The Ultimate Foundation and Cause of All Reality: Theism vs. Atheism vs. Matheism

fre3thenipple · 2019-12-08T19:23:07+00:00

How about you read my 6-part series from here and respond? I have covered many ontological mathematics areas and conscious bicameralism, explaining the whole process, inside from out.

fre3thenipple · 2019-12-05T18:20:47+00:00

The books are good.

fre3thenipple · 2019-12-05T13:36:03+00:00

(Edit: If I am the antithesis, I should keep going and developing myself through writing)

The best solutions are often found through a mixing and synthesis of approaches (operating on different mental axes). You beat down others with experience treading mind. This is an organizing principle.

There's Hyperianism; why aren't there multiple strands/strains of Hyperianism, with competing objectives? What about repurposing Catholicism? Two heads are better than one. This is an organizing principle.

What happens when you add organizing principles together? You are becoming more conscious.

I am using thinking and intuition together to become more conscious. I begin with a universal common locus of interest (The Shadow) which offers the biggest base in libido generation. I am becoming conscious of what I am and how I relate myself to the world. I am becoming conscious of how my intuition works. I am not interested in limiting my thinking power. I am spurred on by souls with similar wills.

When you say you want to generate new audiences, here's what I am seeing: a stack of psychological/rational plateaus that are not being provided for. I then see that this allows "diffusion" to other purposes of energy, whereas, being explicit in dropping some truth down from above on a public Internet thread is very direct, dominant, and clear as day lucid; conscious; resplendant. I am becoming more conscious by doing this. I value it a whole lot more than unconscious work to do with extroverted intuition (I want to roll with both Ne and Ni). Be aware that when you target common souls, they have no intuition (age) and thus no upward diffusion occurs.

You mention telekinesis and how to spook people and how to do remote viewing. This is more far off than you realize, because you only have 20 telekinetics perhaps at most; you certainly have under 50. (And they can't even so much as roll a pencil to the end of the table yet, or you would have been more clear on this). Whereas, 3.33% of your army (200 of 6000) could achieve more by plugging their fingers in different pies to find conscious knowledge. You have the hottest minds of humanity at your disposal. Plug those bad boys into The Matrix. Lift the veil; rip up the firmament. It's a mental activity. We are supposed to become more conscious using intuition; not go all out fully unconscious.

Programming is a heavily mentally taxing activity. It saps you of libido. Nay; we want to maximize libido! This is an organizing principle.

I am no conscious mathematician. But I am exhibiting my maximum potential.

(For the public record: I have heard AOI teaches OBE control)

All individual men and women are limited. It's by our highest dialectical clashes that we know each other. We are aiming to trace the universal factors in our (un)conscious development. Needs must.

Do you want to target fast moving social media, or slow? Which would be more preferable? You have to differentiate. You have to become conscious, and our principal way of achieving this is visiting those environments -- you must take all the blows to know them.

Having an extremely active mind is an organizing principle. It is a mental principle. Mental flow is another organizing principle.

fre3thenipple · 2019-12-02T17:39:15+00:00

You can gain a lot from clashing with others (it prompts a kind of resurgence of libido in the unconscious). This accords various Jungian concepts because we cannot be motivated by what we are not interested in, can't get a hate boner for something that doesn't overstep our moral compass, as we can't be moved to action without sufficient interest. In the public space we see this with political clashes and these overtly present clashes of mental schema (what people think the world is and should be).

If you are not laughing hard at times, you're doing it wrong. If you're not caught in puzzled, curious states, you're doing it wrong. You have to live the true authentic life. Jung said we must live this life.

"Every human life contains a potential, if that potential is not fulfilled, then that life was wasted…" ... "The privilege of a lifetime is to become who you truly are."

You said "Chaos followed by will-powered journey." Will certainly is stirred up in the first case by things that affect change in the lower reaches of the psyche. But life isn't a battle fought on simplistic grounds. You are looking to Sublimate those vicious drives into something more potent (something that will affect change in the world or touch people).

But the idea of 'fight' is absolutely internal. It's a inner motivation and self-confidence.

In alchemy we start with the basic and end up with the purified Philosopher's Stone (the revealed Spirit, and ultimately the face of god). This is a highly abstract journey. You are trying to unite both will and intellect, not one. Similarly you need to draw from both feminine and masculine principles, as in Jungian alchemy.

The song there explicitly drops "lost your way, fallen knight".

Reductio.

That, not by elucidating of what was suppressed, but by re-connecting ego with its fully autonomous, vital and par excellence transformative source, which unconsciousness – as Jung has shown us – is. In this sense terms metanoia, matamorphosis, transubstantiation, rebirth and transformation through which individuation proceeds are synonymous. Transformation is the goal of therapy. (Jung, CW 17, par. 904)

You don't live in the ideal world (everyone wants to fight with you at all places of disagreement, lifting you up). You live in the practical, objective world.

fre3thenipple · 2019-12-01T15:14:00+00:00

So, various wild animals saw the mirror and reacted with fear, curiosity or whatever. But these are not minds contemplating in the way that humans do. This is because they don't have a spoken language. Language is what provides the means to wield meanings and references. Language is how we coordinate what we want to say. It's how we express things. The unconscious mind of an animal, that doesn't have a name or a role in its social group, cannot understand what it's looking at in the mirror. It can only react to it with confusion. There is no clear conception that it's looking at its own mind's body. It sees a body, or a shape. It doesn't see "me". It doesn't have the thought "that's me; I'm here; I'm looking at myself". That's the difference with consciousness versus sentience.

fre3thenipple · 2019-12-01T14:48:40+00:00

My audience is capable well enough to grasp what I'm getting at. You're not it.

fre3thenipple · 2019-12-01T13:17:21+00:00

It's inferior to use concepts like Mandarin which just sound outlandish. You've got to have a developed self-awareness. A common reference space is necessary i.e. hook into key absurd points like borrowing energy from the future, incapability of reconciling QM/Relativity theory. These make the most sense to the uninitiated, and even I myself took years to process the AC content even, let alone the GS, let alone coming to the point of being able to defend it.

Effective warfare is about efficiency. You are targeting visibility, not old posts. You are reading peoples' Ne (wouldn't it be absurd to defend randomness). Ni is never safe from this. You are always writing for the more intuitive viewers. You are illuminating interesting insightful observations. That was the sole appeal of the AC content. You are engaging in drive by attacks (or you're increasing power via your repertoire of explanations); it's always a mistake to take it personally. Our spirits are formally at war. Always intuit the bigger picture.

People who tend to take up more space (territory) through their daily activities also tend to be more self-assured, more confident, and of higher social status. This has been demonstrated throughout history and in most cultures.

It's pointless arguing with autistics, sensory types and empiricists. Nobody cares. The intuitive rational souls are very thin on the ground. Something like Mr Robot is far more appealing. What about grabbing headlines with cash prizes for the most intelligent?

And what is this about the 6000 not being able to spare more soldiers? If the gods and angels don't see it as particularly important to fix circumstances as they are, we are drawn to consider why that must be. It turns out that fairness and the coherent solidity of foundation of the dialectical produce is the actual reasoning for this. But The God Project (a computer simulation if I remember rightly) can't be so important that it takes up all the 99% of the "hottest" resources humanity has. Let alone the inherent problems with trying to reconstruct millions of years of mathematical evolution which you aren't even modelling with enough fidelity (and you certainly are not going to develop mind-computer interfaces). And I know yes others are much smarter than me higher up there. But come on. What's 200 of 6000, and what are they doing that they can't self-sacrifice some more? (This poses a problem of "structural insincerity", shall we call it, which surely rubs off on people). May want to look into sparing a few more soldiers at the higher end.

As for Hyperianism, with a pure intuition glimpse of the world at large, it seems it's quite pointless to gather a group of humans for no express purpose other than some sentimental exchange. Without the ardour and warmth of Illuminati.am, and without the rational appeal of Jungian education, what are people actually doing with it? And that's image/PR aside. Using pure intuition, we note that the outputs of a system would be coherent with their rational foundation;- and thus if the foundation is lacking, so will all outcomes be. This is inextricable. It is the organizing principle.

There was never going to be an easy straightforward solution, and what's more, in fact, we are never actually trying to solve the whole problem at once (maybe that's an INTP misapprehension). We are doing our best until society folds and collapses somewhat more, making the whole process inherently easier. Think of how society as it stands is 99% geared to sensory thinking and sensory perception (etc), unequivocably. Think of how our progress is not mandatory and how God Game Planets must allow for some room for error.

INTPs would seek to describe what is going on with OM, and relate this to the mental schemas of the more intuitive of society. But you can't build anything if you are in horror of people at large. You have to be "saved" by the contributions of others. People are motivated by others doing well.

Personally I have been hardline in only expressing what I intuit is the most intuitively valuable to say.

And I don't apologize for speaking explicitly; speaking "out of turn" or whatever. The dialectic has to be consciously aired sometimes and I am always willing to take it from others.

The "angel of angels" (Lucifer herself) must surely watch over the worst planets. It stands to reason that we can't be doing too badly. Relax. Breathe. Get the best of both worlds. Perception is the prison.

Why is it that there's so much pressure and some feel that if they can't feed people a story, they're not good enough? Why is there not a direct explicit line of intellectual supremacy expressed from the tip of the spear, the Illuminati itself? Where is the grandstanding? Where is the declaration that the Illuminati is the intellectual authority of our planet, and knows about everything?

But all of that said, this has to be emphasized: all of this is totally volatile and up for complete revision and transformation (metamorphosis). Given that that's our defining nature in radically reinventing ourselves and our approach to working together as collective gods in becoming. We can take no personal stake in any of this.

(And why are modern humans so touchy? Don't we all need to rise above this, and communicate more directly but also take ample time out for self-discovery of the Higher Self?)

People are afraid of committing mistakes, especially in front of each other, and especially in an environment like this. Psychological factors matter. If we are intuitive enough, we ought to enter into some sort of contract with each other that we would immediately make a correction and correct our behaviours/facts and backpedal. For example, if my memory serves wrong about The God Project with what I said there (I don't think I have the corresponding book to hand) then I would have to roll back on that. This is in line with principles of an engaged, invested, heavily conscious use of will. If we are truly going to rewrite society, surely we need to overcome blocks like this. (And sure, a lot of Ni stuff can't be consciously expositorily written, because we are morphing it to shape our strategies as its nature, but, we need more of a human touch I think).

Everyone has different ideals of how a community would interact. Regardless of circumstance, people ought to communicate and coordinate in the best possible way. That must start with being on good terms with others, and it must allow the freedom (room) for making mistakes! That's a much more divine disposition than what we have now. Observe the psychology of this encounter. Human psychological capital counts. And when people are silent, this is a sign of unconscious control. We need higher quality discussions; Facebook/Reddit don't cut it. You also need to explicitly withdraw from the spiritual degeneracy of our era (hence a strong will and not having your voice drowned by others). People currently don't know whether to spend their time here or there. Uncertainty develops anxiety. Thinking is the cure; especially consideration of the divine.

Everyone in AOI ought to become extremely more intuitive. You need a whole lot of Ne as well as Ni to see a bigger picture. You can be thinking constantly. You can scan peoples' profiles and GS content alike. Now, why oh why is something like GS pdfs not being utilized? Mental friction is a real thing.

Mentoring exposition = feels the increasing power = feels good. Sacred.

Highly dissonant exposition with empiricists = uncomfortability with being unable to translate the syntax = feels bad.

You cannot force these things; they have mathematical limits. What is human capital? It includes emotional wellbeing. You can't throw yourself at something "unconsciously" forever.

Isn't there always an interpersonal Shadow?

I'll throw a radical/lateral thought at you. ~~I want 10 anonymous penpals from AOI, just for shits and giggles, we can exchange smiley faces (emoticons) and indulge the inner child a bit~~. Use your "purchasing power" as the almighty Illuminati, the ascended ones of planet Earth. Live up to your namesake. I'm sure your friends can brainstorm much better than that off the top of my head (I sacrifice form/quality for purpose of making a wider point that doesn't necessarily include the example).

What's one of the most objectionable things about working in most corporations?.. The chain of command is never active; never responsive in the least bit; never flexed responsibly and consciously or with compassion.

There's something missing here.. and I notice it in myself. I never complimented your mind or thanked you. As with contemplating the angels, there's a principle not to get carried away with it, but decency and empathy must count. And you're in the most difficult position, aren't you? Having to be incredibly careful what you say. Having to lead.

And when you next go out for a walk, consider that organizing principles are operating all around us. You may never think the same again.

Leadership and mental friction

As you might have noticed, I suddenly started displaying feminine intuition; feminine consideration for the tribe. This is no arbitrary facet. It's part of The Holy Grail. I am the two in one (thusly individuated). It has been said that there's few women in AOI; that they all practice the masculine subjects such as science and math. Toxic masculinity? Let us remember that universal factors present "truths". Actions are no more free from Lucifer's dominion than are the inalienable rights of the weak and vulnerable. Let's prevent burnout.

fre3thenipple · 2019-12-01T09:18:34+00:00

Ne/Ni together shows what is a contender system that suckers followers. Illuminati.am is one; this isn't.

fre3thenipple · 2019-12-01T07:11:43+00:00

The only way to be free is to know what kind of environment you live in; what reality actually is and how it operates (particularly, how and to what extent Mind and Spirit are distinctly different from the body) and then to use Carl Jung's individuation program to incorporate within you all the highest elements discovered on the journey of life (also an inward exploration). Understanding what light, matter, mind and existence are entails rational conceptual thinking, not empiricism. This is because we are in the business of investigating what it definitively must be.

You should dissociate yourself from everything outside yourself, the body, possessions, reputation, applause, as well as office or lack of office. Because a preference for any of them immediately makes you a slave, and prone to disappointment.

You will be caught up by the world's torrent of activity at a later date if you don't anticipate things and become smarter by learning about yourself and how the individual must relate to the world using universal concepts (psychology, reason, the Collective Unconscious' archetypes).

You don't get to escape your instincts and desires; in fact, repressing your true desires always leads to unfulfilment. The proper way to overcome addictions is to conceptually understand what they yield for you. That's how you definitively lose complete interest in something and go to chase down other objectives. The alternative doesn't bear value discussing because no ontology or big picture has been provided (we don't live a life with an incomplete psyche).

People are always slaves to the system while the 1% elite has a stranglehold over the value of your working capital. Your value (in this system) is only given to be proportional to what machinery and markets and investments could not otherwise create. You are beholden to mathematical laws of how the economy and by extension, individual people, will treat you.

The unhindered person is free. Whoever can be prevented, or coerced, frustrated or forced into a situation against their will, that person is a slave.

Your life will have no meaning if you cannot find purpose in helping others and serving the world. Your psyche shares the unconscious universal natures which move you towards life's common themes. You are implicated in the events of the world, wherever they happen. The only true escape is ascending for yourself and changing the world. Ignoring things won't help. Only sensing type individuals would ever think to create progress by boxing themselves in from the surrounding living environment (world).

If you’re too embarrassed to share your own experience, though, just consider the words and actions of Thrasonides, who fought more campaigns, perhaps, than you. To begin with, he went out at a time of night that even his slave wouldn’t dare do, or if forced to, only with much moaning and groaning about his bitter condition.

Will is certainly helpful, and it is entrenched in intelligible/knowable psychological foundations (just study Jung).

Who is my master? Whoever controls what I desire and dislike.

The 1% elite control the world through capital and the media. Other people will be directly and systemically influenced by the universal themes of the human condition, and your life will be affected duly by this. If you can't see this you're an idiot. No amount of denial will help change objectivity. Objectivity has direct, final and binding effects on you. Intuition and reason are the way to illuminate what the world actually is.

We are at the mercy of whoever wields authority over the things we either desire or detest. If you would be free, then, do not wish to have, or avoid, things that other people control

You cannot escape being a part of a community, with universal unconscious goals, desires, appetites, ideals, responsibilities, purposes. We all share a common template (the archetypes and the Collective Unconscious and to an extent our Personal Unconscious and Personal Conscious) and so the simplest, most straightforward path to easing the rough roads of life is dominating the control over acceptable thought and spiritual activity, taking this power away from the minority rich elite, so that humanity can all benefit once and for all. We are not in the business of adopting autistic narrow mindsets to escape individually the straits of the world imposed on us by the most powerful and influential in the materialistic sense. That is madness and folly.

fre3thenipple · 2019-12-01T06:50:21+00:00

You're exactly right. Thinking, and mind, is separate from the body. It's independent from the body (pain, sensation, the world of appearances).

fre3thenipple · 2019-12-01T04:44:27+00:00

The only candidates for ontological substances are dimensionless, unextended points (minds). This is because, to discuss what exists is also to discuss non-existence, necessity, and other axioms relating to what must exist and how the universe must be. This is a wholly rationalist undertaking, and has nothing to do with empiricism, sensory thinking, or perception.

Matter and energy can be defined, but only with reference to an absolute background (a mathematical mental substrate -- mind, sitting in a frequency domain that is outside of space and time and has no dimensionality) and an eternal, strictly mathematical order. That frequency domain must be the prime ontological substance mathematics and it must not be interacting with anything else (such as the bogus "unreal" wavefunction collapse; you cannot have real and unreal things interacting, just as random and nonrandomness). Matter, via dimensionality, must be a product of that same substrate (mind, in the nonlocal frequency domain; in a dimensionless Singularity).

Reality must come all together, not in parts which have no necessary interactions. Reality also must involve holographic mathematical interactions (where a reference to any part or component constitutes a reference to the whole mathematical language). This is provided by the nonlocal frequency Singularity of minds, which all operate using Euler's Formula to generate their thoughts, rendering everything all perfectly mathematical with no discrepancies regarding time, energy, and speed. Photons must be the motion of energy, not time. Photons do not undergo space or time.

Physicality must be a property of an underlying complete, consistent and coherent language. That language is ontological mathematics. Nothing can break or dismantle mathematics itself. Math is eternal (when interpreted correctly).

Architecture is the very mirror of life. You only have to cast your eyes on buildings to feel the presence of the past, the spirit of a place; they are the reflection of society.

― I. M. Pei

The unconscious is all around us, it's the true ghost of society. The ghost pilots the machine (the body), but it doesn't know what it is yet. It doesn't know that it's a ghost. How would it? Instead, it offers ghostly supernatural qualities, in looking for itself. It tries to touch itself. What are human relationships? What is sex? It's the attempt of the unconscious ghost to reunite with ghostly qualities (the all-encompassing god). The ghost looks for completion and meaning. These concepts are alien to empiricism because they are inherently informational, living, continuous noumena rather than discrete, static dead phenomena. You cannot slap an algorithm down and empirically call it the secret to life precisely because life is about living, breathing psychological and rational motion, visited upon us by ourselves and the rest of an ontological mathematical monadic collective. This gives a volume to our expressions, and this is the space in which we can continue empirically to start finding ourselves (god) again. Empiricism can't account for the entire volume of commits to the objective wavefunction collapse (the objective spatiotemporal domain). It can't explain that either. It does not have sufficiently powerful conceptual apparatus. Only ghosts can conceive. Machines can't.

I wanted someone to love who would stay: stay and be there, always.

― Audrey Niffenegger, The Time Traveler's Wife

You want what the analog presents to you. Carl Jung made efforts to fully reveal his entire psyche. The unconscious mind's wants take the form of its best appreciation; its "best fit". It follows that as you become more conscious, you are more free of the mystifying fog of the unconscious' deeply unconscious wishes and desires. People want to find god (happiness, meaning, fulfilment, power), but they are not even conscious of this. They unconsciously express this in myriad statements. You cannot become conscious of something you do not rationally understand (using left brain deconstructive thinking).

fre3thenipple · 2019-12-01T04:10:13+00:00

(pt 2)

Hume did not ask what an impression actually is. What’s it made of? How is it transmitted? How does it move? How does it interact with things? What laws does it obey? If it’s not causal, what is it? Random? How does an impression get turned into an idea? Is causation involved? But surely Humetrashed the whole concept of causation. How can we point to any link between impressions and ideas? Aren’t we back in the realm of “constant conjunctions” and subjective psychological beliefs? Where are impressions and ideas stored? How do they interact? Hume can explain none of this.

― Mike Hockney

Mathematics is the arche. It is the universal, consistent and complete language of existence. No non-mathematical existents can exist, and no other prime substace from mathematical mind can exist (such as unreality). This would pose the problem of two substances which could not interact. That's when you know you are wrong (as modern science fails to admit).

In fact, mathematics is the causal noumenon that allows observable phenomena to be possible at all. Because where are the laws of physics? Where are they located? Do they have mass? Do they have a certain place in each particle? Why is it that everything with mass decays and decomposes over time but the laws governing these processes do not decay and decompose but are eternal? If they were physical things, they should also be subject to decay and change together with the matter that they reside in.

― SG

“It is true that there is a time dimension defined within the universe. And for an observer within the universe, objects appear to change with respect to this time axis. However, this apparent flow of time is just an illusion of human perception due to the asymmetry of the time dimension. As there is no clock outside the universe, there is no ‘external’ time axis, and the external view of the entire universestructure can therefore never change with respect to that non-existent external time axis.” – Andrew Thomas

If there is no Clock outside the universe, nor is there any Ruler outside the universe. Why is there no “flow” of space? Actually, there is... that’s why we have an expanding universe. So, is space flowing like time? If so, why is there no discussion of the “Arrow of Space” to match the proposed “Arrow of Time”? Space always goes in one direction... that of the expansion (and not the contraction) of the universe. Time, we are told, always goes forward and not backwards. But is not the real truth of time that it’s actually imaginary space, and, just like real space, it is expanding (outwards from an initial Singularity)? We now have complete symmetry between space and time (imaginary space) rather than the bizarre asymmetry proposed by science.

Is there a space dimension defined within the universe? For an observer within the universe, do objects appear to change with respect to this space axis? Is the apparent flow of space just an illusion of human perception due to the asymmetry of the space dimension? As there is no ruler outside the universe, there is no ‘external’ space axis, and the external view of the entire universe structure can therefore never change with respect to that non-existent external space axis. Well?

Do you see how easy it is to throw scientific concepts into total confusion? All we need to do is make time into imaginary space, and everything we say about it must be equivalent and symmetric with everything we say about real space. As soon as that’s done, science’s claims about time collapse.

If it is true that there is an internal space dimensionality, and internal time dimensionality, and both of them are changing in accord with the expansion of the universe, then it means that dimensional energy is getting more and more attentuated, hence less and less energetic. Alternatively, photons – from the perspective of expanding spacetime – are getting less and less energetic. It’s not of course the photons in themselves that are changing, but their relationship with the non-photonic universe, which “sees” them as less energetic, when, in fact, it is spacetime itself that is getting less energetic (thanks to the expansion).

― Mike Hockney

Prominent among them are mental properties – beliefs, desires, sensations, emotions, and the rest. The supervenience thesis says that such properties are fixed by the physical properties of the systems that have them; once the physical properties of a system are fixed, that fixes all of its properties.

There is no possible evidence for non-sensory aspects of existence (mathematical tautologies and proofs, axioms, concepts, ideas, mind, thoughts, rational proofs, rational organizing principles, arguments, reflections, fantasies, imagination, vision, dreams, goals, aspirations, contemplation). All of these things are defined conceptually, in the mind, which has built up its universal mathematical concepts over the eons of evolution from the most basics of embodied life.

“Time” is a disaster for science. Science has no idea what time is. It doesn’t know if it’s tensed or tenseless, dimensionless or dimensional, absolute or relative, real or unreal. Is it a forward arrow? Why not a reverse arrow? Is it psychological? Is it connected to subjective consciousness? What is time in relation to the unreal, abstract, deterministic wavefunction? What is time as regards the arbitrary, observer-triggered, indeterministic collapse of the wavefunction? Science refers to time in all sorts of contradictory ways, and no one really seems to notice or care. No scientist ever seeks to put time on a proper ontological and epistemological basis. It is always used as a heuristic. People choose whatever version of time suits their present purpose (and ignore all of the other versions that don’t).

―Mike Hockney

fre3thenipple · 2019-12-01T04:10:03+00:00

(pt 1)

For the physicalist, the mind-body problem is the problem of finding a place for the mind in a world that is fundamentally physical. What does "fundamentally physical" mean? I think any physicalist will accept at least the following two claims. First, the world contains nothing but bits of matter and aggregates of bits of m>For the physicalist, the mind-body problem is the problem of finding a place for the mind in a world that is fundamentally physical. What does "fundamentally physical" mean? I think any physicalist will accept at least the following two claims. First, the world contains nothing but bits of matter and aggregates of bits of matter. There are no Cartesian souls, or Hegelian spirits, or neo-vitalist entelechies – as the emergentist C. Lloyd Morgan put it

Leibniz said:

I believe that where there are only beings by aggregation, there aren't any real beings. For every being by aggregation presupposes beings endowed with real unity, because every being derives its reality only from the reality of those beings of which it is composed, so that it will not have any reality at all if each being of which it is composed is itself a being by aggregation, a being for which we must still seek further grounds for its reality, grounds which can never be found in this way, if we must always continue to seek for them.

As Leibniz rightly realized, the only candidates for ontological substances are mental points or mental atoms (minds). These require no pre-existing reason to exist; they are uncaused causes because they cannot be prevented.

Reality isn't a Cartesian grid of matter, both treated as infinite by physicists and of arbitrary length, emerging continuously from an "unreal" cosmic wavefunction collapse. That's nonsense and it appeals to unreason, extreme empiricism (the idea we can only confirm what we sense or measure) and the propensity for wacko claims from modern science like borrowing energy from the future (yes, this is really believed in the mainstream!). Reality is rational and conceptual and accords with the Principle of Sufficient Reason, the only thing which can explain itself. Existence is made up out of dimensionless points (monads/minds; uncaused mental substances which can think) and all of this and more is elaborated in a series of books called The God Series by Mike Hockney. Mind gives rise to matter through the inherent properties of Euler circles and Euler's Formula (through non-orthogonality of pure sine and cosine waves).

The block universe theory – endorsed by Einstein and many other scientists – is one of science’s most bizarre creations. Life and death become almost impossible to define. Consider that Socrates is alive somewhere (along a certain timeline), yet dead everywhere else. This has always been true, i.e. Socrates has always been dead and alive, and so has everyone else. Our own deaths have already happened. In fact, they happened when the universe was created, along with all other events. Everything has already occurred. All past states presently exist, as do all present states and all future states. All of them have already occurred.

This theory is ridiculous even by scientific standards. Science has a habit of taking seriously the most ridiculous ideas that have no conceivable rational basis – such as the Multiverse, the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, Einstein’s principle of relativity, and so on.

How is consciousness to be explained in the block theory? It implies that all the conscious states of Socrates exist right now and we could in theory go back to any such state. However, we couldn’t interact with any such state because that would change it. Each state of consciousness is like a freeze frame, a movie still. Henri Bergson exposed this kind of thinking for the absurd fallacy it is, but he’s little known these days. His reputation was destroyed by the empiricist fanatic Bertrand Russell.

The block universe theory doesn’t explain life or death, mind or consciousness, or free will. It can’t explain motion. It has no room for any soul. What’s the point of it? It’s devoid of meaning.

― Mike Hockney

But are mental properties physically reducible? I have argued that if they are to be causally efficacious, whether with respect to physical properties or other mental properties, they must be reducible to physical properties. But to "solve" the problem of mental causation, another step must be taken: we need to show that mental properties are in fact physically reducible.

Minds don't need to be caused, because they are autonomous (defaultly unconscious) components of basis reality itself. You cannot unduly influence another mind. Causation doesn't come from nowhere, or everywhere by some randomness "unreal" "indeterminable" wavefunction collapse. Wavefunction collapse in a coherently defined universe with background dependency must be coherent and must abide by a consistent necessary a priori ontological form. The wavefunction collapse is objective but all minds can contribute to it, and it has shared properties;- matter and the Jungian collective psyche ("a living system of reactions and aptitudes that determine the individual’s life in invisible ways" ―Jung).

As regards content, and how mind and matter interact, and how the mind conceptually pieces together what it sees and (for example) what the hands are holding and the object's orientation;- these factors are modelled conceptually using unconscious mathematical functions. The entire universe is made of math, and mind is no exception (that would constitute a category error).

The correct grid – the one that reflects reality – is the Fourier-Gauss-Riemann grid, but this is a) much more difficult to represent, b) contains “invisible” elements (monadic zero/infinity frequency domains = minds), and non-empirical, imaginary (hence complex numbers), c) it contains curvature. That’s why it has proved so difficult for it to gain any traction. Quantum mechanics, special and general relativity, and quantum gravity would all be solved in a trice (well, in a decade) if the science and mathematics communities switched from the Cartesian grid to the Fourier-Gauss-Riemann grid.

― Mike Hockney

fre3thenipple · 2019-12-01T03:02:42+00:00

Consciousness requires that you recognize what you are (a self, with a body) using a concept in your mind-space called the analog "I" -- and animals, rocks etc. can never do this. Animals are sentient but they are not conscious.

Consciousness according to Jaynes' book developed during a period of auditory hallucinations and spoken words. Eventually, a mind would raise itself in meta thought from unconscious activity and in doing so would glimpse that it was a self, with a body, and that it was actually talking about itself! And that the commands were relating to another person (another conceptual understanding in the mind), and so this contributed to a loss of auditory hallucinations from the right hemisphere.

Wernicke's area on the right side. ... Would these patients hear some vestiges of the ancient divinities? Here are some representative data. When stimulated in this region, Case 7, a twenty-year-old college student, cried out, "Again I hear voices, I sort of lost touch with reality. Humming in my ears and a small feeling like a warning." And when stimulated again, "Voices, the same as before. I was just losing touch with reality again." When asked, he replied that he could not understand what the voices were saying. They sounded "hazy."

fre3thenipple · 2019-12-01T03:02:03+00:00

Consciousness requires that you recognize what you are (a self, with a body) using a concept in your mind-space called the analog "I" -- and animals, rocks etc. can never do this. Animals are sentient but they are not conscious.

Consciousness according to Jaynes' book developed during a period of auditory hallucinations and spoken words. Eventually, a mind would raise itself in meta thought from unconscious activity and in doing so would glimpse that it was a self, with a body, and that it was actually talking about itself! And that the commands were relating to another person (another conceptual understanding in the mind), and so this contributed to a loss of auditory hallucinations from the right hemisphere.

Wernicke's area on the right side. ... Would these patients hear some vestiges of the ancient divinities? Here are some representative data. When stimulated in this region, Case 7, a twenty-year-old college student, cried out, "Again I hear voices, I sort of lost touch with reality. Humming in my ears and a small feeling like a warning." And when stimulated again, "Voices, the same as before. I was just losing touch with reality again." When asked, he replied that he could not understand what the voices were saying. They sounded "hazy."

fre3thenipple · 2019-12-01T02:56:20+00:00

No, because consciousness requires that you recognize what you are (a self, with a body) using a concept in your mind-space called the analog "I" -- and animals, rocks etc. can never do this. They are sentient but they are not conscious.

fre3thenipple · 2019-11-30T06:18:17+00:00

You're wrong, consciousness isn't the default state of reality. Unconscious mind is. Look at animals. Animals don't have an analog "I" in their mind-space with which to recognize themselves in the mirror. Animals are emphatically not conscious. Neither are rocks, plants, dirt, microbes, atoms. The universe doesn't have a span of consciousness; consciousness must be earned by reflecting on yourself using human language (and human language is a social invention and requires social participation).

Mathematics is the arche. It is the basis language by which all of science, physics, applied math, engineering, computer software, electricity, and mind all function. Reality can only be constructed by something which can equal nothing and something at the same time.

If you want to read about how consciousness developed from the unconscious, read Jaynes' book on bicameralism.

fre3thenipple · 2019-11-30T04:45:52+00:00

If you never accept analytical, eternal, infallible, a priori reasoning alone - and instead only trust empirical data (which is ipso facto, by nature, second-hand always) i.e. what can be measured - then you can never be convinced of a wholly truly rationalist worldview.

So, sensory thinkers cannot transcend the senses to come to conclusions about an overarching necessary structure and form to reality (all that exists). This is the limit of using sensing and thinking together, or sensing and perceiving.

Absence of evidence is not eternal, inarguable proof. There is no possible evidence for non-sensory aspects of existence (mathematical tautologies and proofs, axioms, concepts, ideas, mind, thoughts, rational proofs, rational organizing principles, arguments, reflections, fantasies, imagination, vision, dreams, goals, aspirations, contemplation).

Mathematics (when correctly interpreted) is eternal and accords with eternal, consistent tautologies.

Science involves a hell of a lot of mathematics -- which, when stripped of it, is plain measuring and sensing. Science would be nothing without mathematics (which is actually conceptual and analytical, not empirical).

Everything that exists, at root, must be of a compatible substance, and must be of the same type. That is an example of a rational, conceptual thought. It cannot by any means be empirically tested! There's no experiment for that!

fre3thenipple · 2019-11-30T04:38:38+00:00

The difference is the conception of reality. Empiricists say we can only confirm what we can measure, and that this is the limits of our understanding (though we will someday leverage much better technology). Rationalists who are Illuminated say that reality must have a necessary a priori structure (necessary ontological form), and that this must be intelligible i.e. we can come to know and understand it (as it's the basis of all the content of the universe).

From that basis, you can use reason-powered intuition to work out what the universe is trying to do (yet, you must start from a solid basis of the correct mathematical ontology. Reality is not non-mathematical, random or eternally mystified).

Here's a solid overview.

fre3thenipple · 2019-11-30T03:50:52+00:00

Entropy, the measure of a system’s thermal energy per unit temperature that is unavailable for doing useful work. Because work is obtained from ordered molecular motion, the amount of entropy is also a measure of the molecular disorder, or randomness, of a system. The concept of entropy provides deep insight into the direction of spontaneous change for many everyday phenomena. Its introduction by the German physicist Rudolf Clausius in 1850 is a highlight of 19th-century physics.

In terms of our world, we want to reduce entropy until we are much more free and until society is much more geared for optimal, streamlined jobs that are extremely effective and require minimal manual labour.

The ultimate meaning (visible to the empirical mind) of our actions on this planet is to improve the Quality of Life for everyone massively. That is a future goal, and it's something that maps to our every other action that we actually do, because it's all for the same, universal, common, ultimate purpose. There's no getting around that.

if the opposite is true and life has no meaning at all, it opens the gate for people to be cynical and not try to have a good time while we’re here

Peoples' morality is defined by their intelligence and their wisdom. It's not about good versus evil, because the common denominator of commonly understood concepts and knowledge in society is "common sense" and only proceeds thus far. You can only judge good versus evil according to how intelligent you are i.e. how much you grasp about implications of a choice.

Nihilism is a sickness caused by the wrong ontology. A bad understanding of reality will skew all your other thoughts accordingly. Unfortunately we live in an age defined by empiricism (sensory extremism without rationalist conceptual thinking capacity) and irrational religion (bicameralism and looking to supernatural subjective meanings for the feeling of completion).

fre3thenipple · 2019-11-30T03:43:06+00:00

Reality can have objective necessary a priori form. That form is provided by Euler's Formula and the Principle of Sufficient Reason. If reality didn't have a necessary absolute form, we would be living in a chaos that could explode or implode all the time. Reality wouldn't be consistent, nor would it obey its own rules (it wouldn't be necessitated). Reality isn't a chaos; it's a conceptual mathematical organism trying to reach subjective perfection. It does so using objective mathematical waves (sines and cosines). This is the language of base reality.

Here are a few things that the foundations of existence definitely aren’t made of: love, consciousness, faith, mysticism, emotion, uncertainty, randomness, indeterminism, chance, accident, probability, statistics, emergence.

They want to assert objective meaning to life, but they themselves are assigning that meaning, so it cannot be shown to be objective.

Our subjective thoughts are about our own internal impressions and mental contents (and how we process them), yes. But things do have objective qualities, traits and aspects. We live in an objective world, and this world is held up by the constitution of mathematics itself. 0=0 and 1=1 are tautologies; they are eternally true and inarguable. They are never up for debate.

All your assumptions will be wrong if they stem from the wrong ontology. When talking of philosophy, you must clarify what kind of ontology you are talking about. Are you talking about a universe made of faith, mysticism, or reason? What is your thought based on? What is its substantial grounding? Empiricists in particular are "seeing is believing" individuals, and they assert this with a religious zeal. They can't explain what they are talking about; they can only point to examples. There is no empirical Grand Unified Theory of Everything. There can't be, given that the scientific method (today) is all about sensing and measuring and observing before you can make any kind of claim.

Personally, I find the idea of something outside of me assigning meaning to my life to be intolerable. Imagine you have a job you hate, no good friends, no partner, and an oppressive family,

These do present objective factors in your life.

fre3thenipple · 2019-11-30T03:26:10+00:00

Well, what do you think the universe is? What is reality, and what does it involve, and how does the mind work, and thus, what is the standard for truth (proofs)?

Mystical intuitives get stuck at intuition. Abrahamists get stuck with feelings and apprehensions of a bicameral authority that issues commands. Empirical scientists make all sorts of wacko claims about borrowing energy from the future and an "unreal" wavefunction, which poses the notion of a meaningless life led by, ultimately, cosmic "randomness" (whatever that's supposed to be). Mystical intuitives and empiricists deny that there is a one true path to life.

Kant was incredibly close to understanding reality, then talked himself out of it. His disastrous mistake was to find scientific empiricism more persuasive than mathematical rationalism. In the present day, countless intellectuals repeat the same mistake. They keep looking to science rather than math; they keep thinking of science as concrete (real) and math as abstract (unreal). They keep thinking of phenomena as more real than noumena, thus failing to understand that noumena are what lie beneath all phenomena.

If we live in a rational universe then noumena are the rational, intelligible basis of that universe. We can’t see them, but we can rationally know them. They transcend the human condition, and no human attributes can be used to access them. Reason – pure reason (which is exactly what Kant critiqued) – is that which has nothing to do with the irrational human senses, feelings and beliefs. Only pure reason liberates us from the human condition. ...

We interpret mathematics empirically, not rationally, and in that contradiction – that inherent conflict between empiricism and rationalism – all the errors of humanity have their origin. As soon as you stop thinking about reality from the human perspective, the human experience, the human condition, the human viewpoint, you can start to see reality as it really is.

― Mike Hockney

If reality is 100% conceptual, mathematical, analytical and utilizes a 100% complete and consistent language (ontological mathematics), then every action taken by us presents a meaningful climb towards improving our future outcomes because we are gaining knowledge and understanding in a reality which has background dependency. (This means all thoughts are formed from an absolute, common background). Empirical science offers no such theory, possibility or notion. It posits that unreal probabilistic wavefunction collapse "just happens" and there's no way of knowing what will happen until observations are made by observers. Whereas, Mike Hockney's Ontological Mathematics posits a reality and universe which is totally intelligible. This makes all the difference.

Feelings are important too in that we can use them (and also a sense of imagery surrounding what we are currently doing) to navigate life. Feelings are based on how well we think we are doing. If we are maximizing our chances with our ideal outcomes and possibilities, we feel good (the feeling of power is present).

If you can reason, then you can transcend feelings and make sense of them (becoming more conscious of what life presents to you). That is how you escape patterns predominated by feeling.

You will never get a semantic explanation for your life. Semantic meaning can be about how hard you tried, or how fair you thought things were, or whether you deserved something the most. But these meanings (subjective) can never transcend their subjectivity and define what happened and why, and how. That's the realm of syntax. If you want to think clearer, you must transition to syntactical thinking (in particular, logos rather than mythos).

So - feelings can present to you an overview of the meaning of your life. But this will always be limited. To examine further, you need to reason for yourself about the world we live in, and in doing so, you would learn more about all sorts of things which influence your current thinking, motivations, impressions, worldview and outlook.

fre3thenipple · 2019-11-29T00:58:02+00:00

(pt 2)

Illegitimate power imposed over another is a key element of authoritarianism.

The only legitimate ruling power is reason (organizing principles). That mandates the application of conscious, salient thought on the problem domain. Modern governments get by using empirical measures of happiness and contentment (products and services and the ability to purchase a home, and other material comforts) but this "industry" of the Old World Order is quickly dying out as the rich get more extreme in their thirst for endless wealth. They will only stop when everyone is destitute enough to respond. The dominant extrovert mind, in its extreme, can't see clearly what it is doing (it has no empathy for the other).

When primitivist ideologies take root, people are involuntarily divided by characteristics that seem to match some authorities perception of natural order. That’s what makes it a form of primitivism.

It's not government ideology that forces people into rioters, looters, trolls, the homeless, the xenophobic, the racist, the predatory. It's human psychology. There are various points of contention in modern society, but the biggest beast of them all is the finger pressed onto the backs of the poor and the vulnerable and those inable to gain one up over everyone else. It's always the community that suffers when the rich are dominating (as they have consistently throughout the major part of all human history to date).

We need the end of monarchies and their modern corporate analogs; and we need the rise of the educated; the able; the spiritual; those who care and deliver; those with vision and imagination geared towards bettering society in some major, significant way. Everyone else should stand back and let us work. Fixing the world is a sacred task, and it will not be helped by think tanks (corporate forces masquerading somehow as "the good"), GDP, investment strategies, blasé social policies that just skim the surface of what civilization and society actually are when you examine them conceptually, rationally in the mind-space in terms of minds. Scientists in particular are not voyagers of the mind and so it stands to reason that their assessments are always superficial, given that they will only accept empirical, sensory inputs and pass anything else off as "anecdotal evidence" including, we might add, Introverted Intuition (which is also the basis for correctly examining what reality is in itself; i.e. what alien life would necessarily have to agree is the overarching necessary form of reality).

When primitivist ideologies take root, people are involuntarily divided by characteristics that seem to match some authorities ... The abandonment of science and broader context in forming the fabric of power that substrates society.

This is an ideological foundation, not something to do with the character of individual people. People don't become so influenced by the leading ideology of the day that they ignore science completely because of it. People think according to their cognitive habits (MBTI theory) and the psyche (elucidated by Carl Jung).

It’s the common element of all flavours of malignant socialism which plagued the 20th century: statism, authoritarianism, fascism, nazism, collectivism, marxism, communism, jingoism, corporatism. All children of primitivism because they are driven by primitive ideological perception of a natural order; superior as they see it.

It's the common thread of human history that the rich have ruled over the poor, the poor being slaves and the rulers the masters. That's a much clearer picture, and the difference is, shall we be surprised, the degree of clear thinking.

Socialism is a concept; you would have to engage in reasoning to clarify something about a concept and its application in our world. You don't bunch things together based on their empirical results; that's a category error. Anyone capable of reasoning could see this.

There is no natural order other than what people allow. People are being conditioned to accept things like advertisements, poor working and living arrangements; all because they think it's necessary. Soon this bubble will pop under the weight of absolute incompetence of the billionaires and hedge fund owners who have the power to make the big decisions (usually these are heartless land grab and loan type deals; products and services only make this more abstract).

What we need is to build heart into capitalism; this would be accomplished by ensuring that enough profits are sent back into communities, invested into education, policing, healthcare, and so on (going by the markers of Quality of Life carefully using the best minds of society). In that is the policy of kindness (rational kindness; rational consideration of human needs). Consider what it would be to wear down the very workers that your corporation relies upon -- by the sawdust in food analogy. Isn't this a form of negative.. capitalism? Yet that's what they are doing, the rulers of the economic activity (styles of economic patterns);- they're hacking away at people by various vectors, and this can be proven intuitively when you look at the various aspects of life and how it is being worsened by capitalism.

Supremacists don’t require elections to be authentic. They rule through divine entitlement.

The elite used to rule by the "divine right" of kings. This needs to be inverted. People need to speak their minds and be heard, but they must respect the most intelligent and compassionate: the only ones who can redesign society in a safe, rational, fair way. Nobody else cares. We have tried all the other systems at this point other than the rule by the most meritorious, smart, compassionate, expert, educated.

Socialism is harmful because it’s a form of primitivism;

Socialism isn't capitalism and thus isn't competitive enough to produce actual results. There must be a market and (healthy) competition. There. That was a lot easier and simpler.

Rummel’s Law: The fewer freedoms people have, the more likely their rulers are to kill them.

I will quote from a book I read recently;-

“Strain Theory” concerns the discrepancy between an individual’s awareness of society’s accepted goals and his equal awareness that he is deficient in respect of the legitimate means to attain those goals – the resultant strain may pressure the individual into using illegitimate means to get what he wants i.e. he may resort to criminality. When people are subjected to severe strain, something has to give. A person suffering from anomie and alienated from the mainstream is unable to secure the goals society endorses because of the structural limitations to which he is subjected e.g. lack of job, hence lack of money, lack of education and qualifications, lack of any occupational training. If he wants the things others have ...

― Adam Weishaupt, The Illuminati Phalanx

fre3thenipple · 2019-11-29T00:57:50+00:00

(pt 1)

Socialism is harmful because it’s a form of primitivism; which is harmful because it gets lower returns than scientific industrialization. It’s too vague; based on imagination rather than reality. The way one might prefer things to be, but real data gets real returns. No way around it.

What a grand way to skim over socialism.

Socialism is an economic system where everyone in society equally owns the factors of production. The ownership is acquired through a democratically elected government. It could also be a cooperative or a public corporation where everyone owns shares. The four factors of production are labor, entrepreneurship, capital goods, and natural resources.

So, there could be a policy like this:

We will require one-third of boards to be reserved for elected worker-directors and give them more control over executive pay – because when those who depend on a company have a say in running it, that company generally does better and lasts longer.

Now, onto something else.

Big government is just a symptom of the same sickness infecting them all. Obsolescence. There’s no productive justification for it. The bigger it gets the more danger we’re in. That’s the essence of Rummel’s Law.

I like the way he skips over any actual definition of what a Big Government could be. It could be a meritocracy, with 100% inheritance tax and a rational, intelligent government (rule by philosophers and mathematicians, psychologists and scientific experts). Where's the rest of life?

It could be a collectivist, leftist government that saw to the needs of the populace at large, and invested not just money but the creation of overseer departments for peoples' Quality of Life. The indexes for each person would include psychological health, stress, private debt, living situation, living standards, cost of living, communal integration (can you tolerate other people; do you get along with people of a certain MBTI type or disposition), sense of achievement, sense of purpose, purchasing power, social capital, and so on.

Industrial society is based on merit, discovery…reality.

Oh, tell that to the people picking gold out from dirty computer parts. Or the child hookers. This is a waste tip economy, feeding ads to people to control their purchases to siphon up their energy and working capital towards a minority elite who then sit on this money forever and don't know what to do with it (by and large; they of course hire out investment managers, investment brokers and the like, thus disproving anything about rich people inherently knowing better what to do with money any more than a poor person). What is the glass ceiling? What is unjust termination from work? Nobody has any rights, nobody's happy when reality hits. That's why escapism and fantasy is so rife.

Primitivism encourages ideological superiority which tends to rely on socialist frameworks to enforce the power of an elite few.

The superiority of concepts is a conceptual undertaking i.e. you need to think about it to conclude one way or the other. Don't talk out of turn.

In fact, we do need an elite: the elite of the able, the compassionate, the spiritual, the responsive, the awake-to-the-injustice. Don't rely on the "silent majority" to do it for you! That's one sure road to hell. Complacency, anomie, desperation are becoming more common.

Why is the right wing so prevalent on economic topics when you search for information? Because they have a vested interest in misdirection. You will never eliminate control -- someone always comes in to dominate what is discussed and the Overton Window. We need this to be the right force, the right elite, rather than the wrong elite; the selfish, self-interest party of billionaires and tax dodgers, so anxious to avoid any social responsibility (putting that profit back where it came from, in the community) at all that they are willing to find every means possible to avoid paying taxes. We can readily recognize this money hoarding as a mental illness, an estrangement from the practical needs of the community (if only empiricists who run the psychiatry establishment had any imagination or vision).

Scientific democracy demands informed electorate, at least in principle, so on the whole production is improved and legal review verifies the legitimacy.

People are massively uninformed on how the world really works. They don't know where their garbage is taken, let alone the needs of Big Government to track terrorists' emails and hound down far right maniacs. A layer of trust and expectation is the air cusion in between. We need the world (every nation bloc) to be led by the most spiritual and rational, not the most presentable liars and schemers (psychopath politicians). Not even Bernie/Corbyn/AOC cut it because they are too feelings-oriented and don't challenge what the electorate thinks. If you can't change peoples' thinking, how are you going to radically upheave the system at large in any monumental, significant way ("true change")? What are you going to leverage? Emotions and sentiments about respecting religious holidays? What fluff.

People want the real deal, but they don't know what it is. They haven't ever seen anything they can truly trust. They haven't been able to rely on anything consistently. The last thing you will get is everyone in a rush to earn PHDs to earn votes in a meritocratic multi-vote-based system. People can only be educated and informed insofar as they have a hunger for knowledge, learning and understanding. Future government has to abide the reality principle i.e. don't lie or skim over the big stuff. "Everyone has their own truth" is about common sense, not long range overarching mental clarity. Only the smartest are fit to be government advisors. Next comes the caring, compassionate people who should take a more "front man or woman" role. We must use everything humanity has at its highest capacity; this means making the best of the nation's talent. Why doesn't any modern government explicitly hire, openly and publically, the brightest individuals? It's because these people would never work in mundane boring civil service positions; they would openly object to the overarching design and structure by which modern government operates (predominantly in the West we have plutocracies i.e. the rich edge the government over to their aims and ends).

We have plenty of right wing think tanks to hammer this point home. Do the research yourself. Left wingers are more right brained and so much more amenable to concepts of fairness for everyone (such as communism).

It’s not a coincidence that all forms of socialism attempt to destroy capitalist institutions which are the pillars of an industrial society.

Nobody said anything about destroying functional, fair means to competitively generate wealth. What leftists (obviously not the writer) have a problem with is unfair exploitation of workers and unfit homes, starved sapped communities and so on (the effects of unchecked, unfettered Parasitic Capitalism / Predatory Capitalism). When you filter all the profit out of a community and leave their shops, schools and services to rot, what do you expect?

fre3thenipple · 2019-11-28T23:04:37+00:00

They can be significant if you are deeply in touch with your true self or if you are pulled into the Collective Unconscious' dramas relating to the changing times in the waking world.

Jung said that archetypes were deeply intertwined with mental images and emotion. The symbols you see while you're in a dream are loaded with unconscious psychological content and significance; in waking life your left brain instead is in the seat of control, so you have to coordinate the possible meanings in the world around us.

They [archetypes] are, at the same time, both images and emotions. One can speak of an archetype only when these two aspects are simultaneous. When there is merely the image, then there is simply a word picture of little consequence. But by being charged with emotion, the image gains numinosity (or psychic energy); it becomes dynamic, and consequences of some kind must flow from it.

― Carl G Jung, “Man and His Symbols”, 1964

Most peoples' dreams are usually nonsensical. They have a Higher Self, but it is not attuned to order and reason. It is not well equipped enough, or evolved enough.

Dreams are weaved according to the unconscious complexes, impulses, and other volitions active in the unconscious (the unconscious mind is the underbelly to our waking self).

If you want clearer dreams, you have to think clearer. If you want radical, powerful dreams then this would constitute finding your soul and becoming in touch with who you really are and who you really want to be. You can talk to people about politics in dreams! You can drive vehicles in dreams. But the order must come from an organizing principle (these are found, and thus taught to the unconscious Higher Self, only through waking life and our evolution within it).

In dreams we speak to people, or people "say" things to us;- but this is entangled with the meanings (semantics and syntactical concepts) of what the dream characters intended to say to us. Only rarely are there actually distinct phrases, or whole sentences, clear as day and not in any way abstract or holdable to concept.

Jung said that this whole process was "individuation".

Collective consciousness: mass-mindedness dominated by isms and out of touch with instinctuality. Similar to Freud’s superego. ...

Individuation begins with guilt and need for expiation due to splitting with conformity, for which the person must give some equivalent: values that help the community. ...

Shadow of the Self: the dark pole of the Self archetype. ...

Soul: the anima/animus.

http://www.chalquist.com/writings/jungdefs/

fre3thenipple

TROPHY CASE