logicp_writings/new/MindConversionTherapy.md

Mind Conversion Therapy

January 4, 2022

Wherever you go, the conflict remains the same: There appears a complex phenomenon that you must assess, learn, master and deconstruct before you can have the competence and weight of word to speak, but what you always find is that you are still left working through the same challenges that are instantly and eternally before you.

Do you believe in the mind, or are you falling into material thinking? Is this not the natural conflict of consciousness? Can you have conscious ness without constantly working through this problem? And, if not, what happens to those who believe it doesn't apply to them? Better yet, what of those who believe that they are working through it - are they even more susceptible to unreason and fallacy?

All the Critical disciplines invite material thinking and the suggestion to discredit and disbelieve the mind. Queer Theory wishes for you to choose its preferred identities on the basis that it prevents adopting of an identity it believes to follow or reinforce as a societal norm. Norms are cisheternormative, which reinforce oppressive and violent hierarchies, the existence of which dictates the proposition that you cannot understand the language you use, nor can anyone. This easily inferred moral dimension is established and must be grappled by the theorist with their every social interaction. If someone is supporting oppression, and even unwittingly, it becomes the theorist's job to educate, and help people understand a way forward.

How does this challenge play out with jabs? Belief in mind is what allowed the idea of a vaccine solution to come to fruition, in the form of the offerings we have today. Why not embrace mind by taking advantage of what is being offered? Well, if you put it that way...

Is it really so simply? Is not every human action and endeavour the product of an idea originating from a mind? By the same logic, anything should be desired and accepted by virtue of it having begun as an idea.

This proposition still must play out as a proposition to be received by, considered, and decided upon by a mind. It is the reasoning of that mind which must be engaged by another, not a presupposed representation of that mind, or mind as a whole. The assertion is not even necessarily contingent on the utility or safety of that offering. How are we even evaulating the offering? On the basis of whether it harms you at the moment of its administration? Why is that even self-evident? Is that the only predicate for determining whether or not you must unquestioningly provide your body to another entity?

I have always held my attention on the concept of a baseline. The idea that there are moving sets of values bound to a process, and that the perceived behaviours of the variables suggests a change in range of expression both in terms of limitations (lowest low) and the top limit.

Seeking Trans

January 7, 2022

Limitations of being are inevitably overcome. We specify all aspects of the flesh, and even the mind itself.

The obvious is mortality and disease. Why is it fair that anyone should suffer cancer? And if, indeed, it is genetic, then what are the implications of such a curse? Is it my failure in some respect for not overcoming my materially determined fate? Is it the mistake of my ancestors which lead to my genetic defects? Why should I, who just came into being by mere chance, have to accept that my future is painful?

If I came into being by chance, and tehre is no God to answer to, then surely there is no consequence and meaning to my actions. The meaning is, in fact, how I feel and how I feel about the life I look back on. I can imagine myself looking back on my whole life - the good and the bad - the shameful and the disgraceful mistakes I made - and then imagine features of a clean state of mind, where there is no real moral consequence except how anyon feels. If I had a successful life, then I look upon it and say "it was a stepping stone to greatness". And for others? Well, if they don't know, then they couldn't possibly feel anything about it.

And why shouldn't I participate in something which contributes to development and discovery? Even if it is for something seemingly arbitrary, or even negative, I can be rest assured, by the seemingly relevant news, that progress only ever moves forward.

Absolute State

Matter. All is composed of it, except dark matter/antimatter. What of the void?

What of that perfect vacuum without matter, bceause of it all having been sucked into black holes? That is when we get the cycle of Hawking radiation emitted to the point that a new Universe can begin, possibly at the point of each Black hole, giving us a nice never-ending array of dimensions through which all that is possible can become realized. Is thre an absolute state? Would it come to pass in anyone of these Universes, or is the absolute state the idea that we have every possibly manifestation of being given potential, having its events potentiated, etc. Is the absolute state the form when all matter is concentrated and then BANGS outt into being?

How does the Christian Science mindset follow the Interfaith initiative? How does it begin? Well, they are probably approached, or the Mother Church was, which disseminated the idea outwards. But what of the mind of the practitioner? They attempt to believe that their understanding of reality, or conception of what is to understand reality, is the ultimate one which could all eventually attain. But how is taht different from Hegelian Faith, which suggests history is moving towards the absolute state, and that any seeming disparity is just indication that further synthesis is yet to come? An expectation that one's conception of understanding wins out as an eventuality. Does a Christian Science practitioner see themselves as being able to win? The moral aspect permits one to assume it without realizing it, as they assume ego is in check.

Christian Science Ego

They have one of the best organized belief systems with which to sidestep away from angles of observation which would otherwise allow them to note an drealize their ego and bias.

Surely, in a sense, they must be aware of their bias and agree with it, as they are not expecting to ever be in a position wherein they desire to replace their belief system, and thus their entire conception of the world, particularly as a means of ascending one self in a manner independent of the church and Christian Science thought.

Understanding a concept such as Christian Science Ego is worthwhile, because my experience has been that, generally speaking, Christian Scientists tend to have much less ego/ are less dominated by their egos than your average human, but even if you identify the one Chrsitian Scientist who appears to have the least ego of them all, you would be hard-pressed to agree that it is not there. Would such by the case with Jesus? Could any intentional being conduct themselves effectively without ego? If the answer were no, how could we determine the ideal balance? It would remain infinitely complex to determine those cases where just enough ego was present to affect a desirable outcome. And what if more ego always seems to be better, at least as far as success rate for a desired outcome -> would we swallow a bitter sense of ourselves in order to take advantage, or are we already consistently enjoying a maximally-exposed ego with individuals continuously able to increase their capacity for ego -> a scarce resource, particularly when circumstances would suddenly benefit from its inclusion.

Zee Germans

It's a German thing. Perhaps it is deply embedded in the culture (der kultur), or is it something genetic (selection)?

Whatever the reason, there appears to be a penchant for strict obedience, rigid order, collectivism, schadenfraude, and the adoption of that intolerant state of mind (often referred to as "tolerance"), which declares "Ah, yes, I know what you wish to say, but you are either attempting to mislead me, or you have already misled yourself. There is no new information of consequence that you can possibly offer me, and your judgment has long passed".

Told Who So

January 13, 2022

Many are trying to decide what is now beginning to occur. Is the narrative crumbling, or is it a perfect orchestration? Given the effective division of culture and society, it can easily be any of these things as any narrative can serve the division and manipulation of the populace. The question remains: What does everyone want it to be?

If you are of the mind which must position yourself in the center of culture, then you likely believe the most easily discovered, aesthetically complete depiction of the state of affairs. As the story becomes less believable for some, the narrative must grow in complexity and absurdity in order for it to be maintained. One might think that the increase of complexity produces real risks of its own