the AKHLog V4

The Coming of Anti-Wisdom

This was going to be a harsh post, and I don’t have the will or the heart to speak such harmful things, so I’m editing it in the hopes that it will be received much easier and will not effect the possibility of coming together for something we can all relate to. Hopefully this will be easily understood.

Basically, the post was going to talk about three things:

1) how the community has blotted out my existence (at least, my existence in these words I have been posting) in favor of the existence they want me to have (i.e., as the “old” Enox that suppressed his intellectual abilities in favor of community stability);

2) how I feel as though the community has projected their own alienation onto me, in order to avoid the anxiety of seeing it in themselves; and

3) how my last post (the mystical one, that wasn’t even responded to) was basically made to express my feelings toward the actual state of the community, in a way that nothing (yet, in the same breath, everything) could be understood.

So all that I am going to say now is that I give up in trying to conceptualize or mystically present to the community my ideas. Because I doubt either posts would truly be read. From now on, I’ll just post philosophical topics in general for the people who enjoy it (and possibly, new blog members).

I was trying to help those who I thought were friends, but it seems as though a large part of my personality has been passively rejected (which is the worst rejection:  if I were rejected violently, that would have meant that I was having some effect). Thus I am assuming that it would be impossible to help, because at the same time, it would be impossible to harm. The indifferent can’t be helped.

No sword would be strong enough to rattle the peace of indifference. Kick off the dust from your feet, as a testimony against them. Let the dead bury the dead.

Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.

A Word to the Un-wise

A note to the reader:  I think you already know this, but none of the proceeding post should be taken as literal. There is no such thing as “body, soul and spirit” but I use these terms because they are mystical in origin and point to actual things. They are primitive descriptions of real objects. If you don’t understand this, that is good:  the mystical medium is meant to mesmerize and disguise the meaning of the message. This will seem irrational, but the meaning will slowly dawn upon you after you have read the text; it will not do so immediately. If it does not, the next post will describe what is meant here (for the most part).

——————————————————————————————–

Why do you think that your community will save you? That the tripartite god of the body, soul, and spirit of the community will make you worthy in the eyes of the self? If you truly believe that these things will bring your salvation, you believe in something other than the Thing, which is bad faith. True bad faith, indeed. For what is bad faith but the lie in which the truth is concealed in the subject? Necessarily I respond to your bad faith with this faithfully bad obscurantist analysis of your problems.

The body is the wounded, dismembered physicality, of which the soul of the body screams out in pain against. Yet this body is now inert, inflicting upon itself the pain of stagnation and decomposition. It toils not, yet it exerts the energy of a thousand oxen, pulling the yoke of a thousand weighty stones; the spirit never rests. Lifelessness of life, stillness of the eternal movement; the disabled body is vanity.

The soul screams out in pain, but never once does it decide to leave the body. The alienated soul, the lost control it once had over body and spirit, is lifeless because it is disconnected from life. Body now controls the soul through pricks and pins, spirit now enslaves the soul by keeping it alive. Lifelessness of life, stillness of the eternal movement; the torn soul is vanity.

The spirit revolves and centrifugally escapes from the dead body. The soul is lost in between the two poles, searching for an answer in vain, stuck in the ditch of an untenable position, yet the spirit continues on and leaves the soul behind. Spirit moves the soul to scream, spirit bids the body to stay; spirit continues to be what spirit is. The unending motivation from the spirit further kills the body by tearing apart the soul. Lifelessness of life, stillness of the eternal movement; the everlasting spirit is vanity.

Until the One comes along to smash apart the tripartite god, the community, then it will suffer forever. It will feel nothing but pain, scream nothing but silence, move nothing but its will to move. The One shall set free the soul that is burning in torment, in the liquid hot metal of the god’s wrath. He shall harvest the first-fruits when they are ripe, shall toil for the sake of them all. Though the soul, still stuck between the life and the death of the community, will protest, “Do not remove me from the vine!,” the One shall swiftly cut the plant down, and save the fruit before the harsh Winter arrives.

Liveliness of life, movement of the stillness of eternity; such is not vanity.

Or, the One shall leave them to hang on the vine, to be frozen and cut off forever from a community of leaves and buds by the incoming Winter storms, to be drowned in the magma during the remaking of the world, to be lost in the Old World when a New World is created, to roast in the boiling pit of inferno known only as:

OTHER PEOPLE

A Possible Collaboration Incoming!

How about this? Axle and I have been in (constant) communication and we’ve had the (possible) idea of making some sort of sprite comic. If anyone wants to be a part of it, I hope they read this post, because I’m asking that they comment here with a sprite sheet so that we can come up with some sort of framework for a loose story-line.

Basically I think we will be making some sort of story-line to follow but branch off of for creative purposes.

So it wouldn’t be impossible to add in characters throughout the comic, in fact that’s probably how your characters will be introduced.

Anyways, this isn’t official (yet), but I think it would definitely be a fun project for our continued unification, another “reunion” of sorts. A combination of elements from both sides of this deep rift of “indifference” so that we can connect somehow. A suggestion, hopefully one that will attract some sort of renewed relationship.

Subjectivism: The Denial of Philosophy

I’d like to analyze pure subjectivism here, which is Solipsism. For those of you who do not know, Solipsism claims that the subject (or the person) perceives reality, and that this perceived reality is the only thing that exists (in the words of Berkeley:  ”To be is to be perceived”). This perception is reality for the subjectivist; anything outside of perception is not real.

I call this the denial of philosophy for two reasons.

First of all, it denies the possibility of further research into anything. It takes the fact that what is perceived as reality (i.e., the opinion of the subject) as the ultimate truth, and thus, why else would we need to use our reason? We only have to use reason, according to the subjectivist, in order to get to this point in knowledge:  that our knowledge is already reality, the only reality. What would be the point of inquiring further into the world?

It also denies philosophy, secondly, by abandoning logic altogether. It escapes having to deal with fallacies because it denies any type of reasoning except for its own. Its own reason must be infallible else another reality exists in the knowing of another person, which is impossible in Solipsism.

In conclusion, Solipsism is baseless and assumes this baseless-ness at its own base.

Being as Phenomenon

An interesting note on the philosophical concept of being, Sartre’s philosophy basically states that the appearance of something is necessarily real. That is, no appearance can betray the essence it seeks to reveal.

So when we see red objects, we use these objects to grasp at the essence, Red.

And as an application, we can no longer say that an appearance is based on total falsity. All falsehood reveals some sort of essence. The least essence it could reveal is that of falsity (i.e., the general idea of falsity as untrue).

What does this mean in relation to the community? Each person reveals an aspect of the essence, but is not the essence itself. The essence is the being of the phenomenon; each person is merely the phenomenon of being. What does Sartre mean by these two terms? We have to know before we proceed.

Sartre means by “being of the phenomenon” the essence. This is not possessing being, nor is it having being, or any such relation:  it “is.” The “phenomenon of being” is what is existent, what is merely a manifestation of being. Thus essence is the revelation of being; existence is the being revealed.

So we have our persons, existent beings, who represent being itself. The existent human beings of a certain community are the aspects of the “essence” of humanity itself to the person within that community.

Thus, is it the individual who chooses to hate or love his community, or does the community itself determine such a choice in the individual? Unless the community consists of all living beings, the whole being cannot be realized within the mind of the individual. Thus all communities are necessarily incomplete and all communities will necessarily be defunct in some way.

And because of this defunct community the individual will be defunct as well.

Back From Leave

I’m going to start writing shorter posts about easy-to-understand philosophical ideas. No more long posts, hope you guys actually read these new ones.

(AKH, I have not forgotten about the post I owe you.)

REALLY?!

http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/users/Hawk%20Industries

I’VE BEEN FORGOTTEN ALREADY?!

;_;

Ha ha ha.

Temporary Absence

I’m taking a break from posting/emailing, but I will be back again.

Collective Phenomenon in the Construction of Sexuality

For the moment, I skip my promised post to AKH in order to address a much larger issue that pertains to everyone who still reads the blog.

A journey of self-discovery has led me to propose theories on sexuality which I strongly believe to be fundamental in understanding human relations.

I’ve been studying sexuality for quite some time now, trying to find the answers to my own deviations, because I thought they were unique and thus, in the social sense, “evil.”

To be sure, the reader can skip the next paragraph; it just establishes credentials. But at least know that I have done my research before passing judgment on what I should necessarily say.

I picked up multiple volumes of Freud, I dove into an anatomy of sexual destructiveness by Erich Fromm, took a turn with Marcuse and learned about his sexual utopia:  Freudian optimism, found a social comparison to sexuality and radical deviations within the work of R. D. Laing, and even now I’m still progressing through the psychoanalytic literature. I’m even trying to put up with the infamous Jacques Lacan, who is purportedly worthless but nonetheless vital to my inquiry.

It was quite a shock to find out that everyone is deviant in some way or another, that I was not radically other. However, it was not a relief; I still retain the sense that I am insignificantly other.

But enough about my own problems. Let’s get down to business.

If one gets nothing out of this post, or worries at its length, at least understand these next four paragraphs, because they summarize what I am about to say:

I decided, instead of being led by the unconscious impulses, that I would first know these impulses before they led me to pleasurable gratification. For to “know thyself” is the highest good, for then all things subjective may be mastered, and then objective mastery comes easier.

For why should one eat if they are not really hungry? Does it not make one unhealthily obese? Yet many people, under the spell of boredom, or under the gloom of depression, eat for these reasons that lie outside of the real desire to eat. Real desire is subverted and a person is led to falsely desire something, when they actually do not.

It is thus with sexuality; why should we gratify our sexuality when we are not truly desirous of gratification? A group of people ends up relating with each other through a certain “sacred” image because they lack the ability to relate their deviant sexuality without such a medium (this is how it has been since the beginning of time). It is possible that the image becomes a sexual object because of its significance within the group. Many times people within the group are blinded by this significance, and end up thinking that they truly desire the image. However, the only reason they desire it is because they have paired their real sexual desire with the human desire for recognition. This creates a pseudo-sexual desire. Thus, under the influence of the group, we not only ignore our real sexual desire in favor of this pseudo-sexual desire, but we also take it to be our real sexual desire. This produces unhealthy effects, just like eating when we do not really desire to do so.

So let me give a quick example of what I mean by this so as to relate it to the audience. The “sacred” image that I know most of you have is the anthropomorphic animal. Which is a very revealing “sacred” image because a short-hand word for the image is “anthro” which means “man.” Anyways, what is to be said about the image in question? What is desired in the image? I say that this desire for para-humans (or pseudo-animals) is a pseudo-sexual desire because a group is formed on its basis. We are merely trying to relate some aspect of our real sexual desire to another person, and we end up doing it through a group that has the same “sacred” image as we do. So in order to be recognized by the others, we renunciate or repress a chunk of our real sexual desire:  in the case of this example, the pure human aspects of sex are repressed and hidden behind the “sacred” image of the pseudo-animal. So in this pseudo-sexual desire lies this fundamental aspect:  the group represses the real sexual desire of the individual and thus tells the individual to renunciate his particular deviations. And thus, as a member of the “furry” group one is told to renunciate his “self.” But the rest of this conclusion lies at the end of this inquiry.

I ask that you at least attempt to read what is below to come to the conclusions; if I am too technical, just skip to the conclusions which I will separate in bold.

What is the point of this post, and why should you even be reading it? If I know my audience, they know that I know the answer. They should want to know what drives them, what causes them to act, to imagine, in one word, live. I have the feeling that to know is not the highest good for my audience, but that they would enjoy someone else exposing knowledge to them. And thus I present a post on

The influence of the collective on sexual development.

How does a collective, or a group of people, influence the sexual development of the child and even the adult?

The infant grows while it has no genital apparatus and thus has an extremely imaginative sexuality. Sexual stimulation may be affected any of its pre-genital zones (such as the mouth or the anus). A baby will be attached to mother and father, who often stimulate these areas, and thus, will attribute a sexual relationship to them. These are all basic Freudian concepts. It is not surprising or inhumane, either, since the baby is essentially inhuman, lacking the mental apparatus of consciousness.

How does an incestuous baby become influenced by the collective in its sexual development? We see the development of the Oedipus complex, where the male child finally desires some type of love-object (i.e., the mother). He also hates his father as a result of this desire, because he is in a competition (in the mind) with his father for her love.

During this phase, the child will most likely experience the social world first hand. Interactions with the father inherently teach the jealous child certain behaviors that will be copied in order to win the love of the mother. And of course, if the male child is overtly sexual, the mother will reproach him, may threaten castration (in a subtle way, of course), and thus, will keep his sexuality in check. Of course, this is quite normal in development and merely teaches the child about reality, putting a check on his imaginative sexuality which could never be gratified. None of this, though, implies a pseudo-sexual desire. Eventually the Oedipus complex is broken up because incest becomes completely impractical to the child who now understands external reality. But before that happens…

There is something that happens during these social revelations. The male child finds out, eventually, that everyone does not have a penis, specifically, his mother. This is a shock to the child and makes him fear the previously mentioned “castration threat.”  Most children (I argue ALL children) will come up with a lie to hide this fact. He will then create what is called a “fetish” and thus give the woman an “imaginary penis.” He gives this to her by giving some aspect of her the same significance that he gave the penis (i.e., A “SACRED” IMAGE!). It also gains a sexual significance. This will be shown to be extremely important later.

Let’s skip to adolescence.

The adolescent is, in our culture, thrown into a world of hormonal development and the pressures of a transition into adulthood. The rules of the social world are learned and sexuality is, though not really repressed, kept from being discussed, in regards to deviations. Because of course, curious teenagers will discuss the biology of sexuality frequently, and allude to it in jokes (the joke is a mechanism of making what is feared into something palatable as unserious). But they aren’t allowed to discuss the sexuality bottled up in their heads, the deviations like the desires to hurt someone, to be hurt by someone, etc.

At least, in my adolescence, this was true. One would not go to the social world in order to gratify their sexual impulses, because the social world is made of repressed sexual energy! Freud calls this sublimated libido, which in my mind is a much more refined term. Brotherly love is derived from the repressed sex we would pay for with a hooker, the same sex we would have in the relations implied in the incestuous Oedipus complex.

But instead of relating to others with our sexual deviations, since we literally cannot, we go into our private chambers and masturbate our deviant phantasy away.

Or, at least, this was formerly the development of the adolescent.

Now, with the advent of the internet and the “social” medium, we are like disembodied spirits that speak what is in our minds. Well, at least, we try to. This is where things get complicated.

Formerly there was a uniting agent of the social world, a “sacred” image, that was called god. God was “the Centre” (to use a Buberian term), the relation between all Western men in some of the ages preceding this one. Could one discuss sexuality through the medium of god? Preposterous! The idea was unheard of. But now the “sacred” image has become more relative because god has died.

What was the most striking image of your childhood? What was the experience that you have become obsessed with? It is possible that this is unconscious, repressed behind the pseudo-sexual desire that has been adopted. Of course, it is also possible that it is the most prevalent image around you, something you are completely conscious of. Earlier I mentioned that the fetish is a replacement for the “castrated penis” of the female, so this is technically the first “sacred” image. It will be different things for different people. It may be some type of clothing, a woman’s nose, a pet she has, her pregnancy (which is what she desires when she finds out she lacks a penis; the baby IS her penis). This develops into something more complex later on when it fuses with the real sexual desire of the adolescent/adult.

Anyways, as has been described, the “sacred” image is this image of childhood. Let me give you a few examples from our modern world. Some people now have the pseudo-sexual desire to have sex with a cartoon woman (or man) in a commercial. Some wish to have sexual relations with video game characters, pseudo-animals, transexualized anime characters, action figures, comic book heroes,…the list could go on forever. These are products of the combination of a fetish with a dear childhood experience.

What I mean to say is, the “sacred” image is now a varied and relative uniting agent between two or more people that originated in the fetish and in a childhood experience. And since it is not god, it is easy to attribute a sexual significance to these new “sacred” images.

Why does the “sacred” image get not only significance amongst a group but also this sexual significance? It is because these deviations cannot be expressed in terms of language. We have never truly related them to another person in history, because the “sacred” image of god was blocking them. Instead we “express” our real sexual desire through the “sacred” image. But of course, we must realize that this expression is NOT the real sexual desire, but a pseudo-sexual desire.

For instance, say that Male Patient 11 had an indescribable desire that involved being gratified by a female that happened to also be pregnant.  Say he also has a fascination with a certain cartoon that involves a pregnant woman. He comes across internet pornography of his fetish PLUS the “sacred” image. He may now masturbate with not only his phantasy but also with this image in hand.

But what reinforces the “sacred” image is being around others who share the same “sacred” image in their pseudo-sexuality. A group is formed on the basis of this image and the individuals within the group communicate through it. They particularly communicate their real sexual desire through it, so this is the diagram of communication that develops between the group (A = individual, B = interlocutor or second individual, O = “sacred” image, — = real sexual desire, >> = pseudo-sexual desire):

A — O >> B;

B >> O >> A;

A >> O >> B

Eventually the real sexual desire is lost through the “sacred” image.

But why is it lost? In order to relate through the “sacred” image the real sexual desire must be suppressed in some way. Everyone does not have the same sexual deviations, though this is the appearance created by the collective phenomenon. Thus, in order for the group to relate on an equal plane through the “sacred” image, the real sexual desire of the individual must be “repressed” in the Freudian sense. This means that certain sexual instincts are “stopped” and not allowed to be gratified, lost in the unconscious.

So being around others that are supposedly helping you to express your real sexual desire are actually suppressing your real sexual desire in favor of a group-palatable pseudo-sexual desire. They repress your being, your individual self, in favor of their pre-packaged group identity. And you become that identity once the repression works its magic.

To conclude:

The collective phenomenon of group sexuality is a mechanism of repression, JUST LIKE the old regular social world used to be, the social world of the church. Instead of the social world mediated by god which was a repressive group, we now have replaced the institution of the church with a seemingly less hostile group centered around an equally repressive “sacred” image (that is relative to each group) that forces each individual to repress in themselves whatever is not pertinent, sexually, to that “sacred” image. Thus belonging to a group is sublimation of your individuality and absorption into a whole where that individuality disappears. Your real sexual desire is NOT revealed by that group, nor is the “sacred” image really the aim of your desire. That is merely the aim of the constructed pseudo-sexual desire that is made for you by the group.

The unhealthy aspects of having your being repressed by other people is documented and easily demonstrated. A lot of mental illness (formerly called neurosis by Freud) results from such things, from phobias to depression. Plus, it suppresses you as an individual. I suggest searching your self, and by this I mean just being alone and thinking about who you are, what your desires really are, and just getting away from the group you have been repressed by. Being around nature is a good place to start, because you can basically lose all of that repression by experiencing the natural world minus human or group influence.

I hope that this has helped someone somehow.

If anything is not understood, or if any criticism is necessary, PLEASE post it. I would be glad to hear and respond to it. I apologize for this ahead of time, that I was not able to invest my full mental energy near the end of the post. I emptied out a lot of knowledge at the beginning of this post and just couldn’t finish it out. I tried my best. I wish the solution part of the post could have been much larger.

A Question of Beginnings (II)

II

The universe was caused. The question, “was it caused by some ONE,” is irrelevant, because by “one” we could mean God or singularity, or God causing a singularity, or a singularity causing God, or…we could go on forever.

The IMPORTANT question is of teleology. What are the implications of the cause of the universe?

Some scientists combine existentialism or nihilism with their teleological view of the universe:  and thus, answer the question by saying, “There are no implications.” They would rather be satisfied by explaining something that happens in front of our very eyes. Christians (or the religious) would say that only God knows what the implications of the universe are.

Both views lead to intellectual stagnation and should not be considered at all within the scope of philosophy.

What is the scope of philosophy, and how may we see the teleological implications of the universe’s existence through it?

The scope is Evolution, that generality that Spencer developed around the time of Darwin (and according to his testimony, preceding Darwin).  The Evolution of a system is basically the creation of an efficient exchange of energy between its parts, so that motion begins to decrease while matter begins to accumulate. Thus the evolution of organisms (which is not the sole type of Evolution:  stars evolve, ecosystems evolve, humans still evolve) is one example. We have an accumulation of matter in an individual of a species.

But what are the implications of Evolution? There are two tools of Evolution, Equilibration and Dissolution, that lead us to an answer.

Equilibration is the equal distribution of matter and energy that Evolution is trying to reach. There is currently a cosmic imbalance of energy, and certainly matter, that is being corrected by the effects of the advent of the Universe. Evolution, using this tool, is trying to balance what the cosmos is made of, in order to cause everything to “rest.”

What does “rest” imply? According to Spencer, an “omnipresent death” of everything. But at the same time the contradictory philosopher says that this will be a glorious moment for all species because the individual will be perfected to such an extent that Utopia will be achieved. Try reconciling that with “omnipresent death.”

We find that this idea of “rest” is a focal point of the Buddhist tradition, specifically that of Nirvana. Freud goes to great lengths to link this to his idea of the death drive, which is a striving of organic matter to become inorganic.

This leads us to dissolution, which Spencer posits as the beginning of a new universe after equilibration creates the perfect (and still, or eternally timeless) universe. Dissolution destroys what Evolution creates. Dissolution comes in the form of natural disaster, meteors striking earth, or, really, anything that kills that isn’t a part of genetics.

But what happens if dissolution CANNOT operate?

If equilibration makes everything in the universe perfect, if energy and matter are regulated in such a way that nothing can be changed, will we not truly suffer an “omnipresent death” in which nothing will be possible? How can dissolution operate in a world in which energy transfer has stopped, in which matter has become motionless, in a sense, where time has stopped forever?

The implications of such a teleological find make us question the necessity of further Evolution. We are conscious human beings that can make decisions. We can become the Agents that overcome Evolution, or we can remain puppets of Evolution and carry out its final goal:  that of making the universe into a lifeless mass of perfection.

So while science and religion argue over solving the problem of “Who” or “Who did not” create the universe, let us meditate on what will happen when Evolution has been completed without anyone noticing, without anyone thinking to stop Evolution dead in its tracks, to preserve the universe we have, to keep control of the universe as the highest species known, before it is taken over by a being higher than us along the Evolutionary chain.