logicp_writings/queer/double_negation.md

Double Negations

Contemporary

We highlighted the manner in which the human mind is prone to adapting an expectation and that it can impose a behaviour that is incongruent or even anti-thetical to its stated beliefs and values under the assumption or declaration that the behaviour will be negated at the appropriate time. Let us examine two prevalent forms of this in our current society.

• Expectation of future event becomes rationale for allowing a behaviour in the present
• Behaviour may contradict stated objective

Queer Negation

The Queer activist insists that some are characterized by unnormal forms and behaviours and that this puts them into the position of being oppressed by a social structure which values normalcy. It also contends that what is imposed as normal has come to have been asserted as such by those who have the power to set norms, and that they do this to maintain their access to power.

Furthermore, it suggests that as long as oppression exists, it becomes our duty to identify queerly in order to push back against the normalizing aspects of society or at least to maximimze the likelihood of queer identification, since it is these normalizing aspects which are maintaining oppression.

• Those who are not normal are oppressed by those with power who set or maintain the norms
• Moral impetus to identify "antinormal" as a strategy of eliminating oppression

Thesis

Human beings cannot express their true nature

Antithesis:

Enumerate all possible ways of being and propose / suggest that humans take on/perform these roles.

Synthesis

Humans find or realize their true nature of being.

Here, we find the double negation in the form of first having negated the mechanism by which humans couldn't express their true nature, which is done by proposing alternate ways of being that disrupt the current standards, and then later negating that process of negating - that mechanism - a double negation - which we can have faith will come to pass through historical thinking and by believing we have the true higher-level understanding of reality and humanity.

Of course, even this is rife with its own contradictions, which the gnostics don't mind, as that too drives the dialectical tensions through which they employ pressure for sociopolitical change.

Nevertheless, ass rationalist thimthem; we choose to examine them

Contradictions of the Queer Dialectical Triad

• Human nature not yet expressed - is there a nature?
• How do we know it is not expressed? Equity?
• Standards are oppression? Who sets them and embodies them?
  • Capitalism produced behemoths who now tell us of Queer (like banks)
  • They are harnessing opportunity - being opportunistic - thus you should as well
• Only humans have no nature - from outset of human consciousness
  • Product of consciousness <- can be negated
• What is equity? Who decides? And who decides after they're dead?
• Nothing stabilized can ever be a part of the solution
  • So demand no identity - no character, no form/FORMLESS, thoughtless

Before eludating these, we can preface this section by highlighting the contempty of reality. At some level, any proposition is either predicated on a belief in shared reality, or a demand to reject reality / demand that reality is not yet made, as human nature has not yet been actualized.

This follows the human experience in the sense that we are in perpetual preparation, be it through skilled and structured training, or simply waiting for the time to pass. With this in mind, one can either embody an exression whereby they cannot yet commence their true life, or they perceive the preparation as true life which continuously improves the condition of reality, thereby expanding the breadth of what is possible. Reality is accepted as always becoming something more, or it is false and we have not yet seen it proven that reality should be have been brought into being.

Contradiction of Criticizing Drag

"Drag clowns just want to entertain kids. They love to spend time with children, as did Rafi" What is the difference?

• Normal adults are protective of child innocence, while drag introduce topics above the current development stage
  • Children don't have sexual thoughts because they don't have the endocrine states conducive to evoking spontaneous sexual sensations
  • Drag introduce sexual ideas, often indirectly or through innuendo that can be plausibly denied as being done to cater to some fo the adult audience that is present, but it is, nevertheless, something that eventually gets introduced in a drag story time event

Sex education is usually given before hormonal changes occur. In that case, or in the former, it is the case that children with information about sexual behaviour (beyond simple explanations of reproduction) have that knowledge because it came from an adult

• 100% of sexual offences since the 90s (male offenders) is steeped in pornography
• Majority have disseminated/distributed sex content to children
• People in counselling have had their sexual boundaries violated

God Delusion in Marxism

Richard Dawkins' description and argument of human delusion

• Believing in a God is based in Creationism
• Juxtaposed with the Marxist conception of Man having no specified origin
• Man continuously changes himself through suffering from an incorrect turn of events

This negative circumstance where subject cannot directly take its object with proper intent and capability is derived from the gnostic aspect of knowing one has been thrown into a false existence

There is some unrealized reality and instead we are thrust into a false consciousness about ourselves and the world. Those who recollect it can overcome the false consciousness. Our moral purpose should be to liberate ourselves from the oppression.

Questions

1. Elaborate on Richard Dawkins' "God Delusion"
2. Is believing in God based in creationism?
3. What is said by "Subject cannot directly take its object with proper capability/intent

Contractually Social

It is your duty, so that you may prove your:

• Intelligence
• Humanity
• Species
• Obedience to progress (of the collective)

Being Contractually Social

• You can then claim to be an adult, by virtue of your congruity.
• You have demonstrated that you won't put up a fuss and that you can be a prime candidate to lead
• A leader: demonstrates new behaviours to the collective

"You can't just do the things you want to do, you must do the things you don't want to do"

• Makes little sense. Purports to provide a logical/ethical guide, but how can anyone assume to know what one wants?
  • What one wants is what one plans?
  • What one wants is governed by dopamine rewards in the immediate?
• Relying on something subjective to govern one's actions (or, at least, advising others to do this)

This unrealistic way of viewing the world, or of compeling others to support your view, is evident in examinations of other current issues in the world, where impossible-to-verify inferences are chosen without hesitation so long as they appear to bind everyone more strongly to a social contract.

COVID Contract

Taking the "COVID" era and the effects of the so-called pandemic, we see great disparity between jurisdictions regarding an alleged phenomenon which is understood to have a fairly predictable aggregate effect, so long as certain factors are considered:

• latitude
• season
• age distribution
• population density

Nevertheless, these factors do not allow us to easily predict mortality by jurisdiction. This causes some to examine the mitigation strategies employed by the authorities but this is foolishly sought in such a way which presumes that their reference and invocation by name corresponds with a single definition or general description. But, not only can we identify stark differences and temporal applications, we cannot assume to understand the impact of small differences in particular strategies, as these are always against different populations. Also, how can we understand the comparison of "similar" strategies?

• Similar in language?
• Similar in labour?
• Similar in how culture affects deployment of strategies?
• Similar in the facilities?

Furthermore, we must contend with the different nature of qualifying and maintaining death data by specific cause, through consistent means, on principle, and then also in a consistent manner vis-a-vis other jurisdictions. Getting it correctly for historically prevalent types alone is incredibly difficult, and doing the same for newly identified types (threats) presents its own challenges.

Cause of Death

When thinking about cause of death, we generally think of a chronic and fatal disease, which sets about imposing a decline of health upon an individual over some period of time, even in cases where a fatal disease manifested rapidly/aggressively in its initial presentation (it's sometimes the case that a fatal manifestation of disease was one last iteration of chronic, recurring disease with a long history of anteceding events, but even in the case where an initial presentation of disease is observed and recorded, it is impossible to verify whether there may have been a precipitating decline of health which was not accurately recorded, not to mention the understanding of causal factors. Even if autopsies were performed, they are still most accurate in understanding the final state of the person in question, given the particular tissues being examined, and the methodology being applied; we can't be assured that understanding precipitating declines of health and their associated causes is something we understand at the individual level. Perhaps with improved practice, better tools, and the necessary equipment to track and observe ever more gradual changes at the cellular level, without falling into the sort of tunnel vision)).

Why don't we track disease at the cellular level in order to understand disease? We can and we do, but just as with medical exams and doing blood-work, there are some limitations to consider:

• you generate data per what is tested for
• you are not observing everything, even with an autopsy

The temporal frame is always limited - this might change, now, but our experience with monitoring biomarkers has never been absolute, thus what we know is based on experience with something incomplete, making the concept of a complete biometric data to be something which is an evolving standard.

It's worth mentioning that reductionistic thinking might identify the most proximately correlated component, components that bear pathological causation, and observations pertaining to a good causative theory, but the phenomenon being studied may have other causal factors, requiring different tools of analysis and systems of thought. Example:

• We may be observing cardiac health in someone who is being weakened through chronic infection - this infection hinders their performance in certain regards while limiting the ability to compensate and supercompensate against truth.
• Another example of this is someone whose mental illness puts them frequently into states of stress which have habituated into chronic stress (it's important to note that the reference of a mental illness is insofar as one can be diagnosed per pathology, and must not have to indicate a genetic causation)

Reference

It is quite complicating to understand when some thing or concept holds a reference to some other thing or concept.

This is particularly complicating to life when trying to understand these possible phenomena as being the product of culture. Culture is, however, enduring because of the manner in which key components hold reference to one another, such as diet and geography.

When we approach the concept of holding reference, we are reminded of the description of Being as indeterminate immediacy. Completely void of content and differentiation. There is no detail of content that can be differentiated from any other. It is object with no reference to anything outside of itself and no content that can be differentiated. In this way, we are examining the pure concept of Being wherein the reference is only to itself

But for the human life which has not been fixated through a perception whereupon necessary granularity for such consideration cannot be realistically achieved, particular means of observing more granularly becomes the limit of convincing oneself that one has a valid toolset by which to see the complete world or the true world.

But aren't we all Hegelian?

The point of invoking Hegel is not simply to demonstrate how absurd, theological and totalizing his system for describing reality happens to be, which it most certainly is (an aspect that he has been rightfully criticized for), but it's that we can't really examine the concept of an evolving collective towards a perfect state without considering the content, aesthetic and manner of thought which is endeavoured by a human being conceiving of it.

Always the Body

To commit someone into a preconceived future, the rationale is that we are always being directed into making commitments to a preconceived future, and that all this direction is, unless performed according to Theory, done such as to mould and contort us, in an evolution of the self and the collective, so that we'll best serve the needs and desires of the most powerful to the exclusions of our own; this sacrifice of self is the formula for our resilience with the whole.

So why the body? Well our body, as an object within that system wherein too is found that collective, has its meaning inscribed through its relation to that collective and when not in perfect harmony, cannot express its true meaning. That is, the factor of individuals directing bodies towards the conception of future which is brought about through their beliefs about the world, if not also in perfect harmony with the collective, prevent the expression of one's meaning that would have otherwise been made possible under the conditions of the perfect harmony. This is akin to preventing one from being themselves.

This influence of leading those bound to bodies towards a future without harmony is evident per the social conditions. The consequence of this being that an incomplete human is left to simple, animalistic survival and this lower instinct takes reign in place of the higher faculties which are the capacities of human existence which are purported to differentiate us from mere animals.

A Glimpse of Empathy

January 19, 2023

You see it happen every so often. An exchange with a naive passerby, or even an ideologically opposing or otherwise incongruent interlocutor who takes a moment to suspend the conflict and try and understand their conversation/informal debate partner. If that partner is "woke", they may, at this one moment, come to display or radiate an empathetic emotion.

The question is where does this lead? Where can it lead? What is the range of potential for possible outcomes? Does it seemingly always, eventually, go to the same place? Or are we talking some tendency over a distribution? Something completely random?

Unfortunately, it seems to only go one way, and before we lose hope and consider it all futile, might I say that I don't think it's the case that it must be this way; it's simply the case that it has mostly been this way, and that our way of living greatly favours maximizing group behaviour or making decisions that coincide with a greater number of people due to these factors:

• social isolation
• meaning isolation
• accessible information
• likelihood that information encountered is recognized in generally the same context at scale
  • setting
  • sequence of events
  • types of objects
  • roles of objects
  • high level impact

This plays out not only as having an expectation about your behaviour, but an expectation that an interlocutor would have an expectation about their own behaviour based on a similarly accessible set of data. That is, they had similar ease and likelihood as you in obtaining the information which most informed them on this subject, and that information was of a scale similar to your information, and so on.

Again, these are not necessarily psychological predictions, but they are the rationale by which someone could recognize the ability to make an assertion, thus it's important to ponder the likelihood that these positions and related data are commonly accessed, taking some form of reasonable precedence in terms of their being accessed under particular circumstances, etc - again, you can see that it is endless.

Woke

What do we mean by woke? We mean:

• Perpetual awareness that oppression is structural
• That power is stratified on the basis of identity
• That the goal is to achieve justice through solidarity
• That the path to solidarity is by attaining critical consciousness as a society/community/collectivity or constellation thereof

The first step of that is becoming woke: Woke -> Class Conscious -> Solidarity -> Justice

Fanonian Woke / Decolonization

• Seeking transformation
• Acute awareness of opportunities to evoke social tension
• Sacred violence until rebirth

Empathy

What about empathy?

• Traditionally, we think of actually feeling someone else's emotions and understanding their experience

But this is something which, in spite of our openness and belief concerning our perception of another's experience and feeling about one's own intuition, remains unverifiable. Instead, we can consider empathy to be:

• The desire to tolerate, understand, listen to and be attentive to another
• It is having a frame of mind where, if even for a microsecond, one perceives the other as something capable of having the same experience, making the same realizations and reaching the same understanding

Sacred

This is why the words divine or sacred are used so frequent:

• Abortions are sacred
  • Transcend the limit of female biology, the prison and life sentence/punishment that you didn't ask for and don't deserve to suffer through
  • Death of the baby is the death of this reality and the death of part of the woman and her body, so that she may be reborn with greater ability and awareness of the true reality she is manifesting/actualizing
  • Creates that new reality where all women have been reborn as something free
• POC are sacred
  • pure, innocent and noble, like Rousseau's noble savages made to live in cities
  • They have souls; they can occupy bodies because there is something that will be able to transcend the body
  • They are condemned by mortal man; they seek salvation after falling victim to the treachery of those who have control over the structure of being (carceral power)
• Trans people are sacred
  • We have seen this uttered several times and it is the most obvious example of the bunch
  • Trans are in perpetual transition and when considering the definition of trans itself, transition to what?
  • The endpoint is the commitment to a transcended aka higher transcendent being
  • one must never cease transcending
  • This liberates the world and those who are limited by what the world normally ascribes to them
  • Capitalism demands productive human labour
    • Heterosexual, expanding consumer base
    • Productive for consumer needs, over-sized house, multiple cars
    • Trans intentionally asserts itself to overcome the oppression of capitalism
    • Trans still consume: for protest, and to subvert

On Being Sacred

The sacred who also believe that nothing is sacred except obedience to the collective mind.

They demand that every human must take their assigned place and role because everything is arbitrarily (or maliciously) assigned as it is, thus the application of theory to your assignment is the first step to achieving a clean baseline. Put another way, we cannot overcome our cursed limitations unless everyone is integrated through theory. Even if it hasn't produced the ideal result thus far, what it really proves is that the challenges of those who suffer for all that isn't right in the world are even greater than anyone realized, and their consequent wisdom even more profound.

Give into the fear and moral criticism and try to exist in the more proper way through the theory which promises there is a way forward, rather than you dangerously flailing in the wind. What do you think would happen otherwise? Clearly, you have not suffered so greatly as I have and thus you are still sheltered and naive in refusing to see the light so you can chase a childish dream. The dream is two fold - you believe the excuse of ideology (capitalist, white, Christian) gives you the excuse to live and irresponsible life because you will be healed and forgiven. The capitalistic ideology causes you to believe that you can be brute who deserves no one or anything save your own ego.

Any success that you might have is clearly minilite and already doomed to be undone.

What will you have then? Don't you want me to start it all over and anew? There is only one approach that remains.

Gnostics and Hyper-real Flavours

January 25, 2023

I have been blessed to have not spent all of my time in one domain. I have had the opportunity to peruse and observe minds of religious faith who embrace its traditions openly. I have also been able to see minds who mostly do not busy themselves with religious thinking, but who have a social/cultural connection to faith and who come into an instance (odd church visit) or period (Ramadan) and suddenly become affected by religious thinking. That they can fairly without friction alternate from an atheistic, material/physical worldview and frame of mind to a devout faith-based outlook of the world sounds as though they are irrational, non-sensical, weak-minded and perhaps impressionable, but I find that it is actually quite easy and perhaps the normal way in which a human mind operates.

Before we go further down into that explanation, let's establish some things we know about human neurocognition and physiology, and examine them in context of the gnostic premise.

• Only one field of vision which faces forward
• Experiencing time that only moves forward
• Inability to know if life in this body is the only existence to be experienced
• no escape except complete end

If you exist in a false reality, every additional moment spent is a moment invested in making this false reality known and in making it more difficult to imagine anything beyond.

Whatever you do, simply continuing to exist makes the false reality worse, and that can remain true regardless of what happens.

Things are bad? Seehow awful existence is. Things are good? Make it even more difficult to realize the reality of the situation.

Priming an individual to be more likely to respond to an event, whether profound and unique, or simply the event of life, can be referred to and described with some of the following:

• Reflexive Priming
• Making the appropriate respones more likely based on describing a symbol / aesthetic / etc

The described reflexive position evokes memories that, when presented with certain artifacts, will evoke the emtions that were primed/assigned to those symbols, and these emotions and a proposed dialectical explication will be accepted/rejected virtually uncritically, depending on how reflexive priming was performed.

Much of the reflexivity has been said to be affected by normalcy bias and that is very interesting because, as neutral as we'd wish for them to be, they still occur. Furthermore, this option is also nice because they are reserved - it lends toward making such events famous/infamous, but it can work even just through declaring a plurality of probable outcomes and framing them each to your advantage.

Marxist Side-stepping

January ?, 2023

Why do they do this? Why are they not proud? Do they not recognize the logic of the systems they support? The mechanisms they so admire? Why do they always distance themselves from more modern instantiations of sociopolitical thought which use standpoint epistemology, raise critical consciousness, have updated classes and a theory about their corresponding class consciousnesses, maintain the use of the master-slave dialectic, and so on?

First of all, remember that Marxists don't create the solutions to the problems they propose to be focusing on. Everything they do, especially today, occurs through criticizing. So even by claiming to be disagreeing with them about anything makes it such that they don't want you to have power to do anything. So, for them, to harness power and cultivate anything in their favour, the only operation they perform is one of negation. They do not propose and argue in favour of, they juxtapose and deny or criticize that which they must control, supplant and obliterate.

So, if you propose that a specific instantiation of their idea is worth criticizing, and they aren't focused on or even dependant on arguing their idea in the terms of the instance you are targetting, they needn't do so: they will simply negate your thesis.

Why would they not wish to argue the abstraction at the level of logic? Because the logic is becoming from the realization which occurs as they gain control over the mechanisms that create culture, society, nature and man. What is most important is that man create reality and it only works if man creates at the level of the species.

Some of teh magically unaware Marxists are the classical unionist Marxists who believe the material conditions are imperfect until there is no poverty, and that Marxists should make such a final determination.

Theory and Practice

January 31, 2023

The idea of Praxis is that of theory and practice spiraling closer towards one-another until they are not distinguishable from one another.

There are different terms by which to express this. One might say that man cannot act as per his own true nature until he can be free to act volitionally without oppression, domination and estrangement. One could also say that one could not discover and embody the species character unless one is amongst both the species and environment (society) which allows for everyone to embody it. That is to say that this property, qualified as the correct permutation of state, is co-continuous between the environment and its participants.

Co-Continuous

One might also say that it is when one becomes co-continuous with society

Why

To man and society to have become co-continuous means that all conflict has been fully expressed and that history has moved past the point of being driven by that conflict. There are no more conflicts or contradictions to be worked out and the state of relations between each pair is indistinguishable and impossible to be differentiated from the other.

That is to say, the relations between entities in such a system do not express a dimension of conflict in terms of oppression and domination. The transactions are of pure mutual benefit and they also bear no effect on the relations of any other entities. It bears repeating that the only, in a sense (when this is taken to any sort of real conclusion), the only manner in which such perfectly uniform and perfectly unobtrusive relations could come to be formed or maintained would be if these entities were, in fact, not distinct entities but the detailed implements of one central entity.

Again, this is the condition of having become co-continuous with society and thus the assumption is that this state of co-continuity itself will continue, and this can only be because whatever development or array of changes or potential for change will have been fully sought, expounded. All disputes disputed and all conflicts resolved, leaving no conflicts to be worked out in what is simply implicit open transaction where the sender and recipient are not exchanging something profoundly or technically differentiated. The idea is that they would be transacting that which allows each of them to maintain pure, perfect, arbitrary freedom and that, simultaneously, no activity performed by an entity could disturb, disrupt or perturb any other, and that the result of any series of actions could not be one wherein any one entity has a greater ability to perform an action, locate, identify and consume a resource, and so on.

If all action is perfect as a representation of theory, or all action is the creation and definition of theory, then one can say that we are referring to the actions and theory of perfect expression of being, and it becomes difficult to not understand that this is also a definition for the divine. If one likes, they could say that there's not even a reason to consider the concept of God or Divinity because whatever is to be possible, realized, observed, or created is proven through the hand of man, which is made equivalent to what would have otherwise been called God.

When the actions are done in accord with theory, and when they are actions done in the name of bringing about the future described as desirable according to the theory, then there is nothing of the action that can ever be judged. The actions themselves serve as the judgment of the world by being the lens through which to judge it. The actions which denounce or negate something of the world are the only means of providing anyone with the capacity to envision something better. That is, whatever content of the world which isn't part of the "final solution" is also a distinction which prevents or may prevent something better from being conceived, understood or realized. This is a theory of actualization and, if it has become co-continuous, then it implies the judgment of a perfect result.

The final and complete man, if theoretically complete, should be perfect. And if it is theoretically complete, that's because it is practically complete and indistinguishable from theory. This is the endpoint of praxis.

Conceptually Jealous

I must admit, I have recently made the realization, seemingly in tandem with James claiming to be stressed from coming to terms with his need to re-contextualize his message through the lense of gnosticism, that though I have long been fixated on understanding religious behaviour and faith among the supposed atheists and highly educated self-proclaimed progressives, I have failed to frame the observations in as succinct a way as I believe he has come upon through explaining what could be described as a gnostic mindset. That is, the belief of one's special knowledge which gives one awareness of a false reality with which we participate which must be overcome.

The elegance of the this abstraction of gnosticism is as an evaluative format explaining seemingly or perceived irrational modes of conception and how they become represented as the only fully rational world view. // TODO:

One might argue that this idea first came from Eric Voegelin, but of course James does give Voegelin credit for this, as can be heard at least in a well-known, 3.5 hour podcast of his entitled "The Theology of Marxism".

It is worth trying to appreciate, however, the contributing James puts towards this theory but before we can do that we must first review Voegelin.

Voegelin

Voegelin is particularly pertinent here because of his description of "the nature of the gnostic attitude".

"1) It must first be pointed out that the gnostic is dissatisfied with his situation. This, in itself, is not especially surprising. We all have cause to be not completely satisfied with one aspect or another of the situation in which we find ourselves.

2) Not quite so understandable is the second aspect of the gnostic attitude: the belief that the drawbacks of the situation can be attributed to the fact that the world is intrinsically poorly organized. For it is likewise possible to assume that the order of being as it is given to us men (wherever its origin is to be sought) is good and that it is we human beings who are inadequate. But gnostics are not inclined to discover that human beings in general and they themselves in particular are inadequate. If in a given situation something is not as it should be, then the fault is to be found in the wickedness of the world.

3) The third characteristic is the belief that salvation from the evil of the world is possible.

4) From this follows the belief that the order of being will have to be changed in an historical process. From a wretched world a good one must evolve historically. This assumption is not altogether self-evident, because the Christian solution might also be considered—namely, that the world throughout history will remain as it is and that man’s salvational fulfillment is brought about through grace in death.

5) With this fifth point we come to the gnostic trait in the narrower sense—the belief that a change in the order of being lies in the realm of human action, that this salvational act is possible through man’s own effort.

6) If it is possible, however, so to work a structural change in the given order of being that we can be satisfied with it as a perfect one, then it becomes the task of the gnostic to seek out the prescription for such a change. Knowledge—gnosis—of the method of altering being is the central concern of the gnostic. As the sixth feature of the gnostic attitude, therefore, we recognize the construction of a formula for self and world salvation, as well as the gnostic’s readiness to come forward as a prophet who will proclaim his knowledge about the salvation of mankind. ".

Allow me to offer this greatly shortened summary which can't capture the depth of his description, but which might help one remember his description a bit better:

1. Man is dissatisfied.
2. We simply need to reorganize the world.
3. Salvation from evil is possible.
4. Change is a historical process.
5. Human action changes Being.
6. The purpose if Man is to perfect Being and bring about the salvation of mankind.

He has been criticized for using this term to describe what he believes to be a fitting abstraction which has prevailed until the present time. This is because those who don't want to be described in this way will suggest that it can only refer to a Heretical Christian religion from the 2nd century AD, and those who do wish to comment on rampant 20th/21st century collectivist philosophies don't want to use a descriptor that can be so easily dismissed out of hand.

But the general premise of the abstraction holds quite well, actually. If we think about those being referred to with this term, they clearly demonstrate a complete refusal of the terms at present. That is, the means of having dialogue and discussion about the state of the world - there is no dialogue for them, because they don't believe it's possible for anyone who disagrees with their view of being capable of making reasonable observations about the world or reality.

That is, what they believe as an understanding of the world is so powerful that the only logical position one can take after is to agree that the order of being must be undone. And we see this because not simply is it just a matter of having to find common ground, nor is it about coming to some sort of compromise. The repulsion to compromise is quickly apparent as it becomes impossible to have any coherent exchange. The very act of coming to a sustained process of communication necessarily requires the suspension of thought, or at least the suspension of acting on an impetus to clarify details or resolve contradictions for any attempt to act in either of those ways is not going to be met as a genuine attempt to improve understanding, or even as simply having interest in the content, or the concerns of the "initiate". It's simply not something that can even be approached, as the standpoint of the initiate is that things are either no longer bearable for them, or that they are a proxy to those for whom it must be understood that it is no longer bearable.

It's literally, in a sense, a form of war. It can be war with you, or it can be a matter of joining up in arms with them for war against the world. Against the very fabric of reality, and yes though I keep dwelling on that and repeating it and trying to make it more apparent, I understand very well that it is broadly rejected by most who find it ridiculous to even consider framing it in those terms. But the framing in those terms is because it's necessary to characterize the extent of the deception and to allow the opportunity for people to understand the extent to which the threat exists - whether that's the threat of a specific side effect or simply the threat of the primary objectives of the initiate.

Motivation

The gnostic mindset might be described as the motivation, whereas there process by which the gnostic corrects the world is hermetic.

That motivation is the sense of one being

By We will go about describing the gnostic mindset as it affects our world today.

Mechanisms and Factors

• dialectical redefinition of the enlightenment and liberal terminology
• directing focus to mythological long term goals (which may not yet be ready to be described)
• negation from present allows realization and understanding of those goals
• short-term goals of allegiance/commitment
  • demonstrate gnosis
  • social benefit of participation, and/or;
  • detriment of not participating

Gnostic Covidism

Covidism as a form of gnosticism is an eye-opening framing because it explains the multitudes who have completely come to disregard the benefits of the natural state of affairs in social, biological being - exposure to one another's biology. That is, the natural state of affairs has always been biological exposure.

Aversions to Infinite Regress

This isn't the first time that we come upon the discussion of whether it is considered scientific or even just sensible and valuable to consider questions of the infinite regress, particularly when looking at history and evolution. One might say that we find ourselves in a circumstance where we either a) no longer need to worry about such matters or b) the environment is such that it renders evolutionarily-mediated adaptations as completely irrelevant.

The other manner of dismissing questions of an Infinite Regress is to say that choosing how to spend our time means choosing amongst activities which lead to progress in our particular set of matters, or that those activities are best judged along the dimension of progress in relation to those affairs and that our knowledge base is such that we can, with high certainty, choose to implement changes or to completely avoid concerns that we might otherwise have, if considering a historical or evolutionary mode of conception.

Novel Facts

It's impossible to get around the historical fact of biological exposure, at all the worst times, and it having occurred in a manner which informs our biological structure and our ecological situation. We can claim that these things are only worth studying in a narrower frame, but that isn't immediately obvious, and is disposed to hubris and blindness.

It becomes far too easy to claim that something new has become the primary aspect of consideration so long as it is remarkable enough to gain any attention at all. Its novelty and new model of data cut a new path all on their own, without having had to stand the test of time, just so long as it relates to one's structure of consciousness well enough to afford them a moment of visualization. Whatever it lacks in the type of refinement which comes from revising and re-examining is offset by the sheer freshness of its new placement, and every moment that it enjoys attention may possibly permit it to generate an environment of discourse where it can be suggested to no longer regard any historical or evolutionary facts as being relevant.

You can reason to avoid massive parts of the discussion, such as about human nature, by eliminating anything beyond immediate, even superficial, analysis.

But What Evolves

The blatant thorn to such mystifying proposals is that we all seem to agree in the concept and scientific evidence for evolution. In this case, that is the factor of biological feasibility; the organism achieved and maintained biological feasibility not simply in spite of the conditions it encountered, but through having been moulded by them.

We also needn't note or understand whether there are lasting features or characteristics in humanity that aren't just an arbitrary feature of human embodied experience. Do we no longer need to understand our histories? Could the study of human knowledge have been averted.

Bio-Gnosis

• Aware of the dangers of biology
• Initial state of a human developed without inducing immunological adaptation is unacceptable
• Path to liberation

All biological interactions presuppose that there is a viable nature that can yield positive effects. Any perceived positive effect is always serving to obscure and make more difficult the realization of the reality of suffering, particularly for those who are able to understand just what is possible/what life the world can be transformed into.

Exposure to even more harm beyond the difficulty of life is akin to evil treachery which only serves capitalist and white heteronormative interests.

Initial States

As the narrative of COVID was normalized, many completely abandoned the idea that we could have a healthy adaptive response to any pathogen. That is that there is a finite capacity for adapting to anything, especially a pathogen, and that the adaptation itself is also deleterious to one's health in any theoretical absolute or narrowly scoped evaluation, and that as such we should consider our capacity to evolve with technology to support an ethical argument that we should avoid immunological adaptation in all situations except those expressly sought for specific and deliberate adaptation.

The idea here is that we can choose what particular antigen to adapt to, the manner in which we deliver it to the body, the time of administration, the target recipients, and so forth. With medical research and observational study of use, we can ensure that we have the most comprehensive understanding of these adaptations that is possible, and that this always is a more complete view than when contrasted when whatever adaptations are manifesting under the circumstance of raw living itself, which is brutal, unrelenting and a chaotic and perilous soup of entropic violence.

With these two framings, it's clear that one of them is a proposition for something that we can consent to, and that the other is not.

Who Consents

Further to the question of whether one consents to what they themselves choose to administer to themselves, or whether one chooses to allow themselves to inhabit the circumstances and environments which lead to their being exposed to something, there comes a new set of questions at another level of indirection: the exposure to one's peers.

Here we are clear that, in light of our improved understanding of the jumbled pathogenic landscape which we are already subjected to, we are now going to consider whether the fact of our being able to choose an adaptation, to mitigate some of that chaos, suffices as requirement to consider that those who fail to perform an adaptive action using a documented strategy or using a readily available tool or product are not causing others to be committed to an adaptive process to which they have not consented. Furthermore, we wish to understand whether one's failure to attempt the mitigatory strategy is itself constituting a form of consent, both in terms of one's intention to allow personal exposure and in terms of extending that exposure to others, by virtue communicating an explicit and deliberate choice to accept conditions which can be argued to potentiate a form of exposure of interest, with an understanding that such an exposure confers the undertaking of a transaction to which the other party is not necessarily privy nor, if even so, is not able to provide explicit consent. Is this an implicit act of choosing to give their consent to the potential occurrences which may result, and can they be deemed accountable for the consequences?

Better Past or Future

Is this the recollection of a better world of the past? At first it may not appear as such - what a ridiculous suggestion.

But you should see that they in fact do refer to a "better past", at least in the sense of likelihood or rate of encountering a deadly pathogen whose novel aspect was the product of a process whose of activity or differentiation was previously more modest. This is the dimension of corruption - the evidence not simply of things not being right in this world, but of the ways in which things are not right. That is, it informs us of the manner in which we should understand whether things are not right in this world.

Made Unright

In learning of this new mode of interpretation and evaluation for understanding whether the circumstance of the world is in right order, we are also proposing that this permutation of the world, in which a particular attribute can be logically discerned, is one for which the operations and activity which lead to its actuality are the effect of a human's activity, whether that activity is deliberate insofar as it relates to the outcome, and whether that activity and its contribution to that effect is best understood in a way which supports these assertions.

How It Was

Realize that it's presupposed that we had less volatile pathogenic circumstances prior to now, at least insofar as mutation or zoonotic transmission of a pathogen, and that in recent history there has been an acceleration in rate of occurrence or an increasing of the likelihood because we allowed capitalist greed to destroy efforts to make our world safer and more stable.

If climate change causes migrations of species such as to place the world into a configuration where biological obscenity takes place, then the supposition is that a previous, undisturbed world was more harmonious and not as liable to produce pathogens which seemed to be a "biological misstep".

But what is the mistake of biological life prior to capitalism and human technological development in pursuit of market exchange? It must be something akin to humans having to decay and die, and what makes it so would be God-like qualities which indicate both that man is meant to be more and that man will be able to understand the terror of their not having the means to avoid pain. Not having the means to negate the need to become lost in such realizations.

Whether that can be due to volitional work capacity, or simply capacity for self-reflection/awareness, it's something which becomes sought in Praxis (with the attitude that any unyet understood aspects of such a pursuit will be continuously better realized through each conflict).

Just one of our remarkable talents, separating ourselves from the animals, serves to make existence utterly unbearable given the fact that we must anticipate our failure, suffering and ultimate demise, knowing full-well that the childish excitement and curiosity of trying something new as a child simply has been kept from us as we continuously negate those parts of our personas.

Viral Genome

February 7, 2023

Is there separation between the various forms of mind virus running amok in society, or are they just superficially differentiated?

Bio-Prison

• Covidists see biological prison beccause all illness should be avoided.
• Queer activits and practitioners see biological prison because they weren't given an advantageous form with which to explore and do all they could have been (a divine form)

We are still cracking the shell of realizing the frame of mind that enables Covidism. Accept the premise that: human life will evolve through minimizing biological exposure between humans and all immunological adaptations of note

• No biological exchanges between humans.
• All immunological adptations are to be artifically induced
• The human becomes not something that is a product of life and environment, but;
• something created for withstanding the environment without being changed by it.

Sanctioned adaptation

• Even the most extreme and unnatural of changes are accepted, welcomed, encouraged and even made to be seen as moral imperatives, or;
• Set of mandatory modifications which one must perform in order to demonstrate that one's biological be admissible will expand
• The meaning of simple language must be transformed to:
  • Facilitate these transformations, or;
  • Make suggestion of these transformations unavoidable
• Parts of the world which suggest a human nature with inherent biological capability must be suppressed
  • All adaptations from those maximally beneficial to neutral biological adaptation must be ignored
• The potential for negative interaction with the environment is villified and exaggerated to cartoonish degrees, all the while adopting the language of the natural and presenting it as though nature and truly balanced and natural ways of being are sought and made possible through the state.
• That is, natural is made to be artificial, and the state is made to become the source of true nature

Collectivist Science

It was argued on Dyer/Lindsay/Coughlin that another way of thinking of Gnostic science, the Science, Wissenschaft Licher socializmus, vernunft, dual consciousness and all the rest is simply as that which argues in favour or in directly for collectivism.

Why is that?

Like the scientific process of history, it assumes things are inevitable and the way to prove it is to get everyone to agree that your vision of reality is the right one. It becomes guaranteed because post-modernism has given us the modality of accepting all language as synthetic in pursuit of power thus, if everyone agrees, we have the power, can curate meaning accordingly and then, finally, the collective will reflect my subjectivity into being.

Nothing I desire or declare can ever be impossible because the power of collective can generate updated meanings accordingly for it will work out in our favour regardless since the collective wishes to continue its existence and will, thus, create definitions which serve itself.

Conditioned into Inversion

February 11, 2023

People like having things on auto pilot, but mostly because they want the freedmo to not have to do, rather than the freedom to do.

The hubris of the gnostic death cult knows no bounds. They enjoy seeing other citizens suffer at the inability to advocate for tehir children's well-being. Specifically, it just becomes an opportunity whereby they can assert to lay claim that they, by virtue of their special knowledge or proximity to power an prestige, will get to decide not only what will be done for another's child's well-being, but the very concept of well-being itself.

If one's true nature and greatest potential for living a just life are only made possible throught he conditions of collectivism, then the only pursuit or aspiration for that child becomes the bringing about of that collectivist social structure. FUrthermore, the only work that the child can perform which is not unhealthy is that of bringing about the collectivist society. It is for your well-being to dedicate your health, body and the entirety of your mind to promoting and achieving the collectivity.

The last ditch effort to finally realize particular ways of Being. Well, it's realy just the only prospect of changing the nature of reality. There is a secret type of existence that we are being prevented of being amitted into because it would mean an elevated existence. In the current format, we cannot express our true nature and it remains this way because of an entity which benefits or assumes itself to benefit from existence as it currently stands and it might even be benefitting from your suffering directly! So either everyone gets on board with changing it or they all believe all is as you say, in which case it might as well be true.

He/Him Condition

Yet more he/hims are attempting to both be part of the environment while being isolated from it. Much of this is on the presumption that there is currently a viral pathogen that is capable of remarkably unique effects leading to particualrly harmful health changes, but that is completely false.

In reality, we don't need to constrain ourselves in mutual exclusion. That is, the effects of these viral pathogens arnd their incurred health changes by humans are something which was already occurring, but man humans were not aware of it simply because we didn't have pop culture and public health messaging so obsessively saturated with morbid detail and fear-inducing warnings and recommendations.

What Now?

So, now that we have established most of the arguments that COVIDISM and Queer Activism are cult religions attempting to create Totalitarian structures for the purpose of transforming reality, what is the path to the Second Enlightenment?

Directing people toward a better future must be multifaceted and account for things like momentum - we must enable development and advancement in such a way that people are challenged. People must be made to seek balance while never losing touch with a skill or capacity which causes them to lose momentum. That is, they can and should rotate their focus, but it should be done in such a way where they aren't losing touch or at lesat sight of it. On the other hand, maintaining the connection with the non-focused capacities should be maintained in such a way that they not only do not harm their performance with the focus, but even enhances the performance. This might seem like a fairytale, but we are standing on the shoulders of giants. We can already look towards the human body and understand the ways in which one focus can enhance another's focus.

Biological Obscenity

Feburary 15, 2023

What is all this biological obscenity? Is it all since modern mistakes were made, or is it the original fall of man? Is it the riddle of humanity? A fractal matrix of horrors?

The mind that aims for purity and prestige vis-a-vis the collective through insight into biological endeavours and their taking place under ideal conditions might look to the past and discern the differences with respect to our biological infrastructure and compare changes by rate of time and their rate of change in relation to human moral failures.

But what is the moral ideal? Well, it is the perfection of conditions for biological balance, expression, optimization, supremacy, resolution, longevity, etc. Those with the best biological outcomes as quality of experience, longevity etc.

We cannot see those conditions nor what has prevented their being reached, but they exist as an ideal conception at different levels of abstraction, continuously being reconstructed for the particular reference through which it is being recalled, often subconsciously as a grounding factor within a higher level representation of one's life experiences.

Dialectical Affiliation

February, 2023

Queer

Normalized patterns are fascist but its patterns must be normalized

• Actually normalized by the state
  • gatekeeper to law and power
• Reject the chaos of life and insist on guided existence so long as it grants arbitrary power to the state and carceral power to those who reject the structure of being

Socialist

Hates state ostensibly but demands everyone's allegiance and devotion.

• Demands the state gather and capture greater control in order to negate the capacity for humans to own property as an essential step towards granting everyone all property and eliminating the state.
• There are many representations of thi dialectical process, including ones which purport to have no ability to reach a complete abolishment of property or elimination of state, but it is nevertheless these qualities to which the sturcture of thought will obviate

Covidist

Necessitate any challenge of health in order to eliminate all challenges of health

Racialist

Make race essentialist to eliminate race (Mapping the Margins)

Hegelian

Particular from the whole. Being from negative (equal in quality universally, and absolutely equal in the abstract)

Abstract

How do we come to view ourselves as abstract: There might be many moments, but not the least of which being:

• when we note wisdom, insight or perspective based on observing the discovery of that wisdom or its complement
• environment
• health care
• When we extrapolate wisdom across humans, assume a model of linear trajectory, aim to understsand a perspective by placing ourselves in the relevant situation, and so forth
• As our abstract, do we come to also see ourselves as negative?

Dialectical Inversion

February 18, 2023

The dialectical inversions never quite complete, but they are best described as gaining power by criticizing and also proposing an alternative which solves the specific problem to which you had drawn attention

So, on the topic of weaving syntheses in order to supplant ideas and understandings through the technique of dialectical inversion, we come upon a technical discussion about work targets and work task viability. That is, we find ourselves looking to find the utility of normies (perhaps not fully-fledged NPCs) and it is contentious.

We see a balancing act taking place on the pivot of opinion surrounding an issue, but is that so much the aggregate of genuinely-formed opinion, or an expression of human mind and experience given a set of conditions? We might say that education makes some more courageous, but we can't be sure that everyone who comes to accept a better idea, or form a critique of a bad idea (or vice versa!), is doing so at the behest of courage or bravery.

Perhaps the better "go-to" perspective on this has to do with having a bare minimum of mage-level warriors wh can disarm the threat and flip the tables without completely selling out on one's principles. That is, people need a demonstration of what' spossibly when someone pushes to reveal more substance of the issue being deliberated. This, at a fundamental level, need be demonstrated to simply have it become enumerated. Things which are not enumerated can't be expected to be observed or discovered (though that isn't to say that they won't be).

Then, it alos has a time component to be considered. The effectiveness of the interaction considers a range of what outcomes might be achieved not just in the sense of success, but whether the transformed recipient might become semantically astute to a degree sufficient to provide significant assistance towards the disarmament and elimination of woke gnosticism.

And so they ask: "Why would you wish to eliminate something from the marketplace of ideas?" to which I first respond with "no one has said it must be eliminated as an idea". Literally, what they are doing, is invoking your principle or value of having the ability to have ideas juxtaposed and set into competition and proposing to transform its meaning to saying that an idea should be left uncriticized and unchallenged as proof that you are willing to be open to ideas, and new ideas in particular, as a whole. It's utter nonsense and it has nothing to do with proving that one acknowledges the value fo a marketplace of ideas. A market place of ideas is precisely why you aren't demanding that someone be silenced on the basis of them having described an idea to you. That you are willing to refute the idea specifically shows that you value the marketplace of ideas as you have upheld the standard which makes a marketplace of ideas possible. That is, discussion and debate rather than censorship.

But it is not enough for it simply to be enumerated and known of. You haven't actually given it a fair try because you speak ill of it without having attempted to practice it yourself - without having adopted it into your life and world in order to fully see how the particulars function against the whole.

So, there are a few issues here. The first of which being that, fundamentally, they are usurping and manipulating the means by which you sufficiently attempt/experiment with an idea. That is, there is no formal understanding of both what constitutes an idea being adequately explored, nor the degree to which one must have attempted to adopt it in experiment or how to understand whether one has formed a legitimate opinion. It is not even the case taht a formality can be compared for this, especially not without a breach of ethics and the potentiation of tyranny and domination.

The next issue is that there are, indeed, means of denying or rejecting an idea out of hand based simply on its proposed logical structure and, given that these ideas in contention are derived and continued from the domain of Critical Theory, we know already that the proposition itself is to supplant critical thinking with a process of dialectical inversion/inversion of praxis - to do so is an Act of Faith and, in this case, the Faith is presented as a rationale for undermining and eroding human freedom and liberty.

Freedom is an Ideology

February 20, 2023

Freedom is just an ideology which results in humanity having no freedom.

How do we quantify this assertion?

• We don't need to, at least not along an agreed-upon dimension or level of observation
• We, in fact, do quantify on the basis of whether we, ourselves, are satisfied with the environment and social structure, in real terms, phenomenologically, or theoretically - a theory of which only some are experts

Becoming an Expert in Theory

How do you become an expert in The Theory?

1. You must hold the opinion as the consensus of its experts
2. You must declare that the theory holds precedence over its alternatives
3. You must do the work!

And, so, here is the implicit Dialectic of Freedom. A synthesis presupposing that there is no principle of freedom. There is something much more complex and sophisticated in the sense that we can establish freedom through the following:

• Enumerate actions, characterizations, attributes and so on with which to evaluate one's freedom (score or index)
  • Assumes that quality and compisition of freedom are indeed universal, but only behind an opaque function which, yet again, can only be interpreted or defined by experts of The Theory
  • Assess populations, chosen by experts, to draw up this data as necessary and transform/modify/evolve the social structure as is appropriate

What of the default circumstance of Freedom as an Ideology, which assumes universality and which is used to prevent the creation and enforcement of laws which actually grant and enable freedom? Let us declare, define and critique.

Freedom, Definition and Critique

System

Temporality. Object localization. Movement potential. Dimensions of movement. Object creation/destruction. Object modification/transformation

Freedom is characterized, observed and expressed through:

• movement, constraint, access to resources, ability to think ,the proportion of unwasted time, connection to genuine, ability to avoid fallacy, life expectancy, personal ability
• We could come up with an infinite set of expressions and activities for which a case could be made that they constitute freedom itself, or can function as a legitimate proxy, and you can evaluate a freedom index or score to establish whether the state / apparatus - that is, they score your freedom according to their own conception of freedom or the proxies by which it is to be evaluated
• They enumerate a set of actions, expressions and circumstances which they represent as affecting a freedom score and then not only determine your freedom score through it, but measure their own progress insofar that they promote or create the freedom of others/the world (they also, consequently, completely monopolize not just the means of evaluating freedom, but even imposing an implied philosophical argument or concept as to what freedom is)

Who gets to decide what constitutes freedom? Those with freedom or those without?

Freedom is one's own free movement along any conceivable dimension. One might say that freedom is also, then, the freedom to harm and oppress, but that is not so perfectly apparent. Causing harm to other humans in some ways constrains even the person causing that harm. Emotional disturbance and conditioning to no longer be made content through other actions and circumstances. Now, through habituation, they fall into a destructive pit.

Infringing on Freedoms

And even if one's own freedom is somehow maintained, the fact that it has potential to infringe on the freedom of others in any capacity means it's not only a freedom but also a constraint.

That's right! Any and all actions with a body in space time will certainly infringe on others, if even by occupying space that could otherwise be occupied by another (or be made a part of one's prospective pathway which is now made difficult to conceive of due to your having infringed on the possibilities of space and movement of others), thus there can always be a rationale that your actions - your every action - incurs cost and burden to all others and that your very existence means that you must pay for the cost you placed on the world. In a world of data, this must be recorded and tracked - if we are to have an equitable and inclusive society.

So, you see, your very existence is, in a sense, unreasonable. It does not make sense that a being, such as yourself, should have come to be only as a net cost to the world. This is a form of original sin and though one might point to primitive peoples of primitive times, such peoples were actually sophisticated to maintain their process of survival with fewer tools and less knowledge.

The Body that Infringes

How can you repent for having a body? Repent for not being immortal. Repent for the density of your existence; you should be no more dense and sluggish than light, which should be the case if you are pious and pure; if you contribute revolutionary energy; if you bring about Critical Consciousness.

The sin of the body is eternal, with prehistoric theological thinking having first realized the potential for sex-related depravity. You cannot fool everyone, but when I am serious about discovering options, use both sides and reap rewards.

How would we have first discovered shame through the body? Being simply less capable in any regard? For at least hundreds of thousands of years, but perhaps millions, human-like beings have been sufficiently intelligent to reflect on their environment, actions, cause+effect, survival potential and their sensations and emotions.

Comparisons

The comparison that a being may have placed itself in may have been against other peers of differing stature and abilities and age, or even against one's conception of how they would feel if successful (more). It does not really require more than that in order to feel negative emotion with respect to limitations and circumstances surrounding one's existence through the perception afforded by having the body.

For all of these thousands to millions of years, that body could not change. There were no sophisticated and lasting mechanisms by which one could adopt the means of enhancing or presenting as enhanced their body / physical form.

One wonders whether the earliest experiences of shame caused the beings in question to lie. Because we now lie even without feeling the shame, but to keep ourselves from feeling it (if even several levels of abstraction removed from the context of that shameful scenario

Valuing Critical

March, 2023

Faux Stance

What is the goal with critical thinking but to challenge existing limits on what is known in order to bring about enlightenment and development?

Of course, that's absurd, as one is critical to critique the existing society which they feel cannot serve. It's the ruthless criticism of all that exists (the existing order), not to means of putting forward the society which does serve. The terms of the truly harmonious society are not comprehensible within the current existing order, thus it must be torn down - it must be taken down and dismantled to alleviate the limits of subjectivity. That is to say, a creative and productive approach would posit the replacement for the society, but the assumption is that the path to a new society - to a good society - would be found be critiquing exising aspects of the current society out of existence. Identify and target the aspects which should be destroyed so that the ideal society can be conceived of

What could possibly be holding humanity's development and enlightenment than subjugation, indoctrination, wastefulness and malicious excesses? Surely we can see that in the periods that we suddenly have growth, or make progress, that things can rapidly improve -> from temperment to the quality of life, to the degree that someone can become serious in their operational capacity.

So, it is actually you who has failed to be critical. You circumvent the opportunity to present the widest variety of perspectives on the matter, preventing yourself from thinking critically.

What is happening, here? Incessant and ambiguous demands that you aren't valuing particular evidence or ideas based on the presumption that those forms of argument present an approach that is referred to as "critical". Critical thinking is being supposed, but then being represented as anything which "challenges existing limits on what is known" or anything that leads to "enlightenment" and "development").

Any demand for political power and resource distribution, so it is obviously something which potentiates development. Resources lead to education and, thus, to enlighten those who most need it.

The play on all the terms that people trust and assume they can rely on is exhausting, and also the deliberate target of those who seek maximum utilitarianism. For them, the utility proves that it is true and that it should be no surprise for anyone who has attended school.

Teachers are one reason for this, but we should always remember that the soruce/initiating factor for the socially utilitarian truth is the children; that is to say, it is ourselves - as this is a natural, evolutionarily supportable, self-preserving approach to understanding and communicating about truth. In a sense, th pragmatists' truth ends up being the only one which can be analyzed and validated. It's the only thing that you've seen for sure whether it has power-power to evoke change, power to be believed, and the power to be so evidently the description of how things should be.

Pejorative Directions

Again, it is a shame to see so much concern about one's declared political disposition as well as one's political associations. Even more profound, however, is one's concern as to whether their choice is recognized as being of the colour and association that they prefer. But why is it a preference? Why not simply have a behaviour and disposition of one's own that no political cookie cutter can accuratel describe? Why not put all the effort into determining what you think and why, rather than what framing of your thoughts is likely to cause onlookers or interlocutors to perceive you some particular way? If you are operating in this way, you have misrepresented yourself and you likely don't have developed thoughts on the matter in question. You ar e aslave to your desire for social benefit and you choose your position in the social hierarchy as having greater iportance than your thoughts, or even having thoughts. You are a slave to sensations and you are foregoing the opportunity to bring something unique into being.

Back to Chaos

March 10, 2023

We must melt off the murky cultural confusion and direct group associations which feed pride and ego, and just generally impede progress and understanding. Ultimtaely, we need to see each participant's behaviour at the level of analysis where they are most alike and then traverse to higher levels of abstraction and use the previous understanding to make more insightful predictions and descriptions.

We are complex beings because there are many facets of our being that can be examined and used to make more robust a proposed understanding or theory of our behaviour.

We have sensations - a continuous set of cascading seas interwoven intuitively and calibrated in effect, defining our experiences, adjusted such as to incorporate those sensations in perceptive frame and memory formation, be it through a sensation being made more apparent and influential, all the way to the opposite be it by valence or type of parameter.

Together, as a matrix of properties and processes, it forms an expression of being which itself is not limited to within, or amongst the self.

But what too we have is fierce and rabid desire to help us insist on the voice of logos echoing through the field of reality. The unrelenting, stubborn drive to charge forward with the entirety of whatever capactities can be afforded as an unwavering assault through the contour of a perceived environment. Taking its shape and pattern as it appears and following through with an expressive interplay with it. A complete and continuous flow where the intiation and reaction are indiscernible - collapsing into one another so perfectly as to be expressing total stability.

Is that what is being harnessed, here? To reduce everyone to a complete loss of cotrol and intolerant mode so that they clamour and whimper for the only matter that they believe will satiate their emotive needs while also completely starving them of other nourishment? The real satiating parts of life have nothing to do with access to material sensation. The fulfilling of emotional or carnal desires can never articulate the omega part of the journey. In fact, such a thing could only serve to cloud the path and process. (makes no sense - was falling asleep)

Manipulative Money

March 2023

• Insisting that a position taken is predicated on one contentious memory
• Complete intolerance of perspectives you disagree with
• Attitude of entitlement to your company
• Ignorance that your mood affects others
• Passive aggression through referring to you and your life as depraved
• Expressions of disgust
• Endless self-indulgeance
• Bringing up issues you disagree on and then circumventing your perspective through playing the subject off of others
• Pretending to be ignorant as to your position on a matter
• Bringing the state's authority and ideals into domestic environments
• Pretending to care for hearing one's perspective while never listening
• Failure to demonstrate family loyalty and cohesion vs ideals of the state
• Demonstrating that you are willing to keep company with those whose values you don't care to hear

Health Crisis

March, 2023 The path to transform reality interfaces through the issue of health. Public Health Gnosis

• What it means to be healthy
• The carceral aspects of reality making health unfeasible
• Health cannot be achieved without changing reality
• The human body is not naturally healthy
• We must come close to death in order to have a healthy life
• The only path to any individual health is through collective commitment

Covid State of Working People can impose restrictions:

• because they are the humans that work to create Communism
• other humans aren't trying to stop dominating through capitalism
• everything they hope for is predicated on a belief of forcing their constraints on others -> dictatorship
• the helpless, individually unhappy, non-working workers
• no hope to create their own health -> must define what health will be and then force everyone to agree and express that manner of health
  • making it the idea and understanding of health which exists in our reality

Tribal

We can be swayed to a tribal position on any issue.

Not a matter of logic, but an enforcing of a change in lexicographical ordering whether by competing factors or choice of level of abstraction.

With race, for example, they have completely rejected the concept of colourblindedness and have come to represent it and refer to it as an aspect of White Supremacy, the ideology of Whiteness, and even the ideologies of Capitalism and Colonialism.

This isn't exactly to say that they don't think there are people who genuinely believe they are treating everyone equal, or not applying judgement by race, or even that it isn't possible that someone might be or could become capable of doing just that (though most would reject the latter as impossible), but that to do so would itself be an act of racism, and that it perpetuates racism by not taking the opportunity to enact or compel antiracism.

The Pronoun Trigger

March 2023

They claim your failure to use the language demanded of you si evidence of you being triggered, but wait until they find out that you don't actually speak in reference to them except as a fascinating study of human behaviour, social conditioning, psychology and cultural revolution.

It's a shame that their school environment has declared that a modified handle and process of speech is necessary for them to be respected, reassued, and made more stable, because it posits that the manner in which they lived their life was not sufficient and that this was due to their mind or soul being incongruent with the social constructions made around and about their body.

But this presumes that the distinctions which exist between humans, as expressed in terms of the structure fo the human body which have allowed for humans to have existed as long as they have, are also complete fabrications, and that one's choice with respect to one's perception of one's own body is just as arbitrary.

The fact is that there are always complications which come with having a body, and any path which increases those complications cannot be presented as being an approach more conducive to health of being.

The Freedom Loving Socialist

Interesting to see self-proclaimed socialists who advocate Freedom of Speech. It seems to me that the vast majority of these are slightly older to senior aged and that their position and opinion thereof is the product of assuming the plentiful runoff more than suffices to provide living and thriving resources for the entirety of the populace.

So much effort is spent to convert people to one's view rather than feeling that we are so privileged to have access to a variety of views and perspectives. This is partly because of the socially-mediated, and even professionally and survival-related consequences that exist today, but it is also, in a more direct sense, the consequence that much of the framing and dialogue comes in a form which accuses the other of wrongdoing.

So, why do I see a distinction? What is my excuse?

1. The framing is done to fabricate a model/stereotype and then hold it over you as a constant threat while forcing you to always hear their recitation of reality which they recruited you for as a witness to confirm it is true through your absence of protest, knowing full-well that they are being manipulative, threatening and abusive by doing so (but excusing it under the belief or stated belief that it is measured and serving a great purpose).

2. The simple fact that absence of action is not action, or especially not the action you portray it as

Proxy Debunking

No one really cares to debunk the debunk when it's not something which represents the issue in the first place, much less the take on the matter that someone particularly had composed out of their concern.

What are people concerned about, with this transformation of law, standards, wealth, public health apparatus and culture? Quite simply, they are concerned that their value, and the value in pursuing existence through the human experience, are being suppressed and made into unnecessary suffering

Duality

There are those who already believe the human experience itself is acceptable and improving, and others who claim they cannot accept this / cannot tolerate it.

On Freedom

If freedom is defined as a being's ability to undertake, affect and transform as per dimensionally discernible movement, then the crucial apparatus through which these movements can be determined to be viable/feasible and just would be that of speech, as it is through interlocutory transaction, argumentation and understanding that the consequences of these movements can be understood.

Dialectic of Life

Thesis

• Living

  Antithesis

• Dying

  Synthesis

  Existence having purpose through instantiation of life conflicts with antithesis

• This occurs as individual life, but;

• the collective, as abstract, is eternal and without limitation through determination

Death

Death is only a part of life because we must be forced to exist as individual bodies, but do we not yearn for unity and togetherness? Is not all we do because of awareness to the existence of others?

What might we think and do if the yearning and pain were alleviated while still retaining our consciousness? Is it not already suspected by some that, upon death, through our return to the void, that our frame of perception and mode of existing becomes an expression of unity, being, all, one, awareness in the pure immediacy? That this occurs as a totality?

Covidism as Marxism

Yes, "Covidism" (imo) is a subset of Marxism. Or, at least, it retains the core theological aspect of Marxist thinking and it uses the dialectic to synthesize concepts like health, consent, and so forth.

It also uses historicism

Covidism also always asserts that those who do not conform to the new collective totality are doing so because of ideology, which very much follows a Marxist definition for "ideology"

There are even covidists who are explicitly Marxist in the sense that they will proclaim that capitalism resulted in the conditions for SARS-CoV2 to come about, point to disaster capitalism failing to fulfill its duty to mankind, and so forth

Just as Marx's conception of man was as a being to be completed in order to attain its nature as a species being, the covidist conception is one where its inherent structure is incomplete and must be made whole through the new synthesis of health

This is why desire for natural immunity is a form of blasphemy, in a sense, because it functions as a contradiction towards completing the sanitized and immunologically complete being that could only come to fruition through public health

Belief in the validity of one's health as an individual is a form of false consciousness, much in the way that a Marxist views false consciousness as that which excuses the material conditions of bourgeois society

That said, I do prefer the sound of "Covidian" to "Covidist", but I believe the latter to be more correct

Marxist Theology reca

Origin

man creates himself, which is why he's separate from an animal (Marx specifically sidestepped the question of infinite regress by making fun of the questioner and saying "are you an abstraction? Man should only owe his life to himself").

Man creates the world which not only creates man but also refining the idea of what it means to be human.

Telos:

Man's purpose is to complete himself as a species being, and he does this through through praxis which advances history using dialectical materialism

Communism is basically what begins when that process completes

Ontology:

The meaning of existence as man is a consequence of man's ability to conceive of that which changes the world, to create it, and then to be changed by it

If he didn't have this volitional ability, the meaning of his existence wouldn't be based on having to change anything.. he could just exist like an animal

but because of this ability, he's basically in a prison until he can free himself by changing the world until he can fully understand himself and spiritually nourish himself through nature as the object of his subjectivity

Theodyssey:

The tragedy of existence is the evil in the world which is a consequence of division of labour creating structural conditions with a stratified class structure of humans in conflict with one another.

The great plight is to work through the violence, pain and struggle to move history until domination ends

Soteriology:

Salvation occurs through dialectical praxis (putting theory into practice, which actualizes reality and is the only truly scientific way of thinking, since it considers the activity in the historical sense that the significance of its effect is towards the very end of history which represents the most complete context of all activity (this is why use values of goods differ from their price in a market economy)

So, again, salvation by faith in the theory which informs your practice in a spiraling process where nothing needs to be yet understood, yet this is the most scientific way of doing things 🤡

Axiology

The true values being transacted in this existence are insofar of doing the work, the praxis - consciously advancing history. The process of history and man's inability to attain his true nature until its completion gives rise to duties of conscience.

Epistemology (Gnosiological):

What is true is what is what advances theory and history. As with Hegel, subject is not separate from substance, so you have true knowledge which can't be proven or disproven in the current frame of history, since not everything can be realized until man is free to follow through with the conceptions of his mind.

The epistemology is literally that things which advance it are true and things which don't are false.

This is why, for example, in Canada, they supposedly found these underground graves of indigenous kids from 70-80 years ago and, now that it seems there's no real evidence of it, it's complete blasphemy to deny it as something confirmed true and real.

What's real is that liberation is achieved by doing the thing which moves history towards liberation. In that case, it's the unfounded, romanticized story about dead indigenous kids. That has the REAL effect of making progress.

Saying that the evidence of it isn't so good is friction against that progress, and is therefore false. Your only motivation for doing such a thing is because of your ideologies which gave you false consciousness.

Everything is incomplete. You just have to have faith in the process because of your gnosis that you are trapped in existence and could only live your true, fully actualized life once once a totalitarian collective has all achieved the same consciousness, since the consequence of that is utopia.

How to Create the World

To create the world, you must be conscious. This means that you notice which magic spells are being cast - that is, the language being used, by who and what it serves.

You can essentially determine how conscious other people are by seeing how much they agree with you without descending to complete naivety (either because they offer no conflict and mirror all your opinions, or because the rationale for their shared position seems something of a caricature).

So only your tribe can be creating the world (as opposed to other tribes which are creating the anti-world or whom are poisoning, wasting and killing the world, or are creating a false world which hides the fact of there being a real world to be discovered or created), and you are constantly paranoid that your members are playing for the other team - that is, they must continuously move with you in the same direction and by the same magnitude or at the same velocity. Anything reminiscient of the past has become the other side - the reactionaries.

But also, engaging any system or partaking in any activity needs to become another instance of being...

We Are All Gnostics

What makes us all predisposed to the manner of perceiving and engaging the world as a gnostic (from the gnostic mindset)?

Mortal Thinking

Perhaps it comes from the following question: If life is something good then why do we live to die? Once we realize our mortality we fall into fantasy and imagine the ways in wihch our personal existence might be saved.

Gnostic Historicism

Historicist thinking allows us to expect anything not yet actualized. It all occurs along one train of time, making it apparent that things which happen are part of the array of things that can happen as well as that of things that are to happen.

We are seduced by the belief that we can change reality and, perhaps later, that we can come into a higher level understanding of reality such that the perception of it conforms to our conception through reflection of that reality by other perceptions. The confirmation of seeking and discovering evidence of other perceptions confirming particular ideas is used to cultivate that higher level representation of the phenomena we encounter.

If we can get the state to pursue a conception that we have affinity for, we are liable to perceive it as reified and becoming actualized. In this case, reification not in the sense of that claimed of bourgeois mystification, but the reification of a conception of reality which approaches the endpoint alluded to by historicist thinking.

Built into our base cognitive architecture, we continuously seek ways to simplify the complex for otherwise we drown in such immense complexity that perception and, by extension, existence itself is revealed as grotesque and obscene. Something no to be accepted, approached, or considered palatable.

Intelligently Unique

March 23, 2023

It's particularly pernicious to face the idea, narrative and the advertising/promotion elements of ideologies which, independently and as a whole, presents that persons of a particular way of thinking (as represented within those ideologies) are as they are because of increased intelligence and uniqueness. That they notice what others cannot notice or have difficulty in noticing.

Aspects:

• unique mind
• withstanding a greater burden
• intelligent
• new intelligence
• their achievements are heightened while also being difficult to compare against
• simply being is a monumental accomplishment

Queer/Trans

• place "neuroatypical" under the umbrella of Queer
• statistical studies/surveys showing interesting data
• reinforces one's focus on anxiety, giving one reason to engage in the activities as other to the anxiety - to the anxious nature of the supposed unique self
• affirmation:
  • love-bombing
  • companionship
  • you declare congruent/relevant identity presupposing framing of ideology
  • all identities also include oppressor/sin asect
  • you must do the work
• those outside this way of thinking are liars/deceived/immoral and harmful to the sacred, pure, unique and truly intelligent
  • this purity is not insofar as the traditional uncorrupted/sexless purity as cast by fable, but expresses purity of theory - demonstrates a construct that is pure with respect to the theory

Unconventional Warfare

March 25, 2023

There are tactics being used that are designed to exploit the very best characteristics of humanity. Your patience, open mindedness, willingness to give people the benefit of the doubt, etc. Anything that you might associate with the concept of liberal tolerance (not liberating tolerance, which is a very difficult and different thing, indeed, especially when sorting through the dialectical framings and attacks which attempt to blend these concepts in an ambiguous concept used to undermine psychological and intellectual stability and introduce confusion to set the conditions for a dialectical inversion).

We see it with the Attorney General in New York, who has promoted the symbols of reading and the rainbow. How interesting that it is still the most innocuous of the flags - maybe I'm reading a bit too much into that but if drag is supposed to expose children past the limits of conventional being then it stands to reason that the most conventional flag, now associated by queer activists as being monopolized by the most privileged among them - in fact by those who effectively use the moment to focus themselves, while extinguishing the authentic, passionate drive of the liberation-seeking collective.

But they call it "don't say gay". Get over it. Gay is so far accepted that you can't find any example of those words being suppressed or forbidden except by the progressive sauce who subsist from the stereotyping itself.

Everything done is as a provocation. This means that a dichotomous scenario of you reacting or being inactive are both considered and each of these is considered as being a winning outcome for the purveyor of unconventional warfare in the form of a dialectical attack.

Dealing

People never quite realize what they're dealing with when the context of every situation now includes an ideology that is cynically seeks complete transformation of society and, perhaps most importantly, is a system of thought which considers itself the only means of not practicing an ideology. Because of this, you must continuously declare obedience, demonstrate servitude, pledge allegiance to an

This is because it has redefined ideology to mean the set of ideas and systems which resist submitting to their goal of totalitarianism, which they define as some form of spontaneous socialism (which itself has to be forced, so that the conditions for the spontaneity can be made).

As we previously mentioned, the objective is always to provoke a reaction. But you have only limited options for what to do:

• nothing: do you have this luxury? Forever? Encroachment?
• pre-emptive action
• reaction

AI and Transhumanism

March 26, 2023

Do these get to be separate issues?

It's best to be clear about what level of abstraction is used to understand each of these, because I do not think they are the same.

Transhumanism exists as the idea - the concept of changing the human being so that human capabilities transcend their limits. We can get into the weeds about why this might be sought or desired, but it is always the same concept: transcend limitations of the human form, such as it has evolved to have become what it is today.

AI has concepts and ideas behind it, but it is most fundamentally technology. More specifically, it is the attempt to develop digital technology which mimics human thinking/human mind. One might opine over whether it is centered on creating or replicating the human mind, whether it is a reproduction of the human neural matrix or, more generally, an automated ability for a decision-making apparatus which can go beyond the limits of pre-programmed intervention.

Worth mentioning Bruno's theory that fantasy of creating self absent other sex involvement is expressed by males.

We already do things equivalent to asserting minds have been read - more through double-meaning and overriding any presumption of reason. Now, we create evidene to take place of what would have otherwise been purely subjective. That means that, from that point onward, we have official mind-reading evidence available to the state in a standardized format, and we can only expect two things:

• it will expand/become more sophisticated, and;
• it will be used to improve the state's ability to predict us, and (bonus);
• even for the state to generate inputs for our consumption in order to prompt us to provide it with the output it wants to see.

If this begins (and it has in many respects), eventually the state will expect a minimum amount of data from each of us.

Transhumanism vs AI

March 27, 2023

Do they even compare? At different levels of abstraction. AI is transhumanism but the reverse is not also true.

Transhumanism: concept to transcend the inherent limitations of the bioevolutionarily created human being. Everything from medidicine to a walking stick to hyperbaric oxygen therapy to handheld devices to pacemakers to neural implants to prosthetics/prosthesis are successful implementations of transhumanism or things that bear some degree of being transhumanistic ie having relevance to understsanding ourselves as having capability beyond our inherent and discrete form.

The next step would be a more explicit and profound application of AI to human ability than what is currently evident.

What would make for a good demarcation of this progression would be something which requires more of a commitment on the part of the person -> physical integration with the body, production and transmission of data that will be recognized as representing your state of being in REAL TIME to a governing entity, whether that be the state itself (sovereign) or something akin to a powerful company (the corporation!).

Religion of Resentment

March 28, 2023

Even if not all can explicitly see it for what it is, most likely intuit it at the level of sentiment and through resonance either of the expression or as is expressed within themselves when embodying the speaker of the word, actor of the performance and generator of the movement.

In most cases it is the same - a victimization of one's existence necessitating a correction not from the self, as one is not accountable, and not from existence itself (as a reality) as it cannot yet be delivered, but from all other entities that share in having an experience (actualization of existence). It is fundamentally a childish sentiment which breeds unreasonable rage.

The sentiment necessarily reaches a characfter and strength of unrelenting hate and disgust for one's fellow man, and pity and loathing for the self, first out of discontent for self, and later out of attempting to ignore one's awareness to the fact that they are playing an ever more committed role of the petulant and ungrateful child. The anxiety comes from a never-resolving suspicion that as one traverses the path of constructing a simulacrum, one will never be able to reach the desired endpoint.

The only solution is to enforce the most hyper-real simulacra and a specific interpretation of it that is so totalizing and absolute that doubt cannot manifest to seed anxiety and uncertain again. This is the goal of totalitarianism.

The Cult Religion

April 2, 2023

1. Target initiates
2. Introduce mythology. Codify world in its terms
3. Place them in that world, inducing anxiety, guilt and anger
4. Provide antidote: a) ritual to affirm/confess b) life-long commitment to purification (do the work)
5. Work: Create conflict
6. Replace family with found family

Whole Child

April 6, 2023

Whole implies that this framework has a more complete understanding of the matter than similar frameworks, or those it intends to supplant.

• Asserts that there are goals that cannot be attained due to certain impediments -> systemic forces
• Anything not applying the same theory is the systemic force, by default

Generative

Data-mining - what makes your child tick?

Any prospect of uncovering or declaring a new identity becomes evidence that the whole child is being addressed, because:

1. It increases the quantity of aspects that have been assessed or touched upon and;
2. even if it's wrong, it becomes an increment in the path of doing this work

This all means that there will be a bias for seekign to declare new identities over something and though it can be so easily performed with simple redundancies, that practice creates momentum for identity declaration and the prospect of declaring a liberatory identity carries the weight of itself being a form of liberatory praxis based on the theories which inform the applied whole-child model.

Sin and Karma

April 8, 2023

One must remember that for them, though they use the word frequently, it's not about process (at least, not in terms of the quality of process). They have a mystical outlook and already believe that they see the end of history, or at least feel that they have a sense/intuition as to the direction things will proceed by until reaching that endpoint. So, for them, they needn't critique the process itself (they will appear to be doing that, but what they are actually doing is critiquing something to suggest that it is not actually part of the process to which they are adhering, and if there is any doubt they will simply frame their process using a description from a higher level, or a reference to the higher level through a shared characteristic from the low level).

For them, sin in this context is simply a failure to demonsrate loyalty to the process by virtue of its high-level description and ultimate endpoint, which has to be the conformed definition of an end of history or idealistic target. They define all of these things through the dialectic, such as by continuously replacing the thing they criticize with a thing which even does that which was the meat of their criticism (but at least now it's being done explicitly and with intention).

ES Acronyms

April 9, 2023

Something that isn't adequately recognized in our understanding of some of the new industry regulations / standards is not that they are an imposition of demands on certain companies, or even that they produce new market dynamics which can be used to provide disparate advantages to certain entities within an industry, but that it is a step in the dissolution of the ability for humans to vote.

Not only can this be seen in the sense that the new regulations are ones which are formulated without input from citizens, or that they are applied without agreement and acknowledgment by citizens, but it is becoming readily appraent that citizens are losing the ability to vote with their dollras or feet.

That is to say, profitability is being replaced with financability, and since everything works within bubbles, it is less important for a company to turn a profit than it is for them to adhere to these regulations, emphasizing top-down dynamics which naturally extend from centralized, authoritative interests rather than those that have culminated from the ieas, sentiments and behavours of the ppulace or, specifically, public citizenry.

It might seem that these affect certain industries and the largest companies, but we have seen how, in the past 3 years, a declaration of emergency leads to sudden and aggressive destruction and transfer of their assets into these largest of corporations which are most significantly participating in all of the newly instantiated market regulations, namely those of inclusion and sustainability or, put another way, those that are congruent to the UN SDGs.

Structured like a Bitch

April, 2023

Everyone has to be a victim of the structure in order to have fire and the structure is the root of every problem.

Remember younger years where, no matter who you are, you had a different conception of what is possible and why? Not necessarily what is technically possible, but what the range and quality of one's intuited expectations happen to be. It might be something only worth representing as a phenomenological event, that is, a snapshot of your neuropsychological state, the visually expressed generation which accompanies the moment of conception, and so forth.

...

Other

April 2023

Is everyone so afraid of being an other? Does the fact of being an other offend them so greatly that they are unable to enjoy being itself? Why have a desire for something leading to absolution in the material realm? If truly you believe that this is the order of things for all, then why not have faith that it comes to pass?

Commentary needed on Rosa Luxemburg's natural progression of Socialism VS state-mediated conscious instigation of proletarian revolution argued by Gyorg Lukacs in terms of the Bolsheviks

Simone de Beauvoir speaks of the female itself as though it is chiefly defined as Other to male, is forced to accept this by men, and that somehow this distinction might not exist if not for this dynamic (the last part is implied). But realy, how would you wish for it to be different? Could it be different at the most fundamental levels, or is this focus taking place at another level?

The truth is that once you make your case and predicate it on woman-ness, or the concept of an identity, then the reactionarism and even duty becomes to push back on it anywhere you might relate, and this naturally lends to the outlook that if you are angry, or discontent, then you now have a means of making your case at any level you where you feel comfortable to proceed.

And so let's think about how this fundamentally leads to a gnostic outlook. A conflation of the naturally emergent structure yielding a female experience and phenomenology with the assertion that one's enforced role in society is one of performing an invitation to serve and be violated in such ways that exacerbate the subjugation.

The problem with this mode of protest is that, regadless of one's intuition or beliefs, the protest itself is seen as performative.

Effeminate Bigotry

April 15, 2023

Predicated on the proposal that a enhanced image of a man posing effeminately and made to look female is proof that a man has now become a woman

This has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

• Photoshopped pictures indicate that this is again something asserted artificially
  • even your example is positing that reality is supplanted as what can be actualized per someone's beliefs as prompted through greater indirection, if necessary
  • Also, lends to the concept of a religion which sees reality as being composed through belief as opposed to something that is
  • It is becoming through the beliefs and language.
  • If, indeed, these people pass as well as someone of teh biological sex that they are mimicking, then there is really no problem - but that isn't the issue at hand

What we have here is a demand for legal support to put those who couldn't possibly pass in thos environments, and this invites many issues being avoided (purposefully?) with your heavily tampered representations. Buck Angel doesn't have this issue, but a large overweight man with sexual pathology can and will take advantage of teh social means of acting out the fantasies bound to his pathologies, and one can call another names for having brought it up, but that doesn't really matter to someone who is speaking to reveal truth rather than seeking operational success at all costs.

So why even try to conflate these things? Obviously the issue has to do with either those who do not present in a way which convinces others that they are in the appropriate washroom, as well as those who, regardless of how they present, are engaging in activities which cause one to be understood as either trespassing or harassing in some capacity.

Covid Sensibility

The covid narrative was the ultitae reset for instilling a new biologically mediated (psychologically pronounced) sensibility for Socialism. The redistribution schemes, the perilous outlook towards a perceived common enemy that can supposedly only be defeated, or at least mitigated, through submission to the state and its dictates - a set of dictates and explications that are understood to be both fluid, not necessarily accurate, yet still both better than any suggestion from a citizen, while also being something which should never be questioned.

To even doub or hesitate complete submission to the states dictates is seen and treated as malice towards every other citizen; this is something for which no patience, tolerance or consideration is to be afforded. In fact, those who engage in such repugnant behaviour are to be disenfranchised and described as destined for death as a form of capital punishment not by state, but by nature itself.

Nature, as we have seen described in elucidations and analyses of modern instances of collectivist religions, is something which is denied in the sense of it producing anything of its own accord, but the same does not hold for destruction, erasure and negation. That is, it is the ultimate

Nature, as we have seen described in elucidations and analyses of all the modern instances of collectivist religions, is something which is denied in the senes of it producing anything of its own accord (this is expressed to different degrees, but it is ultimately that our activity is either, at one extreme, that our activity is responsible for it in its totality, or that our activity is such that nature itself is overcome or overridden), but the same does not hold for destruction, erasure and negation. That is, it is the ultimate dialectical synthesis for a natural order that is to be replaced by the impetus and capacity for Man's creation of reality.

The consequence of this is that there is no requirement to yield a specified structure representing some endpoint. Instead, the negation process makes clear that something has been decried as immaterial.

Feminism is Extremely Effective

Social constructivism; necessarily has to become anti sex-essentialist, rendering the gender critical feminism's contingent ineffectual and receiving it, though ingenuously (only because biology is either real, or it is not the most universally reasonable means of describing life on earth that we can agree on), as reactionary and seeking to conserve, which, whether you agree or not, is something woke will posit as anti-progressive and right wing.

From a purely logical standpoint, that has to be true in all cases except through insistence on an understood biological reality

The crux of this is that if criticism of Patriarchy includes the insistence that sex essentialism, which is biology, is used to oppress, then the logical endpoint is Queer Theory. It becomes nearly impossible to differentiate properly between biology as oppression, misuse of biology as oppression, and bad biology/incorrect biology as oppression, because the discourse will take place in forums of the subject which sublate it, or ones which claim to be marginal to the milieu in which they contend the subject is able to breathe itself through the social fabric.

Again, we must touch on the statement "You are not born a woman, but become". This clearly Hegelian statement follows the same logic of seekign to transform in order to self-beget. It already was the case that the woman should reject any notion of what it might mean to be a woman, even if she agrees that there is a biological reality, or that women have a body which specifically differs from that of a man. But Queer Theory took the same idea and made sure to apply it quite specifically to the body -> especially that of the woman.

Once you name the Patriarchy as your sworn enemy, this must become a mystical movement which can never be satisfied. With other more vulgar domains of thought, an identified enemy, whether through malice or false consciousness, can be destroyed as a materially discernible entity. But the purpose of Patriarchy will remain until such time as feminism is no longer viable (Double negation).

Hope

There was but one mild glimmer of hope that a feminist could, upon seeing how her own philosophy would be used against her, come to lose interest in holding to the tactics of Activism that rely on it.

Who is ready to move past the solace, comfort and assurance that a group provides? That might be perfectly alone, but they have the sense that in the great plight of it all, there exists comrades in arms who are resonating at a compatible frequency and that, together, they are creating, or at least acknowledging, the true reality.

It's not that far-fetched as humans come to match temporal cycles in other regards, including even facial expressions and body language. So what are these other dimensions of human existence which might synchronize and influence one another accordingly? Does the fact of women synchronizing menstrual cycles speak to our ability to have faith in changing the world in ways which don't need to be understood? Could we imagine that we create the perfect human by having similar faith? How about, that it is worth suppressing and repressing humanity on its journey towards that end?

Patience for the Intolerant

April 29, 2023

Remember that only one side of the simulated dichotomy was wishing to make intolerance an explicit modus operandi for their formulation of progress, and that the implication of disagreeing with this idea comes at the cost, as per the evaluations inherent to that dichotomy, one into someone who tolerates Nazis and is then, by extension, smoeone who keeps the company of Nazis -> this is, as we've seen through smears predicated on representing groups as Nazis based on even allegations of the presence of, not even particular people, but even just an artifact of any kind.

The proposition is then, of course, to become a foot soldier for their causes as well as also to have you acknowledge their right to define the meanings of terms like Nazi and tolerance, as well as complete control over what can and cannot be tolerated sans discussion.

The question must immediately be turned back around:

• Do we tolerate such antagonistic, bad faith and violent actors, or do we find a new way of making the intraction as fruitful as possible for all involved?
  • How so?
  • It is not necessarily the case that the degree fruitfulness can be measured insofar that everyone feels their proposition is reinforced
  • Would it not eventually lead to a world where understanding can be achieved without force?

Social Sentinel

*aka Woke Sentinel**

• Seeks out those that threaten proliferation of ideology (to impede proliferation of the woke ideology) and attempts to tag them as not being worth listening. They don't offer anything intelligent or genuine nor can they commit to anything beyond smearing the perceived threat (which is actually a process of dialectical negation through replacing that thing permanently with its opposite).

Mystified Materialism

July 5, 2023

Fundamental

All negative theology-based mysticism

• Control the Structure of Being universally by removing the mundant property/component so that the true reality can be made visible
• Marxism:
  • Division of Labour
  • Control of the means of production
  • Claim to science since it is atheistic, and since it seeks to declare an organized understanding of some phenomenon
  • Replaces God by being one portion of the God Head

Details

We come easily to the mystified belief in that concepts, rather than expressing or bearing characteristics which can be evaluated against principles instead become something through which an expectation can be made for principles after the process is complete. If one is mystified, then they cannot rely on principles, as these now are also mystified (or the understanding of them is mystified).

Wondering as to how one could have ever had stated principles that one might now have to question:

• This leads to more mystification and a greater sense of disappointment
• An even greater impetus to engage into nihilism and frustration with society or the world itself

Replacement

Mystification becomes the replacement/suppplantation for any sense of principle except the one principle binding the cult; that is, allegiance to the cult of acknowledging the cult's stated purpose/reason for having any intentional moment. We refer to it as completely abstract and implicit as the cultists wish to declare that they are other to an oppressor who must be beaten and transcended over. In fact, it is an oppressor that can only be beaten through transcendence, or by act of transcendence.

Feeding Crocodiles

Conceptions of this

Normies or mild initiates

• Cowards who just comply to any social pressure

• People who always seek to align with structural foce in order to:

  • maintain or acquire social privilege

  • wield power sanctimoniously

    Enthused Initiates and True Believers

    Sliding scale of these, mostly as can be functionally/pragmatically ascertained

    True Believers

• Seeking the means to control reality

• Strong desire to force their views on others

  • Makes their perspective / belief true when unchallenged by others

  • taking a position bound to threat of force is an easy way to establish that one has correct beliefs

    Distraughtly Gnostic

• Sees possibility that reality can change

• Make fantasy reality - syntheses:

  • Synthesis of racism

  • Racism to transcend racism, then unreal can transcend to become better real

    Double Negation thinking/enablement

• Practice of acting or behaving or believing that which one expects will change

• Keep doing what you want (even if problematic):

  • Assumption that it presents as a virtue
  • It will be negated at a later time

• Motivations:

  • Libido Dominandi
  • Permit the play of the mind
  • Self-loathing
  • Puritanical cleansing
  • Making one compatible with what one perceives as structural forces, especially ephemeral ones

The Dance of Cringe

September 9, 2023 Musical chairs of legitimate/competent and the bitter self-disenfranchised (more than just bitter, they have an aspiration to condemn as an assurance that they are in the right and that they aren't responsible for or accountable to any aspect of their circumstance for which they feel discontent or dissatisfied, leading to resentment and animosity)

So, then, the resentment is itself the fuel for the will to power with an assumption or at least a suspicion that one would believe they might not have felt similary had they already have come upon the placement so desired. But how would one have come upon it, otherwise? Without brute force and without this ideological excuse of competence that they now scoff at?

Well, though we say their desire is for an arbitrary power, what would be the story they instead tell themselves? Certainly, they would see it as a form of competence as well, but competence in what?

• Awareness of what things to refuse and destroy
• Desire to leave the current state of affairs
• Desire to express their resentment and disdain wihch, when spoken from the position desired, would grant others the same desire, confirming it as real, and unleashing a great power that would rid the world of those very things they know must be destroyed -> elimination of evil, or the source of its illusions and the mundane.

Mundane

What is mundane? The aspects and portions of the world that are, to begin with, not interesting to them but are, more importantly, causing others to become occupied become occupied with, to be infected with the mundane, when they would otherwise have come to hear and understand those things necessary to come into alignment with the subject - the resenter - leading to actualization of the correspondence of truth that would satisfy the sages, the rabbl and all the naysayers. Control the mundane and choose what being is to be reflected.

Comprehensive Warrior

Needs more work

Blasting deBlasio

September 13, 2023

Looking back to deBlasio comparing lockdown victims whom he had punished for breaking orders (and who are punished regardless, and vulnerable to the imposed regulations due to their profession, skillset, choice of vocation and choice of investment), it brings about a foul taste in one's mouth and causes one to suspect they must prepare for the worst.

To be frank, he is implying that any random person, regardless of tehir experience or choice of vocation, is dealing with grief and mental issues which surpass the issues of any private business owner.

Infinite Regress:

• Biological exposure
• Biological feasibility
• Any lasting characteristic from pre-modern or pre-society
• Do we need to understand our own histories?

Remembrance

Yes, we remember, but is it just to feed bitterness? Surely the first thought is that thinking of it at all would breed some resentment and make one more stubbornly resistant against differences of opinion.

But, we were never permitted to express differences of opiion, because we were made to be inconsequential advocates, nullified and made inhert insofar as being able to affect the world for anything we believe to be of value, save one small exception

We were declared as being the detriment of all mankind. The real virus who, worse than the mere limiting factor, were the source, the switch, the predicate which enabled the terror and misery for humanity as a whole.

So, no, it wasn't mere difference of opinion, as we became uncertain of our very survival in this structure whose powers all seemed to content to feed to whatever point it might reach. And if nothing was learned from before, then we expect even lesser chances to make it through further iterations of similar kind.

Truth

The truth is that, rather than understanding any of the issues, the different perspectives about them, the points of contention, and the possible paths to bring about the most resolute and universally viable outcome, many have predicated their position and opinion on the assumption that only one manner of thinking and being will be supported by the regime, and that the regime will be willing to escalate its use of force to impose this as time goes on.

They are, essentially, choosing whether or not to be vocally supportive of the regime, supportive of condemning those who dissent, and manner in which one cultivates rationale about the aforementioned after having accepted the regime's supremacy.

And we know why they do this:

• Fear
• Greed
• Pride

Aempathy

October 4, 2023

Mendacious mendacity. Foaming at the mouth with endless aempathy.

Yes, Aempathy. You can't help but say it funny, with its snarky, eccentric, flamboyant, presumptive, mocking, pretentious, exuberant, inauthentic, dismissive, condescending, sanctimonious, aberrant, sarcastic, menacing, ridiculing, agitating, petulant, pedantic, insidious, outrageous, self-assured, pompous, showy, arrogant, grandiose, inflated, haughty, ostentatious, exaggerated, extravagant, threatrical, tasteless and overbearingly inauthentic flavour.

And, because of this flavour, because of the sentiment which surrounds it, because of the unmistakeably dubious forms of propositions which come along with it, you will be accused of having made your assertion for no reason other than your having been motivated by the very sentiments it produces.

You are too haughty and can't tolerate even considering the pronouncement exclaiming itself as being in the name of empathy. For you, it is a personal attack and you see the fact of an attack as itself being a form of apathy/lack of empathy. You predicate your determination of empathy on whether someone holds you with prime consideration. This is, in veritability and in effect, evidence of your selfishness. When, truly, what it should be is an evaluation based on whether we are considering and able to understand how others who are affected/involved, would be feeling.

Response:

Don't you mean "should" be feeling? Could? Or might be expected to be feeling? How could you ever be certain as to what another is feeling, even if they were to describe it to you in great detail? Why even require your perception and position to assume something so brittle and subjective? To even invoke empathy as a percept to your position is itself a haughty little manipulation as not only does it demand that your assertion be accepted on the basis fo something unprovable, but it concomitantly implies that those who disagree with your perception do so because of a lack of empathy.

A truly empathetic position is one where you never need to compel another to your view in the name of empathy. Why? Because to be empathetic, in any sort of authentic form, would require you to experience another's perception so clearly that you would feel their precise emotive and embodied state. In its ideal form, you would feel exactly what they feel.

Barring such an ideal which, with no demonstrative capacity, should be treated as unattainable, at least in a scientifically provable manner, we must move towards a standard of empathy which forms its own axiomatic standards around the principles of the ideal model:

• to assume that we could have the same perception about something in this world, or;
• to assume that if it could be the case that it would be a good thing
• to assume that, though we are separate people, the achievement of one person's goals is not necessarily the exclusion fo the other person's goals

In employing such a standard, one might come to realize that assuming one is not empathetic for failure to agree is not supported by evidence, regardless of the position being argued, whereas the expressing that one is without empathy is itself evidence that one is not empathetic. This is another reason for us to call false empathy aempathy. It is not presumptive or menacing, for we would not speak of it or write and think of it except as a defense against dialectical attacks, which necessitates a more complex understanding

Grumble Tumble

They grumble that we sully their name by failing to agree that their evolution of thought has a perfect form which is yet to be realized as something sepaate from the known collective of today. They claim that there are nuances we don't yet understand.

New Woke

Covidism is the new woke because it puts even non-devout covidists into the wizard's circle and keeps them doing the work predicated on the logic of a covidist world:

• nature is harmonious without the division of labour/property
• adaptation is non-consensual
• placed in the circumstance of ideology -> robbed of true nature
  • nature returns through the collective
  • all must do the work of bringing the conditions for a harmonius nature after the threats are overcome by eliminating motividowel

Man who has false consciousness, by eliminating indiidual man who has false consciousness at best, and is actually trying to worsen the trip of ideology/domination due to KM's bourgeois indoctrination

Motion of Covidism

Right to set into motion the mechanism to declare when one has the right to refuse access to their body.

Covidism => Dialectic atacks on normalcy:

• health
• adaptation
• consent
• immunity

Experimental just means we say it isn't ready

Choose to not perform actions demanded of you.

Time and time again, high profile members of the media calling for denial of care to unvaccinated. State-mediated resources, such as public transportation, only offered to the vaccinated. State-enforced prevention of border-traversal, even from state to state/province to province or even city to city and town to town. Prevention of entering establishments for hospitality, entertainment, and purchasing of certain goods. Preventing entry into department stores and boutiques.

People normalizing such a transformation to totalitarianism. Why would anyone not push back against a syste that's overriding rights? Because you believe you are well situated within it.

Reflexive Environments

The reflexive environment is constantly set before or around you. Always know there is a play and that your best play is to understand enough to choose to ignore it, or to defuse it through nullifying the rationale used to generate its supporting logic, which will always involve a false dichotomy. Don't become emotionally vulnerable to the plays and you won't have to react at all.

How are you reacting to the notion that you are useless, a source of waste and a toxic menace to all the world?

You are signaling your expectation to conform to future demands. Not even on the basis of understanding the impact, but because this is the social test to gauge purity in society. Purity should only be considered against the standard and principles of universal sensemaking: logic and reason.

Sensemaking itself should always be the goal, not just because the unknown can lead to tragedy and catastrophe, but also because the positive discoveries have the potential to uplift you through removing barriers previously perceived as permanent fixtures, updating one's view of reality and refreshing the understanding of goals, tools and possibilities.

All discourse and communicative exchange should ideally be a form of sensemaking, for this is, without a doubt, the best strategy for maximum, universal, long-term prosperity and progress.

One might declare that a structure fo society can, through force, affect chage more significantly and that this is clearly demonstrable in the sense that it can instantiate any desired activity at any moment it chooses, regardless of opinions and sentiments. But force can condition hubris, defiance and complacency and all of these can impact how and what information is shared - even whether information is confronted or consolidated at all.

Escaping One's Mind

October 10, 2023

The collectivist theology provides the promise of escaping one's mind (the noise, grotesque dissonance and futility), not necessarily as an immediate relief, nor even the reaching of a future endpoint where such a relief can become possible, though the conceiving of a future that is liberated, or improved in any capacity, does provide relief, but through allowing one the excused ignore the contradictions of their (or the state's) poor reasoning and instead have them see themselves as the evidence of a great injustice currently afoot.

Those seeking the collectivist mind needn't resolve anything for themselves for they have faith that the lack of resolution is both evidence of a demiurgic aspect to reality, and that the unresolved state is synonymous with one's identification as the oppressed. As a child who sulkingly makes matters worse for themselves and perceives a worsening standpoint appear to themselves as both a wound and an indication of progress.

Once you abandon the faith that truth rests in the here and now, and that you can align your pursuit of it with your interlocutor, you must still have faith that there can be change which advances in some way which isn't futile for, if not, the only alternative is complete despair or malevolence, with no true present or future. There is nothing but pain and resentment, and that which breeds from them.

Hating Faith and Values

The advancement, then, must be one towards a truth or the environment wherein one's conceptions are true and actual, and it must be of a nature where communication and understanding need not be occurring in the meantime. That is, the potential for shared perspective dwindles if the issue if not engaged with directly, as though an act of faith.

But what of those who mistake faith itself as a lack of values? Or the very idea that believing one has values as being synonymous with absconding from any necessity of having to be aware of one's conduct with respect to those values?

To declare "Those who disagree with me are pure evil and I can do no wrong":

Why even choose to believe that the other is so different from yourself and that any claim of value is in fact a spell through which one can cause infinite harm to the world and all others in it without ever having an inclination to be true? True to word and true to the desire for universal justice and flourishing.

One would have to occupy a mind whereby one doesn't have confidence that anything one does hasn't been, not simply out of self-interest, but in such a way that one's pursuit of appeasement to self is so fragile so as to become superficial and without depth, any degree of detriment to any other.

Democracy

Theirs is a democracy which they only extend to those who prove their conformity within a sanitized space.

They have nothing but disgust and hate for the raw, chaotic entropy which accompanies free flow of information and ideas.

For them, the only workers are those who do their bidding or whose identity can be harnessed, appropriated, corrupted an exploited as part of an effort to empower a bloated, opaque system into which all faith has been placed.

The freedom advocating trucker and their accompanying supporters were the most authentic and legitimately grassroots movement Canada has ever seen, and it frightens those who are most privileged by the central structure of society so much that they are ardently doing everything they can to advocate totalitarianism and ridicule any who might believe in universal values of liberalism or, as they sometimes put it, liberal humanism.

They are the anti-liberal aristocrats who see the state as a divine entity that will fulfill their desires so long as it continues to grow in conjunction with a culture of conformity.

They are the authoritarian wordsmiths whose every expression relies on synthetic definitions made to manipulate and deceive through preying on the best and most humanistic attributes of people. Synthetic and dishonest definitions of terms that can be equivocated towrads cultivation of power to oppress and dominate any who do not express their allegiance to the aristocrats and tehir icons of fraudulent virtue.

They immerse themselves in bitterness and cognitive dissonance under an expectation that all will be made whole once every contradictory element has been silenced, hidden or destroyed.

They are totalitarian activists who have sold their souls for nothing of substantive value and their suspicion thise feeds their rage and mendacity.

Guiding Freedom to Hell

October 18, 2023

They came in droves - an endless sea of jolly rebels wishing that, finally, their voices could be heard. With no one having listened to them for years, or at least a year and some months, and their lives falling apart around tehm, they had believed that, at the very least, were they to put their lives on hold and come to the capital, that maybe our leaders would listen to them and at least have a dialogue, if only to refuse their ideas and proposals.

Instead, the leaders took it upon themselves to frame and present these citizens in the most believably awful light possible (though they failed at this, as they crossed too deep into the ridiculous and absurd). They refused to even come see them one single time. And even before the formal invitations began to flow, they had already orchestrated the environment so as to compel the locals (at least those among them who were not already interested in th same principles championed by the truckers) to loathe and despise them.

Theory of Erasure: A Practical Guide

October 22, 2023

Critical Praxis Assumes:

• Targeted Action
• Theory and Practice must move towards one another
• Theory of Knowledge

Praxis assumes theory is correct but also that it is in a perpetual state of change. Practice must be sought in order to complete the theory.

Praxis also assumes that what can currently be expressed and known will not be tantamount to justice and truth. It furthermore assumes that any disparity or oppression coincides with any contradictions in ideas, thoughts, positions and statements/expressions. This is akin to the description given by Marx and Feuerbach that the oppressive material conditions lead to there being contradictions in the minds of the labourer.

Praxis demands uniformity of expression and thought until the refining process of advancement completes, as this all equates with the work of liberation and justice.

Praxis assumes a process of refinement to be sought in pursuit of attaining correct consciousness. Any attainment of correct consciousness will be in line with theory or it is incorrect.

Praxis assumes the correct conscious state will be uniform amongst a group and that each group will have a distinct conscious state until such time that the group is no longer disparately identifiable.

• Alternatively, each group must reach its own requisite state prior to being able to reach a universal one
• But, can there be groups which each have a class consciousness even if there is no oppression?
  • If all disparity is eliminated, then we would not speak of groups or solidarity

But the faith is in Praxis, not in an outcome. How could we ever consider a mind to be materially relevant unless it agrees? Only if the question of agreement ceases to be a question? Impossible, as then there would be no question and there would, in turn, be no praxis.

This all presupposes that we have never reasoned accurately:

But You Can Have Both

No, that is not the case, as one posits itself as the means to the other while that other itself sees itself as distinct and a theory of neutrality. That is, it is both assumed to be a superior tool of sensemaking while also being understood as a tool which can only function correctly through neutral application.

Critical Praxis needn't utilize explicit critical thinking, though if it does it necessarily makes itself the operator deciding precisely what critical thinking is to be applied and why.

Critical Thinking requires Faith that we have the potential of understanding one another while critical theory is faith that praxis and liberation are the means to transforming the world into one where, finally, we can be understod.

Practice which evolves the theory of liberating or destroying. Practice which is Critical => marks things as being in need of destruction, not by reminding of what still needs to be destroyed, but by assigning the mark of destruction, not by reminding of what still needs to be destroyed, but by assigning the mark of destruction to something new.

Applying a label of death so that, if taken at face value, the thing marked is now to be seen as that which is surely worthy of nothing short of complete destruction (possible replacement).

Praxis is never complete until it can no longer be thought of as something to do. When there is no longer the possibility of the idea to desire social change, praxis will have ceased to exist and the terms of justice will finally be upon us.

The very fact of social disagreement becomes also the need to struggle towards better understanding; we come to clarity about what we already knew to be true. The difference here, however, is that teh theory has a rationale for the reality of the conflict, and the rationale's basis can be found in the identity of hose being examined. In fact, we needn't even examine the event of growth or conflict in order to understsand the critically evaluated explanation; we need only to examine the identities and determine whether they are being represented authentically.

Finding Solutions

We always look for solutions which assume the discordant can find improvement and that seemingly irreconcilable differences must be due to differences in definitions, but there are limits as to how one can proceed about this. One cannot commit their very being to the partaking in the whole superficial, except when approaching full confrontation. This is especially true if the only peaceful mode involves endless encroachment and destruction of one's favourite ideas, like universality, or things which presuppose a capacity for understanding among all people -> that isn't to say agreeing to cnduct or willingness to provide space fr one to air their grievances, but much more explicitly a belief that we could seem to be maximally disparate in our views, associations, or interests, but that, ultimately, there is always a path to understanding. Witout faith in such, we may very well have to drift between utter nihilistic despair and puritanical conversion of your known world/entities in it/expressions made in your environment. Because, either there is no hope for truth before your death (and nothing transcendental outside this material realm), or there is truth but not based upon any inquiry which has taken place thus far, in which case the fact of one's retaining of the belief in truth in spite of those things means at least that:

• one is able to see/learn truth or that which is expressed to mkae truth inferrable, and;
• to the extent one can see advantage of truth, the fact of one still existing means that the potential for truth remains

Totalitarianwhatism

October 31, 2023

Many are thankfully waking from their own brushes with Totalitarianism, but we first need to grapple with the mental model of Totalitarianism before we can understand where came from, where they're heading to, and before we can understand whether their trajectory might lead them back into it.

Arendt/Desmet

• Mass formation model
  • inflection point: lonely disconnection and confusion
  • state leader with charisma
  • narrative solution produces object of antagonism
  • destination for negative energy
  • solidarity / connection as commonality as victims
  • sacred work for collective
  • must lie to uphold narrative / to not become target

Voegelin

• Resentful soul
  • Inhabiting a false reality
  • fundamentally composd or aesthetically denoted through the forbidding of philosophical questioning
  • refusal to allow or entertain
  • Promise of a structure which supplants current one and claims to lead to a newer or truer nature
  • Accepting anything in place of its removal and replacement
  • Something abou tthe current mode of being is imprisonment

Define Through Negation

• identities that problematize, emphasize stereotypes, position and present as opposing a particular stereotype
• eliminate whiteness -> define blackness as identity opposite to whiteness
• decolonizers eliminate colonialism and imperialism
• proletariat exist becaues, and in order to, negate capitalism
• eliminate biological obscenity which has been allowed to manifest through pursuit of false wealth
  • natural chaos, adopting disease, not curing
• abundance is not from things produced or resources available, but that there are no resources or products that are used by or produced by private business / capitalism
  • land used for production must be owned by "the people" and administered through the state
  • dekulakization and control of all assets by vanguard stakeholders
• democracy through negation of participants whose choices would not be in the best interest of the people
• Hegel claimed that all things are their negation, though that is a step away from what we are observing here: above, we are seing how a definition is formulated through description of something being negated. Here, however, he is saying that those which can be determined also determine their absence or the specification of the state in which something is said to not exist. Since pure, absolute being is said to be equivalent to nothing, here Hegel attempts to claim that there is no distinction between finite and infinite.

Historicism

Dialectical Leftism and the Refutation of Mysticism

Telos of history is irrelevant -> potential for other outcomes is immaterial

• randomness need not be concerned with
• single instance of performing a traversal of the path of history, vs:
• concerns with the means of traversal
  • it is actual - it is how it has been traversed

The reality is that there is no randomness in history if history is the history of man changing himself and having developed. If there is a telos of man, he seeks...

Either the endpoint is random or what lead to it cannot be neglected as random noise. One might say that it is random, but the fact of human existence insists that we should strive towards our most positive endpoint. But how can we believe this assessment? Because those who deny it have false consciousness -> theory of knowledge -> then this affects knowledge of time, matter, history...

The historicism proves the mysticism in many cases, as the materialist claim is interpreted as a perspective which otherwise insists that it quantifies things or that it wishes to bring things into consideration that are otherwise left out of an incomplete equation. That the equation is always made more complete by listening to them.

In spite of all of this, however, is the overarching component of history which carries forward wisdom not in the minds and lives of humans and whose trajectory is in line with the development and emancipation at the level of totality.

We get a further sense of this with sustainability, as it frames the historical progression as a) causing oppression, rather than raising all ships => a mix? No, ultimately doom for everyone b) heading to the imminent endpoint fo complete circular state (at the scale of the world) - lossless, entropyless, static and pure c) not having a solution which comes through an end unforetold => tech discovery through working while having resources to operate robustly

Restless

November 21, 2023

Still, they are restless for not having fully silenced what they deem as the chaotic and more primitive portions of the human population. We must be careful to be specific in who is indicated by chaotic or primitive:

• Chaotic is not merely erratic, potentially energetic or expression which potential for increased energy dynamic, nor that which is lacking structure, order, form and the qualities necessary for it to be predicted. Chaos means something of behaviour of which it's unknown whether the consequences or side effects could be detrimental, at least not insofar as what influence or effect it comes to bear.

There are many forms of perception which come to embody a feeling of assured content through interpretation of control. Sometimes it is puritannical in communicating one's high moral standing as part of an attempt to not have others rise to the occasion, but first to have them feel shame or envy, as this can validate the communicator's model/assessment/metric, as well as also being to assert one's eternal status; they are not now at your level, not just if there is disagreement, but also to the extent that if there is agreement, it may be suggested that they are one step ahead and higher in standing. Why?

Because you chose the discipline - the organization. You initiated them and are seeking to go higher.

Gnostic Erasure of Distinction

The distinctions are only invoked to silence criticism to a process eliminating distinction. It appears paradoxical but it makes sense when you see that sidestepping criticism is also achieved through an elimination of yet other distinction.

• They assert gnosis while denying that others do the same -> their gnosis is simple possession and false consciousness, our gnosis is true because of a blurred context and higher moral standing

We see these things play out time and time again and wonder if it was meant to be - if it was a product of your failed actions, if it is evidence that the system has been ordered to trap one in incessant misery, or if the challenge was perfectly crafted and waited upon to provide you precisely with that which you most need.

Of course one can meet the question with the attitude and through taking the position taht one assumes is the most utilitarian to take. How can I best adapt to my environment to yield the best outcome?

This seems to work, at least to calm the mind, but what if the only acceptable adaptation is perceived to be one which requires action and participation of others? How can one respond to the environment which optimizes participation of others, especially when the matter might otherwise be avoided and ignored?

What can be done to make it unignorable? How to ensure it won't be gnored? It must be fed into discomfort.

Pacifiers

What good comes through docile pacifism?

Can we expect improvement without the brash and rough breaking of the veil of serenity, which otherwise appears present through man's desire for calm? Even if there cannot be calm, one has not been, one might say that the drudging forward at times frantically and relentlessly is something which itself is sought and was begun for the desire or even hope of serenity. For even the possibility of it.

The time appear near, once again, to fight for one's person, for one's family and, perhaps, even simply for the ability to declare that reality exists and that one is actually part of the experience, and not an automation or some lifeless, soulless, animated contraption placed purely as an aesthetic element within the environment - or even better -> a coinciding structure of material formation whose instantiation is nothing more than a happenstance occurrence with no intelligent aspect to its formulation other than its appearance which otherwise yields no bearing.

The flow always reigns supreme: synovial, hemo, neurology, neurons unimpeded by dead matter, digestive surface, antigen presentation. Thoughts and ideas -> flow necessary to have examination and placement. We can find examples of flow in ancient eastern forms, sa well as in descriptions of modern day systems. Systems can only maintain meaningful structure if the potential for communicatin itself is not eroded. Flow is the viability and practice of communication between components of a system. If there is no communication, then you have no life and no activity - you have the juxtaposing of dead, calcified, decrepit, disintegrating forms and all downdstream from there will be affected such as to potentiate their entropic destruction.

The very premise that we can have intelligent life supporting systems through a philosophy which forbids questions and negates rather than investigates uncertainty through naive inquiry is absurd, and not even a fantasy, for any fantasy borne of such an orientation must fantasize over what is prevented and destroyed, since that is the path of articulation being conceived. The edification of structure, the elaboration of expression and the development of conception occur precisely through naive inquiry and discovery and never without. even if it appears t occur without it is through, at best, unrealized allusion/implicit abstraction and, at worst, the destruction of dreams/conquest of the dreamer/expropriation of that which cannot be utilized by the appropriator. To have a result which produces anything of genuine value which may extend as an expression of one's good sentiments and conception of a better world requires for the suppression of any such desirs to silence and destroy and their supplantation by naive, open and inquisitive focus -> this is the engine for your flowstates that are truly needed by every neighbour ever encountered.

Programme for Progress: Biology

December 17, 2023

Seek to understand the direction of logic extending from supposing a base reality of human living on this planet with other life.

The base condition of an ecosystem is something that you cannot consent to. That is, if we are to agree that an ecosystem, having formed on this planet, includes creations that humans understand as being pathogenic, regardless of whether their pathogenicity is changed by the existence of human beings. That there are organisms, or biological constructs, existing on this planet and bearing relatoinships to other biological constructs also on this planet and that some of these relationships constitute or include a sequence of events leading to challenge and conflicts insofar of the continued existence of an organism.

Though one might contend that all relations can be described in this way, or that all constructs have, between them, relations that can be described in this way, but that we are, in particular, discussing organisms and relations which accord with pathogenicity.

That is to say, causing illness/disease in the host through a consequence of first-order biological effects/mediations (not as a consequence of effects on the conditions of the organism in terms of its environment).

The only other rebuttle tot his is to contend that we already live in a circumstance which has perverted ecology. But this falls apart when considering a few simple contradictions. The first is that we have already heard enough history lessons from public health enthusiasts to know that they

On Death

Could it be an experssion of pure elegance, to have the entirety of reality accounted for without complexity? Human life overwhelms, like the breath.

It is far too much to bear and can only be prepared for almost artificially, and not seamlessly as it is with every other animal - only humans are cursed.

What could an all-powerful structure of mankind allow, enable and provide? It seems that there's an infinite set of trials and tribulations - can we ever be free from it?

Even now, the state promises a soft end to the journey where one need not even know the nature of one's death.

Distinct Mysticism

Defending human distinction not because we are so different but because the pain of having an independent, embodied existence as a human having life is the universal and canonical feature of humanity that all understand and can bear in mind in order to better prepare us for our interactions.

The system's mystical aspect cannot be proven on the basis of its self-critique of theory, but on the basis of whether it grants the right for criticism through logic and reason, for otherwise there are countless human motivations for believing without evidence. Most especially, however, is the aversion to questions which it forbids on the supposing that logic and reason, or attempts to critique which declare intent to make use of logic and reason, are simply attempts to maintain or acquire power and dominance.

All effort goes towards dictating what is to be considered reasonable and scientific, not in terms of one's mastery of science and reason, but to assume arbitrary control, power over others, and the means of defusing the risk of any truly scientific analysis/critique of teh activist/cultist/critical theorist and their ideas.

They present their view as a higher level of curiosity, but it is only high level in the sesne that it is an abstract presentation concealing deceptive operations, which serve the interests of the critical theorist to th eexclusion of the possibility of enumerating truth.

Another note on high level and abstraction: they claim that it is concrete, not abstract, but what makes it concrete in their eyes is not that it is concretized in terms of the evidence of its invocation or effect in the world - that which can be validated on concrete terms - but because it includes all the elements which are enumerated in their theory. This means that it is actually more complex, more abstract, and less verifiable than a simpler model or a directly quantifiable means of evaluation. That is to say, their definition for concrete is less concrete in critical thinking or scientific terms, and more abstract, but it is by that very standard that it satisfies the requirements which they suppose belong to their higher level science (social science)

A universal truth that all readily accept as a condition for open transaction becomes the enemy of those presenting the mystification therefore truth must be supplanted by the manipulative positing of the activist. This is the extent of their curiosity -> to declare admiration for universality but to make oneself the only one able to wield tools which can be assumed to make discovery.

Queer Normativity and Gnostic Paradoxes

November 7, 2023

• Normalizing without normalcy.
• Defying norms by supercharging stereotypes.
• Enumerating identity because oppression comes from enumerating identity at all.
• We remember the thesis as being that we cannot express our rightful state of being because the declared state of being is false and serves to prevent expression of true being.
• The antithesis to this conundrum is to enumerate every state of being, particularly those which, through definition or implication, negate the false, declared state of being.

You can't normalize while declaring normalcy the cause of oppression and domination unless you communicate a desire and intent to dominate and oppression - to gain the exact power you decry. You have the knowledge to be intentional and maximize the degree to which you can hold sway over others.

Choosing to override the meaning of body such as to remove any notion that we are responsible for our bodies or that there can be more benefit from our mastery of them, especially how one's mastery becomes instructive to another in the manner which is most useful towards solving the angst of the world.

having enough mastery makes one understand the manner in which the human can abstract and this helps reduce the desire for engaging in all things keeping them from focus.

So how shall we focus? The contradictions are fuel to the fire but for those unfamiliar, they serve to embed a reminder to question what you're told and make decisions consiously / intentionally.

They seek the end of flesh through an accelerated passage of utilization and exploitation of one's flesh. Why? Is this them doing the work? Sacred work? Useful work?

It is sacred in that it takes a metaphysic to its logical conclusion. What are these? (simple completion elevates one's standing as they are able to submit or even imply the submitting of a solution)

Gnostic Comparisons

1. Christian

Gnostic:

• rejection of transcendant truth -> must be actualized first
• eat of the tree of knowledge to complete understanding
  • Queer fulfills this through making the consideration and instantiating of counter mundane ieas in the souls of man, but through the flesh
  • everyone is being a Jesus to attain the mind of God

2. Atheist

Materialist, at least by implication by not being able to contemplate non-matter for duties of conscience.

Determinism through matter for complete construction of material reality.

In this view, in consideration of the necessity for human embodiment for conscious experience, it must become the case that the experience be worth the pain, and pain is always considered through constraint:

• end of life
• loss of function
• limit of focus
• negation of interaction

Constraints in potential experience should be removed or avoided without a consequence of additional constraints, if possible.

We could also consider the minimum necessities for healthy human life, such as food and shelter, but the fact of their necessity is itself a constraint best avoided, whereas the constraint of wanting everything for yourself to the exclusion of everyone else is a massive additional constraint.

We must, then, have both a base of experience with few necessities, and a breadth of activity which mustn't constrain others in order to progress the human experience in line with making the pain of experience as minimal as possible. This will be sought through taking any natural proclivity of human behaviour that already occurs, and potentiating circumstances such as to optimize the outcome in line with our goal -> the natural goal of any atheistic world view which speaks of progress for human life, society and the human condition (if you want to be a punk nihilist, I am not talking about you).

Queering makes negative impact of sex dimension seen as minimal or the means of harnessing eros, and transhumanism solves the base line of human embodied experience.

Atheism must seek out a human experience where arbitrary activities can be unertaken without harming the process of current behaviour (recursively, the current behaviour (whch must apply to the level of species) is only accepted if it doesn't interfere with progressing towards that immortal baseline). The first step is declaring unanimous agreement.

We could expand 1 (Christian) to describe any theistic worldview which also considers it a viable strategy to enumerate and perform identities for the purpose of struggling against cisheteronormativity and whiteness, or one which desires transhumanism.

Diefenbaker

Delegation from Legislature, Deference from Court

GOvernment has no power except what is granted to it via consent

• Can we agree on:
  • Power
  • Definitions
  • Some fundamental aspect ab out the world from which to begin dialogue that isn't contrived to subvert the other?
  • Phenomenological human life
  • Everyone deserves to breathe
  • Everyone wants to breathe
  • Everyone is a subject through conscious experience

They ask: where do we proceed from here, as in "what does this do for us" without realizing that it does quite a bit!

We are constantly entering into transaction with the environment and this implicitly puts us into transactions with other humans / vice versa in tha twe share space and resources. We know from evolutionary work that we evolved to prefer socializing in place of complete solitude and that we do this because it offers us survival advantages, so we know there is a bio-essentialist argument as to why even the most annoying socializing is a form of this (even dysfunctional behaviour is a form of this)

So, how to have people meet at a startign point? How do we come to an open moment where the participants have a genuine curiosity about some object, circumstance, shared concern, etc?

• There has to be potential for action, at least in the visual cortex
  • It needs to be imaginable
  • It needs to be placed into a ready-state for immediate, simple, unambiguous action
  • Participation in an idea

It needn't be complete and unequivocal agreement, it simply needs to be a reset of consciousness, awareness and, momentarily, one's ego or as we perceive of it. Attention to the body and b reath are one hopeful outlook for one's embodied experience:

• genuine, not out of spite or irony

Transitioning, excuse the pun, into an auditorily perceptible pattern is something which also achieves this, though it's not immediately obvious that this would somehow exclude corresponding activity in the visual cortex, and whether any observations concerning one's action potential and participation could not still be explained purely on the visual cortex priming an interface to activity (though we could remove the aural component and the reverse would not be true).

• Humility witout humiliation.
• The considering that one has shared in their conception with another

In some respects, the approaches seem endless but what we need are ones which can recur, prolong and continuously invite re-entry into an unguarded tate, not for rendering one vulnerable but because it builds resilience and reinforces a useful cognitive motif for which, through practice, the participant becomes more competent and selectively guarded where appropriate.

Defining Through Negation

• identities that problematize, emphasize stereotype or an anti-stereotype
• eliminate whiteness:
  • define blackness as identity in opposition to it
• decolonizers eliinate colonialism and imperialism
• proletariat exist for and exist in order to negate capitalism
• eliminate biological obscenity which has been allowed to manifest through pursuit of false wealth
  • nature is chaos
  • adopting disease rather than curing them
• abundance
  • not from things produced or resources available
  • when there are no resources or products that are used by or produced by private businesses/capitalism
  • land used for production must be owned by "the people" and administered through the state
  • dekulakization and control of all assets by vanguard stakeholders
• democracy through negation of participants whose choices would not be in the best interest of the people
• Hegel claimed that all things are also their negation, though that is a step away from what we are observing here
  • Above, we are seeing out a definition is formulated through description of something being negated. Here, however, he is saying that those things which can be determined also determine their absence, or the specification of the state in which something is said to not exist or, at least, not be present. Since pure, absolute being is said to be equivalent to nothing, here Hegel attempts to claim there is no distinction between finite and infinite

Historicism / Dialectical Leftism

November 12, 2023 Refutation of Mysticism

Telos of history is irrelevant -> potential for other outcomes is immaterial

• randomness need not be concerned with
• single instance of performing a traversal of the path of history vs concern with the means of traversal
• it is actual -> it is how it has been traversed

The reality is that there is no randomness in history if history is that of man changing himself and having developed. Either the endpoint is random or what lead to it cannot be neglected as random noise. One might say that it is random, but the fact of human existence insisting that we should strive toward our most positive endpoint -> But how can we believe the assessment? Because those who deny it have false consciousness -> theory of knowledge -> then this affects knowledge of time, matter, history.

The historicism proves the mysticism in many cases, as the materials

Stealing Reality

June 8, 2024

When collectivists talk about History and the historical process as it relates to the creation of nature, they link these things - they say that Man is of nature, man is nature, you don't know where the dividing line is

You don't know when we changed from inert matter to living cell, from animal with instinct to being that is intelligent and self-conscious and having a decisive autonomy.

That blurring between Man and Nature also blurs, on the other side, between Nature and Reality.

The natural world is what exists and Reality exists. Reality has been composed in such a way that it gives rise to Nature, but we don't know the separation between what is Nature insofar as we see the capacity for life on planet Earth, and geological formations, and then that brings us to planets, and celestial objects and systems, and so on.

And so in all of this you don't really see where the ends are because we can't conceive of something at such massive scales.

Nature -> Man -> Reality - are all the same.

If we are to be Man in himself, each as a man in himself and as the species of Man in itself, then we are also Reality as it is - as it truly is - actualized by Man - because Nature in itself is Man the creator of all - not just of man and your life, not just of nature, but reality itself.

Attaining Freedom

July 23, 2023

How to attain greater freedom? To bes tpotentiate value and protection of human capacity for free, creative thought.

Some would say that capacity for free thought is opitimized under certain circumstances or at particular periods in teh evaluation of free human thought or human and social development. But, now indirection is introduced, and we presuppose that extra or additional work must be performed if ever just at the level of configuration (to be charitable).

These are not merely actions to be considered arbitrary and comparable to background unknown, arguably infinite actions, but action of a desired structure affecting target behaviours at particular moments in time. Even one would say that any action becomes arbitrary at the largest scale, and I would remind them taht they are defengint their view of the potential for freedom, and that they would otherwise be admitting that they hold their position arbitrarily by sheer volume of extant actions in the universe and that surely they have to consider context before any sense can be made, thus stop pretending that a specific action can be reasoned as necessary based on the seeming arbitrariness of an action against the massive scale of astronomical/infinite actions of other types.

Defending with context means making intelligent arguments to demand the addition of the new set of actions, and given taht there had to be a preceding circumstance of human action which involved the least number of historical actions against which to compare, as well as the least number of concurrent actions.

White Antiracists

July 28, 2023 White antiracists are racist

• Believe the system accurately decsribes POC
• POC will never achieve equity or comparable outcomes, except through white enablement
• Secretly fear POC and those who appear different
• See the movement as control mechanism to survive the backlash of POC against whites for racism harboured even unconsciously by whites
• Can only explain dissenting POC through their having been subverted by whiteness
• Entire existence of POC is as white's other
• Casual ones too
  • They invite simplistic representation of of POC with no elucidation necessary
• See benefit in collective process which has set roles for POC
• Ability to anticipate POC
• Robin D was right!
• POC must be centered because they are left behind without intervention
  • They never recovered from the degree to which Euro had dominated the entire world -
  • Even if they each had successful periods, the last period of success for euro was too dominant, essentially achieving eternal dominance through imposing a lie at the level of reality

# What The Cult Knows July 29, 2023

Activists and cult initiates don't have to know what they are talking about. They just have to collect every soul

They demand your soul. There should be no expression of your being which indicates genuine belief in a truth beyond the constraints and specifications as provided/defined/insisted upn by the cult.

You couldn't possibly believe all the nonsense of themselves unless you had also ceased any expression to the contrary; by ceasing your contradictions, you will come to believe.

In a sense, what that means is that they demand evidence of the reality they believe and desire. They need you to bear witness to them and their alternate reality and to consent to anything which follows by virtue of their utterances and the pathos which it ignites or with which it aligns.

Evidence that reality might be what you desire it to be and that you can cause others to agree as to what reality should be. Especially if it requires that many work together to amass the attention and resources that cause everone to become deeply invested.

Making them invested causes them to have spent time and become dialogically engaged and this transforms them to the worldview and perception the gnostic believes underlies all of humanity.

A reflexive process for changing the world is always a process of mystification because it's an admission of a perception over a fundamental reality.

Yes, we perceive real reality, but the only true measure of reality has come to become based on the delta of perception and the delta of what is believed to be perceptible as per conditions, be they material or cultural.

# Cenk Rocket Nye August 1, 2023

Women have officially been reduced to make-up or simply the desire for social satisfaction.

Reducing woman to the phenomenon of signaling the desire to be noticed. The desire to feel as though one's aesthetic is so outstanding that it demands attention.

Gender certainly does not exist.

Gender is what you express about what you believe it feels like to have a body, and is thus limited by nothing except your imagination and vocabulary. There is no reason to continue using it as though it refers to anything concrete whatsoever. If anything, it simply declares your desire that you wish for others to agree to describe reality based not on their perception of their environment, but based on your ?? and command. It is the epitome of selfishness to proclaim that others' perception and expression be made inadmissible if it conflicts with your demand.

At best, gender is merely your whimsical description of embodiment, your attempt to put words to a completely subjective and unverifiable personal experience which could just as easily be assumed to be so completely unique that limiting it to your linguistic description causes only mystification.

Description of a gender identity serves no purpose except to destroy the notion that you have a unique identityiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii