Truth: a Tyrant

a reply to: NoConspiracy

Underneath the self, is being. The self is a contradiction, a conglomerate of confliction. Desires, ideas, thoughts fade in and out. Being-ness is none of that. It is simple, honest, and pure.

Op is not discontent, it is indignant. Also, just because you frame your question as ...underlying self" doesn't mean I will concede. Self is a fabrication, not a thing more.

You do not have to tell me what is and is not fine; I am not seeking confirmation or validation; much less yours.

Emotions are energy Distorted by the self. All that glitters is not gold. Once the self is dismantled, energy remains, but not in misguided, useless ways. The rage expressed in the OP is not idle. It has already been enacted, it's work, finished. No word games can alter that.

a reply to: LucidWarrior


I was just a little confused. But you made things clearer...

I would say being needs the self to be aware.

Only the self, attributes values like useful or usless, guided or misguided, good or bad to energy.

There are no absolutes in being not even simple honest and pure, these are all attributes created by the self to give the being a frame in which it can be aware.

Beingness just IS (boring?)

With that perspective i need the self because there is no moral compas without the self...
Never lose yourself!!!

Sincerely NC

The self is Being's delusion. Being IS Absolute. Corruption never had any power

Values like useful and useless, guided and misguided, good or bad... ARE attributes OF being. They are not created by Self, they are found by it. Self plays with them, building much as if with blocks. Creating tragedy in our unskilled hands, as corruption gleefully rushes in, using our ignorance as a channel, literally given life.

Simple honest and pure are not attributes, they are states. The state of being. Which when we wipe away the lie of self, births Truth and Love.

Being is what all selves are destined to become. It is the truth to which all distortions will return. It is the order which is commanded to rise from chaos. From infinity, can only emerge Zero. From self, can only emerge being.

That's the reason why corruption never stood a chance: the truth it thought was it's prey was nothing more than its own lies, conjectured through truth as he lay asleep but with none of its power. But in fact was the very reason he awoke.

I don't like telling people they are wrong, hey. I will say that such as your perspective is certainly the prevailing belief.

Being, is comprehension, which is the natural predator of belief. Realization, epiphany, held in the moment of potency ala meditation. Realizing the ending and taking it as fact during. That's why I can state with certainty that truth is alive, and love is well. Despite looking around with my eyes and seeing the abundant evidence to the opposite. Because they are born sooner in my understanding. Just as they gain strength the more that conflict is taken against them, any time agendas are thrown upon them.

They were taking a nap, and a nightmare came along and though it had taken over. But in reality it was trapped in a jar inside the mind it sought to invade, twisting and churniing in its own malevolent sleep. They tried to cure it but none could be found- so instead, they destroyed it, and sought out each other like it. The biggest genocide in history, recorded or otherwise. For evil has many faces, many homes. Not fighting, but simply asserting being.

a reply to: LucidWarrior

Yup I already got your vibe in the last post.

Right or wrong are very selfish concepts, and we probably just have to agree that we disagree.




NC

You're certainly free to disagree! I'm pretty sure I caught your vibe in your first post lol.

What's so selfish about do no harm? What's so selfish about persecuting those who have no qualms subjugating others?

a reply to: NoConspiracy

originally posted by: LucidWarrior

What's so selfish about do no harm? What's so selfish about persecuting those who have no qualms subjugating others?

Where are you going, with this one?

If someone/thing wants to subjugate you, protecting yourself is perfectly fine with me. Even if this might hurt some.

Although I would never reach out and do that to others. If one enters my sphere I give them a lesson about boundaries, and why it's not ok/recomendable to invade them. If they don't get the message the fist time, more drastic measure have to be taken.

If you would just let it happen, getting hurt and being subjugated, that would pure BEING, accepting everything as it is and giving no resistance.

But there are still forces that would try and subjugate you maybe it won't hurt, because no resistance by the self, the energy flows unhindered, but who's energy...

If I'm fine with the energy, I will gladly subjugate, to let's say love.
I know love, people use it often and most have a very strange view of love almost like a sort of ownership.
Sort of"I subjugate you out of love"
Where I say, "I subjugate myself to love"

Now when this energy wants more than my heart when I feel it in my throat, I know foul play is happening and love was just another empty word used, to get access.

Maybe I don't disagree with you after all

Sincerely NC

a reply to: NoConspiracy

You said right and wrong were selfish concepts. I was asking you to explain what is selfish about, again, doing no harm, aka "right" and seeking to stop those who subjugate others, aka "wrong"

Being does not just accept everything as it is. That is complacency. Idleness. I'm telling you, everything we thought was wrong. Being-ness has a voice, has a right to defend itself, has a will to do so and all the power necessary. Its will is what morality seeks to emulate and of what artists have always dreamed. This thought that being has to accept everything is vile and part of the distorted dream logic.

Also, I never said anything about harm when I said subjugate. Subjugation is subjugation, plain and simple.

Understand, I'm not trying to change your mind, and I'm not trying to defend my own position. Simply clarifying.

a reply to: LucidWarrior

And I'm simply trying to understand.
Otherwise I would have left it already.

Well you said no harm but thats how it goes with polarity, i assumed the opposite of good, doing no harm, would be bad doing harm.
Or do the same with subjugating or not subjugating.

So does being has sort of a mind of it's own?

If so, my experience is that there are two types of being(s). To go with the artists vocabulary muses.

How do you know which one to listen to?

I have the impression most people shut one or the other out, and I'm most inspired when i listen to the discourse between the two of them and let my"self" decide what side of the argument i stand.
I can tell you they both have very good points.
non is inherently vile.
Once I decide who wins the argument, I decide to subjugate my"self" for the time being to one or the other, inorder to complete the task i was requesting guidance for.
Then it's out with both and "self" evaluation, about the process and the result.
And I think this process is what polishes the "self" , into a multifaceted diamond.

But

If I would decide for one or the other "muse" without hearing out both, I would create a one faceted diamod, basecaly a mirror or a window.
Light either reflects or passes depending on what's on the other side.
darkness=miror
light=window

compared to what light does with a multifaceted diamond, well neiter window nor mirror can keep up with it. At least from my point of view.

That's why I need the self, as selfish as it my seem.

Sincerely NC

a reply to: NoConspiracy

Creation is not completed with destruction. Creation necessarily entails destruction. It's only when destruction becomes a seperate entity that it becomes a problem because it's only aim becomes that of a malicious joy. Sophisticated harm becomes subjugation.

Listening to light does not mean ignorin the darkness, light casts a shadow if it falls upon something. It just means not listening to only darkness.

A diamond shines with borrowed light, for all it's brilliance it only exemplifies qualities tht already exist without it.

When one let's in light though the self, a window is but the first stage. Where one contemplates hope, wonder, beauty. If one continues, the self dissolves until only light remains.

a reply to: LucidWarrior

I never said anything about destruction, you are spillng things over, from another discussion in another thread with another poster...

Now light and it's colors are peculiar to say the least and if not aware of its dynamics, very deceptive.

Did you know that a lemon which appears yellow absorbs all the colors except yellow.
Yellow is the only color it rejected, sending it to your eyes. Therfore the lemon is actually all but yellow.
Let that sink in for a while.
Now apply this to black and white...

I think shadow is just light transformed by the darkness, the darkness you are talking about is the thing itself. Matter is darkness, even the mirror, the window and the diamomd are ultimately formed by darkness, made visible through light.
As is the self!
The self is a pure construct of the mind by the experiences had with a body. Your soul(light) and your body(darkness) work together to polish your mind.
If your mind tend to always go with one or the other side, balance is lost, and the polishing will become one-sided resulting in mirror or window.
Let me clear something up you didn't got right before.
If you go with light, then on the other side is darkness and you get a mirror.
If you go with darkness, on the otherside is light and you get a window.

I was not talking about the brilliance of a diamond, but it's ability to break light into it's parts, showing us all it's colors. Its refractive properties!

Even so You are right they are attributes that have always been there, inside the light. Unfortunately I can not experience them, without myself.

If I dissolve the self, I will either loose, the window, the mirror or the diamond, and that would not help to be aware of the light. They all are tools to understand the light better, to play with it and get inspired.

With the window I can see the light, pure light but there is nothing else just light, no colors, no matter to reflect off.

With the mirror i can only see my reflection. The light reflecting off myself, i see everything I'm not.
If I appear white, I'm not absorbing any light.
If I appear black, I'm absorbing all of the light.

With the diamond i can let the light shine through, extrapolate all its properties and really be creative.

It's a process...
Most start with the mirror, then the window, then the diamond, don't discard non of them just keep them in your toolbox.

It seems you are currently working on the mirror, I hope you will like what you see, and never forget if you deal with light things are not as they appear.

Sincerely NC

a reply to: NoConspiracy

I never said anything about destruction, you are spillng things over, from another discussion in another thread with another poster...

No, I'm not, lol. Creation and destruction, light and darkness, good and bad, they are all metaphors for the same thing. Any argument, principle, or effect that applies to one set applies to the other sets.

Let me clear something up you didn't got right before.
If you go with light, then on the other side is darkness and you get a mirror.
If you go with darkness, on the otherside is light and you get a window.

Excuse me, that's something YOU got wrong tyvmmf and I quote:

darkness=miror
light=window

So don't come at me like I'm the one coming up with this stuff. I was just engaging you in the way you chose to approach the subject; it is not my ruleset nor was I abiding by it. On that note, and this one:

It seems you are currently working on the mirror

I am out of this discussion with you as you can't seem to stop trying to ensnare me with your words. My work on self has nothing to do with your contraption which FYI is based entirely around light and you would be better served just dealing with it than the mechanism you have built around it.

a reply to: LucidWarrior

Show me where i used the word destruction or creation.

reading comprehension.... Or purposefully incomplete quoting?

depending on what's on the other side.
darkness=miror
light=window

Well worded everything is built around light.

Sincerely NC

I imagine this tirade has something to do with

a) antinomian, metaphysical individualism?

b) the party you are wailing at is the personification of reality - the universe, or the 'demiurge'?

c) you refuse to repent, or change yourself; truth is a 'tyrant'

d) you believe that there is a truth separate or different from the real world?

All in all, your confused rambling probably expresses your confused self-organization.

How can you communicate sense-making if you don't even make sense to yourself?

I wish I could commiserate, but the ominous "I will obliterate all that has happened that isn't born of us" sounds rather psychotic. Who is the "us"? Some demon you find yourself to be identical with? Is this the demon speaking who says "I became a storyteller, so that I could learn to maintain the story's sanctuary."

Man, I do sympathize with the suffering you're going through, but its hard to not feel bothered when your solution sounds a bit like the 'final-solution' of the Nazis.

Maybe you should just drop the existential, transcendental perspective, or attitude, and give yourself a little bit of a psychological breather?

a reply to: NoConspiracy

So much metaphor in these posts!

The self is a pure construct of the mind by the experiences had with a body. Your soul(light) and your body(darkness) work together to polish your mind.

But self is emergent from interactions. You talk as if you can have a body without the processes which create a body. Mind does not precede it; in fact, facial expressions, or episodic-memory of visual percepts, is what prompts the emergence of mind, if mind is understood to mean "reflective-awareness".

The dream to be without a self is the dream to be without a body, that is, without relationships between objects. And how can there be meaning or knowing without the flux that these objects generate between one another?

Nihilism indulges in removing from relevance the facticity of a body; but since the mind - generated by a body - which dreams about getting rid of the body to preserve the peacefulness of its mind - is an oxymoron, the disease that will eventually rot the body will show the emergent property, the self, what its mind-body-nexus-with-others is really all about.

Anyways, I appreciate the metaphorical jargon, but too much of it can get too ambiguous, and if that happens, the nitty-gritty of efficient causation gets ignored. Faces and voices and bodies and touching is the crux and root of the reflective self; if we step outside our bodies, or the conditions by which we come to know, we get mired in vagueness and stupidity like "crazy wisdom".

a reply to: LucidWarrior

I don't think you understand the difference between Being and Self.

Being is emergent from what we experience from the perspective of being a self. Being situated, having a body, having a homeostatic imperative, means that everything we say and do is for numero uno. We are trying to regulate our affective states through narratives. Being is real, but it describes a state that unites us through the fabric of the structure of our individual selves. Similarly, the cells which make us up each have their own particular object and purpose; a liver cell cannot function like a brain cell without the body becoming all screwy; in fact, processes that aren't temporally and spatially coordinated is what we refer to as cancer. In terms of being a self, not acknowledging your emotional states, not expressing your feeling states with others, is to not 'know yourself', and therefore, to not know how to integrate, or harmonize yourself with your relational environment.

You cannot properly honor the nature of Being without existing within the framework of the creature that you are. To pretend that self isn't real, or isn't always occurring, is to deny the logic of psychodynamics. And to deny psychodynamics, or that there is a logic that organizes you in a causally closed way with the facial expressions, body movements and vocal tones around you (as well as the narratives that others share which threatens your own coherency), is self-deceiving.

Being unites us, and its an important inspirational touchstone for regulatory functioning, but it doesn't do away with the self. To think it does is phenomenologically naïve.



If you disagree with the above diagram, you don't understand yourself or how your sense of meaning has been shaped from birth onwards. You we're a baby once, right? And as a baby, you were utterly dependent on others to regulate your affective states, correct? And we're your affective states functions of homeostatic dynamics? And isn't it the prerogative of caregivers to recognize the motivational needs of the infant, to compensate for them by doing what they need to do to either up-regulate or down-regulate a state they're in? As you grow, don't these meanings become locked in and serve as the substratum for reflective processes? Isn't your prereflective experience an operation of an unconscious correlation between your body's regulation of what faces, voices, and bodies mean, given past experience? That is, that they are expectations that try to protect you?

If you think this through to completion, the circle is perfectly closed. We are projects of Being, true, but the facts that matter for how we regulate ourselves have everything to do with self-states, or states of self, and I know of no other way to talk about 'my' experience or 'your' experience without invoking the language of individual differences which make a difference; that is, without invoking the ontological primacy of a self. We are not clones of one another; we have different situated relations with the world.

Whether we can ever be perfectly aligned with Being, and so somehow transcend the situated logic of our unique interactions within the world, is probably an impossibility. Why? Because in order to relate to one another coherently, we must invoke the unique differences that makes every self sensitive to the world in different ways. As said, we are not clones; there is no Being that subtracts Self; but Self AND Being. Yin and Yang; individuality and collective existence.

a reply to: Astrocyte

I wish i could word it in the manner you do. The metaphors are my only tool because i don't know the correct expressions to explain it scientifically. Thanks for doing that.

I think without the body there is no storable experience that could facilitate the formation of an adaptable self at all.
I understand the mind as the tool that interprets all input gathered through the body and with these inputs forms a self.
I think babies have no mind and it seems as if the self-awareness starts to form only after the mind kicks in.

Sorry it still reads like "crazy wisdom"

NC

a reply to: Astrocyte

Who is the "us"?

I believe "us" refers to the author and (personified) Love.

I found additional meaning, perhaps unintended, in the mixed-tense phrasing of "obliterate all that has happened (past tense) that isn't (present tense) born of us".

The "I" speaking in OP is waking from spiritual coma, as it were - a time during which their personal sovereignty was compromised, their agency impaired. In nascent awareness and awakeness, residual power (fear, shame, guilt) of past corruption lingers.

I read it as "destroying the power that fear, guilt, and shame (of the past) have over me (in the present)." It is a way of drawing attention to the contrast between the past and present.

That's some of the meaning I found in OP. Perhaps it's not what author intended, but it is not uncommon for meaning that resonates with me to be unrelated to another's intention.

a reply to: Astrocyte

I imagine that this tantrum has something to do with your conceived intellectual superiority to others and the smug self assuredness this gives you when producing the drivel you call conjecture of others.

I will not explain my writings to someone who has no actual interest in discussion. Im not saying you're not curious. I'm sure you're dying to know, deep down. Nor do I feel a need to defend my self from your pathetic excuse of an assault. Who knows, maybe your tactics of psychological disruption would've worked if people hadn't already came in here understanding exactly what I was throwing down. But I seriously doubt it.

Maybe you should drop the blind, unconscious anger which is making you lash out at me and give yourself a bit of a spiritual reliever?

I mean, calm down, champ. You can be angry but just do it in your room where no one can hear you. Then come out and talk things like a big boy.

I'll end with this:
It's a story, so chill.

That is somewhat correct. the I speaking in the OP is not me, but Truth as a personification. It's internal narration of truth itself.

Can you speak a lie? Yes, you can do it right now. Lies cover up truth, or so we imagine. The reality is they have no effect on the truth whatsoever, and they would be blasted away instantly if truth stood up. Which it will. Imagine if truth literally smacked you across the face when you tried to speak a lie. What are you gonna do?


Op is a story about truth waking up, not from a coma,but from a nap. Not impaired in any way, a self imposed isolation. Finding lies covering it, attached to it, distorting it. Becoming accustomed to new things, and then straight bodying lies and evil which had done so much to twist and distort truth and lovewhich is the referred to "us", in attempts to keep consciousness in general and humans specifically from Awakening higher nature.

a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

a reply to: LucidWarrior

I came back to see if the recent activity generated more responses, and am perplexed to see that you've responded to me yet I didn't receive a notification. I wonder how often this happens on ATS?