ishambat@hotmail.com (ilya

Repost from 1999

It is possible to define a person from the perspective of the
observer. It is also possible to define a person intrinsically. The
first perspective defines the person on the basis of social masks: On
the basis of adaptation; on the basis of symbols; on the basis, to use
the computer ****ogy, of his interface. The second perspective goes
inside the mind and looks at the routine: At the choices made, at the
basic precepts, at the emotional and psychological dynamics underlying
the human being. The first method is useful for superficial contact;
the second is useful for actual understanding and actual knowledge.

The first way is prejudicial, blending the filters and concepts and
personal agendas of the observer with the observed. Having never
learned to see otherwise - having been beaten, tricked, humiliated out
of their sense and their mind - most people are of the opinion that,
because the observer is always a part of the judgment, it is
impossible to define a person's intrinsic qualities without
contaminating them with one's own projections. To the extent to which
this is true, the people for whom this is true belong neither in
psychology nor in philosophy; as it can be very well, by the logic of
this mentality, that the people whom they consider mentally ill are
merely their scapegoats for what they don't comprehend or can't
acknowledge in themselves - and that the people whom they consider OK
are merely ones that have learned to mold themselves into their
worldview.

One can define a person as a social role. A professional, a nice guy,
a psycho, a redneck - all these are interfaces, ones that can be a
result of any number of choices made upon any kind of underlying
psychic structure. A criminal can have any number of motives or any
number of psychic configurations. Some of these may be well
justifiable; some of these may not be. Defining him as a criminal
lumps him together, inaccurately, with those who are similar not
fundamentally but similar as a matter of adaptation. It places the
derived ahead of the primary and misses the underlying reality (the
existence of which, of course, it typically denies).

But I hear some say, I don't care why a criminal is a criminal, he's
still a criminal. To not care is your choice; to claim that it makes
you a better person than anyone else is preposterous. Do you not care
to think? Do you not care about the real actions, the real dynamics,
the real interaction affecting real psychological levels - the actual
exchange of energy,thus the actual truth and the actual justice? Do
you find it more preferable to abide by imprecise prejudice-based
social projections that do not reflect the underlying reality and that
the naturally manipulative and the psychologically sophisticated,
instinctively or intelligently seeing the discrepancy between the
definition and the reality, can easily exploit for profit at someone's
expense? DO you not understand that a code made of such things is, in
fact, injustice and falsehood? Do you not see how smug righteousness
in this case is at best grotesque self-indulgence, and at worst
participating in a greater crime than the judged is committing?

How many people have considered that codes and symbols instilled prior
to development of independent intelligence - the true definition of
prejudice - although it be lodged through parenting and peer pressure
at psychological levels that to the child's mind spell "god," may not
after all be sacred? How many have considered that parents and
societies may be fallible beings in themselves? How many have
considered that, before an assumption within the mind can qualify as
sacrosanct - as being off-limits for rational ****ysis - it must
actually be sacred, embodying the highest principles of justice and
truth and beauty and reinforcing the same elsewhere? What is more
sacred, now: Thought, will, curiosity, knowledge of actual dynamics
and action upon that knowledge, or a skein of prejudice created by
manipulation and spread by psychological violence and usurping the
mind for its incognizant precepts?

I am not concerned with interfaces, with adaptations, with many ways
in which an individual can "adjust." I am concerned with the
fundamental reality; that which precedes language and whose existence
precedes and is therefore presupposed by any inquiry, philosophical or
sophistic, into whether or not such a thing can exist. What is the
method, what is the logic, what is the decision-making process? To
what extent do the choices that one makes with respect to the psychic
structures and to the waking reality reflect life and its kindred? To
what extent is the compendium of choice, as contained in the mind and
in the life course, a manifestation of biophilic choice?

Some might say that there is no such thing as non-socially-formulated
psychic reality. They would be advised to look around. If we are
nothing but onions of social reinforcement as sociologists contend,
then who made the skeins? If we are determined, then who does the
determination? God? If you're an atheist that doesn't cut it; if you
are an academician who separates "matters of faith" from "matters of
science" in order to not run the displeasure of religious bullies,
then you have taken expediency ahead of science and allowed the fist
to control the mind. If there is nothing but framework, then what made
the framework? What made language, life, science, before they were
here? When Thomas Edison was inventing the lightbulb, was he
regurgitating his hometown values (masquerading, like all hometown
values, as personal responsibility or manliness)? Or was he employing
something unique and, in the deterministic system, anomalous, in order
to do something that no social framework and no prejudice and no
deterministic worldview would have the ingredients or the initiative
to accomplish?

And if the basic source of the civilization - of everything man-made -
is not the society but the mind of the individual; particularly the
creative mind of the individual, the unanticipated mind of an
individual, THE ANOMALY in the deterministic worldview - can we see
the implication? Do we see the parallel here between this creative
anomaly and the original creative anomaly, the Big Bang singularity
that made the universe? Do we see the absurdity of deterministic
structures - will-deprived structures such as society and religion -
asserting themselves as superior to the very thing of which they are
merely an implementation? Or of people forsaking this Godlike quality
in themselves in order to have security, be validated, fit into a
system that is an extrapolation upon this quality but that cannot
tolerate it in its staffers?

Some want to pretend that everything human is free will. Others want
to pretend that there is no such thing as free will. How about, Some
wills are more free than others? Some people are bound entirely by
deterministic, i.e. unchosen, social conditioning, even to the point
of accepting it as their true identity - their nature - and demanding
at threat of eternal damnation by looserhood or insanity that everyone
else follow the same principle. Others have done enough to see past
this static conditioning and are dynamically implemented their chosen
values - values that they have derived through synthesis of many
perspectives; that, in the best-case scenario, had little to do with
the conditioning or the instinct. To what extent do you drive, and to
what extent are you driven? To what extent is your choice free? To
what extent are you true to your living soul rather than the dead
primate nature or social conditioning - to what extent are you
conscious and self- determining - to what extent is your mind a
product of the creative force, and your life its fulfilment?

It does one no good to have a strong will when the structures are
predetermined. This does only good to the people and cultures that
have made the determination; hence their insistence that will be
employed in this way, hence their loathing of anything that
deconstructs the determinism and the insistence that such a usage
makes one a no-good shit. Since the dynamics that set the determinism
are the ones of might rather than right, of fist and stomach rather
than mind and heart, the individual's will simply becomes an accessory
to the agenda of the biggest bully. Monkeys don't have a choice, nor
do they have an illusion of morals. Since human beings talk much of
worthiness or morality, they can do better.

Understanding the well-studied reality of deterministic factors:
hormones, emotions, parental influences, formative experiences, social
reinforcement, neural nets - does not the perfect manifestation of
life apply personal choice, the one thing over which the individual
has control, to make the highest of what he is innately? Does not the
fully alive person brings out the best in the self - brings to the
highest the mind, the body, the knowledge, the universal essence that
is embodied within; does he not unravel the deterministic and
parasitical perceptual and intellectual filters from childhood
onwards, that the life can proceed? Does not the true person live
joyfully and fervently, enhancing life in its splendor, conducing and
manifesting creative energy into the world? Is not a perfect social
dynamic the one that encourages this in all individuals and weaves
their product with everything it its vicinity into the most majestic,
most brilliant, most profound embodiment of life-force as it is
expressed through all?

But let's not talk about the perfect society, or the perfect
individual. Let's not, or else we be considered Communists and tied to
a cross. Let's not even talk about the people who try to be perfect
individuals and what happens to them; you'll find most of them in
particularly oppressive situations, convinced that they have sinned
against the social code and, having done so, deserve to pay penance
the rest of their lives. Let's not talk about the conscientious people
serving the systems that have no conscience, about loving and
beautiful people being used to legitimize ugly systems, about bright
wills and minds being broken for the sin of exceeding the common
assumptions, about the codes of morality and of sanity that keep the
goals of bastards enshrined in the mind as immune from rational
challenge. Let's talk instead about choices that one makes in the real
world - not the actual real world of course, but the thing that goes
by the name of the real world; the thing conceived by people, defined
by people and spread through codes of coercion and trickery into ready
young minds until the actual real world could no longer be visible.
Let's talk, friends and lovers, about choice.

In every situation, there is a variety of possible choices. A choice
can be highly complex, but consisting of sub-choices and bits-of-
choices. Reducible to a bit level, each choice is a Yes-to-life or a
No-to-life; a choice that embodies the life opposite the choice that
embodies determinism or disease. When given the choice of the creative
anomaly against the rules and the norms and the social standards, what
has the person chosen? The question that needs to be asked at all
levels of choice. The greater the representation of life, the truer a
person to his nature as a living being. The greater the representation
of the opposite principle, the more self-traitorous (and, by
extension, traitorous also to others' nature as living beings).

When the choice in childhood was between identifying with the crude
but more powerful influence and identifying with the evolved but less
powerful influence, what did the person choose? When the choice in
adolescence was between "doing like everyone else" and fighting one's
way to intellectual independence, what did the person choose? When the
choice in relationships is between the mutually grinding marital
slavery and furthering the best and the strongest in one another, what
did the person choose? When the choice in friendships is between
indulging one's weaknesses with "pals" or else holding out, at the
threat of complete isolation, for people who would respect and embody
one's virtues rather than limitations, what did the person choose?

To what extent are you your mind's master? To what extent is your
consciousness chosen by you? What do you do when given the choice
between being right and being popular; do you change the concept of
right to fit what is feasible? Did coercion-based, deceit- based
methods like social conditioning at any point in your life form your
identity - and, if they did, what have you done to change the
psychological structures that were instilled in that manner?

Would you make biophilic decisions when the result is a danger of
insanity, and a certainty of coercion, harrassment, confusion,
cognitive dissonance? Would you fight your way to higher knowledge
when you know that the process is agonizing and uncertain, and the
sensitivity that you develop has you feel agony to all the damage that
the people who do not have such a knowledge do to the world? What
would you choose: love or convention? What would you choose: To fight
for your freedom or to live as a slave? Would you love a hermit; would
you love a strong and ***ual woman; would you love a mystic, a rebel,
a poet, a scientist, a philosopher who has a completely new way of
thinking and knowing - and whom the people who have not yet trodden
his paths cannot know? And when you see something that embodies life
and its virtues, would you understand it, appreciate it and support
it, or would you run back to the crowd and send its prejudices and
viciousness and stupidity against that which you have not had the guts
to love?

It is these choices that determine the mind. Since choice can be made
at any point in one's life, anyone can change for good or for ill. A
fragmented or suppressed will makes the change difficult; a lifetime
of habits makes the change more difficult. Psychologically abusive
parents, brutal "peers", soul-stealing religions, toxic psychiatrists,
headgame artists that pass as lovers and friends can come close to
contaminating or destroying the will altogether. These s*******s,
individual or institutional, commit a more basic violation of human
rights than do rapists: stealing not the right to a body, but the
right to a mind; stealing not something that is an extension of self,
but the very center of judgment. They maim the mind as others would
maim the body, setting it against the judgment; against the senses;
against the self. With minds maimed, the bulk of humanity fears to use
them independently and lets the thinking be done by the gut-level
reaction that was the natural (primate) response to this formative
trauma. Most cultures, run by the those most successful in shoving
people thusly out of the way, consider it hurtful or mad or treasonous
to discuss these abuses or to alter the structures instilled in this
manner, and the abuses become systematic until not only do they form
the basis of "normal" social relations, but one is considered insane
for suggesting that there can be a different way.

But there is a different way. There are many different ways, and the
great people from Thomas Jefferson to Timothy Leary show
possibilities. Not "tune in, turn on, drop out"; own the mind, own the
body, own the life. Do not just refuse to let other people make your
decisions; consciously deconstruct every order, every lie, every abuse
and every manipulation that you've ever been told. Build your mind on
the kernel that you have been given - the kernel of life, the kernel
of freedom, the kernel of beauty, the kernel of direct sensation of
the universe - build your mind with clarity and with power - become
entirely conscious and self-determined; then live. And, if you get
some help on the way (as it is perhaps often necessary), make sure
that what you do is a fair exchange and not a re-entrenchment.

When a necrophilic social medium - the anti-intellectual,
anti-insight, anti-individual tradition that has gutted the vision of
its own founders - expropriates for its mentality such concepts as
"goodness" and "happiness"; when a good person is a social hypocrite,
and a happy person is someone who does not ask too many questions, and
love is a commercialized inanity, and the worst sin is refusing to
respect the prefabricated identities - too many people who see through
this condition turn away from goodness and happiness altogether,
before they can see that the problem is decidedly not goodness or
happiness but a cynical misuse of the terms. They have insight, but no
conceptual framework to hold the insight; they have biophilic
interests that they do not know to be biophilic and thus hold in
contempt. They fall not only by social standard, but also by their own
- not as a result of a flaw but as a result of a virtue, attacking the
source of the virtue until they have none. They need values that parse
with their insight; they need a more knowledgeable, more broad-minded,
more conceptually valid structure. They need a philosophy of Life.

See more at http://www.geocities.com/drr0cket/taxonomy.htm

my ex was a venn diagram

It seems like most people are looking for similarity in those they associate
with. Then there is the pecking order.


Since you are from the Soviet, what I want to know is why did teh Soviets put
women into space long ago and Americans didn't do it until the 80s?

tadpoledrummer

AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHH
:::::trips over chairs and knocks over the coffee pot::::::........I CAN'T
TAKE IT ANYMOREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!
::::runs out the room:::::.....

my ex was a venn diagram

It seems like most people are looking for similarity in those they associate
with. Then there is the pecking order.


Since you are from the Soviet, what I want to know is why did teh Soviets put
women into space long ago and Americans didn't do it until the 80s?

tadpoledrummer

AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHH
:::::trips over chairs and knocks over the coffee pot::::::........I CAN'T
TAKE IT ANYMOREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!
::::runs out the room:::::.....

thoughtcube

Because communism is a far more equality-believing ideology
than capitalism?

the babaloughesian

Not true. I usually want to use a chainsaw.

I wish I could make a pedestal like this guy's. People will pay good money
to read pages of monotonous, pseudo-intellectual drivel if it's phrased pretentiously enough.


Actually, we are. All of us. Really.


--
Free will is a myth
Hope is a lie
Mankind is not special
I hope you all die(soon)

thoughtcube

Because communism is a far more equality-believing ideology
than capitalism?

the babaloughesian

Not true. I usually want to use a chainsaw.

I wish I could make a pedestal like this guy's. People will pay good money
to read pages of monotonous, pseudo-intellectual drivel if it's phrased pretentiously enough.


Actually, we are. All of us. Really.


--
Free will is a myth
Hope is a lie
Mankind is not special
I hope you all die(soon)

velvet

indeed it was )