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

True Independence

I have a theory, which began developing in this post, that humans and souls have a symbiotic relationship, and that evolution is the manifestation of spiritual progress, although since I wrote that post my thought has “evolved” significantly, to the point that such a theory is almost obsolete. But it still is important, in that is represented the beginning of a fruitful pursuit of spiritual, rational, and intuitive knowledge, as well a greater focus on what has since become the topic I am most obsessed with- motivation.

After watching NGE (for the second time), I began developing another theory regarding the soul: The soul is both one and infinite; thus the objective and subjective perspectives are equally true. Who I am is not limited to myself, but to everything else in existence, and vice versa. Thus, we are all both perfect and imperfect, strong and weak, dependent and independent. This being the case, can “true independence” exist, given these assumptions?

Ironically, the answer is both “yes” and “no”. From a subjective perspective, independence is inherently impossible, and dependence is a necessity. From and objective perspective, it’s the opposite- because objectivity requires independence, it cannot be dependent.

This view does certainly imply that objectively, we are God; so, as to not blaspheme the most high, I must note that “true independence” is achieved not through action, but through thought.

One universally accepted Christian belief: Christians are not bound by the law, and so do not follow it out of obligation or fear. Rather, having the desire to serve the Lord, which comes from the Holy Spirit which is in us, we do what is right naturally- thus, it’s not that the law was wrong, it’s that it’s no longer necessary. (The law exists not for those who follow it, but those who would break it).

In the same way, by having a perspective of true independence, and passion to match it, our actions will naturally be truly independence, because our actions are the product of our beliefs and passions thereof.

So what then is this perspective? I’m new to this, so take what I’m about to say “with a grain of salt”, although, for now, I hold the following to be true: How we view others, and how others view us- these perspectives are not others’, but our own. When we think we know certain things about others, that is not their knowledge, but our own. Everyone views the same people differently– so does that mean that there are many different people in one? Perhaps, but- that being too complicated of a theory, I’d rather like to think that the person is the same, and they are viewed differently because that knowledge is only true to those that perceive, and not of the ‘object’ of perception.

In other words, we only know each other subjectively, and such knowledge is objectively false or incomplete. We may not even know ourselves objectively.

Although this question is irrelevant to this post, I want to put it out there, should anyone wish to answer, along with telling how they reached their conclusion: Is objective knowledge impossible?

In either case, following the above assumptions: Even if there are separate individuals from myself, and they communicate their own thoughts to me, by understanding, receiving, and applying their thoughts, they become my own, because, though they might know what they wanted to convey, I only know what I understood. In other words, knowledge is objective, but understanding is subjective. I’ll explain the implications (and importance) of this in later posts.

But from such a perspective, I have realized one new thing: if the relationship between knowledge and understanding is trivial semantics, then knowledge and understanding are one and the same: knowledge is “objective truth” (that which is perceived) whereas understanding is “subjective truth” (perception itself)

One of the ideals of Buddhism is the importance of “casting away all worldly desires” as these cause suffering. For the most part I agree with such a philosophy, but now I can reap from this another insight: “casting away all worldly desires” might be another way of saying “discard all subjective thought”. Assuming that such a thing is possible, doing so would inevitably result in attaining objective truth– the equivalent of being enlightened. Interesting!

Conflict of Interests

As I delve deeper into Christianity, setting aside preconceptions in the hope of attaining deeper truth, I’m constantly plagued by anxiety regarding the validity of my faith. For a while now, it has been my belief that faith, due to its passionate nature, permits anyone, even the intelligent and intellectual, to believe in that which would appear illogical, even absurd beliefs. Even now, I believe this to be true. That being the case, I am in continual confusion as to whether or not I’m adopting these beliefs because I want to, and that the actual motive lies not in “because I know it to be true”, but that some other part of me felt that such beliefs were necessary, even if they were false, to fulfill another need.

I know that I used to be a Christian, and every so often, I wistfully recall the past, longing for the innocence that I was, the potential that lay before me, the beauty that was the world, and my own life. It would be a lie to say that, to one extent or another, I would give up this life for the one of 5 years ago, or the one of 10 years ago. A couple years ago, I wrote a post telling of how I had lived several incarnations within this single life– and even now, it still feels like that. Though I might have appeared the same, and perhaps was characteristically similar, with each “incarnation”, I remember the old me dying, and a new, distincly different me, taking over where the last left off.

A part of me does feel that become a Christian will revive that past, but even if it did, such a past would not be real- not any more than dressing up in a Vampire costume on Halloween makes you a vampire.

As for truth– I can get into Christianity so much that I can temporarily forget what I truly believed. I hoped that, by doing this for a while, I might forget permanently, to the end that I would not be able to distinguish who I would become from who I was. If my theories are correct, that would be possible, but to what end?

Though I might rationalize that this is just “Satan” planting negative thoughts to lead me astray, I know better- these were my thoughts from the very beginning. Perhaps it might be semantics, but three things are certain:

(1) there is no way to know for sure that God exists.

(2) Even if there was, there is no way to know anything about him.

(3) I don’t want God to exist, because if he did my life would be meaningless. If God exists, then freewill is an illusion. I can only act within God’s will, which means that I am a mere puppet. Not only that, but God can destroy or change me at will, and I am easily replaceable.

This is not to say that I’ve giving up on this pursuit. I’m just confused. For me it’s never been about what I believe anyway, but “why” I believe it…

It’s really a matter of what I should live my life for, what I can live my life for. It’s about knowing what I want. What I’ve found is that “passion” and “desire” are two different things. Yes, perhaps it is semantics, but like it or not, that is how I’ve come to understand many things. While I have found passion by releasing my fears, that passion has given me no direction. There are so many things that I don’t understand. While life can be simple, it can also be complicated. Perhaps that’s just because I want it to be.

I heard that with every new answer received, several new questions arise, and I of all people know this to be true. I don’t know what I want to do, or what I should do, or even how I should do it, but I now know I can, and will do it. I now have what it takes to accomplish my potential. For that I am grateful. While perhaps I won’t be doing things the “right” way as dictated by Christianity, I also know that, if there is a God, that I am doing his will.

It’s not as if I’m ignoring God, or substituting him, and I’m not running away. I just recognize that understanding God’s will according to human standards is just like understanding a person using semantics. Regardless of what religion I have, or if no religion at all, if I’m so concerned with what I believe, or try so hard to force other’s beliefs on me, nothing will change. Living life in such a manner would be missing the whole point. Just by living life to my potential, and giving everything my best at doing what’s right, I’m already showing my appreciation as God’s creation.

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.

God is your friend

After not going to church for a while and on top of that renouncing Christianity, a couple months ago I finally started going back to church, and was surprised at how easy it was to. I had decided that I would start going back to church once I had gotten to know myself well enough to offset any discomfort (even when I was still a Christian, the reason I stopped going in the first place was discomfort- which was itself caused by some things that had happened in the past). But I didn’t think that my efforts paid off this much.

Once I started going though, I once again became aware of the single-minded thinking of much of the Christian community (though the college group is much more open-minded)– to me, this is ironic considering the emphasis on the “It’s not a religion, it’s a relationship” approach. It seems to me that many Christians do not take into account what it means to have a relationship with God- or rather, why bother calling it a “relationship” if the meaning of a relationship with God cannot be related to friendships with mere mortals. Although my relationship hasn’t been too good lately (Fear is keeping me from “experiencing God”), I do know what a relationship is.

Using myself as an example- there are many people that know me, but- for whatever reasons, they all know me a bit differently, and some a lot differently. In relationships of all kinds, and especially in friendships, this is natural. Part of the reason why is because different people (or want) friendship with the same person for different reasons- we all have different needs.

That is, who we are is not limited to how we perceive itself (although that might logically seem most accurate), who we are is that and also how others perceive us. This is explained quite thoroughly in the last couple episodes of Neon Genesis Evangelion. So if we have a relationship with God, that would of course mean that God is different, and in many cases much different in the eyes of different people. Although there is a true God, and that God knows everything about himself, if he is our friend then we do not know how God perceives himself, but only how we perceive God.

The interesting thing about this- is that to contend that any single person’s understanding of God is wrong, is the same as saying that how someone knows me is wrong. If God’s understanding of himself is most accurate, then my understanding of myself is most accurate, but what good is that to other people. If we are in a relationship with God, then “God” is who we perceive him to be, not how we actually is. Since God’s will is always done, how we perceive him is how, for one reason or another, how he wants to perceived- just as we might act differently (subconsciously in some cases) around different people to appeal to different needs, and thus achieve the desired feedback. Or conversely, we act as we are expected to by others to give us an identity (which normally I do not do)

Although it might be considered blasphemous to think it, there is the possibility (and one I tend to favor) that God created us with freewill to give himself an identity. If we truly have friendship with God, that entails interdependence- which means that not only do we need God, but God needs us. It’s quite ironic that Christians would validate my own (otherwise controversial) theories about God, without even knowing what their words mean. Perhaps “friendship” has a different meaning when it concerns God, but if so, why use it.

One of the aspects of my theory is taking into consideration the fact that God is infinite, and something that is truly infinite cannot be distinguished from itself. That is, if God is infinite, he would not be able to recognize himself, since there would be no end by which to appreciate- a big blob. To recognize himself, God must to some degree limit himself, and thus become finite. I would go deeper into the aspects of infinity that support these assertions, but I have to some extent already in previous posts, and I’m starting to get a headache as things become “infinitely” complex. Who we know as God is not God- for if it was then he would not be God, because God is infinite and thus cannot be known. God as we know him is a paradox, and so it would appear he cannot be known.

But when we refer to “knowing God”, we are not talking about having knowledge of God ourselves, for if we did we would be God. Then again, confusing as it already is at this point, God (IMO) does not know himself, being infinite. Perhaps God both knows himself and does not. In my more controversial theories, God “as we know him” is both Satan and God, and through the interactions of these two infinitely opposite forces, God achieves appreciation of himself, and we of him. That would of course require redefining Satan, but from my current thought (which I’ll detail in future posts) God has a natural advantage to Satan, because God’s essence is Positive (Creative) whereas Satan’s is Negative (Destructive). While destruction has no intelligence, creation does- that is God’s advantage. I’ll also detail my reasoning of this later on.

But in either case, it’s important to keep in mind that if we are to truly have a relationship with God, we should accept the fact that in such a relationship, everyone will know God differently.

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!

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! :-)

The paradox of infinity

This is one of the first posts I wrote (If I had to guess, about 4-6 months after “Our Purpose”, but back then it wasn’t “posts”, it was “pages”- ironic that my posts are longer than my “pages” were, it’s really supposed to be the other way around :P …I didn’t include it because- well frankly I shortly after deduced that it was inaccurate, and conflicted with later thought. While to some extent this is the case, I’ve come to accept that as normal. Human beings aren’t perfect anyway (although I tend to be a perfectionist), and it’s better just to think of it as different ways of looking at the same truth. Well, after digging through the old backup hard drive, I managed to scrounge it up, so here it is:

ps- the main reason I bothered was so that I could provide evidence that I independently deduced the same thing as Parmenides and Augustine (if you look closely, you’ll see my deductions to be split between the prospects of “God exists outside time”, and “time doesn’t exist”). well, after all this time, here it is:

Solving the Paradox of infinity:
You might ask, what is the “paradox of infinity”, and since my efforts in solving this question (and the efforts have been great) would have no merit if you do not know the nature of the question, I will tell you. This is a question of of life, death, and the origin of the two. To put this into perspective, let’s use “God” as an example. God, the creator of all things, the being that always was, and always will be. In other words, God infinite in all ways. But the greatest paradox of all time is infinity. Why?-
In order of God to be infinite, and to be the only entity that can have this quality, there had to have been a time when only he existed. Even if you believe there is more than one God, they had to be a point when nothing but those Gods existed. Now here lies the problem: Because God always existed, that would mean there is an infinite amount of time before he created us. Now the most obvious part of the problem is no matter when he started creating, he existed for an infinite amount of time before that, so “why didn’t he create us sooner?” this an inevitable paradox, because the question in inescapable regardless of when we were created. But this concept would apply not just to God, but evolution, animism, or any of belief-systems regarding the origin of life, or matter for that matter.
(P.S., for all you Christians out there, instead of working hard to disprove evolution, you can bypass that argument entirely by insisting there has to be a God for matter to exist, since something can’t come from nothing, and evolution is only regarding the origin of life. Ok maybe the big bang is related to evolution, but obviously the “Big Bang” didn’t come from, nothing either, did it?)
Now, I hope you can be open-minded enough to see that this paradox completely invalidates any view of God that we possibly comprehend, since the concept of infinity does not correlate with any of the laws of physics due to its nature. In this lies the question- how can we solve a question to which there is no end? Although my answer to this question may seem “too easy” or something of the like, at least it is answer- and that is: infinity does not exist. Or more specifically, time does not exist. Now, you’re probably what the hell am I talking about? To deny the existence of not only only infinity, but time itself seems implausible, doesn’t it? Well maybe you’ll understand if I tell you why- since our understanding of the universe hasn’t even scratched the surface, anything is theoretically possible. So on that basis, it would be completely rational to go on with what I’m about to say. My theory is that our ideas about infinity, time, and everything else were integrated in us by one or more supreme entities, “God”(s) if you will. Thus, In reality time does not exist, and if it did exist, we would be “frozen in time” for lack of a better visual. This it the point at which I (understandably, but sadly so) have no further ideas, since I have already gone beyond theory and speculated on things beyond out comprehension. But, on the bright side, These theories effectively prove the existence of God better than any other belief system out there (notice I said “prove”, not “convince”. Obviously Christianity is the most convincing belief system, otherwise it wouldn’t be the #1 religion.)

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.