logicp_writings/collectivist_theology/historicist_mind.md

What is the historicist mind?

well it starts with a few suppositions, which include some of the following: that the human mind thinks about the future, creates conceptions for the future, and that these come to be referenced or presented in the mind as expectations, at the level of analysis through reflection or for the purpose of communication and planning are concerned

furthermore, the human mind goes through a repeated process of making those conceptions, having expectations, waiting for them, and then making note of when one of them comes to pass. At least, in the sense that there is some continuation, as the resolution of the conception is never maintained, since it is continuously reformulated as a creation anew each time. The important factor, however, is that the mind does come to experience what it is like to have conceived of something in the future, had expectations about it, and then come, through time, to an event wherein something is realized as having been observed or understood at a particular point in time which yields continuity to something for which there was an expectation.

Moreover, it reflects on past events. When these points in time are uncovered and the mind is able to note that there is continuity with respect to a previous expectation, the human mind will, at the very least, reflect on the preceding events to which this continuity pertains.

What this leads to, is a recurring process of seeing an evolution of each concept, following suit as an ordering of events along a single world line. This can be completely in the abstract, or it can be something for which systems are erected to describe this progression.

When looking back on history, particularly if it is marked with clear periods of immense difficulty, one must ask the question as to whether the path had to be trodden in the particular manner that it was, or if mistakes that are made are always uncoupled from the progress of the process

Hypothesis

So one criticism would be that the events do not ever perfectly fulfill the previously produced conception. We did address this a little bit in the introduction, but let's be a bit more clear about it now. The primary rebuttle of this is the fact that the conception itself is never recalled again. The high level object (topic/context) and its significance are maintained in memory, at least insofar that the thing which is remembered is easily associated with the new external object that delineates a point of continuity.

Again, we are still deaing with linear movement across a single dimension (though it may confer movement along other dimensions, those would necessarily occur at a different level of abstraction, whereas this fundamental representation remains singular in that it is the only abstraction bearing no indirection with respect to the context in question). Along this single track of movement, we move forward through each delineated event which, from the perspective of the subject, can be expected to continue until the arrival of a fully-realized expression of that context in reality.

Totalizing System Against Normativity

September 16, 2022

Normativity is any categorization which can be bound to oppression, but no oppression can be recognized without categorization. Queer purports to be without categories or, for those who don't wish to be placed under a category (no category, huh?), but practicing Queerness is always the same:

• assume conservative stereotypes - generally about male and female, or adult and child
• invoke fashion and nomenclature to declare allegiance to the Queer collective
• demand that all is not well until critical consciousness is achieved
• demand that the superstructure be used to solve oppression of queer people
• demand allyship and identification from all other humans as a means by which they are to demonstrate their humanity and kindness
• insist that those who do not conform are on the wrong side of history

It even is more totalizing than just as stated:

• we must queer everyone or seed the queering or at least offer that they might realize their queer identity for this is the same as realizing one's authentic self (but it's definitely not an ideology)

Ideology

Why is it not an ideology? Marxists define ideology as:

"... system of concepts and views which serve to make sense of the world while obscuring social interests that are expressed therein..."

• points to the intellectual swindling of Marxism! obscuring social interests, you say?

The other contingent point is that they claim to be self-critical.

But what does that mean? Applying consistent use of logic and reason in order to ensure complete internal consistency? No, that is not what is meant by "Critical" among Marxists. They are critical in the sense of a Critical Theorist, rather than in the sense of epistemic adequacy, as the latter just reproduces the system.

That is, the Marxists claim to be aware of the idea that everything affects the political economy and that this confers the ability for people to understand and overcome their oppression. Since this happens with all things, failing to account for it explicitly means allowing one's biases and teh systemic influences to blindly come into play:

• this means less of the operation is explicit and
• we are not thoroughly applying scientific analysis

This is, of course, the Iron Law of Woke Projection. How does that apply here? Let's break it down:

Iron Law

• identify a dimension along which to affect change
• accuse the "other side" of already doing this, or allowing it to happen due to lack of awareness or purposeful ignorance
• propose the manner in which it is to be done explicitly

It is always rationalized as science. The more complet analysis. Hegel's vernunft, in place of verstaand. The higher the level of your highest level of scope/concern, the more scientific it can be. The higher the level of pursuit, the more you understand why you are doing anything at all.

This obviously doesn't make sense, as you cannot understand the low level by virtue of being oriented to broader concerns. You can be guided by context, but you can't ever fully appreciate the operations taking place unless you can see the transformations at the highest resolution possible.

Totalizing Covidism

Covidism was our first foray into a setting where we could realistically see totalitarianism manifest both on the ground and locally in our own lives, but simultaneously broadly and across the world. There have been hints of this forever, at least decades, but drawing on thoughts and methodologies which go back much further.

We can not only pass temporary, or maybe permanent, legislation which will restrict your life, livelihood, basic movement, etc. But we can do so in a way where you are hungry for it and are willing to even die so long as you ahve the suspicion, or hope, that you might be eternalized through "secondary means".

Man is imperfect, incomplete and completable. Ideology is that which occupies the child and causes them, in some capacity, to maintain any part of the system to his benefit. There is a disconnect in terms of understanding what an ideology is, because its explicit use always assumes that the ideologue or practitioner of the ideology must practice in such a way as to make absolutely everything conform to the ideology, yet there is a constant insistence that those who do not take on the use of a tool or a protocol of behaviour (something that has been proposed as necessary to assimilate into one's repertoire of actions and behaviour) resists doing so because of preconceived or adopted ideology, whereas the acceptance of the proposition and incrementation in one's repertoire is the act of choosing not to employ ideology. That is, there is no reason why you would refuse to do the thing which has been accepted as being most rational, noble, holy, and so on. The only reason you have for refusing is your ideology, whatever that might happen to be (of course, it's not what you think it is, it's what you are going to be told it is)

Act to demonstrate lack of ideology vs insistence that you employ a particular ideology (often described with multiple culturally relevant signifiers in order to construct the prototype of the declared ideology in a way which seems rational). This is a strikingly constraining dichotomy, leaving no room for the possibility that there could ever be competing reasoning as to why one might reject the application or adoption of the proposal. This would have to be for one of the following reasons:

• naivety and ignorance
• demonstrable/applicable computation meeting a sufficient threshold of certainty
• a bias towards social interests (and thus the obscuring of them)

It is obvious that the computation would be impossible and we have to err on the side that the understanding of those proposing the protocol are, in some capacity, sophisticated, thus it should be the highest likelihood that we are dealing with ideology. It shouldn't even be contentious at this point.

Nevertheless, the declared/alleged ideology for not taking the treatment or agreeing that human separation is of benefit to oneself and our species is that of a composite of themes:

• oppressing mankind
• Fascism
• Right-wing
• Victimhood
• Capitalism
• Anti-vaxx
• Individualism
• Suicidality
• Normativity
• Blank State Ideology

Let us disambiguate some of these

Disambiguating Ideologies

Victimhood

False consciousness predicated on paranoid delusion that state and society have made you a victim. Reactionary assumptions that proposed action, which actually helps you and society, is going to harm you. You are the victim in this already.

You are given a choice: Your ideology causes you to choose to not take the vaccine because it serves to allow you to proclaim you have no choice (not having chosen, but just being inactive). Free choice ideology rationalizes the act of dominating those who aren't privy to your conception of transcendence.

Furthermore, your great ideas to exercise choice, at the behest of victimhood ideology, negate the choices of others.

Suicidality

Just as white nationalists talk of their "Great Replacement", people of the older view who are no longer on the right side of history know they cannot evolve with humanity and are, therefore, seking a sort of mutually-assured destruction (a Hail Mary).

Individualism

Always seeks to designate the most power to the individual out of self-centered desire to seek power for oneself. The individualist always believs things helpful to broad community are an attack on themselves because, at a minimum, it augments the value of the community which raises the spectre of having to comply with community in the future, limiting one's individual power.

Fascism

This is a very interesting proposition to examine because the classical definitions of Fascism remain the only coherent ones:

• Everything within the state
• The merging of public and private

The dialectic faiths have been, however, defining Fascism based on its aesthetics by enumerating as many terms as possible and assuming some will stick. They do this by finding terms that can correlate, even just insofar that there is congruence or familiarity, with characteristics that one might associate with a Fascistic state, regardless of how many degrees of indirection may be involved in bringing about or influencing of those characteristics.

Refusing Vaxx

So, then, how does refusing the vaccine make one a Fascist?

• Vaxx creates freedom and (accuracy?)
• Anti-vaxx want people to get more ill because it prevents them from doing that which frees humanity -> moving towards equal ownership or equitable distribution (eventualities given a historicist lense by a Marxist/Gnostic)

As we can see, the connection to Fascism isn't something substantive and it uses much indirection, but it is something you see quite frequently among state-cited woke epidemiologists and other woke doctors or statisticians. They generally need to tie it to the look of someone being stereotypical, nationalism, racism, patriarchy, etc. There needs to be an assumption that this person has privilege and that any advancement of society which is fair (which ends up being the definition for an advancement of society) will necessarily reduce the proportional privilege of that person.

Probably the best argument that can be made is to allege that they hold this view because the opinion was placed there by an external entity, and that this entity's other views are completely representative of Fascism. At this point, we must overcome having to read minds in order to confirm that the individual in question also harbours these additional views by directing to the assumption that the entity decides what opinions to plant and has great success in doing so.

Furthermore, we err on the side of caution by being repressive in the pre-emptive suppression of that which most probably is Fascism. (borrowing from Repressive Tolerance by H. Marcuse).

Covidism / Pharmism / Transhumanism

The human is completable and this is the reason he suffers. Just as the body tells us when something is to be resolved, so to does the species tell us something is to be resolved by virtue of the pain and angst intrinsic to the human life.

If consciousness is to ponder, is it to suffer? Or to learn and know? Why waste even a single moment suffering if it needn't be the case? Surely, almost no one ever performs debilitating abuse on oneself as an isolated action. The abuse comes through practice and adoption of habit.

We envision that all of our advancement is by mechanisms and tooling which take us beyond our natural limits. Embracing anything on the basis of rejecting modern treatment is akin to choosing to go back in time to a place of more pain and ignorance. Anyone who wishes that is keeping all of humanity from saving itself (or at least advancing itself). They would have to be on a path of destruction to be acting in such a way. Perhaps they have lost all hopeK for life and want it all to be over with - but that doesn't make good sense on its own.

So, how do we complete man through vaccine?

First, we bootstrap the process by which we make civil man ready to provide access to his body at regular intervals. He must simply have the habit of learning and understanding that this offering of access to his body is purely to enhance his capabilities. Each administration should be made to feel as though you are one breathe closer to immortality; reducing the threat first temporally, then permanently against a pathogen, class of pathogen, likelihood of disease, and so forth.

Simple blood monitoring: detect threshold of component activation per reaction to molecule, or particular concentration of molecule. It can work in conjunction with wearables or even your phone. When enough of the condition is met, something switches in a formulation such that a filament or emitter is able to resonate/vibrate at specific frequency, like a bitmask, but with only one or a small number of byte signatures. Detector on phone picks up vibration and sends notification to patient and relevant practitioners.

Eventually, this expands to cancer. Something which replaces or augments cytotoxic T-cells, or something which suppresses gene expressions within a set of known types of interest.

From there, we can do mental health. Though being fixated on mental health does mean some normalization of mental illness, and some guaranteed incentive benefit activation procedure. This might be detected using a multifaceted approach:

• heartbeat patterns
• blood chemical indicator/detector
• monitoring of speech/keywords
• monitoring of biometric patterns which correlate to particular keywords or phrases (in thought)
• proximity to known triggers
• brain MRI

Essentially, there are a variety of ways to monitor an acute event characterized by mental health challenges.