THE ONLY CAUSE ABOVE PASSION @stevenw8 - Tumblr Blog

Posts

Link to video I'm commenting on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOdMBDOj4ec recorded on 2018-02-27 @8:50 --- these entities are statistical, and are ideolog...

Culture vs Social Injustice, philosophical problems with Social Justice

Psycho-social Analysis of identity politics, and the dominance of fascist personality traits in South Africa

The Eugenics program within Identity Politics

Part 1

https://www.audiomack.com/song/steven-weight/summary-of-identity-politics Part 2 - rough addendum:

https://www.audiomack.com/song/steven-weight/addendum-to-summary-of-identity-politics

The point I should’ve elaborated on, within the recording just above, was that the equality-of-outcome effect that the system becomes enslaved and accountable to (and blamed over), which then everyone else is also tasked with policing and conforming, (and thereby becoming a cultural orthodoxy of enslavement ), is that no-one may empower or significantly influence a ‘different identity’ other than ‘their own identity’. The Iron Curtain is there to keep identity distinct and pristine, and liberation a scared-act of religiosity, that can only be done by the victim herself, or an authorized figurehead; you may not share in, or venture to relate or significantly influence, with what is not your designated identity. This is how the slave morality operates, divide and conquer, until the authoritarian fuhrer comes to intervene on behalf of the victim, who only deserves intervention as an ongoing ‘victim’, and so the authoritarian regime always seeks to create a form of co-dependence, merely at the cost of an hysterical hyper-realism, and racially inflammatory propaganda to justify ongoing infantalization, permitting the decadence and corruption of the ruling racialist intelligentsia: while class issues that don’t interface well with issues of identity, fall by the way-side, as the only redress of class-issues come from the scraps left over from the carcass of the scapegoat.

#eugenics #identity politics #SJW #fascism #nazi #philosophy #Slavoj Zizek #progressive #euthenasia of political tolerance

2017, The new year, and a diligent report on my intellectual accounts.

I feel I have been especially remiss recently, but also over the course of keeping this blog. I had wished to catalog some of the better writings from my forum contributions, on various topics, and also include some small scraps of my psychological research; firstly, in order to have an easy resource, with which to refer people to specific opinions I had already developed (instead of having to re-articulate vast treatise, that can be subtly convoluted in their broad treatment of various themes), and secondly to have some dated references in the case of having any vital content within my unfinished book, plagiarized (because I would hate to be unpublished, because of having the substance of my work stolen and cut off from my authorship). I have been remiss, because of keeping some of my postings back from this blog, primarily because of the feeling that they’ve covered such vital topics, and I really didn’t want to have to re-edit them into stand-alone essays, which they so deserved. Sometimes an exchange on a forum, can be so fortuitously framed, to allow for elucidation of one’s position, to the uncommon extent and visceral efficacy, that it can daunting to imagine rephrasing it into an independent treatise. There have been a few such posts I have written on the TypeC forum, which I have shirked the task of making them available to this blog: partly because the exchanges require the airing of dissenting interlocutors, which I don’t know how to account for, since my usual compromise for blogging my work, was to redact all other voices than my own (to avoid any possible complaints of reproducing content without the patent right to do so). Anyway, I have decided to start excavating all the unsettling holes I have left in my blog, by working on providing some palatable form of those jewels I have been relegating, for want of time and focus on my more pressing research. Therefore I have two immediate tasks for my blog, the first to make available one of my earliest works on scientific matters, detailing a damning critique of the Scientific ‘world-view’ and laying out the myriad fundamental errors that form the received cannon of philosophical poverty (overused phrase, but I’ll soon allude to the merit of using it), and second, finish compiling a new work, that deals, explicitly with the reincarnation of Fascism within the Global Village: SJW (social-justice-warrior) ideology... which I believe, is not an unoriginal bad idea, forging itself to be the morally-cast image,— of the hard Science’s illegitimate grab on epistemological primacy. __ rough-sketch blurb: Perhaps I will soon deal with the issue of the media also, and some modern critique of editorial efficacy, and how journalism is prone to giving play to the fascist demagoguery in personality, having no contiguous sense of integrity, memory, or hallmark gratitude for libertarian expression (individual morality), replaced through a new sentiment, promulgated by a networked court-of-fact, that is the insidious framing into the narrative voice. In the realizations from the dawning, shared-aspirations of universalism, (finally redounded across the public face of institutional communications), we collectively failed to diagnose and reconstitute ‘the press’, so that it might be able to effectively police truth within this new landscape;— because by the old-world tone of narration, a court of fact can only bestow power (that also must come from some other source, ie salaciousness will require some image of integrity to consume, where originally the source of consumption was relativistic dehumanization centered around national-centrism; univeralism effectively unraveled this ‘stable’ model of news-peddling), and while the press has perpetuated this court-of-fact journalism (a relic of Nation-state propaganda, left rather adrift amidst the moral progression of the modern era), has now bred dogs of group-thinkers, thirsty for blood, who now wish to cleanse the demographic depictions of their (personal) state’s antagonism; without understanding any of the issues, and without the means of contemplating REAL compassion (not the manufactured imitation, (court-of-fact:) empathy-compelled ‘compassion’, but with something that everyone calls “reporting”; at the least word accurately connotes the function of ‘reporting’ found in ghastly Authoritarian regimes. No doubt these weak personalities at the center of this fascist fiasco (of a decadent culture), are so tirelessly [chanting the mantra’s of] shilling the blame onto the 1%, without an iota of self-criticism or self-reflection. The press was designed to function when states were in a perpetual war of real interests, then when public policy was shifted to mitigate the public confession of that war, the press was too crude a machine to keep up an analysis to report on those interests, refocusing any general dissent, into the matrix of ‘social issues’ that propagates the same gravity that the perpetual war that Nationalism propagated. I do think the press has promulgated the content, and ultimately the ammunition which made possible the ideological opportunism of the social-justice phenomenon, forged from the ideological gimmick of Scientism, mimicked onto the moral [and social] theater. (I have used the words of Marshall McLuhan, Slavoj Zizek and Luigi Zoja in this post, although on these topics, their particular views could differ from mine substantially).

My posts extracted from a Thread on politics and the Anti-Christ...

The antichrist is not a person, its a spirit. And in various degrees and to various forms, it exists as part of the psyche that is commonly found in every individual, usually these unconscious forces are heavily filtered by the sub-conscious and super-ego, but sometimes you get political manifestations, which are pretty good at approximating this form of base inclination. Trump is further away from being consistent with the anti-Christ than the regressive-left is, in my opinion. The SJW movements are heavily involved in pursuing the wrong side of the unconscious psychic-force, which they are aggressive advocates for. 2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2Ti 4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. the SJW ideology is founded on interrupting any of its critics, while its proof is extracted from a chorus of delusional proclamations of an incoherent Utopia; which protects itself by never needing to render real evidence for it, and aggressively vilifying anything that doesn't acquiesce to its superior vision of [false and impossible] promises. The ideological construction of the world is so surreal and different to psychological reality, it can only exist in thought-controlled fish tank that they will impose upon all life... Trump is certainly imperfect, but at least he could fail according to own rhetoric, SJW's cannot ever fail according to their ideology, the measure of any obstacle is just cause for more demands, that must be fed by an externalized guilt and shame upon the evil and privileged 'other', if anything, it is fueled by its own incapacity to deliver solutions, and will result in more hysterical demands that breed further instability, and further radicalized demands that generate even worse outcomes (because in essence, the SJW wants to 'move the goal posts' because of this incoherent adherence to essential difference, that must be 'treated equally', and so its only real solution is either Agent Smith assimilation of everything, where everyone is programmed sufficiently so that individuals can administer themselves in 'perfect harmony' with the other Agent Smith's, or surrealist propaganda combined with a coordinator class that cares for the infantilized masses (the care dispensed to the chosen children of the Fatherland, re-writing the past mistreatment— which as a narrative, can never be surrendered, or nothing will make sense (a continual and even perpetual reactionary situation that sustains identity after the new society generates its own imperfections: the scapegoating can never stop)). One could be kinder to these SJW's are say, that they came from a 'good place', that they created their ideology because they wanted 'progress', without being able to win the argument, because Science doesn't produce clear ideological advocacy, but in that ideological adaptation, they have shut down the mechanism of any functional reasoning, and even shutdown curiosity and inquiry itself; and crafted a false religion based on 'feelings' of righteousness, and claims to radical political action to advance an ideology that has overstepped its own supposed purpose (unless one says, that its new purpose is the destruction of everything that's evil, and that resists them, (which by Jung's definition can never find a resolution: what you resist, persists);- the SJW demands a world that already conforms to the ideological derived sense of justice, and will not entertain or understand a challenge to that ideology; which secures an endless demand and extraction of justice, which also secures a perpetual ideological gripe that can never find satisfaction, as it can never describe its own success, only its complaint— and so as it can never claim victory, it will always claim more for the ideological fire, fueled by any quantitative measure of inequality, that is 'unfairly' (according to their ideology) caused by essential differences that people should not have to change about themselves, while demanding the same access to enjoyment as all those who are 'in a different position', that must have all benefits purged that lead to having a 'better situation'. This is a recipe, for burning everything into nothing, or forcing everyone to be ideological zealots of privilege checking and shaming until everyone 'gives up' the benefit of any talent or skill that's not representative of the most "oppressed", to which fate we must all share in, 'because muh ideology', because life is a zero-sum game according to this ideology: because humanity is a narrative of guilt, and creation that only comes from guilt and shame... that is why these SJWs are so vacuous in every respect, intellectually and especially pragmatically-speaking, they can't allow themselves to see the expectation of waste, to which they are the major contribution toward producing. If these people were to study finance with these 'good intentions', perhaps there would be more forthcoming solutions from different aspects of our society, instead of idle demands for something that they don't and can't even describe in real terms. ~the idea that if you burn and destroy everything, that then we'll be unleashed and totally free! -_-;; give me a break, I don't want to talk about these mouth breathers anymore. It is interesting to note, that Trump used some similar tactics when campaigning, which I believe was only so successful because of the huge awareness of this type of energy produced through the SJWs movement. Everyone feels alienated and downtrodden in modern culture/society, and as a civilization we have been getting poorer collectively for a while now, this idea that the under-privileged, might have to extract more freedoms from the privileged 'CIS-whites', affords this labeled-group a motivation to safeguard their targeted-identities from encroachment, as the class-identity they have been told that they must be representative of. This explains the KKK endorsement of Trump, not because Trump is pro-white, but because SJW's appear to be anti-"white" in their convoluted rhetoric. Reassurance from a political proponent that policy is not going to be based on redistribution of freedom's, but on fundamentals that affect economic reality, is reassuring to a group that is villainized as the ideological enemy that is expected to buy its integrity back from under the shame of its many (ideologically construed) privileges, such "privileges" which even form the structure of a productive-society itself, and to dismantle those 'systems of privilege', might make us all equal according to some measure of ideology, but only by eliminating many indirect benefits that the exceptional offer to society in general, which could also be harnessed better through radically progressive policy on incentivizing wealth creation, which would probably be very unpopular to 'liberals': for who success must be answered with a kind of societal-revenge, and then we wonder why capital investment doesn't concentrate into the means of escaping petty scales of economy, that lock people into stagnant standards of living. I would point out that Trump has fundamental errors in his thinking/rhetoric, China is actually very friendly with the US, China could easily and rightly claim that America is the original currency manipulator, which America is still doing this manipulation, and has been for over the past 40 years. Also the original conception of America as a democracy, and even the American Dream, is much more a mythology than reality, the American Dream is worth believing in however, but America was never designed to function as a real democracy, read the Federalist Papers, it was designed to be an oligarchy from day one. Madison >.>;; I don't complain about inconvenient facts though, they are just important to know, in order to pursuit and produce real success and transformation, ideological complaints generate no change, and often get in the way of designing and planning something real. __________

topic continued:

I think a lot of confusion has been caused by culture becoming more nebulous, when social rules and expectations were stricter, it was easier to break them with others, who would enter into pacts to do so... Now in the medium of a lax culture, everything has to be negotiated and justified as its own project, and finding other people to subscribe to those projects, is only going to occur if they have a shared experience of repressed energy which wants to experience some release: which no longer comes from culture, so now it can only come from the internal cult of persona (or shared experience from personality style). When people try to extract energy from their psychic environment now, it sticks out like a sore thumb, when they have less obvious societal drama to correlate with and disguise their personal trappings within. In a culture where everyone feels aliened, some have been able to create an ideology and narrative of shared experience that can be exploited for furthering their personal inclination of extracting psychic energy from their environment... its like an ideological vehicle for sustaining the false ego, in a culture that has been progressing to the extent that threatens the reliance on societal drama— hiding the craft of the persona-complex: that requires a point of view about a "world-state", which then justifies a reactionary continuance (grounding the persona-complex). This is a big part of the reason why the Social-Justice-activism is such a successful phenomena, all under the banner of a shared experience of 'oppression by the system', is really just the sublimated yearning for a structure to guide expression of the vindictive nature of expectation, but because its not contained by the structure of a functioning mores, that precipitates an immediate sense of personalized-drama (since the social sphere has been so sanitized of personal-energies, and only 'the group[s]' are recognized figures), in this grand ideological form of drama, there is no way to dissipate the enactment of this vindictive energy, even after some inning appropriate to Public Ceremony has played out, instead, in this pernicious form of operation, it's built an ideological-death machine that has no purpose, but to consume and convert all life into the anti-reasoning imagine of this ideological insanity. Its funny to note: that if twitter is going to slowly collapse or diminish, it is probably from the purge of the opposition to the regressive left. The regressive left only exists as a force in the midst of war and opposition, and it its strength comes from claiming that the there is really no argument-obstacle that they need to overcome, and if anyone even threatens not to bestow them with the moral high ground, any form that opposition might take, is exactly what the problem is, and further grounds for how and why they must entrench their position, because only the "under-privileged" deserve to frame an unquestioned moral narrative. When they are left with no grounds for moral-pontification, then the SJW movement is left to ponder practical solutions, which the ideology was designed to be inept at registering, it only operates as knee-jerk violence, and maybe planning genocide and fires as the ultimate solution for discovery of Utopia hidden beneath the houses of their greedy enemies; the SJW movement, has no proactive vision or capability to solve its complaints, this is why all interaction with them leads to further demands and costs which fund further instabilities and degradation of resources, because they define strength as privilege, and dismantling privilege as progress, and count this process of degeneration as profitable, because we should re-define profit in line their ideological vision of progress, never mind the practical costs and loss of real capabilities. So a person from the regressive-left, is completely triggered by opposition, but if you guarantee them a safe-space, there is no opportunity to get triggered... So maybe someone on the alt right, will make some kind of "Real Free Speech" version to twitter, and the regressive left will have a new target they wish to ideologically colonize, but then how could they justify annexing this new ground, that others made for the express purpose of being separated from the confines of their hard-fought and campaigned for bastion of 'safe space' [original twitter]. Well, then they have no excuse, they just have open hostility against their ideological "enemies" which they require to be triggered from, so they can keep their focus on cultural manifestation of privilege, to avoid doing anything truly meaningful and possibly challenging, ie. not telling Western white people to feel guilt, but to advocate and move Islam towards developing some enlightenment values and gender-equality, or perhaps even a Reformation that embodies some of those values... Today we have the most wonderful modern depictions of the poverty of philosophy, a group of people who essentially have no fundamental principles on any issue, just pretty labels and big speeches on Fairness, that are meant to symbolize respect and freedom for all, while posturing aggressively against those who stand in the way of furthering progress towards some version of 'perfect equality'. 'Perfectly equality', as the impossible delusion that it is, is then transformed into a game of hollow language-adaptions, and gross forms of bigotry and convoluted hate, stemming from belief and adherence to "essential-differences", that must conform to a single-standard of value, generalized into a culture of strict status policing where people are defined and deemed to be representatives of 'their group': these SJW are in essence, exactly what they profess to despise, obscuring this simple truth because they have crowned themselves with the sole right to dictate to others what language and culture should really mean, because at the core of their gripe with historical hegemony, this vindictive manifestation of preeminence, is claimed because now "'its our turn" to be on the wrong side of history', because dignity is a zero-sum game of sorrow-extraction to the SJW-societal-demon. ___ Source thread: http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/philosophy-and-spirituality/87180-antichrist.html

#critique of anarcho capitalism

My case for Marxism;- updated*: from the continued discussion (see link to forums for the full exchange).

[Quoting Interlocutor- redacted] His reluctance and small body of work on this topic, was probably because he did have strong gamma-type intuitions about how the transition to Communism would be managed, but failing to anticipate the particular conditions surrounding (and framing) the dying days of Advanced Capitalism (and what that Advanced Capitalism would eventually operate as): meant that any description would likely not withstand scrutiny contained in future conditions (there are even some writings by Marx to this effect). The Dictatorship of the Proletarian, which was an excessively adapted and abused concept, re-purposed by Lenninism, would probably become a minimal feature if Marx wrote on this subject,— in a technologically-updated context. Marx could not have anticipated communications technology: and because the Nation-State, being what it was in his day:— made it seem like an appropriate imperative, to have fully captured the machinery of such a Nation-State,— for it's intelligent use in the Revolution; in a TEMPORARY period of state-socialism (just called "Socialism"); required for ensuring a peaceful transition, and for structuring some sort of economic arrangement, with an embedded cultural backbone, which would require state power to quash disruptive resistance— that might otherwise threaten to bring back the 'old order'. When Marx first wrote about this period of "Socialism", it started off being described as something like a '5 year period', and was later revised,— and then described, as perhaps being as long as 10 years, and then even 15-20 years in later writings. These descriptions of a "Dictatorship" period, within the Revolution, and the extensions put onto its duration, is based on a model of Nation-statecraft (which contained an expanding bureaucracy in Marx's own day), which no-longer operates as it used-to— it included a culture of strong National identity, interwoven with Capitalistic institutional functioning and sentiments: which Marx thought might be difficult for many mentalities to abandon- requiring the captured state to safeguard the Revolution against reactionary dogma (the CULT of National identity was an unquestioned religion for every culture in western-society), patriotic-ideology, holding onto people's minds: and by extension then, also the economic-machinery for which the populace would depend, fuels an expectation for people to return back to an economy which functions through (the simplicity of) class-relations, which becomes a real practical problem when these reactionary sentiments are held by people who 'used to own' and still might exert special controls over the 'means of production'. This model of society, used to be the full depth of Capitalism, however because of more recent developments, this conception of Capitalism is now archaic (and by extension, the model of Revolutionary-transition by a 'long dictatorship' is similarly archaic, however it still contains the analogous role, for what work is required in an intelligent transition to a functional Revolution).

This logistical question, was appropriately answered by Marx, by there being more time devoted to the creation of a devised structure, during the Socialist period: because that was the appropriate answer for the model of Capitalism being depicted to Marx, as Capitalism was then incarnated in Marx's time. However today, we live in a totally mixed system: we have, through technology, and also through financial aspects— that are themselves, antithetical to a functioning Capitalism (effectively, because of how Capitalism is Cannibalizing itself, and creating murky areas that allow huge 'wastage' of Capitalistic 'fundamentals', which also allows for people to apportion value to 'culturally' promising advancements;- 'we' are effectively funding economic behaviors, which are virtually Communistic: Rich [finance and investment] people are spending lots of money, in a way that doesn't conform to capitalistic fundamentals, and this is happening naturally, because, to not do so, would be to live in an overt societal failure, of a depressed system. Capitalism is officially the overt failure, and yet still, we are making advancements as a society: what people have not realized, is that we have organically, already moved past Capitalism. How much money is Reddit worth? How much money was it sold for? How much money does it make? The fiber-optic internet infrastructure built for America was bought-out for pennies on the dollar, because our ‘collective’ financial valuation is finding it hard to refrain the placement of a 'real value', on what is merely 'exponentially promising' [however fundamentally un-remunerative], and these valuations, and the resulting behaviour— therefore, surpass the realm of Capitalistic accounting: because if we were to stick to Capitalistic accounting, it would destroy the libertarian instinct to access greater forms of (access, and the exchange of [cultural],) energy [and the increase in societal efficiency and efficacy]. Right now, we are having a conversation, with no remunerating aspect within the Capitalistic paradigm: how much money has Capitalism spent to maintain and allow this form of exchange;— and all of this technology, was not even developed by a free economy, it was designed by centrally orchestrated research and investment (Government institutions and grants, funding development of technology and discovery): because even Reagan, with all his talk about free-market economics, used the pentagon to supplement the failures of a languishing and inept Corporate economy (which were schooled on how to organize themselves based on the Pentagon's understanding of decision-making structures), not to mention the infusion of technology and invention, which the free-market has never been able pursue with any intentional rigor (yes, the free-market can refine technology in order to develop it into merchandise, but free-market driven research and investment is designed to be more counter-productive (fixated on developing scale, and not novelty) and is therefore ineffectual by Capitalistic necessity: which is why all innovation is government created, its only that:— these inventions get effectively delivered by a free-market; but then delivery is the core of the logistical dilemma, and Capitalism's ability to sustain delivery, as its maturing, is the root of the Marxist critique, which can only be resolved by transcending Capitalism;- which as a society, in part, we have already done). Further illustrations: how much has Reddit extracted in financial terms, in exchange for what it provides us? (Comparing the value provided to the Public, and what gets provided back to Reddit shareholders— what the shareholders receive is a conflated version of both values!— that offers a mechanism of incorporeal wealth-creation, based on the perpetuating-confidence that the “platform” delivers (this results in a kind of community-derived wealth-generation {which for the first time in human history, is operating with the structures of fiat currency to manufacture a “win” for “everybody”, and not just a few central-banking elites}). Right now information-technology, as a cultural phenomena, has extracted the attention and focus of Capitalism away from itself: and this is even good for Capitalism, because, Capitalism's own accounting is a negative-sum game, and so, at least when it apportions value based on the increasing promise to a heightening-energy state of cultural-[quickening/]advancement, inflationary pressure is being absorbed, from the stresses imposed by labour obsolescence— and if this mixed model were grandly expanded to accommodate more of society (which the officially-Capitalist system would be unwilling to embrace without an internal-revolution of consciousness, because of a glaring disparity of fundamentals which could cause an ideological schism, not to mention the inability of much of the population to interface with an incorporeal-measured economy, based on a valuation-medium, in the metric of a ‘perpetuating-confidence’: which is somewhat stable right now, rooted on a conservative measure of "promise", that might potentially become quite unstable and volatile if the ideological framing on this 'new wealth' was subjected to the fundamental depreciation of a "false-pride" labeling (untenable visions of the logistical economic-component, in the way which value is tethered through the ideological valuation of 'assets' ("ideological valuation" in essence, is the necessary development put onto Capitalism, to save it from implosion {through the paradigm of a Marxist perspective})— (this new economic edifice, has no solid quantitative metric, valuation comes from the currency manufactured from the sense of an 'eternal' investment, and stake in the continuity of societal {ie communal} direction) [In a sense, Communism is the extension of Capitalistic 'freedom', by extracting a currency from a formula that is soundly structured into a culture of valuation- which is a coordinated edifice that sustains a proactive style of logistical management and pragmatism... in short, Capitalism requires a pragmatic bubble that no-one would want to pop with their doubt, because it contains the bounds of everywhere we'd like to expand or unfold into (”we'd like”— WE WOULD LIKE~ this is the notion of the Communistic edifice: structured to the purposes of a crafted coordination; producing coordination through the byproduct of an embedded intelligence into the arrangement of a system)). Thus communism is hard to measure, because of these nuanced aspects in how progress gets produced out of a classless sense of valuation, the hardest thing to fathom, is that communication of these aspects is never consistently contained by the same-static feature, because its subject is a community of mentalities;— and how those mentalities express and resolve "themselves", when the data doesn't conform to an "action" that gets its description from being related to class-identity: produces something like an internet forum, where I declare myself the convincing "winner" of this discussion, and even as you might dare to make any further response, my specific contentions then only become more clearly vindicated. A further and better illustration of how Capitalism mixes itself up to avoid its imposition: is that it creates 'the right kind of bubble', that people have confidence in, because the bubble represents the full promise of an increasingly effective society... so Reddit gets to be worth more on paper, and we get to count this as wealth creation... and as long as mechanistic/Capitalistic-accounting doesn't interfere, this diversion to Capitalism, can dampen the impact and manifestation of its collapse, which can only worsen as labour obsolesce is both utilized or under-utilized to destroy growth acceleration;— by the way, growth itself is irrelevant to the people's consciousness, consciousness only takes notice of acceleration (and deceleration) of growth- and at this stage of history, acceleration requires an intelligent (mix) of innovation (and we are collectively aware— that we are capable of a much greater increases of growth, which “Capitalism” is restricting us from accessing (as it also undermines our ecological safety and miss-manages our resource-base into depletion), thus not only is there a general negativity being felt because of the slow-down, there is an added ‘angst’, being correctly identified from the blundered hodge-podge of an arrested development); so the kind of intelligent innovation which we need, is the kind of innovative structure,— which the plutocratic character of the free-market, is generally only capable of plundering: after the innovation has been cultivated by non-Capitalistic institutions... the historical challenge which Lenin was obsessed about avoiding in all his political[ly-mangled] effort, is the dilemma we now currently face: will the 1% let any new way-of-business emerge, when the Elites each have to scramble at maintaining their segmented domain of the plutocratic pie (in Rome, the Plutocracy chose themselves over intelligent [long term] governance, more frightened of a restructuring, that might end up betraying some section of the Elite— which might potentially empower an unforeseeable, competitor-plutocracy... even as they're deciding to march toward an obvious fate, as the dim and short sighted generational-traitors, without institutional or political capacity to manage a reform which could ensure their shadowy extractions of wealth, which they hold more precious than societal continuity (ie how might hedge funds be directed within an appropriate ethic, which augments the failures of Capitalism into a successful adaptation.) [Quoting Interlocutor- redacted] --- If you might go on to say that I have rewritten the principles and basic understanding of Classical Marxism, I would further direct you to the writings of Mao, Mao had his own brand of Leninistic compromise, and just as Lenin, his own body of written work is starkly contrasted with the historical challenges that he applied his energies to. Mao, thinking far in advance of the conditions that he was contending with, was, in-spite of his party politics, very concerned with the philosophical subject matter of Marxism (you might notice, that when someone is a 'Communist', and acting divergently from classical Marxism, it requires quite a strong philosophical interpretation, to navigate one's actions in that exceedingly artificial way, that eventually lends itself to insightful writings on the original topics that Marxism contains, because one is required to radically justify themselves, in the light of the extreme Marxist taboo: to dare call yourself a Communist, when Capitalism is not yet organically failing under its own stresses).

Mao's writing, has aspects written about Communism (which he knew his society never arrived at), which are essentially, much more intelligent revisions of Classical Marxist thought on those topics, and my views on the subject, are approximately dictated by Mao's insight, which he illustrated in ways which don't exactly parallel in every detail, but are mirrored fully by the analogy of his assessment of culture and economic relations (although in dealing with his own pre-Capitalistic culture, that he hoped to fashion into some kind-of proto-Communism, which,— after relating his political administration to the full scope of his inapplicable-insight, only represents a blunted version of his perspective for historical-analysis, which was also overshadowed by a demagoguery perpetrated by Stalin, to inherit the prestige of intellectual dominance after Lenin’s death) which the West has never bothered to probe or understand because of the demagoguery crafted for the purpose of American hegemony, that tailored the relevant departments of Academia to fortify against the 'red-scare' in patriotic supplication.

Mao was a philosophical genius at the very least, although of course, his political administration is controversial at best, he was contending with a very dark compromise, in the midst of historical and cultural conditions. (you must remember, China has quite a mixed-set of profound achievements: it managed gender equality on a scale that was 30-40 years ahead of the West, produced from a culture which had practiced foot-binding during the early period of the 20th century). When you pragmatically factor in all the real conditions, you get a vastly different picture than the one painted by American hegemony and its 'intellectual' apologetics.

The Unearthing of real Marxist thinking - my summation response.

You still fail to understand the crux, Marx wrote copiously on many subjects, what the final culture and specific system that would displace capitalism, amounts to scant speculation, described in the broadest principles of gamma-type conjecture by Marx and Engels.

Marxism is amoral, because it is a 'scientific' historical perspective,— that within its economic analysis predicts that Capitalism will collapse, the only thing that can be said— about whatever will come to take its place, from a Marxist perspective, can only amount to a hopeful and intelligent-redress, which does the job of negating the self-destructive economic factors that are inherent to Capitalism, which become untenable in Capitalism's advanced stages (Marx predicted the crises would become more frequent, until the system would "beg to be overthrown"). Marxism, would technically not advocate for communism, or any system, so much as suggest the next step appropriate for that socio-economic system, which offers the most immediate benefit to whatever the prevailing 'economic condition', as it relates to addressing the 'socio-political predicament' (which is characteristic of a zeitgeist, typical for each 'stage of history', unless skewed by non-economic [usually culturally influenced,] historical forces);— all of these "stages of history" can be arrested by socio-political aberrations that can stunt or thwart the natural historical 'flow' (which is also why Marx considered hegemony a good thing, as it exacerbates the proper development of Capitalistic fundamentals and machinery): the Tsar in Russia that was delaying the industrialization, was clutching onto the old stage of history (feudalism);- this inspired the "Vanguard" deviation in Marxist doctrine, which should be regarded as Leninism. In any case, Leninism failed and Capitalism finally emerged as was historically appropriate.

Obviously for a Capitalistic system to collapse, without the framework offered by class-consciousness, makes it unlikely for there to be a communist revolution, Class-consciousness was one of the political preconditions for the Marxist formula, to produce the 'step forward'— that leaves Capitalism to the history books. The apparent futility of advanced Capitalism being pronounced and put on display through the crises it would produce— ominously threatening society: was for Marx— one of the things that made, the likelihood of class-consciousness, to fuel the organic emergence of Communist politics, the safe bet. However the class warfare (through the Brave New World model of manipulation),— that has dissuaded class-consciousness from generating a large and organically informed base of proletarian, means that because of the vacuum created within the population's real interests— fascism grows the more likely political outcome, because fascist politics can naturally sustain that artificial vacuum— crafted in accordance with the message of 'ideological' disinformation which maintains a culture of reactionary sentiment; even though the right-wing path will leave us in a nasty geo-political predicament (of untenable relations, that precipitate further breakdown, into a spiral of radical and atomized politics, accompanied with the lurking foretaste of a nuclear WW3). Capitalism is a pretty wonderful system, historically compared with all earlier stages (apart from the Romanticized aspects of high culture found in the feudalistic aristocracy (much of the 'western soul's' rooting was lost when "the civilized world" was purged by the Bolsheviks [Russia had more aristocracy than the rest of Europe combined, and was the model-engine of culture and its reasoning: we have therefore lost the records to much of our inherited 'cultural' attitudes, that only subsisted in the West... but I digress])); Capitalism has done so well for humans (as an aggregated financial boon: that has granted access to the creative synthesis of mankind's' energies)— which is why, when we as a species, are forced to abandon it, we are left with a truly Marxist dilemma: how do we carry on receiving, all, or at least, most of the benefits in Capitalism, while perhaps still going forward to strive for even more (and maybe some other new things too)? The answer to the Marxist dilemma is either a spiraling hole on the right, or a chance to extend liberal values from the left, if we can just sort out how to coordinate trade and commerce without the division of an imposed system of economic-class (meaning, within the realm of a political framework/dispensation of some kind, which becomes the basis of an economy— without the commodification of labour). It is clear that unless political forces coalesce to devolve Capitalism into some stable form of fascism (which is possible, but highly unlikely), unless people revert back to an Agrarian style economy (which is unlikely, as there will be a general inclination towards maintaining the higher standards of living,— that the means of production have and might still continue to offer a "Commune" or lodged group-units of some fashion), the forces of history will eventually recur if they are not resolved, if people aren't politically responsive to the inherent and looming challenges (as a species, we have perhaps already done so, in a far earlier era that we are the recurrence for, after we [long ago, as a species,] got it horribly wrong [the Sahara desert is a nuclear desert after all]). Let us not forget, that while all this class-warfare disinformation is going on, which has stupefied people to the point where, they can't discern their own class-interest, which generally robs them of rationally considering matters,— there are other threats abounding: those interested in pressing forward the Caliphate is just one example (not to mention the "apolitical" religiosity of some Christian sects, all of which will create problems when trying to shed the drying husk of Capitalism (which if we take too long, will ruin our chances of cohabiting this planet peacefully, or place us into a gravely meager state (—increasing the appeal of resource warfare, aka the Scramble, made worse by a weak and decadent Capitalism*,- more fanatically focused on keeping itself going than tracking its long-term consequences, which are set to impact the well-being of our entire species for generations)); any power vacuum will attract every pretender, and if the fear of a power-vacuum is stark enough, perhaps we will just end up saddled with the haphazard rule of a tyranny). In summation, without enough class-consciousness, the power vacuum that Capitalism will begin to naturally precipitate, is open to the likes of fascists, and other dogmatic groups, branded with grandiose beliefs therewith their instructions of social/political(/theological)-domination. Footnote: Capitalism*- reminiscent of the Kryptonite super-computer story component in Superman's backstory, saving itself instead of the Kryptonians that constructed it.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/politics-history-and-current-events/84321-whats-opinion-karl-marx-4.html

My Post on the Disney Princesses thread:

I'm not gonna quote anyone to respond just to them, because my comments are rather broadly relevant toward all these subjects involved in this discussion. Changing culture, historically, is not something that can be done by sheer will or activism, usually culture molds itself around the lowest common denominator, which usually ends up being rather basic factoids, which pervasively impact the social-environment, in a rather general and often nebulous way (ie. Marshall Mcluan's take on the Media being the medium for, and ultimately crafting, the content of what people mean-to-think). There are a few ways to proceed from this sort of realization, and I believe the most coherent way to preserve deliberate actions and their independently crafted meanings, for those chosen to imbue their actions with that kind of real power (proceeding from that unique and profound sort of decision): is not to expect that your cultural environment will embrace your values (so long as its capable of tolerating them, this should be sufficient enough), a culturally hostile environment (that isn't full blown tyrannical) is perhaps the best sort of environment, if you have an ideology or creed of any real merit, because then its functioning within a sub-culture, will immediately produce results that showcase the vitality that such a way of life carries within it (obviously a paper thin ideology that is premised in unsustainable vampirism, isn't capable of this kind of smaller scale expression, and should be glaringly unveiled as the kind of senseless and tyrannical wish-thinking that it portends to be when as a cultural movement it fails to deploy itself from the stand-point of this important litmus test). I know this topic is much broader than the specific example I'm about to go into: but Children are harder to appease as an audience than others, because its important that they aren't being lied to, and thereby deluded and made "badly programmed" by some shallow narrative. Even though a lot of Children's films contain strong narrative's today, the one's I have seen have been careful to keep the drama locked into the subjective experience of the main characters' personalities... which means the meta-narrative is held in a rather safe context that can't [easily] be re-framed into a neat umbrella of group-think, unless the child is excessively lazy and conceited in his introspection (which I would presume is a product of brute programming, from strong authority-narratives of non-think— that has already started the child-off on a style of false-ego, which is prone to manufacture apathy as when the environmental triggers present themselves, to the false-ego already in motion (which generally occurs between the ages of 3-6 in our societies; the later developed, the better, as the mind would have been able to grow a greater foundation of lucidity to be covered over by the apathy... but I digress). I don't often watch children's films that are demographically target to little girls, (Disney Princess movies); but I would hazard Disney might find itself in a bit a quandary: it seems unfair to expect the silver screen to re-balance society preemptively, at some point, they can only bend present prevailing culture (and other social-conditions) so far before they end up producing an alien and unrelatable film,— you can tweak story formula's, but there are inherent problems with attempting to flagship social-issues: how does the story end? How can Disney give us a conclusion on an experimental love-story? When no-one can put a gauge on when the formula depicted in the experimental narrative, might soon be made a contemptible 'example', by a new context from some further development in the modern attitude... There are a few more issues: women who have a laundry list of ideological criteria, are they even capable of writing a love story to such a criteria? That doesn't just swap the equality complaint into the subjugation of men by the matriarchy, with their female-gaze on the safe space that every man must fear to tread upon. Disney Movies especially seem to go out of their way to broadly provide depictions on a great variety of life-upsets; perhaps because how "true love" can only be made visible through some imposed challenge,— being put to the type of love that's being showcased;- it seems the Matriarchal treatment of upset, is that it [just] doesn't deserve to happen [in the first place], but then how can it deal with a variety of experience that reality is capable of manifesting, (and still have written a 'love story' acceptable to the Matriarchy?— how? [how can it host any plot that it's capable of "overcoming" in a convincing way, where the narrative isn't a contemptible example of cheap ideological-table-thumping by the protagonist, in the face of adversity; and then there's the sterile depiction of life produced in framing that ideology as a model of a "successful" happy ending]). Disney could perhaps embark on creating enough unique 'love-story examples' so that it is clear each individual story is useless as an investment of childish fantasy (ie. the way that the main character in the series "Crazy Ex-Girlfriend" invested in her "Disney love-story" as the precursor part of her back-story). Actually, a fair way I think to sum up this thread, is that there is a call to turn to the basic narrative insights which were written into "Crazy Ex-Girlfriend", into the new style of children's films for girls (so as to debunk the confounding ["Disney"] 'feminine expectations')... By the way, the only Disney Movie for girls I was ever exposed to, and impressed by, was Pocahontas, just thought I should throw that in here... I cant remember the whole plot, but the complexity of the multi-cultural aspect, made it quite nicely layered for me (at the time of my life when I saw it, I know it was grilled heavily just like the whole Disney Princess genre is, since I remember being exposed to the feminist critique around that film at some point, although it is clear in my memory that the movie held up better than the ideological reading it was being given at the time (I remembering debunking something around that movie's criticism, with recourse to the Movie's plot that was being oversimplified to serve the "agenda" that depends on crass pigeonholing)). It also seems unfair to expect the film genre to go out on a limb, and break rank with the more pervasive forms of media in our culture (and probably the more influential... ie. advertising, which is probably the greatest source of indoctrination and behavior molding: with how it shows kids what's meant to appeal to the opposite sex (which is probably more culturally-influential: by what it's purportedly exposing about a target demographic, to everyone else (outside the target demographic) who is exposed to the 'marketing plot/ploy/gimmick'- meaning people can't (ever) be considered individually, so long as a culture is pervasively being marketed into classes of demographically defined (and stratified) consumer units)). Being continually addressed by adverts as belonging to a demographic segment, is probably the greatest reinforcement of group-identities... removing this overnight might even cause panic since its been such a staple of modern life within the modern realms of dislocation from community and the general trend of urban alienation, further worsened with the loss of reasoning skills— exacerbation by Modern Capitalism (exactly as predicted by Adam Smith, through the excessive specialization in job-roles and then a correlating fragmentation of intellectual integrity). People want Disney to be a miracle surgeon for us all, I think we need to refocus on our own responsibilities for our own mode of living and conversing with others (ie. not Activism or complaining, getting the "living well" part right;- because ideologues who talk a lot about that, don't know a thing about what it even looks like). Addendum: This is a digression, but I think its worth pointing out that: Marketing that's directed to a specific "target audience", is effectively propaganda about the group identity of that market audience, to everyone who doesn't belong to the audience. When an advert is not directed to you, its being directed to "them", or "some other", and these objects populate the social-consciousness as social objects with their own forces upon culture and forms of constructed power (whose power can be reclaimed on an individual level). There might even be a correlation between how richer people are marketed towards, and certain perceptions that result in 'class relations', similarly, the way in which music much of its own marketing built into itself now-a-days, could also be responsible for sentiments in the perceptions of racial disparity, in the contextual system of culture and economic-class. It might be worth a study that surveys the media in this way, and then measuring signifiers of social cohesion and reports of social-stigmatization in the perception of those looking from the outside at these constructed "target groups" and the ideological aftermath from the branding of their desires (and therefore, presumptive declarations about the 'targets' expectations and standards).

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/politics-history-and-current-events/84377-disney-princess-culture-magnifies-stereotypes-girls-3.html#post2682644

Modern Courtship: the conflicted politics of the sexual-object

In my lonely desperation I have been given ample opportunity to contemplate the sexual-politics involved in modern courtship. Obviously someone such as I, who is both unwilling to play the silly games as I see them, also because I don't rank so well within those structures of social-value, I declare openly my opinion to be counter-culture, and contrarian. Something around the issue of feminism: The 'problems' inherent as I see them, are themselves orchestrated by the clunky mixed bagged of (inconsistent) ideology that many woman seem to be peddling, it's hard to give any critique with recourse to stereotypes, so instead I will just pose the common dilemma in what I see as the fairly standard scenario: A woman is offered value as a sexual object, this becomes a zero-sum loosing spree very quickly for all those involved. A sexual object only has great power: before it is acquired, if it is impossible to acquire, or to be acquired similarly in the imagination, the sexual object finds resentment cast upon it. Furthermore the sexual object, once acquired, if it had been 'won', then must work against it's capture in order to access the power it once enjoyed (through living out more of the 'chase');- in my mind, there are also connotations that a sexual object that has been "won", -because it is also a decision-making entity,- is something that must be continually won-over; [and] at least on the original basis of victory, anchoring a relationship by perpetuating some shallow appearances of the "success"-characteristic that the sexual-object had finally chose buy, by the use of itself as the currency. This whole enterprise is largely doomed in terms a real relationship in my opinion: because continually having to "win" in some ongoing way, means you can never actually be a winner (without seeing it as sort of job your doing- and if this job is contended with: it will naturally cause some form of sympathetic subjugation to be imposed on the sexual-object, to repay the stresses of the never-ending conditional [achievement of the] "winning"-over of the sexual object [by the implicit indentured-servitude aspect of maintaining the 'success'-characteristic (also see further where I believe the healthy model for a relationship is the work of maintaining shared values and contending with those as they are developed)). So I am left to conclude, that a successful sexual object might garner much energy toward herself through the powerful currency of the sexual-object, however, the hollow dynamic in the economy of such power, will rob her from sharing anything but superficial values, or pollute the connection to any of her deeply held values of self-definition. This is somewhat commonly known and felt: and so often men who seem like they will only be capable of appreciating the sexual-object as such: can be considered tiresome for their spiritless-ness, but considered valuable for the power they concede onto the sexual-object. Obviously woman find being conceptualized as just a sexual object as incredibly demeaning, and yet the allure of its currency- the power it offers- is too tantalizing a feature in our current culture of social-value to pass over for most. In my mind, forming a relationship is difficult enough: the work of creating shared values is not something that can be bought by any coercive-power, rather it must be discovered by the project of a real sharing of experiences. My values are so vastly peculiar anyway, that my screening process is focused on a person's ability to communicate directly and openly, so as to move each others decision making machinery onto shared works of passion. The sexual-object stuff is troublesome, because to my mind it creates a vast diversion, that broadly draws woman into a simple dichotomy that I'm not interested in at all: Women as an angry/sour/bitter figure because she don't have access to sexual-object power as she might enjoy as freely as others do. And the woman who is orchestrating some cunningly deceptive program where she is searching to see how well she can enjoy her power as a sexual object, by some kind of codependency on a man which is expected to somehow- honestly play the role of someone which can't ever realize that she considers the source of her power, to be currency of the sexual-object. I also wanted to add somewhere into this discussion; that in the context of all that I've just written, relationships are doomed if they are seemed as something that a man has to perpetrate against a woman's power as a sexual object. If commitment is grand project that a man has to convince and trap a woman into, then I believe that somewhere in there, is the presumption that woman are essentially promiscuous and incapable of monogamy (which is why the socialization of girls includes copious and fantastical depictions of monogamous relations) the, which is a power shadow image in the unconsciousness of men;- which play into a lot of these issues of sexual-object politics. I feel the need to echo the solution I have advanced in my early post around these topics: Woman initiating courtship and the content of the screening process/inquiries, as when your put into the position of initiating, you then have to start developing: what will make me happy, what do I want. To continue on borrowing the force of that old cliche about Men can't know what woman actually want;- maybe our courtship-culture should be at the forefront of eliminating that nebulousness covering the character of a woman's inner thoughts, which is perhaps the space occupied by all this social-programming involving all the hollow-relations between the sexes. In summation, I see a constant repeat of the same dilemma: Woman resent men for being incapable of forming a real bond with them because of the inhumanity produced by the hollow relations involved by the sexual-object attachment; and so such men are viewed as simpletons or pigs for being so easily manipulated. However, most woman aren't willing to abandon the doomed sexual-object strategy, because its too culturally prevalent to not engage with or react against in some horribly contrived ideological gambit that often can't escape the resentment of missing out on, and longing for the easily manipulated masculine counter-role. I am by no means standing up for the nice-guy, the nice-guy is just as crass in my opinion, failing to search the depths of a woman's spirit, and merely trying to replace a slavish devotion to an object-of-sex to an object of automated-submission to some utilitarian point of view that largely ignores a woman's decision making machinery or any treatment of actual-individually-held values. In my mind, the nice-guy is playing the same type of game as the power-conscious ideology of the sexual-object;- the nice-guy is just interested in a gender-role ideology instead of an attention-economy based ideology [like that of the power-conscious sexual-object proponents]. A good metaphorical abstract for my thinking in this post, is that this should explain why women end up washing most of the dishes in a household environment: because women prompted to aim for the kind of relations where they expected that the true [ideal] feminine identity commands the power to enslave a man's total capability, which she might have imagined to include an ability to do all the dishes and provide various and assorted delights and comforts. I don't know about the divorce rates in Nordic countries, but I can hazard the guess, that in societies where all the kinds of work are homogeneously divided between both sexes, allows for a relate-ability between companions, that is wholly lacking in the Anglosphere cultures. In-fact, the model of building companionship as a viable vehicle for courtship is functionally inoperable as a possible option in 'dating-strategy'; I find it hard to wonder why people can't correlate this to the widely reported failures in the long term planning for relationships. I didn't weave my point so cleverly into what I have just written out: but the point is that companionship in the Anglosphere is inaccessible to people who inhabit such perverse forms of power-trading, that real companionship is never developed, and then after its required for something, the couple's bond is revealed as a sham: attached to some very clunky power-dynamics that obscure the further development of any life that's lived by the expression of feelings which have been chosen liberally. Addendum: The point that I was making about the dichotomy that I'm disinterested about:- is that either of those positions woman style themselves after because of the sexual-object economy of power: prevents those women from being charismatic in any true sense of [a distinctive] sensual expression, because of choosing to align themselves somewhere inside this programmed game of plastic relations. I also wanted to add, that proper [charismatic] sensuality by my accounts doesn't exclude conceptions and value put on beauty. I believe the value of beauty can be included into an ideology of developed values, this is rather a different topic of discussion all together, and although I am far from most conventional standards of beauty,- in my judgement on these matters, I do believe the body-form carries with it the manifestation of the psychological disposition as a whole (in its dynamic representation (meaning: you having to know how to discern it, it isn't a direct physical correlation), which always can allow us to see both the potential and the history which people carry with them: history can also be quite malleable according to the potency of their [possibly latent] decision making abilities). So much potential is squandered in our species because of the vulgar standards of certain cultural institutions that steer people away from the development of independent thinking. Until we can be critical about defining the affects of cultural manifestations, I don't think we will ever be in a position to see progress against the growing tides of group-think that take us further away from core functional democratic ideals. We need a vehicle to adjust the conditions that surround problems without recourse to extremist thought-policing ideologies, which are all too common the first ideological recourse in this abrupt climate of extremist (and vain slants of) activism. Activism is only appropriate if the political solution is somewhat simple, and so the activism exists to spread awareness. Activism around a problem that cannot be fixed by a law of general application is just a vain attempt to call for fascist policies so some great Leader can come change all the dirty diapers of the activists who won't stop crying over the fact they are soiling themselves instead of advancing progress: instead choosing to demand it out of their own lack of imagination, and lack of ability to plan a model for the solution that isn't their own fascist call for "something else", not realizing that something includes anything, which includes reactionary developments. (sorry this particular rant is perhaps also directed at the current radical climate of protesters focused on destruction and racialized ideological flailing occurring in my country at the moment- which I notice is much the same style of ideology that exists in the field of so-called feminism). The people who wrote my Constitution were very clever in their treatment of these topics: the point is not some kind of abstract equality, the point upon which plans can be drawn to get people into a new situation, is non-racialism, and non-sexism; not extracting historical conditions that pertain to one group, because that sort of shame has no bearing on a solution, unless your looking for a final solution which can only ever be in the form of am ideology of totalitarian cult (with its thought-police to make sure you get away with perpetually holding the moral high ground for all time, making sure to cover any of ways the truth might unfold).

Response to Jesus Thread (my elaboration of Christ Consciousness)

Whatever "Him" is, it cannot be an object of the world, for then it is part of the world, and you are made a part of the world for making it your authority. Therefore "him" is not a person, it is a personality, it is a character. This is also specifically described when the scripture doesn't give the spiritual advice in the subjective point of view (which is what your quote is an example of). Joh_12:37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: (Even noticing that Jesus is a mystical and powerful Big Brother figure, doesn't mean you believe according to the Scripture) Joh_8:30 As he spake these words, many believed on him. 1Ti_3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. _____ Here is an example of both the interpersonal and subjective explanation given in Scripture: Joh_8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; Eph_5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, (even Baptism by water is not a ritual to be done by a physicalimmersion) Also Allan Watts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s42V8BGBvTk check mate. For convenience, these are two of some of the scriptures that Allan Watts referred to in the above youtube link: Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. Joh 5:41 I receive not honour from men. Joh 5:42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. Joh 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. (Therefore Jesus Christ is not his own name, nor the name of a person {its not the name of a man}, Jesus Christ is a spiritual name, literally translated it is: [Jesus-] Jehova saves; [Christ-] the anointed of God.) 2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. (The letter kills because the written word is dead, only your conscious understanding will save you, similarly the appearance of the label called upon as 'Jesus/Jesus Christ' is not the same as knowing of the name Jesus Christ; there is a fatal rift between knowing what a World could decide to call something, and understanding how something is known.) Also I would add these scriptures to be considered to all the above: Rom_8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. Rom_8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. Gal_4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Php_2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; 1Jn_3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 1Jn_3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. Also: 1Co_8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, bywhom are all things, and we by him. Eph_2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Eph_4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Don't get misled by fancy talking about a Holy Spirit, the "one Spirit" is only the Spirit of truth, a truth tarnished by relying on appearances and persuasions instead of clear and direct discerning. _____________________________________ (my next post in the same thread follows) ___________________________________________________

I would of have rather just added this to the end of my last post, but I don't want to re-write post history too extensively... so I will add these further comments and quotes as an extension: 1Jn 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. 1Jn 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. 1Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. 1Jn 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. (^1John5:21 is the last verse of the chapter, and it is focus that these words are meant to salve). If you are not born of God you cannot be in the image of truth, and so you must be always part of the spiritual delusion. All a spirit is, is a orientation of intention or focus of purpose. The spirit of truth contains its own eternal purpose: 2Jn 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 2Jn 1:8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. 2Jn 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 2Jn 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 2Jn 1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. If you want to access this philosophy on a practical spiritual level, the easiest way to tool yourself is probably something like Access Consciousness (Gary Douglass's project). Access Consciousness makes no particular Christian connection to itself, but I believe that the depth of the 1 John 3:2 Scripture (repeated below) is actualized by some their tools to do with Access to the life of being 'in question' (John is relating to overcoming the 'imaginary future' of the self, a great mystery of consciousness, being expanded upon to tool consciousness with the confidence for knowing that we will always: "Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward") 1Jn_3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. The Good hope in whatsoever 'we shall see' is what must displace the imagination of the future, and the false mental schema attached to its various themes of expectation. That Good hope is the doctrine of understanding the name, so that it can be consciously believed on ("believed on" because it gives a continual-and-eternal receiving, never having wrought an end through having sought out any execution by its orientation of intention). These pinnacles of faith, which illustrate the depth to absolute transcendence, must be understood jointly with Johns treatise of how to deal through the medium of the world (which cannot be be destroyed, only (continually) overcome: 1Jn 5:14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: 1Jn 5:15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him. 1Jn 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. 1Jn 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. It is apparent, by the discerning of the spiritual eyes, that the body even witnesses the wealth to be taken for the Kingdom of God from the sinful dilemma; so it shall be 'seen to be asking for life', and by the willing service to the life, he has already granted it, even as it was gifted by the sight of a "sin which is not unto death".

Debunking skepticism:

I will continue to furnish this after all the arguments I’ve derived come back to me... I have some interesting reproofs of the skeptical outlook: Commitment to skepticism is already an untenable first step, how can one decide to place full confidence in perpetual uncertainty, already the aim of a skeptic for choosing his skepticism, is often the root of a folly that is only pursued further by its proceeding skepticism. And so skeptics are already driven along the inclination through the axiom [and self fulfilling prophecy] in their [unsettled] purpose, being blind to the inherent nature in their own skeptical-project, because of their refusal to fully recognize the operation and force of the axiom, that persists just below the midst of their own skeptical-project. Therefore skepticism is a position that operates from a self-deception: where the self has fixed upon attuning itself to not hear what is sound; with an attached caveat that it will begin to listen, after a dilemma or trial is made resolved, so that it can recognize what it sound by knowing of a test (forged in substance of the dilemma's resolution (which is also the seat of the presumption Skepticism is founded on)) rather than by the proper focus (and unity) of the intellect.

My rather tangential development for the philosophy surrounding Transhumanism (from the radical life extension thread)

My first post to the thread:

-------------------------------------------- I am unfamiliar with the philosophies of transhumanism, and also the terminology itself fills me with the sense, that all the issues surrounding this topic are strewn on rather shaky ground. In my opinion "human-ness" first needs a definition for transhumanism to mean anything. Although I get the stark impression that wishing to essentially ground 'humanity' into some sort of categorical definition or formula, might itself be labeled a transhumanist project (as once it is definitively produced, it can be used as a permissive device for transformation). I wonder then if transhumanist is not just an invention of slander given to those who are found to be offensive because they aren't obstinate in deciding that any conceivable answers must be worthless, permitting the hasty conclusion that the question of 'what is human' might aswell be shunned. The word itself, transhumanism, along with it's thin shroud of controversy, to me is a sign of a senseless divide: surely it cannot be a labeled position to simply expect there to be no reliance on an open ended definition (on the constituents) of human existence or experience. To me it is interesting to note, that the more pluralistic you are on this point of definining human-ness (in-itself), the more transhumanism you might endure in the hypothetical and practical exercises of transhuman endevour, perhaps under the sheer weight from the submission to philosophical-uncertainty; and yet, if you are fully decided on a definitive expression of what it means to be human, the more radical you would be in assenting to a "transhuman" endevour that you would be able to reconcile yourself to (and permit to others also), while the converse also holding: looking unfavourably on projects that exceeded the bounds or thresholds of the structured framework to the human-ness you know of. And the luke-warm position is similarly as flagrant as the pluralists, as it is undefined fear alone that cements them into their cult-like aversion to any intelligent intervening claims that are merited by reason instead of just reaction impelled by fearfulness. (It is an interesting point to raise: that Iran is very Islamic, and yet the state offers free sex-assigned surgury, and will even amend the details of the birth-certificate to reflect the assigned biological sex: which just goes to show how definitive 'philosophy' can translate into, what is- by relative standards of societal tolerances,- radical liberties). I applaud movies which endevor to teach us to pose real questions onto the areas for understanding a definition for human-ness. Table thumping that the question is meaningless, is dismally presumptuous, and constricting on the grounds of an imposed futility (of senseless and ongoing fear-trudging). Definitions can find real discussion, and real resolution towards a grand cohesive image: avoiding this real work just delays real progression in understanding, and developing useful philosophy (in its application to psychology) capable of settling contentions that will otherwise persist rampantly in some form or another. ______________ My second post:

I am making a more fundamental swipe at the entire field of this debate: The position that you express and contrast with my response, contains the presumption that "human biology" is immutable. In my opinion that is rather radical position, because life is not static (ie. life is not unchanging and dead). So if mutability is not in full force upon what is "human biology", there must be some permissible scope where actions can have a physiological affect, to varieties of degree. Now what that would actually be like in reality, depends on how definitively you furnish those terms ("human" and "biology"), ascertaining definitive meanings that would tend to reveal some scope of legitimate measures of transition. Providing any sort of example would reveal much bias, which is pretty useless without adding accounts for those details, of how the utility of transition relates to the essential meaning of human-ness; but we could conceivably get such a good psychological and philosophical understanding of human-ness, that we can discover that even radical adaption has (at least at some stages, already) occurred through some form of mentally directed thread, that is now stagnant in the current ethos breed into our culture, that is foremost impelled by cultural conditions as they pertain to individual psychologies, and the resulting environmental amalgamation that keeps things tending towards continuity, as our current forms are attuned to some complex of stability, as liberty is naturally distrusted when fundamental understandings are neglected as impossible when they are relegated to imagination and fantasy, because we have lost the roots of those intuitive intellectual pathways for reaching inside the subtle organisations of biological formation and vitality. Understanding those pathways doesn't mean we also wouldn't co-opt the process by accelerating it with some form of sympathetic technology, working with our biology in a non-dependency style of use (ie. step under this special light, or temporary chemical catalyst to experience the affects of 1000 years of slow adaption potential in an accelerated fashion), but the boundaries of any conservative use will be directed by the framework of understanding the essential nature of those pathways. The Culture book series probably touches on many of these issues, I have not read all those books (haven't completed one of them xD, but I think they have the treatment of all social and cultural issues totally right). _______________ My third post:

I just realized something I thought important to add, I believe all my opinions around this topic, is why non-racialism is natural to me, and also why I believe in the inclusive nature of shared communion with any form of life that is capable of developing or holding the same philosophical framework that holds to an understanding of the essential meaning of human. The inverse holds aswell: I believe when people do not have similar philosophical stances to me on these issues, they are doomed to languish in the capricious departmentalization of a biological induced sense of integrity, containing some form of prejudice that would accrue with whatever 'appearance of human' identified with, at the point they wished to solidify and fudge their position (in the more obtuse individuals this includes vulgar racism, which can even extend to dressings of 'intellectually' motivated racisms to falsely promote the standing of those sorts of petty core sentiments (which are based in presumption or uncertainty)). Obviously my views do also include ideas of biological integrity and potential segregation: because people with capriciously fudged conscious beliefs are a liability to people who share a collective image of sanity, and because I am committed to there being a solid understanding to what the meaning of "human" entails. Furthermore it seems plain to me that people who are not committed to there being a proper understanding to what "human" means, those are the savages, eager to rubber stamp whatever form of unjust prejudice they harbor in their settled state of non-thinking, the type of non-thinking that acquiesces to authority driven, and inherited programming from similarly thoughtless savages who wished for expedient measures to secure their hegemony against other competing systems engineered for hegemonic-continuity; although there is no trace of this kind of hegemony now, other than this lingering memetic junk woven into the fabric of our cultural continuity (the hegemonic influence extended over us from the dead sitting across the grave). I will reiterate so as also to clarify my point: To not principally be in favor of the possibility to there being a legitimate and authentic form of transhumanism, is to be settled on some kind bigotry extracted from the position of non-thinking; of course a transhumanist perspective (especially in the fashion I have sketched out) might also be correctly identified as a bigot, although that bigotry would be based on some encompassing knowledge claim, which itself would be open to persuasive testimony related to the terms such a knowledge claim is founded in (my opinion is the only type of knowledge that could command sway over such a subject would be described as deeply philosophical and psychological in its definitive treatment of tracking the account of a human life-form that does not diminish its own integrity in whatever incarnated state it takes up it's subsistence through: spiritually one can summarize by saying, the gate to any possible transition is the ability to generate the relevant question resonating to a real conduit identified by the discovery of a particular survey to the extent of 'human' pathways, giving us the clear options to traverse). ____ Furthermore I would argue that the commitment to pursuing what human-ness means, is much the same as Chomsky’s pursuit of a “better justice”, instead of languishing in the perpetual shadow from the choice to settle on the impossible deficit, -so as to avoid any actual contemplation,- of “ideal justice”.

_____

Furthermore I will add my response to a thread on gender essentialism a while back, its not pertinent in any direct way to this thread, but does continue a certain style of treatment on issues of definition:

- I am just going to list a few points that seem relevant to me: What is gender? OR: Gender of what exactly (what exactly are people trying to refer themselves too)? To me it doesn't make any sense to have an undefined gender. From what I gathered using my word-web dictionary, gender means some kind of role (with some kind of reproductive choices [attached to that role]). Reproduction* could be extended to mean reproduction of culture itself... So biology neatly aside... Gender inherently means some kind of classification put onto identity, in terms of the particular work that serves reproduction*? If "open ended" gender simply means all roles are negotiated on direct personal interactions; then people might need to start wearing T-shirts with manifesto's drawn/written onto them... Without convention, (which could even be argued is the stuff all language is made out of anyway);- all exchanges must either become slower or more nebulous, as more care must be taken to understand something we don't yet have a cultural short-hand for. The concept "open ended"-gender seems to essentially defeat fixed role classification;- which destroys the chance to examine culture objectively as then culture itself is only indirectly produced by the subjective actions of people that think of themselves beyond rooting their identities in any objective [cultural] framework. Potential ancillary point: It seems to me, there is an economic truth that has some kind of application even in the politics of sexuality: people can't be expected to spend equal amounts of time in considering any message, especially if its apparently hard to read (even if the difficulty in considering the message is the result of unfamiliarity- in which case people's general experience of culture as a whole, might cause them to feel prejudiced by their chosen classifications' limited prevalence). Based on the definition of gender that I have speculated: it seems clear that gender would gravitate toward superficial and physiological "permission slips" that aided a person in pursuing a ROLE. Because, depending on your chosen role, merely seeming unconvincing can produce resistance to accomplishing the chosen role, and so 'looking the part', is also part of being successful in achieving your service to re-productivity (see elaboration on reproduction above*).

My response on the “How to be yourself” Thread..

free will. Although I don't think I will explore that topic in this thread, as it seems like a separate ground needing to make long thought out correlations between: fractured intelligence, false ego, self-identity, external loci for control (including "moral knowledge" claims used to justify such externalizations that cast shadows onto the unconscious-self).

this is the directors cut song of the anime ' The End of Evangelion ' Vocals by ' Arianne Schreiber ' Lyrics. music and rythm by ' Hideaki Anno ' the differe...

I am proud of this song (won’t get less cryptic than that).

‘Why something rather than nothing’ discussion on science and philosophy.

I would prefer to just talk about this topic directly rather than first dealing with cited material; I didn't read the whole article, but I read enough of the start of an argument to know at least that one was fallacious. A vacuum is not nothing. I see now that the article also seems to point out that same contention... I would also like to draw out further the point that: If you can't fully answer the 'why', you can never give a full account for 'what' it is either. And when science, professes to contain a full of account of any or each of these things, does do itself disservice in hiding behind its fudged interpretation of how the application of science gets to any 'answers (sic)' at all. A word I shall start using after I read it in the last article you posted earlier;- "physical-ism" (which I just used to refer to as 'materialism', or 'material-monism'), is the blatant presumption woven into the operative-structure of the Scientific Method, therefore Science is obviously incapable of evidencing consciousness, nor is it capable of accounting for any point at which the empirical observation does not correlate with deterministic features, which is why all science can do is translate the uncertainty principle (in Quantum Mechanics) into numbers, and then shout at people for being innumerate if they catch onto this charade. Physical-ism has vast philosophical problems, 1. it can only be presumed to operate apriori, which is itself a shaky inconsistency [of contingent thinking that must be absurdly taken for granted]. 2. It must forge an impossible cohort of interdependent reliance, from the entirety of human knowledge, and so, its very analogous to a cancerous part of the body, growing by the disordered displacement of symbiosis,- amongst the hosts' component parts; and so in promoting its limited vision for an imposed hierarchy that reinforces its agenda of the physicalism-bias, there is no end until the cancer is done supplanting the hosts component parts into the image of its anti-consciousness, anti-free-will dogma (note: Science is incapable of ever producing evidence on the validity of this dogma, and so it can only maintain its hierarchy by smear campaigns and appeals to non-thinking, and appeals for not thinking that physicalism should be substantiated rather than just blindly presumed to operate (because all the math-models of the world, still can't convince me that quantum mechanics is governed by forces of the "physical" characteristic described by those numbers***(see footnote)). 3. At this point, I can only encourage you guys to watch the current Supergirl series, and maybe read some Superman comic books, because this exactly the kind of stuff of Crypton's demise. Footnotes: ***One could feebly argue the answer is possessed somewhere in those numbers, but, that its presented in such a useless framework, that it is just become a mirror representation for the scientific method itself and its own folly. And in that mirror, we can only proceed with Science intact, if we conclude that the universe itself operates as an aggregate of statistical probability, which sounds only a little bit outlandish (seeing as there is actually only one STREAM of outcome ever (that we can suppose access to)), until we lend it some more weight by extrapolating: actually there are multitudes of every possible universe so that our statistical model does render us the full answer, it just seems confusing to us, because we can't see past the limitation of this universe into all the possible universes like the math-model can! (So now Science must cast its speculation into a plurality of the present (many-worlds), or a hidden plurality we must believe lives inside of our one and only stream (either in the dynamism of its own singular course, wherein we can only ever compare our one stream to a cosmic luck (as we rate it against the math-model), or a veiled divergence that encompasses any possible course for the stream, with no account for the location or navigation between those possibilities (other than luck rated against which universe was destined to keep containing you, wherein the math-model itself is an arbitrary co-incidence that is only useful in telling what kind of luck you have displaced amongst the collection of veiled alternative-universes... I do think there is even Astrology that is more convincing than all of this, sadly.) 2nd post: A few more points to be pointed out: The claim that Science has even accomplished anything, is based on the weak claim that Science is valid in a separable way, in fashioning different parts to the presumed truth of "Science" (that correspond to spheres or levels of 'the total "scientific-reality"'); which is clear evidence that a fundamental feature of Scientific-dogma, is blind reliance (and bias) for the presumption in [the truth of] physicalism. There is only one Science, and the source of any validity must come from some umbrella of sheltering validity, vindicated and rooted in the deepest study of 'physical observation'. Its trite, but worth spelling out: without being covered by the umbrella of physicalism, we can safely conclude Science has provided no answers in any question, only rendering itself useful in various technical respects (wherever Science has paved the way for manufacture or delimiting various kinds of guesswork in some kind of technical application (in the same way, a cook can know when the cake can expect to be ruined by an oven and how it might taste, by a rigor applied to reading his experience, not because he has the authority to know a full deterministic account for time and space)). Now... Scientific description of Quantum Mechanics is nebulous; but not only this, it is exactly nebulous to the exact manner that Science construes it's treatment of time through its methodology; anyone who dismisses this coincidence, is somewhat philosophically inept;- to say the least. Summation: If there is something, it can never have come from nothing; And, something can be the displacement for nothing, and thus, by scientific description, the full account of anything, is not a resolvable mystery. Again: it's not a coincidence, that scientific description of quantum mechanics, mirrors exactly: science's treatment of time- the treatment woven into the structure of the scientific method. "Woven" in this context means hap-haphazardly presumed. ----- The math-model does not determine occurrences, it can't, if it did then any greatest statistical outcome must always prevail in some sense, and yet it can easily persist with no tangible expression, only by a Scientific-placebo-expression. The wave-form is just a projection cast by Science, it is in fact only the void of nothing, that nothing, always then conforming to one-single displacement by something; something that has not come from statistics, neither through a statistic:- a position in favour of the statistics, can only be made reliable by extrapolating outside of the occurrence, or even further from the real empiricism, into a hypothetical empiricism (which is the deceptive-craft of the Science-domain). Always remembering whole “virtual particulars” are empirically manifest, not just the course of the matter that has already been taken for granted to subsist (and vulgarly accounted for under the guise/auspices of physicalism).

My Response to charges of Psychology’s failure as a Science:

Its really hard to keep track of the myriad mistakes and presumptions I see you projecting onto all the issues that surround this topic, I would have navigated them from the outset, in quite a different fashion.

Using "falsifiable hypothesis" does not forge unity in any field that has not already been relegated as junk approximation (utilized only for the purposes of technical application, and when relied on in any serious and semi-philosophical thinking, produce stupid and useless claims and sentiments;ie. many people harp on about the eventual end of the universe as predicted by entropy, when the theory of thermodynamics does not even apply to any of the weak nuclear forces empirically accounted of in nature).

Science is closer to the religiosity you profane, the religion of falsification being confused for verification; which at the outset presumes an epistemological pluralism that is already automatically acquiesced to (there are deeper philosophical implications on the stupidity of taking this step: presumption about the force that time itself possesses, and the implicit distinction between an ordering force beyond the present-time, that we can only know and perceive as its controlling effect for our present[time] observations; [and then I am baffled to understand, how any thinking person can make the mistake of thinking, that science can tell us anything on the questions of free will and conscious-direction (ie decision making), when it already possesses a structure, that could only hold authority over these matters after one had already decided, that science itself was an overmind with the greatest human intelligence, with the power to define its subordinates according to its image... this is really quite the feeble bandwagon-cult of nonthinking- that Scientism’s fanatics have given themselves over too.]

On psychology specifically:

The task of any serious explorer would be to account for a system -especially of a "science" that is as immaterial as the mind- with an account that is not prone to a falsification, and thereby preventing the otherwise necessitated fracture of the field into competing claims, or a sham of loosely connected theorems that all collate against the background of a nebulous terra-incognito, the blank space upon which all the various tensions of consistency are conveniently projected to rest on (in hard physics, this is known as the big bang). Plato solved these issues, which have their nexus in the misapplication for the principle of transitivity (that are obtusely ironed over in vulgar-scientific/secular thinking of today), by creation of the "ideal form"; and now Scientific reverence, has displaced the "ideal form" for an impossible pursuit of a scientific-Holy Grail that is yet to be presented to us, but we all fear the wroth of Science when not blindly agreeing that Science is capable of testing for the ultimate narrative for a cause, and thereby "knowing it (sic)" by falsification, to not confess these sentiments is the greatest heresy (I can imagine Richard Dawkins getting hot with anger even now over any professed doubts). I would remind Scientists, that not only in principle: does falsification never lead to verification (unless you have blind faith in those tasked to fudge the translated explanations into comprehensible language), but also, that the rigor itself has yet to produce any hard truth in any matter; it is quite obviously a massive and collective con-game, where we have already displaced so much ‘old science’ already by "newer and better" science, that the even more "newer and better” “science" that we get to continue receiving must be even better-er!... ^Bandwagon.

Furthermore, my critique in the third paragraph, is also the reason why Science has come to a grinding halt in dealing with quantum mechanics (for over four generations, the field has probably lost more understanding than was crafted on those topics in Heisenberg's day), which answers why mathematical modeling is epic-ly reaching the status of idol worship, so as to cover over the obvious and embarrassing problems of fudging some comprehensible account, of what would otherwise be required to hide the deep implications in the futility of Science, at the deepest level of empirical observation. original thread: http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/philosophy-and-spirituality/81333-philosophy-psychology-split-psychology-helped-hurt-3.html ____ I will add a segment of a further post I made in the same thread, as it seems too pertinent to omit under the titled heading:

- If we take psychology to be the study of the soul, and also take it to be a religion (albeit a secular one as you stipulate), then how might we claim to be hurt by it, unless we displace the authority of psychology by some better account for psychology? Perhaps a sociological theory of oppression, that would regard that psychology as merely a form of interference in some greater Sociological scheme, making the psychology sub-ordinate to a greater conception of human-value (probably through some utility based definition of liberty). Your setup necessitates claiming a hierarchy of knowledge, either, in some kind subordination as I have given an example of (just above), or, of the meaningful service that psychology has promoted some higher/est material aim (ie. the human-value that is affirmed by some system of philosophical thought). That on its own would not be troublesome, but by your very positing, you have already condemned all possible knowledge in philosophy and psychology as "not knowing.. consciousness", so then why are you interested in seeing expressions of those hierarchies constructed? So as to play at knocking down the "religious sandcastles" that you have invited people to make for your inspection? Another analogy which is perhaps more stark: encouraging an "animal" to dance for you, so that you may then proceed to make light of its efforts.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

THE ONLY CAUSE ABOVE PASSION