Semiosis, Screwy Eyes, and Fantasies About Godhood

If there's anything I consider myself good at, its understanding the minds of human beings, and the reason I claim this (and hopefully, other people sense it) is because I recognize the existence of something called science.

But can science be as liberating for everyone as it has been for me? Some peopled here when they talk, use language to persuade others on a point that isn't based in reason, and I find it profoundly heartbreaking. What makes someone think that language doesn't follow its own sort of logic - as the "grammarians" point out, the predicate and the subject is the essential elements of speech, yet some people (and I'm desperately constrainig myself not to drop any names!) use language, and when they use it, make a point which is only understandable from the "mysteries" of the perspective they are operating from. That is, from a place "outside language". This cliché of "non-communicable" mysteries is from my point of view a complete fetishization.

Yet when people speak, do they make any extra effort to clarify how their experience differs from others? Alas! This most obviously reasoonable way of being is not even pursued by people with this sort of habit of thinking. They may claim their experience is the "ultimate truth", yet saying so doesn't actually make it so in fact - and it is this epistemological gap between experience (and how its formulated) and communication (and what that does for human beings) which makes far right philosophies so fundamentally destructive: they do not respect the interpersonal gap that exists between us; but rather, the intense 'right brain' experience seems to have transformed them into flaming megalomaniacs with minds and beliefs that are frankly speaking, profoundly dysfunctional. And why do I say dysfunctional? Because it is not communicable, and so, DOES NOT INCREASE INTERPERSONAL COHERENCY.

Screwy Eyes

Every time someone is accused of being a pedophile, I spend some time observing their eyes - and a large majority of the time, they have profound ocular asymmetry; and yet, do these people see this asymmetry on their faces? Or are they in the least bothered by its presence? Its quite likely that they experience their asymmetry as an example of a "turning away" - the numerical value of a Hebrew word with just that connotation has the value of 666. Solomon in his hording of gold is said to have collected 666 talents of it. 666, apparently, is a popular mystical idea associated with "turning away"; and yet, from my modern neuroscientifically inclined mind, I can only see these things in terms of development - and the sheer fact that NOBODY IS ESSENTIALLY ANY WAY - but have to first experience the responses of others to their needs to be known. It is AS A RESPONSE to these situations that the self and its needs form.

This is why I am absolutely certain that truth will - and must - prevail: mythological ways of thinking are #ing Insane, PERIOD. And the bearers of an ocular asymmetry deserve to be pitied for needing to believe total nonsense about reality because a demon/spirit/etc told them.

This site is pure nonsense, and is chalk full of people who haven't developed their dialectical mind one lick. The problem, undoubtedly, is that intense affective experience in their right brains has completely arrested their capacity to represent (i.e. in language) they feel the way they're feeling. Projection is the preferred way of being - despite the obvious injustice of pretending the problems you have AREN'T YOURS! Pretense - mythology - games - trickster consciousness. This is a testament to a profound mental illness in our species, and is something that will sooner or later need to be addressed if we ever hope to evolve beyond our present state of affairs.

Traumatized Minds: Stay Away from Kundalini!

I believe that early life relational trauma contains semiotic realities that represent 'absence' so that the self forms around core feelings of emptiness. This was the situation of the children's writer Roald Dahl, who lost his older brother and father in a 6 month span when he was three years old. Can you imagine the intensity of the loss for his mother? And for Dahl, who else was there to comfort him but her? And could she have been there - effectively? Its likely that the face he saw was one which was empty of affect; despair-ridden; and thus, an image NOT TO BE LOOKED at if development is to occur normally. Nevertheless, Dahl has the screwy eye issue, and was more or less popularizing a genre of thinking that he himself admitted, in a quaint little nursery rhyme:

“I guess you think you know this story
You don’t. The real ones much more gory.
The phony one, the one you know,
Was cooked up years and years ago,
And made to sound all soft and sappy
Just to keep the children happy.”

All of this nihilistic, black magic obsessed thinking would never have entered Dahl's life were it not for those losses; and what would have happened to Dahl had he known how such a loss would affect his consciousness? What would have happen if his mom received the mental health support she needed?

Would magic have been appealing? Would the obnoxious assumption that "life can't be worse" then what you've gone through have persuaded him to follow such a self-destructive path - where corrupting others was experienced as fun?

There is nothing sensible about thinking you are "other", or "alien", when reality has never worked like that. Every mystic who has ever written has been a HUMAN JUST LIKE YOU AND ME. They have NEVER been perfect in their knowledge; and have always had to make due with the cultural material they had assimilated in their growth.

This is a fact - but far too few people have the mental wherewithal to see how obvious this is.

Ok. And?

a reply to: Astrocyte

You close with a very unscientific point of view for you:

"There is nothing sensible about thinking you are "other", or "alien", when reality has never worked like that. Every mystic who has ever written has been a HUMAN JUST LIKE YOU AND ME. They have NEVER been perfect in their knowledge; and have always had to make due with the cultural material they had assimilated in their growth."

It comes to mind that you have no conception of what reality is and how far flung it can be from "consensus reality" that is the credo of science if not everyday humanity.

Like it or not by you, there are individuals both past and present that have inklings of the unthinkable and unknown.

a reply to: Aliensun

It comes to mind that you have no conception of what reality is and how far flung it can be from "consensus reality" that is the credo of science if not everyday humanity.

That's what "comes to mind"? Nothing I've written has entered your noggin as worthy of attention?

Let me clarify my position lest you think I think differently:

There is a verticle axis and a horizontal axis, and these correspond to "existential" and "dynamical" states.

Existentially speaking, there is truth to the position of the Godhead. But Dynamically speaking, you are superimposing onto it the traumas from your early life development i.e. the horizontal axis.

To say that reality is "fundamentally" alienated from this world and existence is not true; many people who've grown without such problems DO NOT experience such alienation, and in fact, experience God consciousness with a profound feeling of gratitude.

This means that we project from our experiences - which are ineluctably framed by cultural and social experiences - so that, depending on the traumatzing images or experiences we've had, the Godhead can be salvational, or produce a sense of being alienated from external reality; but surely these two perspectives are not equivalent. To have a healthy and happy development provides a happy and healthy evaluation of reality.

If you believe in reincarnation, why not hope for a better future incarnation, instead of exaggerating what your brain has learned in this life i.e. "alienation", as if it were an absolutey true state of affairs, when it most certainly isn't.

a reply to: Aliensun


Judging from your signature, you think there is an evolution beyond the present world that isn't based in symmetry?

Unless you and I are learning a different physics, symmetry is everything. All of material reality is based in it; your mind is based in it; your body is based in it. It's a fundamental constraint on what can and cannot be.

People who dream of there being a "better world" beyond this one, or fantasize something besides this one, are quite clearly involved in something very imaginary - and which sane people, because they are sane, must necessarily resist.

Also, with evolution, and with equipping our species with more knowledge relevant to development, we will slowly and surely "rise" higher to a point where this world and the higher one will merge.

My point is not that this wont happen, but that we must understand reality coherently if we want to make it happen.

Reading.... there came a slight vibe of Carlos Casteneda's stuff.

I can't read you. I have a "dead" eye. Gone, since birth...tried surgery and no go. I am assymetrical.

It has zero to do with me.

I've spent a lifetime hearing of racial, gender, religious and such inequality...but...

Try being assymetrical.

Try having a lazy eye.

Go to the store and make yourself cross-eyed...see the reactions.

Piss off.

a reply to: Astrocyte

People with asymsmetric eyes are pedophiles?

According to this article, it has more to do with mishapen ears and left handedness...apparently.

Pedophiles are more likely to be left-handed, have non-detached earlobes and misshapen ears

Wh at?


Personally, i think these are false correlations. Ive heard of or encountered people i knew that turned out to be into child pedo stuff and they had none of these qualities.

Go figure, im asymetric from the top down and find pedophilia to be horrifying and #ed up in all senses.

Also, relatively speaking, youll find relative asymetries in anyone. It really depends on the scale and measure you are looking at.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Some folks might have one eye that doesn't give a damn about the other, on the outside: but some folks have skewed vision on the inside.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
This site is pure nonsense, and is chalk full of people who haven't developed their dialectical mind one lick.

You mean Chock Full, not Chalk Full...
Undeveloped dialectical minds and nonsense indeed...

a reply to: Astrocyte

Some peopled here when they talk, use language to persuade others on a point that isn't based in reason, and I find it profoundly heartbreaking. What makes someone think that language doesn't follow its own sort of logic - as the "grammarians" point out, the predicate and the subject is the essential elements of speech, yet some people (and I'm desperately constrainig myself not to drop any names!) use language, and when they use it, make a point which is only understandable from the "mysteries" of the perspective they are operating from.

Does the spoken language tell the truth???

I'm desperately constrainig myself not to drop any names!

Don't restrain yourself - use names and then there can be a discussion.
But first wonder - who is restraining who when language says 'I am' desperately constraining 'myself'?

there is not "two", but a singularity - a singular continuum of being

a reply to: Astrocyte

Apart from a typo here and there ...

yet some people (and I'm desperately constrainig myself not to drop any names!) use language, and when they use it, make a point which is only understandable from the "mysteries" of the perspective they are operating from.

And why would you exercise constraint upon yourself? There must be a science to it, surely?
You are saying this to say what exactly?

Allow me to rephrase with less bombastic and theatrical skills

Yet, some people ......use language in such a way that it can only be understood from the perspective of the very mystery they operate from.

.....such as yourself of course.

Ah ... now it becomes clear as to the underlying reason you would exercise restrained on dropping names.
Pseudo science ...

a reply to: Astrocyte


Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself of something.

Also what does this have to do with kundalini??
Plz elaborate