives, when multiplied, make a positive. See here: God hates being ignored. Why do you think this commandment takes top spot on the 10?

*The Negative Essence was mirrored long before the Positive Essence did (Hinduism), but the effects were not fully realized until the life of Jesus. Because of the complications caused by the division of the Essences, and the sacrifices thereof, many miracles occurred up until the time of Jesus, and echoed until long after, in accordance. The effects of the Positive Essence need no be mirrored long, because it actually returned to its original self- essentially rendering it’s role in the creation of life nonexistent. The original miracle through Which Nirvana’s choice was reflected, was told in the allegory of Jacob and Esau (Gen. 25:30-34). Just as Esau gave up his birthright, Nirvana did as well. Key here is verse 34: …”thus Esau despised his birthright.” This mirrors the notion that Nirvana did not want it’s birthright, because self-awareness actually held it captive, thus being more a hindrance than help.

(Just a thought)

Mirroring how Samsara took every kind of agony possible upon itself, Jesus took every sin upon himself. The Negative Essence became Samsara, taking Hell upon itself so that we might live- thus, the balance, at least for the time being, was complete.

Now all that remains is our choice. Because we were made in the Image of the Soul, we have self-consciousness. However, our self-consciousness is incomplete- metaphorically speaking, half complete. This is why we have two selfs. One of our selves has self-awareness, the other does not. That is because we are based upon and depend on two different Essences, of one Soul- one Essence has self-consciousness; the other does not. These two different selfs take the form of the Id and Ego.

The Id is the self-consciousless persona, derived from Nirvana

The Ego is the self-conscious persona, derived from Samsara

thus, Balance is achieved, and all that is left is for us to make the choice:

The Antithesis, the Thesis, or the Synthesis?

If we choose the Antithesis, Nirvana is achieved, ultimately

If we choose the Thesis, We will maintain self-awareness, but perpetually share with the happiness and unhappiness of the Samsara. Unfortunately, to correct the Imbalance required for us to live, we must ultimately suffer, as the suffering must outweigh happiness to compensate for life. This will continue, until we either choose Nirvana, or the third choice- the Synthesis:

Not a true Synthesis, but: We run away from our true selves, gaining ignorance through bliss, and pleasure through Denial. This is, unfortunately, the choice of the vast majority of the world. Although it is clearly the best choice for us, it is the greatest sin one can possibly commit, as we are gaining pleasure as the direct consequence of God’s suffering. That is because by ignoring God we are doing that which makes him suffer most, and thus gain the greatest pleasure from it.

To end with a few verses that best reflect that last paragraph:

Mark 8- “34Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35For whoever wants to save his life^[c] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? 37Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?” If you really think about it, you’ll be taken off-guard at how closely these words match up to this post! ps.- this is probably the most on-the-spot biblical re-translation I’ve ever done on the spot in my life- guess I showed that Redneck/Asshole!

World of Pretend

Of all the music artists I’ve listened to, none even compare in the art of subliminal messages than Linkin Park. Not only that, but the amount of wisdom and philosophy tucked under the hood of their songs is awe-inspiring- at least for me. I believe that the Bible is intended not as a manual to living life, but to understanding why we live life the way we do. To understand the Bible, you must realize that it does not matter how things turn out ultimately (the ends), or even what our intentions were (the means)- Both of these are irrelevant. What truly matters is that we understand why we live life the way we do- the Bible helps us understand this, but what really makes it unique- and what makes Linkin Park unique, is that the more that you read it, and relate it to your own perception, the more you can learn from it. In particular, Linkin Park’s song “Forgotten” has the most meaning of any of their songs (to me), and the translation found in “Reanimation” actually leaves even more meaning behind. So this is the 3rd post I’ve had that’s a homage to “Forgotten”, and the title is actually one of the lines in that song:

(“Then with the eyes shut / looking through the rust and rot and dust / a small spot of light floods the floor | And pours over the rusted world of pretend | The eyes ease open and its dark again”)

When people are in love, be it with God, some religion, google, or another human, many times- probably most times it starts with blind passion. The problem with blind passion though, is that if our perception of our object of desire changes even in the slightest, be it by change of information (i.e. “you were lying when you said you were rich?!?”) change of priority (i.e. “I don’t get the sex I ‘need’ from him/her”) or just learning new information (i.e. “I’m having a baby”)

When I was a Christian, and when I was in love, I really knew I was a Christian and in love. There was no doubt in my mind- I was on fire for Jesus and loved Elyse. But, in retrospect it was blind passion for both her and God. So the question is, “Was I really in love and a Christian”?

The answer is both true and false. In the present I was not, but in the past I was. In other words, the ability to look back gives us the ability to see things that no longer exist as if they did, because they exist in memory (which is also explained in “Forgotten”). We have all sorts of different realities, but the ones with which this post is especially concerned, is the realities of past, present, and future. That is, are the realities of past and future just as “real” as that which is right in front of us- the present?

I would say yes, and here’s why: Because in the past I was in love, and was a Christian, I was able to learn and grow from it- after all, how would I know that it was “blind passion” now, unless I had matured? Even if I was blind, I still lived as if it was true, because I believed it to be. As long as we believe, it is true- it only is false if we believe it as such. As I explained in Id versus Ego, faith is a product of Id, naturally because Id’s essence is blind desire/passion. No logic can convince a person driven by Id of anything, since Id is illogical. This knowledge has helped me understand human psychology and motivation a great deal- before I was constantly irritated by other’s actions, because they were illogical. Now I know why. Id is still truth, just a different kind of truth. So logically, I wasn’t a Christian and I wasn’t in love, but I was illogically- no doubt about that.

Christians often cite the fact that people underwent so much persecution in the name of Jesus, and of Christianity. So much work was done, so much was sacrificed, so many lives given. So it must be true, right? Until now I have either suspended judgement, or discounted their actions as foolish. But while Christianity may be illogical in essence, it wasn’t supposed to be any more than God is. So that claim, in its own right, is justified. However, it should be noted that it was, and is, true to Christians. It was true to me, but not anymore. The Bible however, does have some truth to me though.

I’ll probably add to this later, but that’s good enough for now…

Zombie

About 6 months ago, I had decided that I had written enough material for a book, and set about writing one- although as of now that aspiration is still vaporware (in the metaphorical sense). I initially thought that the title for the book would be “In the world but not of it”, but found such a title as too long and lacking style in the wording (the most stylish word is “world”, for [insert Saint/deity]’s sake.) I thought I might compensate by naming this post that instead, but sure enough, still no good. Then I came up with this brilliant title- it’s undoubtedly catchy, but essentially means the same as the former, since Zombies are indeed “in the world but not of it”

Ever since I started reading “I never promised you a rose garden”, I have become more and more aware of the connection between Greenberg and myself. Supposedly, in spite of the book being a self-admission to schizophrenia, it’s currently believed that she only had depression, with schizophrenia being a trashcan diagnosis. Although I only know her from this one book, I don’t believe that she was merely depressed. The book ends with her leaving Yr, to live in the “real world”, but I think that was just closure on her part. She never really left, she just compromised. To live in the real world, she learned to accept lies, adapt to things, force Yr into the background, and most importantly, exercise inhibition. Perhaps I’m just “believe[ing] what [I] want to believe” (quote from Matrix), but it seems to me that Joanne still senses the world of Yr, but sets it aside in favor of the semblance of sanity.

To better understand the connection between us, I made use of metaphors to illustrate our independent relationships to “the world”:

spiritual vs. physical: spiritual=me; physical=her.

I can’t imagine anything for more than a few milliseconds. Although a great amount of concentration can yield the semblance of imagination, I know that in the sessions I have done this, I have produced the equivalent of a 3 fps (frames per second) video clip. On the other hand, I’d say I’m a prodigy when it comes to “imagining audio” (I can’t think of the right terminology for it- if someone could please comment filling in the blank- “imagination is to visual as ________________ is to auditory). If I were to re-learn how to read music, I could probably improvise the audio and lyrics of most Linkin Park songs currently released (though I wouldn’t- it would be a waste of effort.)

Although this theory still need a lot of fine-tuning, it goes like this: Greenberg had an incredible imagination, which was materialized with Yr. I have no imagination- our difference in this regard is worth noting. the physical-spiritual comparison is, the more I think about it, inappropriate, but it was where these thoughts started out. What I was trying to illustrate with this comparison was that it was “different ways of looking at the same thing” In all truth, the fact that I used “physical” and “spiritual” for this comparison, is because my insights were influenced by Spinozan pantheism. Actually, after looking up the wikipedia article on it, I realized that “physical” should be replaced with “natural”, or rather, the comparison should be “spirit vs. nature”, in accordance with Spinoza’s theory- as well as being more appropriate for my own.

Different ways of looking at the same thing (i.e. the glass is half-empty=pessimism; the glass is half-full=optimism) are pure in form, and are mirrored in reality, many times radically (i.e. crime vs. justice). What I find most interesting is the startling connection between

(a) “nature”–> and evil, witchcraft, idols, human/animal sacrifice, fantasy, etc.

(b) “spirit”–> and good, “white magic“, psychics, prophets, etc.

It’s important to note a few things: the latter (b) is very compatible with modern morality, and even Christianity itself. Again, it’s just different ways at looking the same thing (a dualism within a dualism!)- If we set aside all bias and preconceptions, it’s quite easy to see the resemblance. Christians just use words like that to denote that “they didn’t do it our way”. (just a little IMHO)

This dualism was utilized in the production of Stargate SG-1, in the form of the Alterans, who adopted a more scientific/rational outlook, and the Ori, who fervently pursued religious belief. Both started out with good intentions, but both ended up being controlled by their desires. On one hand, the Alteran civilization was destroyed partially due to their nonchalant nature, as they were completely taken off-guard. Even as ascended beings, they allowed much turmoil to devastate the physical world, and eventually risked their own devastation for the sake of maintaining balance, keeping to the code, and non-interference. The Ori, on the other hand, had what the Alterans lacked- desire, but what they received in power, they paid in integrity, and they lost even the the semblance of satisfaction. Their followers also paid the same price they did, if only at smaller scale.

In addition to serving as a worthy illustration those concepts further discussed below, the Alteran-Ori allegory also illustrates the conflict between science and faith.

I myself have heavy tendencies towards the path of the Alterans- I too have a lack of concern for the state of things, a need to protect balance, and am indeed one who prefers to think and not act. In fact, I am just as satisfied with thinking of doing it as I would be with doing it, so I would have no problem with the suggestion, “let’s not and say we did”. I have the intention of getting a girlfriend/etc. who is either very occult or very religious- the reason being to (a) balance out my opposite tendencies, and (b) to initiate a “spiritual” connection between “nature” and “spirit”, spawning balance, fidelity, and a nexus between the two.

Another point of interest: natural (black) magic puts and emphasis on carnal desire, impulse, immediate gratification, and lust. Partly for this reason, I initially wanted to merge [what was the beginning of] the contents of this post with Id versus Ego:

In other words, [black magic, etc.] exists to please the Id, and [white magic, etc.] exists to please the Ego. As quoted in a 1933 newspaper article, Crowley said “Black magic is not a myth. It is a totally unscientific and emotional form of magic, but it does get results — of an extremely temporary nature.
It is like looking for an escape of gas with a lighted candle. As far as the search goes, there is little fear of failure! To practice black magic you have to violate every principle of science, decency, and intelligence. You must be obsessed with an insane idea of the importance of the petty object of your wretched and selfish desires. I have been accused of being a “black magician.” No more foolish statement was ever made about me. I despise the thing to such an extent that I can hardly believe in the existence of people so debased and idiotic as to practice it.” The recoil upon those who practice it is terrific.” Crowley’s thoughts on black magic perfectly illustrate the connection between the Id and “nature”, and it also manages to merge with Schopenhauer’s chaotic will-to-life world.

Thus, the reason why we find happiness in the Id, and torment in the Ego, is because the Ego mirrors the agony of the soul- or, as Spinoza put it, “spirit”. Now it’s time to get the primary focus of this post, which, would you believe it (?!) has not even been addressed in the ~1300 words thus far.

That point being, “naturally”(!) that I am “in the world, but not of it”- so, what do I mean by that?

In I never promised you a rose garden, Blau explains how, after discovering Yr, the Censor appears to act in her stead whenever she was drawn into the world of Yr. The Censor’s name is self-descriptive- its job is to provide the semblance of sanity, by [my interpretation:] using knowledge of “norms”, “habits”, and “common sense”. Thus, the world never actually knew Deborah Blau, they only knew the Censor. As I wrote in Maria, who I appear to be in person, or any type of direct interaction, is a shallow reflection of who I truly am. All my real memories are in this blog- this blog is my real life. After thinking about the purpose of the Censor, I realized that I too, have a Censor- giving the semblance of sanity- or in more conservative wording, normality. This blog is my Yr.

There are many things that baffled me before that this insight make sense of: Why am I so detached? Why can’t I remember my emotions in the past? Why do I lack friends, despite having a great desire to socialize? Essentially everything I do that involves interaction- I don’t know why I do it, I just do. It’s as if it’s not even me that’s doing it. I don’t know why I do any of the interactions I do, either in conversation or action, until after I do them, and yet I approve of all of them. This can’t be a coincidence. Why do I approve all of them? It’s because I am not the slave, I am the master. My Censor acts in my name, I only oversee as the Observer. Where my true self lies, and that which is reflected more accurately in this blog, is elsewhere, which for lack of a better word, I dub “the spiritual realm”

So if you ever meet me, talk to me, befriend me, remember that it’s not “me” that you know, but a zombie! :p

Update: I just realized another interesting thing: Christianity was (no matter how you look at it) originally a cult of Judaism. Now, Judaism is strikingly similar to black magic (temples, rites, rituals, animal sacrifice, etc.) with some white magic elements (prophesy, “miracles”, etc.) So it’s relatively likely that Christianity evolved out of a Jewish sect that felt the more “black magic” practiced were “old-fashioned”, and should be “phased out” in favor of more “white magic” oriented practices. Modern Christianity has predominantly “white magic” practices, although, presumably due to its heritage, it still retains some “black magic”. So if that was the plan, they definitely suceeded! :-)

Id versus Ego

What distinguishes the truths of logic and emotion? A few months ago, I realized that logic and emotion are two types of truths that are irreconcilable. Because I did not know why they were so much at odds, I took into account the possibility of other types of truth existing. While this might still be the case, I’ve concluded that the vast majority of truth falls under these two. In either case, I have gotten my answer, and it begins with Sigmund Freud’s Id and Ego.

Id >> emotion; is the source of “faith”, “passion, “fear”, “happiness”, etc.

Ego >> logic; is the source of “reasoning”, “habits”, “planning”, etc.

What is key here is the connection to happiness: Hapiness is an emotion- thus, if one tries to validate or measure it, it will immediately be corrupted, because such actions would fall under reasoning. Happiness, after all, cannot be reasoned- it is in fact unreasonable, and thus illogical. (I have wondered about the difference between logic and reasoning, and I do not actually know [haven’t researched it yet], but since logic is a much older concept, I’m assuming that logic is the parent of reasoning. Thus, all reasoning is logic, but not all logic is reasoning. Compare to bug-insect relationship). Thus, the Ego is corrupting the Id, by treading this forbidden ground.

As I said in my Forgotten post, there is a Bible verse, attributed to Jesus- Matthew 6:3 “But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.” I’ve thought of a good variation of this verse that makes for a good summary of the above: “do not let your Ego know what your Id is doing.”

Question: would pride fall under “Ego” or “Id” ? My first “instinct” (lol you’ll get the pun as you read on) is that pride is Id, because- at least apparently, pride is not logical. Well, I’m pretty confident with that answer, so I’ll go with that. so, FTR: “pride is Id, because pride is not logical.”

After coming to these conclusions (independently of pre-existing thought) It dawned on me that a very famous man (who lived a long time ago) would agree with me- Aristotle. To quote from my philosophy book, “Discursive reasoning is the basis of the natural sciences but also provides a way of understanding ourselves and our everyday lives. But Aristotle believed that there is an entirely different kind of thinking that is at times necessary, namely, intuition. Intuition is an immediate, direct seeing of a certain truth. God’s existence and nature can be roughly intimated as the cause of the natural world. But a deeper, more compelling comprehension of god requires intuition”

Right now I realized another important facet- explaining the relationship between Ego and logic, and between Id and intuition: Ego and Id are (obviously not knowledge themselves.

Ego is the source of logically-derived knowledge

Id is the source of intuitively-derived knowledge.

Thus, intuition is using instinct to derive knowledge, and the knowledge acquired using this method falls under intuition. This also explains Aristotle’s reasoning regarding the three souls. Aristotle believed that humans have three souls: the vegetative (plant) soul, the animal soul, and the nous, or rational soul. I was confused by this, because it would imply that intuition does not derive from instinct, since animals also have instincts but lack intuition (not being rational). Intuition, as Aristotle saw it, was necessary to experience God (as explained in the quote above). But Aristotle contended only the rational soul can experience God. While at first these premises appear to contradict, I now understand:

The third soul refers to knowledge, and derivation thereof. While the animal has instincts, they cannot derive knowledge from those instincts, lacking a third soul and thus intuition. This definitely accords with the Id, which being pure desire, knows that it “wants“, and “wants now“, but does not know what it wants. This also recognizes the relationship between instinct and Id- which again, is “all Id is instinct”, but not all instinct is Id”. Animals, after all, could not survive if they were pure Id. When intuition (knowledge derived from Id, which in turn is derived from instinct) is applied, the Id gains access to the transcendental aspects of the nous. But the Ego, being derived directly from the nous, has a more intimate connection with trancendental aspects.

Perhaps this offers insight into why emotions and intuition are unstable, inconsistent, and even contradictory. While logic and reasoning can sometimes be so also, to a far less extent. Also important is that intuition, despite having a less direct connection to the nous, is essential to have a mystical experience (experiencing God). I think the reason for this is that intuition effectively unifies the two otherwise different souls, allowing us the nexus necessary for such an experience.

Question: Why is happiness corrupted but emotions, such as fear, are forgotten? This question is due to a misconception. Happiness is corrupted because it is challenged, as Ego attempts to measure it and validate it through reasoning. When I “forgot” fear by deeming it as illogical, it was not challenged, but ignored. A good analogy of this is the results of different psychological approaches when dealing with people. If a person were to try to tell me how “happy” was was, I’d likely be angry, defensive, and have all sorts of mixed feelings. If someone told me I was happy, even then I would have mixed feelings, both positive and negative. But, if I were to ask that same person a question, they “pretended I didn’t exist” (regardless of what their “reason” was), eventually it would be as if I didn’t, because I would find that my efforts in asserting my existence were a waste of time and effort. The same applies to the interaction between the Id and Ego.

Illogical

Recently, I developed a proof that God, as defined by Christianity and most other religions, does not exist, or rather, cannot exist. Although my proof was inspired by Descartes’s dream/evil-demon conjectures, I had actually deduced the same as Descartes independently (a priori). It is ironic, considering that these conjectures permitted him to “prove” God definitely exists, and I am using the same logic to prove the exact opposite. But this is how it goes:

(1) For all I know, I may be dreaming/I might be programmed by an external deity/etc. to perceive that which does not exist. Thus, I cannot know for sure what around me actually exists and what does not.

(1a) To add to justification of this proof, there is the theory of Simulism, and Simulated Reality. The large corporation Sony has a patent of such *technology*, and continues to renew it, meaning it’s not all “hot air”.

(2) If I am dreaming, or influenced externally, then it must be possible (not necessary, but possible) that one or more individuals either (a) are dreaming they are God, or (b) programmed by some external source to believe they are God. Thus, one can believe they are God, but not be God.

(3) Thus, even if God is God, he would not know it, because there is always the possibility that he is just programmed to believe it, or (in a dream) tricked by his mind into believing it.

(4) Even if there is an external source that does the programming, even he would not know for sure that he is not also being programmed, and so on. Thus, regardless of whether God exists, he would not actually know it because there is always the possibility that he is just deceived by himself or another source.

(5) Because God does not know anything beyond the fact he exists (that knowledge is a priori) that means that God actually knows nothing beyond that. Even if one might justify that knowledge does not require certainty (as some philosophers hold) there is still one thing God does not know, which is (naturally) the certainty itself. That is, he does not know whether he can be sure, because there is no way to prove it.

(6a) Because God does not know something, he cannot be all-knowing.

(6b) God cannot love what he does not know, so he cannot be all-loving.

(6c) God cannot have power over what he does not know, so he cannot be all-powerful

(6d) God cannot see what he does not know, so he cannot be all-seeing

(6e) God cannot be where he does not know, so he cannot be omnipresent.

In this way, all of the universally accepted characteristics of God fall apart, until only one is left: creator. That is because even if God does does not know it, the fact is he is still the creator. Thus, God only exists if “creator” is the sole criteria for that name.

I was satisfied with this proof for a little while, but yesterday night, I realized this this proof is nothing more than a logical fallacy. I did very much the same thing as the famous literary critic and scholar Dr. Samuel Johnson: (Johnson, infuriated at the suggestion that Georg Berkeley‘s Idealism could not be refuted, stomped hard on a nearby stone proclaiming “I refute it thus”) Johnson did not refute Berkeley’s Idealism, but merely hurt his foot while showing that he did not understand what Berkeley’s Idealism. I have also “missed the point” when it came to the existence of God, although I have gained much from this mistake, as I will write about later in this post. What I did not understand, but do now, is that, although God cannot logically exist, God doesn’t need logic to exist. In other words, There are many things that exist outside logic and reasoning- which is exactly why God can’t be explained or comprehended in the first place.

Once I realized this, I was reminded of how, when I finally developed a justification for emotions, I realized that there are many different types of truth, and that logic is only one of them. Now I understand to a great extent the implications of this, and many things that I could not understand I now know why. Among these are love, friendship, and every emotion that exists. All emotions are, after all, in essence illogical. They can only be understood after their status as separate truths is acknowledged. Just as light cannot exist without dark, that which is logical cannot exist without that which is illogical, so emotions are a natural consequence of the universal need for balance. But they are not logical.

Realizing this has provided powerful insights, including some new truths about myself that are bittersweet. For example, fear, depression, love, friendship, dependence- these are all things that I deemed illogical, and felt that I made them “disappear”, by determining them to be illusion, because they are “illogical”. But now that I know illogical truth exists, I have become aware that I, thinking I had become semi-independent, lacked love, am afraid of nothing, have no friends- all of these things I determined through logic. Now I realize that these things, which I regarded as sacred truth, are merely the product of suppressing within myself all that I have deemed illogical, ensuring that it “does not exist” by burying it within my subconscious. Of course, I did not do all this consciously- but honestly, who does?

Of all the things I have feared most, “the unknown”, if it can be objectified, would be it. But this too, is illogical, and so I determined that I am not afraid of anything. By repressing these “illogical” truths, I am lying to myself, and the result is inner-confusion/chaos. I do have those emotions, I just made myself believe I didn’t using logic- no better than those who dependent on religious to give them a purpose.

But in these answers I have also found more questions (naturally):

If I can suppress emotions and that which is illogical in my subconscious, does that mean that my subconscious is another sentient being?

If so, what is its relationship to my consciousness?

Are there other beings?

Can Sigmund Freuds Id, Ego, and SuperEgo provide some insight on the subject?

If there are other beings, which is my “true self”, if any?

Eventually I will gain answers to these questions, at which point I’ll write them as future posts.

The Importance of Relativity

The most important lesson I have ever learned:

One word, Relativity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity )

But for others to fully grasp the crucial and important implications of that word, I will elaborate.

This theory, contributed to by several philosophers and scientists (the most notable being Einstein and Galileo), is actually very simple, and easy to grasp.

To put it simply, relativity is simply realizing the fact that how you see things is limited to your perspective. The amount of applications for this are infinite, and can play an important role in answering the many questions about life. I will list the many applications I have found:

1. The most radical application, is the fact that the entire world may be in fact entirely different than it seems to be, and our not knowing it is only the product of our limited perspective. I think that it is very probable that this is true, except most likely not to that extent. For example, Many animals see in black and white, and some see better than others- which means that if we were to evolve further, eventually we would come to see things very differently. In addition, assuming aliens exist (which I believe them to) they would see things differently than we do.

2. It helps explain the radical differences in behavior, decisions, emotions, and personal standards of human beings. For example, It is not an evil person’s fault they are evil, since who would be evil if they knew a better way. If a person were to stay evil for the rest of their life, it is only because they didn’t know any better. In many cases, they learn early in life to do evil, and their behavior causes good people to stay away. In the unlikely event(s) that a good person bestows goodwill upon an evildoer, the evildoer does not accept it, since they have learned to be distrustful. Thus, in most cases, evil people are doomed to be evil, and nothing can change that.

3. Regarding the definition of evil, relativity has helped me to understand that morality can’t be truly defined, since it is simply a collection of opinions, those opinions vary from country to country, culture to culture, and in many cases even person to person.

4. Applying relativity to emotions greatly encourages an emotional calmness. For example, if a person says something hurtful and degrading, or commits an action that is hurtful, normally anyone would become either angry, depressed, or both. But if you were to put things into perspective (for example, it doesn’t matter what they think, or things could be worse, or it’s in the past, or they only acted that way because they don’t know any better, or getting angry about such things is what they want, etc,etc,etc.) At this point you would realize that you are in total control, since you have assessed the many possibilities and come to several likely conclusion. Having control over the circumstances brings a great peace of mind, which nullifies the potential emotional instability involved. In addition, each time you thwart the negative emotions, the peace becomes greater, since you self-empower yourself by being able to control your emotions.

5. Understanding relativity allows you to assess your personality, skills, and life-experiences with infinite depth, since you have the realization that your life is the product of your experiences. It also allows you to move forward to correct your weaknesses, since you life experiences allowed you to have both your weaknesses and strengths. Most people fail to realize they can improve on their weaknesses, assuming “it’s part of who I am”. that is a correct assumption, but although it is, who we are is the product of our experiences, and although we gained ourselves over years of living, if we were to improve who we are over years more, we may gain improvement in the weak areas as well.

6. To apply relativity to personal tastes, regarding the question, “how could they enjoy such awful entertainment?” This falls under the same idea of “why are evil people evil” The reason why they enjoy those things is because they learned to through their experiences. The same applies to all interests, food included.

7. I’d say one of the most important applications of relativity is the fact that at least for entertainment, the level of technology has no bearing on the level of fun experienced. If we were to look through history, black and white tv was just as entertaining as the internet and video games are today. The same holds true with the radio, and before that books. The reason why is that the amount of fun experienced is in direct ratio to the stimulation of the brain. If the stimulation is higher, for the moment the excitement will be greater, but eventually, although the excitement remains, the amount of fun is the same as it was with less exciting entertainment, since the brain adapts and adjusts to the new environment. The bad part of this is, that the lower forms of technology that were entertaining before are not as fun, since our brain has been exposed to more exciting activities. If we were to lose our technology, we would have to deal with the lack of entertainment, but eventually we would adapt as our level of brain activity adjusts.

This concept can be applied not just to entertainment, but also to just about everything else. For example, If a rich person lost their riches, they would eventually adjust and enjoy their new life, although probably not as well as before. But note- eventually a rich person’s life may become just as empty as that of a poor person’s, since as their brain adjusts, their life becomes no more than ordinary, since for them, it is. The same applies to a dumb person vs a smart person, beautiful vs ugly, the list goes on. Since this holds true, I would conclude by saying that a person’s life is not determined by what they have, but how much they accept what they have. Because everyone has a different perspective, How well they live life is determined solely by how well they perceive themselves to be living it.

To apply this to relationships, if a person loves another, and they are separated, their love will be greater than it was ever before, because of the excitement caused by their separation. The same can be applied to people, animals, and objects. Yes, even objects. for example, if a person loses something, then finds it several years later, after they had lost interest in that which formally gave it significance, they would still experience the same excitement, simply because prior to that moment they had not known of it’s whereabouts.

In summary, it is important to understand the importance of relativity and its applications to daily life, since by the words stated above you can see it has a vital impact on it.

Video Games and Love

It’s strange. I have a whole lot to say on the topic of love, even though I’ve never had a girlfriend, never had sex, and have had so few friends in my life that I can count. my advice has helped a lot of people, and old people say the things I know are things most don’t learn in their lives. why must I be cursed with this oximoronic existance? Oh well, I think I’ll make friends eventually.

I just offered advice to someone who wondered how they could hate someone they loved. in it, I provided the perfect analogy of video games: why, you ask?

video games usually consist of multi levels, each being progressively harder. there are several strategies for winning, and many of these are comparable with love
for example, if you were to start the game on the last level, or on a game intended for experienced gamers, you would hate the game because it’s too hard. in addition to not being familiar with the controls as you should have been by that point, you have no gaming experience and you are only humiliated by them game, going above and beyond a lack of entertainment and resulting in depression/anger/etc.

this applies to love in that if you give each other high expectations early on, you will hate each other for continually “losing,” and develop other negative emotions like depression and anger.

in video games, one of the ways to have more fun during the majority of the game is to build up stats, inventory, etc during the beginning stages of the game, as much as possible. then you can exercise your newfound excessive brawn for the rest of the game, making for a very rewarding experience.

in love, it is the same. If you stay on “the first stage” of love (maintain low expectations) for a long period of time, when you do raise the expectations as a challenge to test the strength of the love, the results will undoubtably be A+, which also makes for a very rewarding experience.

To add another similarity,

a video game is usually most fun if you choose one that plays on your strengths. for example, get Chessmaster if you’re good at logic, get MonkeyBall if you’re good at judgement & intuition, get Halo if you have good reflexes and dexterity, or get the Sims if you’re good at planning and problem-solving.

with love, it’s the same way. it’s not a good idea to fall in love with someone you’re not actually interested in, because once the passion dies down you’re screwed.