the AKHLog V4

A Question of Beginnings (I)

I

The cause of something is often looked at as the highest thing knowable through the social-historical perspective. However, true philosophy seeks to understand teleology, or the final causes (goals) of things.

The forefront of the religious and scientific minds of today is the question of the ORIGINAL cause:  the creation of, not only earth, but the universe itself. Such a basic question, such a basic answer, and yet, the two groups are divided with no compromise in sight. An immaturity of sorts lines these arguments:  the Christian often hides behind a child-like ignorance which is supposedly necessary for faith (i.e., BLIND faith), and the scientist often hides behind the “inherent” absolutism of his field or the social world (memes like the “flying spaghetti monster” come from this source, and try to make a joke of religion in order to disprove it).

What is the truth in this matter?

The basic answer:  the beginning cannot be experienced, and it was not experienced, so the beginning does not historically exist. It is prehistory. And any prehistorical happening cannot be totally proven.

Thus any social-historical perspective should understand that the original cause of the universe (technically) lies outside of its field. The beginning of everything is a pointless conjecture that SHOULD have no effect on the mind of man.

The scientist wants the beginning to be a cold, harsh occurrence, simply to “disprove” the religious sentiment and prove its “absolute knowledge.” Whereas the religious folk want to prove that they have been given “absolute knowledge” by God by simply knowing that the cause of the world was…caused. They want to disprove each other by saying that the universe was caused.

This is folly of the worst kind. All creation theories set forth by science can be assimilated into religion (I am referring specifically to Christianity, here). All religious creation theories can be thought of as a guide to what we now know with science. Religion created science because religion was, after its primitive history of giving humanity “control” over nature, the search for the truth. Nietzsche says that this is what caused Christianity to kill its own god.

So now we “know” that the universe was caused; we have learnt this from both science and religion (religion was first in describing this, it set up the framework for science to work with).

Part II soon.

BEST CHRISTMAS POST EVER

The Future

This is a farewell, certainly, but in a different form than most of you might have expected.

I’m going to continue writing for the AKHlog even after this post. I had forgotten over time how much I enjoyed typing out post after post, and plus, you’re all receptive to what I have to say…I was worried about that when I published my last text, thinking that everyone would have hated it.

Next time, though, I won’t be obscure at all (or allow it to be so lengthy). I’m going to purge my use of “the Other” (I promise, I only used it because I was at a loss of descriptive words), and instead, replace it with (another temporary phrase) “the Social World.” I’ll use “Society” to define a social group that makes up part of this. I can’t express how much I hate Lacan (I barely understand him:  he PURPOSELY made his text hard to read because he had nothing to say) or the postmodern group of philosophers.

Anyways, I don’t want to get technical here again, so I’m stopping myself from all those corrections for the time being. I think getting a chance to talk to everyone again was really nice, and having all of you in my contact list is much better on my conscience.

Of course, I should go ahead and state that I won’t be returning to Xat. I probably will not return to online games either, not because I don’t want to (I’ve had a nagging thought every now and again of checking Minecraft), but because of my new computer’s specs.

Maybe one day we will all have the chance of meeting each other in person, even Pilot, who is actually the governor of New Jersey.

So, I say a final goodbye to everyone who still indulges in the chat room lifestyle:  but hello to everyone again in two different ways. One old, and one new.

And of course, Merry Christmas everybody.

The Other as Will and Representation

I plan to, in the following post, have a postmortem reckoning with the truth of the reason for my long absence.

I wanted, honestly, to leave without saying a word, but it seems like that is impossible. My nature is to have the last word:  even after crossing this plane of being for a higher state of consciousness.

Leaving this place, in particular, was of multiple origins. The only ones I shall consider here are those that had no historical-emotional origin (i.e., like an argument), because those are mere scuffles that always ended in the rejoining of the antithetical parts.  Plus, I have forgotten them, so any reasons for my leave that may have had to do with them are now void.

I will instead expound on the socio-philosophical and psychological truths that have convinced me to leave. I will then offer my condolences to those who may get the message wrong; I do this not out of animosity, but out of particular consideration.

Before I start, though, I want to make a distinction. When I say, “the Other,” I am not saying the same thing as “another person” or “others.” The Other as I have understood it is the collective mind, the social environment’s leading archetype, the social world, “god,” or quite simply, the template of the “perfect man” as defined by ALL. The Other is just a blanket term I have adopted for the time being; I think it is a postmodern, obscure term that has no warrant in philosophy, so I’ll change it soon in future texts that I write. But since time is of the essence here, I will continue with its use for now.

Firstly, I have discovered quite earnestly that time cannot be wasted. Second chances at life are spiritual in origin and have no basis in scientific considerations; reincarnation does not work for humans, as it does for physical matter. Of course, energy itself isn’t reincarnated (it is used within a system, then dispersed as unusable), so it would be illogical to say that a state of mind would be, since that is also an energetic state. Not to dismiss the Hindus as incorrect; they have certainly had a profound connection with modern science (Oppenheimer quoted their ancient religious documents when the first atomic bomb was detonated), and all religions have some kernel of truth locked away in their dogma (Herbert Spencer agrees).

This idea, though basic in notion, is practically impossible; I still waste time in everyday life. However, I waste less, because of the orientation of why I spend my time the way I have chosen.

Now, I do not build imaginary cities with magical trickery (Minecraft) to please the Other. I build mental structures with heavy study to  further understand the world for the only reason we exist here on earth:  to push our specie’s survival. But I also do it for my own sake; for pleasure. I can build worlds of my own if I need to within the confines of my own mind, for no-one to see excepting myself, but I like to stick to reality.

Now, I do not watch videos of mindless activity or “jokes” (memes) which are only funny because the Other finds it funny. I rarely watch movies to get an emotional perspective on the world at large or its direction (i.e. “The Road”), or for my own pleasure.

Now, I do not listen to music simply because others revel in it with “taste” which is defined by the Other. I listen to music to acquire a new cultural perspective on things like states of mind or types of personalities, or simply for pleasure.

I have pointed out three of these things in order to save time and make mypoint clear, because it leads into my second point.

Secondly, I have found that the only reason for the existence of the chat rooms (or Facebook and Twitter, for that matter:  I have rid myself of those outlets, but I’ll get to that later) lied in the fact that their was a necessity of the confirmation of one’s existence through the Other. I know I have constantly used this term and capitalized it, and its very obscurantist of me, but it is the only term I can think of to fit this description.

What I mean is this:  one finds himself stranded in a lonely existence, alienated  from other people because of the conditions of their lives. They have formed no being, no true self-consciousness, because they have not yet realized themselves through another person; they have not passed a “reality-check” to confirm their being. This used to be an early stage of life, but now, it has become offset by the maturing technological revolution. Self-consciousness is being eclipsed by mindless collectivism (as opposed to the good conscious collectivism, if that’s even possible), but that is another discussion for another day.

Basically, we had all formerly united (and I use “all” as quite a blanket term here; I mean to distinguish us frequent chat-room goers with this word) in order to figure out how to approach the Other. We each are not complete in being, so we gather together to combine our positive aspects (Hegel’s dialectic). We want to present ourselves as “acceptable” or higher to the social world. I was not exempt from this goal.

Forming the group is the first physical sign of acceptability, since number has always been sacred to humanity (i.e. majority rule). This is a deception, however, until the modes of inauthentic being converge.

Each of us brings to the table some positive aspect, like I said; these can be anything that relates to the social world. For example, one of us brings in a “musical taste” that is acceptable. One brings in “comedic taste.” Another brings in “leisure time taste” (i.e. what video games to play, what comics to read).

This is how social groups survive in today’s world and how the Other is appeased. Our group, by the new standards set quite recently, has definitely appeased the Other and continues to spiral into its mode of being.

This would be fine and well, but the Other is not the “perfect man” it has been called. The Other, the social world, god, is imperfect. Why would we model ourselves after an imperfect mode of being?

So I end this second point. The realm of the Other that the chat rooms seek to appease is a worthless mode of being that is only GRASPED at. It is incomplete in itself. Of course, our mode of being that we had for so long has now become a part of the Other (technology plays such a great role, especially Facebook, in being and society nowadays), so the Other has been appeased, and thus provides temporary fulfillment. I think I escaped while this appeasement was happening on a multi-group basis, so I consider myself lucky, saved by philosophy and the greatest minds of humanity.

The Other, or the social world, has accepted you now. I thought that this was what I wanted also; that this mode of being was the “perfect” one. But I always had my doubts.

Thirdly, and this carries over from that point, my doubts on our mode of being have become great due to my venture into authentic being through self-consciousness and consciousness in general. Reading has opened up the field of inspection I can carry out on reality. Reality can include but is not limited to the individual states of mind toward the world, the social world and its operations, the truth of god, the workings of the natural world and the physical sciences, technological effects on the psyche, and much more. Not only have I become able, with the tools I have gained from deep study, to venture into the “why” of things, but I have also been able to venture into the “why” of myself.

And here I discovered the rotting core of a self that was being connected to the lifeless Other. I fell quite ill (literally, I became sick) during my times with all of you when I read Ayn Rand’s Anthem. It expounded egoism in a philosophical monologue at the end of the book. It was the most extreme form of egoism I had ever encountered. I am not an egoist but this certainly drew my attention away from others and, more importantly, the Other. This is when I began to develop what I call an “authentic form of being.” It continued through the reading of great authors who had even greater insights, like Freud, Marx, P. J. Proudhon, Nicolas Berdyaev, G. F. Hegel, Guy Debord, Edward Abbey, and a host of others I haven’t the time to name.

My whole life had revolved around the Other. My sexuality (which I tried to explain to all of you at some point; my language was certainly obscure and unclear, but I now know why you all rejected it) was based on it. With an application of Freud and Lacan, I discovered that I had been seeking castration BY THE OTHER (i.e., I had lost any form of a castration complex, which is abnormal development for a child) in order to appease the Other; I wanted to become opposite of what I was in order to be even looked at, to even have BEING, in the gaze of the Other. And I wanted the Other to transform me into this subjugated, inauthentic being. This was my being’s thesis. It was the biggest threat to my “self.”

My studies have been encompassing the antithesis of that thesis. This, in time, and according to the rules of Hegel’s dialectic, should take out the positive aspects of each and create a new synthesis that is truer than either state before it. My being is in a process of becoming; and leaving this place is just one stage of that becoming. My self is almost complete and is almost armed with the tools necessary to combat the mindless fervor of Other appeasement going on in today’s world.

My leaving, indeed, is not over some petty squabble, which I would probably return after; it is actually a stage in the becoming of my BEING, my SELF, the most sacred thing in this world.

Fourthly, the reason I must abandon all of you is because you have invested your sexual energies, now sublimated (or channeled into some other form:  much different than not sublimated), into the desire of the Other (or jouissance). I hate using Lacanian analysis and terminology, but this situation calls for it. You wish to “seed” the “perfect man” with your own collective being (which is more perfect than your individual, inauthentic being). You wish to impregnate the Other with your “taste,” your “style.” But what you don’t see is that IT is impregnating YOU with these things; they have never belonged to you, they are INAUTHENTIC. You are being SUBJUGATED by the weaknesses of other people. I cannot stress enough, that I cannot take part in this madness any longer.

Finally I have no desire for the Other anymore. I destroyed my Facebook quite some time ago (maybe a year and a half ago), and I also destroyed my Twitter account a little bit later. I had to create a new one because I was giving a real-life social group a chance, but I deleted it soon after (and I saw that you all noticed its creation; I deleted it because those people that I had honestly tried to relate to in real life were just as inauthentic). I have one friend (or maybe two;  but I call him into question a lot) who is actually becoming authentic.

———————————————————————————————–

I don’t expect anyone to understand this at all, because:

1) The truth of inauthentic beings gathering together and creating a group to appease the Other is too much for that said group to handle; it doesn’t want to think of itself in such derogatory terms; it creates a reaction-formation to combat these notions;

2) The terms I have used and the notions that I have propounded have come from a couple of years of study of more than seventy volumes spanning the timeline of human history, schools of thought, and nationalities, and most likely will not be understood by those who have not taken the time to educate themselves;

3) Most will either ignore this entire post or read it and attribute some historical-emotional origin to it, or attribute some projection of their own weaknesses onto it.

The Other has become the Real. The Real is now unreal. The true has become a moment of the false, and the false has become truth. Until we flip reality on its head, until we test “reality” with authenticity in our consciousness, we cannot discover truth. Too often have truth-seekers stayed within the boundaries of the social world or the gaze of the Other, and thus erred from the path to answering the fundamental question of survival:  ”why.” And until we all decide that the social world is not the most important aspect of reality, we will not realize that the most important aspect of reality is actually the human being behind it.

The devolution of man has been occurring since the end of the Renaissance. Unless we act soon, we will return to the primitive state of consciousness we once belonged to:  one where we are controlled by “hallucinations” (back then, they came from the mind; soon, they will be outside of us, technological holograms) that take away thought from the human picture. Being will belong to technology.

Nothing can justify a lifestyle of becoming enslaved. This stage of it is just as bad as the final stage; it is all one Great Chain of Being.

————————————————————————————————

I had planned on handing out individual analyses to aide all of you on your further endeavors through life, but I decided that it was up to all of you to discover for yourselves your own problems. Other people can’t always be the ones to edge you into authenticity, that is what has caused most of the problems today. I hope that I lead by example in critiquing myself (especially on the point of sexuality) in this “essay.” The only way we can become authentic is if we smash our being with new viewpoints on reality and then mold them back together with those same views.

————————————————————————————————

I end this all with a quote and a response, one that should really awaken (even if unconsciously) the authentic self that resides in you all:

“What does it matter how many lovers you have if none of them gives you the universe?”

The universe is a gift of authenticity to self. The Other as Will and Representation is the world of the inauthentic universe, and the death of the subsequently “reality starved” self.