Satyr has a unique view of the world and use of language that we psychologists can appreciate. He has always been one of our more interesting patients here at the institute.
In this thread we let him post as if he were keeping a journal. Anything that comes to his mind. Philosophical thoughts, musings, aphorisms, whatever he wishes to express.
How kind of you, thoughtful expert. Surely your benevolence exceeds even that which you perceive of it.
Indeed. It is said by many schools that Prom’s benevolence is so great that it’s ineffable and that even the most perfect of perfections in this world are crude and vulgar profanities in comparison to his perfection.
He speaks in third person. Surely he is divine. Fight me, deity.
You… a mortal… wish to challenge me?
[thunderous laughter and flailing about spilling wine all over the palace floor to which servants rush and promptly clean up]
And the illusion crumbles. But it was fun while it lasted, thanks.
Indeed, i may be the emperor but i have no clothes.
Awareness of the issue is the first step. I believe in you. You can do better.
If a man had an irrational fear of dogs, and was inspired by modern Americanized, nihilsits…he would …
define the perceived organism, named canine, in a way that would make it impossible to exist.
He would claim that dogs fly, or are immortal, and that anything that does not meet this criterion is not a ‘real dog’ but an ‘illusion.’
This is what psychotics do to deny their will’s ‘freedom’ to whatever degree they have it.
They experience will daily.
With every act, with every choice they make they experience it.
they experience it in others. They see others act, and go through the process of choosing, or judging…
But they refuse to define what they perceive, adopting whatever definition is popular - conventional - or that satisfies their objectives.
They do the same with the word ‘free’…though it refers to ‘will’ - in the free-will context - as ‘strong’ might when describing a ‘strong will’.
Free is a qualifier…descriptive…expressing an evaluation, a judgment…a perspective of the perceived acts of Will - willful actions…intentional actions.
The actions living being perform constantly, whether consciously or unconsciously.
All value judgements are triangulation:
Interpreting subject ---- interpreted object/objective ---- and the subject’s estimation/approximation, evaluation, of the effort required for subject/ and its objective to coincide…or to come closer, to bridge the distance between them.
This is what all value-judgements are.
In the case of ‘free-will’ the objective is ‘freedom’, independence, liberty.
Freedom ius the objective…and Will is the subject.
The way we define freedom will determine our estimation of the effort required to attain the objective.
This is true of ALL objectives.
(the same is true of how we define ‘self’, but that’s another issue)
If we CHOOSE to adopt a definition of freedom which is supernatural, unreal… projecting it in a noetic realm, contrary to the real, then the estimation/approximation of the effort required will be adjusted accordingly.
We can do the same with ‘strong’ in 'strong willed…or strong man…or beauty…or life…
For example, if we define life in supernatural ways then we can claim that nothing experiences meets this criterion and that what we perceive as living are illusions…our sense playing tricks on us.
We can then declare ourselves dead…no different than any inanimate object.
We can say life is an illusion, because we cannot find anything that is immortal.
This is what modern Americanized, recovering Abrahamic, psychotics do with the concept of freedom, in reference to Will.
They define it in such a way that it can never be experienced, so as to then declare it illusory.
Why do they CHOOSE to do so?
They could, instead, use their experiences to define both terms ’ will’ and ‘free’ as they would a ‘dog’ and tis ‘strength’ or ‘speed’…
But they CHOOSE otherwise.
Their CHOICE, can now be used to identify their motive…as would any choice…and any willful, intentional act.
Why do they do this with ‘free’ and not with the other terms, for example?
This is a clue.
Why do they not define it, or CHOOSE to adopt a definition that satisfies their motive, relative to their objective.
Their objective being to nullify the Will and negate freedom.
This is anti-philosophical because philosophy’s objective is truth or understanding…using perceptions and language.
Their use of language reveals a different objective.
They don’t want to know and understand but to excuse and escape…to immerse themselves in misunderstanding…to evade
Why, then, do they come on these online forums that are dedicated, presumably, to philosophy?
Does their love of wisdom means love of deceit?
Is there a kind of wisdom in deceit?
Is their true motive comforting…survival at any cost, even the cost of intellectual integrity?
Has reality become so traumatic, to them, that this is the only objective they recognize as attainable?
Is their objective human parity, through universal submission to a collective, represented by an abstraction, like Will? Another way of describing the same god they believe they’ve overcome.
In nature there are parasites that insert themselves within a host, chemically masking their identity to evade its autoimmune systems - essentially pretending to be part of the host - latch onto its brain stem (nervous system) and take it over.
The infected host loses control of itself - it loses agency.
Its will is hijacked, by an alien will, that makes it behave in self-destructive ways…or in accordance with the intruder’s objectives.
This is called ‘zombification.’
Loss of contract with reality is one of the symptoms.
Loss of will, is another.
Self-contradicting behaviours is a third.
A gene-based parasite.
I would expect the experience would be as if the infected organism were possessed by a mysterious entity…or that god were speaking to it, or a strange being it could not identify.
Alienation from itself… from its own body.
What if there were another kind of parasite…one based on ideologies, dogmas…using language to hijack a host’s will?
A meme-based parasite.
What symptoms would we expect to find in an infected host?
How would it use language under this intruder’s control?
“What if there were another kind of parasite…one based on ideologies, dogmas…using language to hijack a host’s will? A meme-based parasite.”
Here’s how that works. The basic fact is no amount of “language manipulation” in a society could ever be so severe as to fail the society. The actual material relations of society have to be changed… doesn’t matter what narratives are en vogue at any particular time. Doesn’t matter how “dangerous” they are believed to be. If you turned a quarter of the world into cross dressing transgender freaks and they all still went to work, bought shit and paid their bills, nothing substantial would change about society.
Ideology is theater. Actual reality is the everyday material relations. If those become all wonky, then mankind might have a problem. Meanwhile, being gay, fat, an imbecile, untalented, and whatever else doesn’t matter if you still have a job.
Evolution is incredibly hardy and has a way of keeping species alive for a long fuckin time, regardless of what they believe or how they dress.
If something wipes us out, it won’t be jews or woke zombies or metrosexual democrat vegans. It’ll be a meteor or fucked up supply lines or a virus or something like that.
ideologies that attempt to contradict nature - claiming to be ‘correcting, humanizing’, ‘improving’ - can only partially and ephemerally succeed.
The degree to which they contradict nature determines their longevity, forcing many, like Christianity, to develop a set of excuses… like sinfulness…like the Jews and their yearly self-cleansing rituals, using scapegoats.
self-contradictions are assimilated into the canon.
A parasite’s cycle incudes the host’s demise… consequently, its own demise is part of its reproductive method.
It does not need to know this.
The parasite can remain oblivious…in fact its ignorance increases its effectiveness…like a liar that believes his own lies becomes more convincing.
Dawkin speak of ‘selfish genes’…what of a ‘selfish meme’?
Would not the carrier of a self-destructive ideology, remain unaware of what it is doing, and how this leads to his own demise?
Would it not justify its self-sacrifice metaphysically?
What if the carriers experienced periodic ostracizing, or slaughters, due to the memes cycles?
Would not these cycles become ingrained in their traditions as prophesies?
Would not their periodic sacrifices become part of their victim identity?
As if it were ordaiend by a higher power…the meme?
All sexual acts that do not lead to reproduction are performed for other reasons.
Sex is an intrusive act, for females, necessitating the development of their physical form and their psychology - what we call feminine.
Other actions, such as homosexuality are usually a sing of lack of options - penguins - or acts of dominance - wolves.
transsexuality is a symptom of civilizational decline.
Beta males choosing to join what they cannot attain.
The ultimate act of beta males.
If you can’t beat them, join them.
Feminization.
Females are ideal because they are less combative, more tolerant and adaptable. Part of their reproductive role.
In this context oral sex has alternate motives than reproduction.
An act of demeaning and claiming the other as your property.
This is more demeaning when males perform cunnilingus.
The female losses respect. The male becomes less than her.
Two ways to use words/symbols.
1- as connectors between noumena and phenomena…between the ideal and the real…
2- as disconnectors, inverting the previous. Instead of connecting the ideal to the real, it reconnects the ideal to another ideal… words referring to words.
Definitions referring to texts, alluding to abstractions that contradict experienced existence.
The word synthesized the interpreted with the interpretation …like the nervous system synthesizes body/mind.
“Today many people in the West would be dismayed if a leading theologian suggested that God was in some profound sense a product of the imagination. Yet it should be obvious that the imagination is the chief religious faculty. It has been defined by Jean-Paul Sartre as the ability to think of what is not. Human beings are the only animals who have the capacity to envisage something that is not present or something that does not yet exist but which is merely possible. The imagination has thus been the cause of our major achievements in science and technology as well as in art and religion. The idea of God, however it is defined, is perhaps the prime example of an absent reality which, despite its inbuilt problems, has continued to inspire men and women for thousands of years. The only way we can conceive of God, who remains imperceptible to the senses and to logical proof, is by means of symbols, which it is the chief function of the imaginative mind to interpret.
Suhrawardi was attempting an imaginative explanation of those symbols that have had a crucial influence on human life, even though the realities to which they refer remain elusive.
A symbol can be defined as an object or a notion that we can perceive with our senses or grasp with our minds but in which we see something other than itself. Reason alone will not enable us to perceive the special, the universal or the eternal in a particular, temporal object. That is the task of the creative imagination, to which mystics, like artists, attribute their insights.
As in art, the most effective religious symbols are those informed by an intelligent knowledge and understanding of the human condition.”
[A History of God]
–Armstrong, Karen
And with language man is the only species that can invert reality, and lose trust in its own senses.
The only species that can immerse itself in its own imaginings… declaring the real world illusory.
