latest

Book/DRAFT.md

@@ -1401,6 +1401,7 @@ Continuing down a path and calling it Communism while knowingly contradicting it
   - if you are confused by it, then you are negated in the process which systematizes reason (from contradiction)
 
 ### Collectivism
+
 "Collectivists believe life is alienating except a world that reflects self" - Me.
 
 It's important to remember that collectivism in general as Communism (more accurately Marxism - not as something which Karl Marx put forward as a domain of thought, but as a study of the logic of Marx which drove him to desire Socialism) and Fascism, function through its purveyors strongly believing that they have special insight concerning history and mankind and how humans are to transform with the knowledge of this. This is a gnosis that we will explore in further depth, but for now I want to make the point that understanding this phenomenon isn't as simple as establishing that there are persons with this "gnosis" beforehand who are attracted to this philosophy, system of organization, way of understanding socialization or method of world-making. Nor is it the case that upon initiation into a practice of collectivism that one must somehow proclaim gnosis, or work to discover that they have some sort of secret knowledge before moving forward.
@@ -1419,7 +1420,7 @@ Praxis means we know the objective but don't ever need to provide a complete und
 
 When considering praxis through the eyes of the practitioner, they might think "I peer into the soul you never even knew. The model and theory of your mind, body and soul are something beyond you, but which reveal to me your essence and true nature. Only I can understand precisely the way in which you cheat, lie to, and estrange everyone and even yourself."
 
-With praxis, we remind the world that no theory of knowledge will be sufficient until we reorder the world. The theory is that the world must be reordered until knowledge is feasible, comprehensible and communicable. At the moment, forces of a hegemonic nature (which we know to exist as there remains oppression and inequities) are the aspect of social existence which rob people of their capacity to discern and cognize thing such as they are.
+With praxis, we remind the world that no theory of knowledge will be sufficient until we reorder the world. The theory is that the world must be reordered until knowledge is feasible, comprehensible and communicable. At the moment, forces of a hegemonic nature (which we know to exist as there remains oppression and inequities) are the aspect of social existence which rob people of their capacity to discern and cognize things such as they truly are.
 
 With no universally applicable base of understanding or method for sense-making, the oppressor must bow to the oppressed, and those with special insight into these truths must be given the means of enforcing the transformative changes otherwise resisted by the masses.
 
@@ -1427,53 +1428,62 @@ Without the means of asserting, using and accepting methods based on logic and r
 
 ### Alternate Reality
 
-If you accept any alternate theory of knowledge, even under the premise that there are biases which prevent meritocratic assessments from being carried out or, for whatever reason, you think that it will be limited by good sense, then you will be in for a rude awakening:
+If you accept any alternate theory of knowledge, even through the premise that there are biases which prevent meritocratic assessments from being carried out for whatever reason and you think that it is good sense to expect meritocracy to be limited, then you will be in for a rude awakening:
 **The alternate way of knowing is your negation.**
 
-As a means of thinking, it exists only to negate you. The idea that ways of understanding knowledge and which are accessible to some and not others destroys the idea that the world is simply observable and that its aspects can come to be known in some universal sense. A world where things can come to be known through being within it, a part of it, and through being able to observe and contemplate is destroyed, along with you, and in its place is a world where you may not be able to know anything, and where some have a more human consciousness and state of being by virtue of the matter which forms their bodies with the power, might and wisdom of history itself coursing through their veins, both in how their flesh presents and in the manner that the flesh of the body becomes more an inevitable point of attention by the mind extending from an association with it.
+As a means of thinking, it exists only to negate you. The idea is that ways of understanding, knowledge and accessibility of epistemologies are feasible for some and not others and this destroys the notion that the world is simply observable and that its aspects can come to be known in some universal sense. A world where things can come to be known through being within it, a part of it, and through being able to observe and contemplate it is destroyed, along with you. In its place is a world where you may not be able to know anything, and where some have a more human consciousness and state of being by virtue of the matter which forms their bodies with the power, might and wisdom of history itself coursing through their veins, both in how their flesh presents and in the manner that the flesh of the body becomes the inevitable point of attention by the mind extending from an association with it.
+!TODO: Is the above about the mind in the body, and its attention to that body? Or is it that all minds fixate the attention on the body (which includes face and head)?
 
-Either reality is knowable or even we might more accurately say that we do not yet know if reality is truly knowable, but the manner in which we are impeded from knowing it in its most-veritable, authentic, and highest resolution form is a universal problem affecting all humans similarly (and the same may be when considering qualitative aspects).
+Either reality is knowable or even we might more accurately say that we do not yet know if reality is truly knowable, but the manner in which we are impeded from knowing it in its most-veritable, authentic, and highest resolution form is a universal problem affecting all humans similarly (and the same may be when considering qualitative aspects) and that, in spite of this, the manner in which we seek to understand reality most accurately is universal.
 
-That is to say, we must fundamentally agree that knowability of truth is a universal and human challenge and that the details of such a challenge are located in the ways in which we are the same, regardless of whether some individuals might be impede by this more than others.
+To put it another way, given that both the limits and the best available and most viable toolsets for understanding reality are universal, we must fundamentally agree that the knowability of truth is universal and a human challenge and that the details of such a challenge are located in the ways in which we are the same, regardless of whether some individuals might be impede by this more than others.
 
-Furthermore, we can deduce from this conundrum of human life and being that the solution to most if not all our human and social problems lies in the mitigation of this.
+Furthermore, we can deduce from this conundrum of human life and being that the solution to most if not all our human and social problems lies in the universally-applicable means of mitigating the limits of knowledge.
 
-The disrespecting of one another through failing to acknowledge this crucial fact about our existence is at the heart of all the ideologies which come to plague us.
+The disrespecting of one another through failing to acknowledge this crucial fact about our existence is at the heart of all the ideologies which come to plague us, as all ideology require some type of attack on language.
 
 ### Back to Species Being
-This brings us back to re-examine the meaning and significance of the Species Being. If we are to both envision that all humans are to be this species being, yet are:
-- unable to attain their nature until they express their human life in this way which lives as and for the species (man in himself).
-- able to impose a theory of knowledge dependent upon the distinctions which exist between man (as material or otherwise (culture, alternate expression, or otherwise - through the farmer is especially evil)).
 
-Then, we necessarily indicate and require a process leading to the elimination of all distinction between men and for the state of life as a species being to be achieved (one can even liken this ). If this is still not yet clear, or the likely aesthetic of this in the face of human bodies and advancement of technology, then it will soon be made more clear after examining the same subject from the lense (and reflecting from the corresponding historical event) of covidism.
+This brings us back to re-examine the meaning and significance of the Species Being.
+
+The arguments by Marx about the Species Being, or being as a being of the species and for the species as through one coming into alignment with their ontology, sounds esoteric not necessarily just in the sense of it possibly having a relationship to occultism, but literally in the sense that it sounds, even at the surface, incredibly obscure and far-fetched, casually yielding rationale for its dismissal. But the very concept of Species Being is obligatory once we start indicating any form of collectivist obligation. You cannot have an argument for there being a collective, even as implied through proposing the existence of, say, a social contract that is separate from seeking out one's greatest mode of life as an individual - that is to say, to claim that one's obligations to social reality are somehow something discrete and oppositional to individualist aspirations. The collective obligation is synonymous with Marx's Species Being, regardless of whether one tries to make the claim that potential for flourishing and a fulfilling life would be made possible through having fulfilled those collective obligations. There is no way to prove a being beyond the individual, and even that requires some degree of faith which, in this author's opinion, is the minimum faith one has to decide upon embodying through reason that they can hopefully compose for themselves.
+!WARNING: massive run-on sentences below.
+If we are to both envision that all humans are to be this species beings or components of Species Being yet are unable to attain their nature until they express their human life in this way, wherein they live their lives as and for the species (as man in himself), and that humans are able to impose a theory of knowledge dependent upon the distinctions which exist between man (as material or otherwise (culture, alternate expression, or otherwise - through the former is especially evil)), then, we necessarily indicate and require a process leading to the elimination of all distinction between men and for the state of life as a species being to be achieved (one can even liken this ). If this is still not yet clear, or the likely aesthetic of this in the face of human bodies and advancement of technology, then it will soon be made more clear after examining the same subject from the lense and reflecting from the corresponding historical event of covidism.
 
 ### But Fascism, not Communism
 One thing stood out to me right away when I first began reading "The Doctrine of Fascism".
-- !TODO: quote here
-- !TODO: comparison to Communism
+
+>"Fascism is action and it is thought; action in which doctrine is immanent, and doctrine arising from a given system of historical forces in which it is inserted, and working on them from within" - Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile (The Doctrine of Fascism)
+- Fascism is action and it is thought:
+  - Action means practice and thought means theory. This is synonymous with Praxis, which is specifically the action that one takes as in order to do the work of Marxism.
+  - action in which doctrine is imminent: reinforcing that theory leads your praxis
+  - doctrine arising from a given system of historical forces: Marxist historicism dictates theory
+!TODO: delve more into the text and show more examples of how this is Marxism in its essence
 
 #### Syllogism on Fascism
-The Question: can you have a collectivist undertaking which is not communism? 
+The Question: can you have a collectivist undertaking which is not either Communism or one whose undertaking includes an aspect of Communism coming into being as part of the historical process of developing the Fascist state? We ask this question because, in practical terms, there must be some means by which to orient the masses which, in theory, includes differentiation of personality and opinion, regardless of whether there's a concept of an ideal formulation wherein those differences will have been resolved such as to place each member in perfect alignment. For this reason, some revisionists of Fascism have posited that, given the ideal of the state as an organic entity transcending the multiplicity of human beings, each participant's role, purpose and spiritual value are expressing some form of equality, and that this is tantamount to a more correct permutation of a common and perfected human existence, but that still differs from the concept of Communism either popularly understood or being presented in this book.
 
-At first it would seem that you most certainly can. For example, can we not have a fascist state where it simply doesn't prove that things will be equal?
-Well we can take that in two directions
+However, there is something to be said in communist philosophers and communists themselves continuously assert that Fascism is dualistically-mediated component of the reality that they describe and acknowledge in that it is either a component to reality which drives the purpose of having to create the Communist endpoint, such as to evade the otherwise inevitable destination of Fascism, while fascists themselves, at least insofar as there have been self-declared adherents to an ideology of Fascism, have largely manifested as a reaction to what is otherwise perceived as being the development of Communism. There are some semantics to work out to fully consolidate the understanding of what Fascism is, both as a philosophy and as has been conjured up historically, as Fascism was borne of Syndicalism and is itself a progressive ideology, which is to say that it is an eschatology which develops through historical praxis but, those semantics aside, Fascism is largely understood of reactionary formulation and manifestation.
 
-So, for the first, we can say that the that the goal in communism is equal distribution of something?
-Well, not exactly. Socialism is the public owning the means of production, but how that is distributed is assumed to be even at all. That's no the case, however - if we look
-For the first, we can say that the goal in communism is equal distribution.
-Well, not exactly - Socialism. But try to conceive of this for a second. We have a collective - what does that mean?
+All of that said, this author asserts that most of the semantics surrounding Fascism, and even Communism (especially as espoused by those undertaking its praxis) serve as mystifications, and that the more easily understood figuration of Fascism is as an authoritarian system which is totalizing, which leaves no room for anything outside of itself as a perfect state, and to which all humans are subordinate in purpose and value, and that these are all the necessary conclusions of Collectivism as a whole.
+
+All Collectivism must be totalizing and must destroy all humanity. Collectivism for the entity of the state is because it allows everyone to be their true self. Collectivism for the purpose of abolishing the state, with the state existing as evidence of conflict between men, is because it allows the very same. So it's just a matter of understanding the aesthetics and semantics of how one comes to be their true expression of being.
 
 # Collective
-- multiple entities, but likely of the same type because we need to understand that they're at least of enough of a similar type such that they can be enumerated within the same context
-- there is a purpose. What kind of purpose could exist for a collective?
-  - Random purpose? Something arbitrary? To erect ... A rock? Well, even that example wouldn't be random, and would necessitate a further question of what purpose the erecting of that rock would serve
-  - coordination - coordinating for what? Well, it would be for our shared purpose, duh
-  - specification - to have a specification of the world and what exists in it - to know that all who exist are specified within the collective as a means to reach completion - completion of what? Of existence and the purpose of existence, of course
-  - to serve some other entity
-    - now here's where things get interesting. Either that entity is the collective itself, in which case we ask why that entity exists, and what its purpose is - is it to paint things yellow? Same as the rock thing - so then what's the purpose? It's because a completed collective allows for man to attain his purpose
-    - the state? Let's say that the purpose of the collective is to serve the state. But what is the state? Is it something alive? Or an instance to represent the ideal? The ideal of what? It all comes back to human existence and its purpose. If the state exists as a means of aligning and orienting all men, then the state is the excuse for the collective and the then the question is what's the reason we must align and orient all men? If there is any reason, it's because of the purpose and potential of attaining some form of true existence or true nature that isn't otherwise happening outside of the collective
 
-So then the criticisms against this would be to state that there's a difference between a communist and democratic socialist conception of an ideal liberation of mankind through their collective alignment to negate the oppression of the proletariat - which is the elimination of classes, ultimately, because there would be on distinction which allows for the conceptualization of the classes - there would not be a difference between any two man, but that this ultimately would happen at an international level, or a universal level. What would the response to such a criticism be?
+How are we to understand the very concept and premise of a collective? I've seen it put forward that somehow having a collective is itself, by default, a moral good and a moral improvement over any default understanding of human existence without a collective, because it acknowledges the very basic reality that there are many of us, that we relate to one another, and that life is improved for each and every one of us, the individual as self included, when we work together and try to help one another. Indeed, there exist multiple entities, but of what type? Is it all just one type? Could we say that the types which exist indicate the same number of collectives? Or that the number of types is equivalent to those within the great declaration of a collective and those who reject such a declaration?
+
+Multiple entities, but likely of the same type because we need to understand that they're at least of enough of a similar type such that they can be enumerated within the same context (We can start with that, anyway, which I believe to be a charitable offering to purveyors and advocates of collectivism).
+
+What, then, is the purpose of humans who exist in a world where there is some ethical value in the collective? Could there theoretically be different purposes to humans in different collectives such that we could say that it's somehow arbitrary? (Primary purposes). Something that, on the balance of it all, ends up looking rather random, and would necessitate further questioning in order to know what purpose is being erected or focused upon? Is it just generally implementing the concept of coordination? For coordination itself? Well, coordination imply the necessity of shared purpose, so we're left still wondering what the purpose is, in all cases. One might say that it is the need to have a complete specification, and that the collective suggests that those who come into the fold are cognizant or illuminated to the specification. To have a specification of the world and what exists in it. To know that all who exist are specified within the collective as a means to reach completion of existence and the purpose of existence itself.
+
+Could we say that the collective exists to serve some other entity? Well, even in enumerating an entity which exists supposedly outside of the collective itself, we still must assert that the collective has a purpose bound to its components, so we're still no table to clearly state the purpose is externalized. But, actually, here's where things get interesting.
+
+Either that entity is the collective itself, in which case we ask why that entity exists, and what its purpose is - is it to paint things yellow? Same as the rock thing - so then what's the purpose? It's because a completed collective allows for man to attain his purpose.
+
+Can this entity be the state? Let's say that the purpose of the collective is to serve the state. But what is the state? Is it something alive? Or an instance to represent the ideal? The ideal of what? It all comes back to human existence and its purpose. If the state exists as a means of aligning and orienting all men, then the state is the excuse for the collective and the then the question is what's the reason we must align and orient all men? If there is any reason, it's because of the purpose and potential of attaining some form of true existence or true nature that isn't otherwise happening outside of the collective.
+
+So then the criticisms against this would be to state that there's a difference between a communist and democratic socialist conception of an ideal liberation of mankind through their collective alignment to negate the oppression of the proletariat, which is the elimination of classes, ultimately, because there would be no distinction which allows for the conceptualization of the classes; there would not be a difference between any two men, and this would ultimately happen at an international level, or a universal level. What would the response to such a criticism be?
 
 If you have a collective for the state, and an assumption that this state remains for the one nation and only one nation alone, then we must ask what makes this nation state separate from any other? Is it just arbitrary geographic lines?
 
@@ -1491,16 +1501,18 @@ But the solution to that is easy - you just need to keep refining the process an
 
 So while there may be some aesthetic difference in the theory, we are heading to the same endpoint and always because it's the purpose of man to move through conflict until the distinctions are eliminated.
 
+## Dialogue on Collective
 
-2025-01-31 18:18:35
+*Here is a dialogue between myself and my locally-running inference engine with some LLM. The point to be made here is that, regardless of your flavour of collectivism, you end up with an authoritarian regime and a totalitarian theology (or at least philosophy, though much of the point of the book is that the delusion of collectivism necessitates the gnostic mind which must seek absolution, bringing the process back up to the level of a theology).*
 
 Again, I've had this conversation with a few LLM's and it's, of course, much easier to convince them of your points than an actual Marxist, but nevertheless, I tried to give it my argument as a hot take, and it came out like this:
 
+***********************************
+
 Eman: I'm not convinced that the Doctrine of Fascism is describing something which isn't equivalent to Marxism. I think that the fact of it requiring the state and invoking conflict as a means of bringing man to their highest expression is superficial, and that they both logically conclude as the same
 
 KAI: I see what you mean, but the Doctrine of Fascism also requires a totalitarian state and the suppression of individual freedoms. These are not things that can be reconciled with Marxist theory which aims for the liberation of the working class through collective action.
 
-
 Eman: Marxist theory requires a dictatorship of the proletariat, which in practice is equivalent to the fascist state
 
 KAI: But the goal of Marxism is to create a society where there is no need for a state, whereas fascism seeks to maintain control over society indefinitely.
@@ -1520,27 +1532,28 @@ With Fascism, it will begin as requiring the one totalitarian state to be in con
 For that last step, we require the elimination of distinctions between any remaining man. For this reason, only a circumstance of there being one mind for all men, or one single instance of man, would veritably provide the reliable condition of there being no conflict between men.
 
 KAI: I see your point, but I still believe that there is a fundamental difference between Marxism and Fascism. While both require a strong state to enforce their ideologies, the ultimate goal of Marxism is to create a stateless society where people are free from class conflict. In contrast, fascist ideology seeks to maintain control over society indefinitely through authoritarian means.
+
 ***********************************
 
 As you can see, it's beginning to run out of steam and keeps bringing up the same point which it then demotes in agreeing to the very points I'm providing to refute them.
 
 
 # What to Define
+
 ! NOTE: Decide if this should be before former part, where we compare Fascism and Marxism
 
 Before we go further, we must clarify something else related to the definitions I have settled on for my understanding and my approach to helping others in their understanding of Communism (which, to be frank, is one's understanding of Collectivism).
 
-If Communism is the end stage of a historical process, Marxism is the thought about how to ?? The process.
+If Communism is the end stage of a historical process, Marxism is the theology from which that is derived as an ought, particularly through its ontological and teleological declarations. The study of Marxism is what has developed toolsets which are faithful to those declarations/descriptions.
 
-Communism is the God-object at the end of the transformation of man and nature, through the creation of new man. It is the state of life and the stateless beginning of our new history. Stateless only in that there is no state separate from ourselves, and we are co-continuous as the existence of Man.
+Communism is the God-object at the end of the transformation of man and nature, through the creation of new man. It is the state of life and the stateless beginning of our new history. Stateless only in that there is no state separate from ourselves, and we are co-continuous as the existence of Man, for if there were any deviation from such a permutation of reality and human existence, we would not yet be at the point of Communism, for the state of liberation (as opposed to a state as entity which governs) would not be true for all men.
 
-Marxism is the means of understanding the here and now in the context of oppression.
-
-Marxism is the belief system which puts faith in that process. It explains the true nature of man based on what it means to be human, and how man and mankind can come to be fulfilled in their existence. It also requires faith to believe that something will come to be automagically through removing known things as barriers or sources of corruption but without laying even the first brick of whatever future edifice you expect should come to be potentiated and come to fruition by your participation in acts of negation.
+Conversely, Marxism is the means of understanding the here and now in the context of oppression. Marxism is the belief system which puts faith in that process. It explains the true nature of man based on what it means to be human, and how man and mankind can come to be fulfilled in their existence. It also requires faith to believe that something will come to be automagically through removing known things as barriers or sources of corruption but without laying even the first brick of whatever future edifice you expect should come to be potentiated and come to fruition by your participation in acts of negation.
 
 One last thing will have to be touched on before we get more in-depth with Queer and Covidism - a refreshed context on the biological connection.
 
 ## We Aren't Like That (Historical Faith)
+
 When the cult says "historical", it means "historicist". Is there a difference? Yes, of course, but not specifically because history only came to be studied and carefully considered later, but because of the way it was used and I argue that the way it was used, though a certain misuse was not fundamentally a choice to misuse something so much as the manner in which humans are disposed to think and approach something based on its use as is provisioned by virtue of:
 - a) the manner in which it interfaces with the body, and;
 - b) what this something represented (what abstraction was cognized at the high level by the mind upon undertaking the operation of observing, imagining, and appropriating the conceptual object at moment of cognition (TODO: theory: especially the first moment, as it is the only reasonable universality we can examine given the difficulty of finding consistent parametrization of subsequent events of cognition (though, to be fair, this should be met with peering into research about a sweet spot for cognizing objects wherein the composition of the major aspect of the conceptual object is made into its most crystallized form.)))