Sunday, 28 May 2017

Axiom 967 - Ancestral Temple (Tree of Medicinal Wisdom)


The Tree of everlasting Life and Knowledge is, was and will always be the Family Tree, the Celestial Family Temple and every answering Cathedral in any and every sequence and measure of the letters, medicines, plants, animals, voices, stories and the bones of our ancestors burning in the illimitable darkness of the unknown places (in us as in the world), burning in heaven or hell in order to destroy any heaven or concept unworthy of and restore us to our Family Temple the temple and source of all knowledge and medicine in our relationship with our whole environment, with our ancestors, which is all we need ever own. 

And we cannot sell what we own. 

And we cannot own what we sell.

- See Axiom 699 - Principles of Vitruvian Stellarium


The Tree of everlasting Life and Knowledge is, was and will always be the Family Tree, the Celestial Family Temple. 

All knowledge worthy of the name comes directly from our relationship with our ancestors, with our whole environment.




All knowledge is born and most fruitfully and gloriously enjoyed and communicated, enjoyed if communicated through our relationship with our ancestors.

All science and faith is born of our relationship with our ancestors and achieves, thus, it greatest application to the same.

This flies against all modern wisdom.

And it does so because this Family Temple or original Tree of Knowledge (of communion with sacred places for communicating with our every ventricle of the rivers of our ancestral blood running from past to future, sky to earth, earth to sky and like rivers of nourishment swallowed and called like so many changes in our lives by the appetites of celestial beasts speaking through our every nerve, word and birth of day and night, winter and spring); this tree has been hacked to pieces by all the angels and demons that protect and nourish a modern society.

My words.

My church.



Grief is when thy life is lost and thou art still alive
Thine ancestors become thy gods and goddesses again
A family a temple blood and knowledge Paradise
Riven four rivers of the Earth and of the human brain
A river down our sky and body nourished all the Earth
That springs the fruit a living blood and all the love of Man
Up to the heavens rivers of the seasons as they turn
Their changes, changes in our own relations and their land
The animal a wild will still bleeds into our own
A mother and a father to a child, theirs to see
And feel where they would see and feel the nature of their home
A medicine that blended with this Temple Family
A grief that thee thyself were lost to everyone or anyone though dead
And still thou ached for consummation sacred places love
That flowed the darkest brightest river water in our head's
Immersion its emergence from these currents holy blood
As knowledgeable as the mountains, clouds and flowers lent
Their truth and beauty to our mothers and our fathers who bestowed
Upon their children medicine for all the Earth the living and the dead
Of everyone the fruit and knowledge blossomed in our bones
So free in their associations, joints and temples speak
To thou with ears to hear the world and years of life to teach
Thy voice and story wandered through some weird eclipse of these.










Johnny Appleseed of Disaffected Misanthropes - A Living School


Luxe, I feel like the Johnny Appleseed of disaffected misanthropes, the abbot of my family temple and its leaves and blossoms of the family tree of all life, medicine and knowledge the rivers of our every way we relate to one another, to our ancestral blood, the four rivers running through Paradise.

I wrote a poem about it while filming a video in one such temple.

Would you like to hear it?

And while you are contemplating that and however much I can glean from somebody's words and manner of address, perhaps I could ask you to tell me a bit about yourself. And, yes, flat earth is hilarious. I don't even follow it but it kind of stays with you, like a chicken fart in a barn coup if you know what I mean.

Let me know,

Rayn





Grief is when thy life is lost and thou art still alive
Thine ancestors become thy gods and goddesses again
A family a temple blood and knowledge Paradise
Riven four rivers of the Earth and of the human brain
A river down our sky and body nourished all the Earth
That springs the fruit a living blood and all the love of Man
Up to the heavens rivers of the seasons as they turn
Their changes, changes in our own relations and their land
The animal a wild will still bleeds into our own
A mother and a father to a child, theirs to see
And feel where they would see and feel the nature of their home
A medicine that blended with this Temple Family
A grief that thee thyself were lost to everyone or anyone though dead
And still thou ached for consummation sacred places love
That flowed the darkest brightest river water in our head's
Immersion its emergence from these currents holy blood
As knowledgeable as the mountains, clouds and flowers lent
Their truth and beauty to our mothers and our fathers who bestowed
Upon their children medicine for all the Earth the living and the dead
Of everyone the fruit and knowledge blossomed in our bones
So free in their associations, joints and temples speak
To thou with ears to hear the world and years of life to teach
Thy voice and story wandered through some weird eclipse of these.









First Cosmic Heaven May 2, 2011


I am having an emotional experience in a cosmic heaven whose life is the fulfillment of life revolving around and radiating with an eternal happiness inspired by the birth of its own likeness in a human child, of its own continuity of creative intelligence through the culture of the human heart, the human brain, human breath, blood, bone and every plant, animal and season, feeling and reason in its orbit and story of mothers and fathers who can, alone, appreciate the endless continuity, communication and creative as breathing exchange of the mystery and knowledge of who and what we are to one another in the cosmic cathedrals within cathedrals of our family heritage, every accurate story of which is pure bliss, pure bliss any very accurate knowledge of our ancestral blood and the love that burns in a darkness dilating with all time and age while cradling every child in its illimitable amniotic waters of our mother and father spelled in every letter and dimension of life and death here and hereafter and so any knowledge worthy of the name.









Axiom 966 - Matriculation


People are everywhere intentionally or unintentionally (and what is worse?) conditioned to believe that a sufficient degree or level of education will generally tend to stymie or eliminate (or immunize you from) any propensity to suffer and so extol the virtues of an effectively violent tribal orthodox. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ask not who educated you but rather who have you rejected as the inerrant source of your education in life? 






Cults have a lot to offer the true seeker. But until you reject your education you will never own yourself.

and THAT'S A FACT. 

People were as good as honoring their heritage as they are at making money (no one can make money without psychotic delusion), war would end.

Saying that any "great war" had to happen is exactly the same as saying that a football game had to happen - it telegraphs total fealty.

If you matriculate in any kind or degree of education and remain loyal to its imperatives and authorities then you have learned nothing.

It means less than nothing to be good at school or human culture.

Being good at either is like being good at starving the weakest children to make room for the captains of industrial-grade corporate fiction and its wholly symbiotic inventory of mass developmental arrest vaunted as exceptional upon any delusional pretense (a pretexts of glorified violent tribal orthodox on pain of degrading if "pitiful" aspersions as to one's birth, health, intelligence or fate and that of one's entire family), most of which are on the order of spongebob squarepants. 







nikolaneberemed
We can tentatively conclude that animals aren't religious because we have found no shrines, no animals performing rituals or doing anything that would suggest they worship any invisible animals in the sky. So the real argument from ignorance here would be to say that animals are religious. Saying that they are not is in line with all observations ever made. It's not conclusive, but there are no rational reasons to think that any animals are religious. Also, we managed to teach some primates sign language and other forms of communication, so you can ask them if you really want to know.


As for the unknowns, if the whole argument for god is that which we still do not know, then this god of the gaps has been and will continue to fade in light of new discoveries, until it finally vanishes in a poof of actual explanations and real understanding. Isn't it more honest to say there are things we don't know than to insist that's where god is hiding?



Rayn Gryphon
Niko, I do not argue that animals are "religious," in the sense that you seem to be employing that rather versatile term that lends itself to the liberty or not of its user. I argue that I do not know. Such is a matter of "faith" one way or another, nor would I use animals or some human claim upon their "nature" or motivations (to a god-like degree beyond that of pure speculation or purely personal relationship with our environment, which is quite essential to all communication of life and liberty worthy of the name) to equate a faith with fact.

But you do open with your mind an opportunity for me to clarify this equation of faith and fact in a more functional manner:

And that is that just because something is not necessarily true (as in "there is no reason to ascribe human concepts or religion to animals," a faith whose "fact" is wholly contingent upon imputing human sensibilities to animals or depriving animals of any semblance of human (or natural) intelligence that we can only bound in discrete categories on a provisional basis, the basis of working faith we equate with fact upon pain of losing the very liberty we would extol in the first place) does not make it necessarily false, nor does is necessarily follow from the fact that something is not necessarily false that it is necessarily true.

That is a functional definition of the fallacious equation of faith and fact that I would like to think you are meaning to rightly deride and expose for the violent insult to any intelligence that it is and must be, however enlightening the fact that such a fallacy is so prevalent and indeed almost biologically necessary for so many people.




nikolaneberemed
+3
I don't think that religion is necessary for people, it was either carved into their young minds, before they could think critically, or adopted as a defense mechanism by a vulnerable mind, like someone who lost a family member, is an addict or in any other situation that makes the person willing to believe a soothing lie. Reality has to be abhorrent for a person to reject it and adopt a soothing fantasy.


As for logic, I agree that we do not have definitive proof of religiosity of animals or lack thereof, but all the evidence is pointing in one direction and no evidence is pointing the other way. That's why I said tentatively.



Rayn Gryphon
Niko, first off I really like that comment for several reasons. One is that I share your view of the circumstances surrounding religious indoctrination. I would only make more clear than I have (which is my fault not yours) that I grade religion on a curve that includes just about everyone in that humans seem to need some scope of knowing that is, as you put it, tentative, a kind of tentative knowing that has a very powerful or rich currency with human psychology if not empirical science (though the utility of contingent knowledge is best demonstrated by science!), a knowing that can in fact come to be equated with an unequivocal fact beyond its functional or even healthy scope (of knowing out of purely social and psychological imperatives themselves contingent upon a host of ages of human experience, most of it fairly barbaric). In science for instance, evolution and the Big Bang (loosely related cosmogynies or genesis stories if by story we mean a sequence of causes and effects apprehended as held to be definitive by the human brain) are considered so much better than the Biblical genesis story as to be effectively fact where Genesis is pure fiction. I would argue in a manner irreverent to both science (or scientific faith or orthodox theory of complex provenance that cannot but on faith make adequate provision for all of the vagaries and vicissitudes of the complex works and god-like influence of the entire scope of human society) and religious faith that science and religion is in some ways a poorly contrived duality because science and religion are less like North and South than Paris and France.

So I agree. But I would like to leave room for a less well defined but perhaps more versatile use of concepts of religion, faith and knowledge in the most scientific sense, if only for the purposes of discussion among those who with to make provision in their understanding for that of others, especially since whatever someone's faith or knowledge, it has its reasons, its causes and effects, as you rightly point out, and it is just such a field of all or any even barely comprehensive scope of cause and effect relationships in which we are wholly immersed that must be approached with a kind of reverence for its invariably psychological effects upon the human brain and, for all we know, the mind of other animals, since science itself places us square in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, notwithstanding our peculiar functions as humans and the endless novelties thereof.

Faith if only the faith of contingent theory or knowing practiced if by different levels of competence is shared by everyone. The question then is what kind of faith, to what end, by whom and why.

On what basis is one faith "wrong" and another "right" if not by parameters that must themselves suffer the same kind of tentative a nature that has itself proven quite changeable over the centuries.

Science says that this change moves toward progress and out of darkness. But these are subjective terms for most people depending upon how you have lived and how you wish to live. The only common territory being whatever we can say for sure about the commonality of human desires.

Science has done a great job of moderating the kinds of conflicts that invariably crop up around faith that suffers or enjoys such a monumental emotional investment wed with social acceptance. In this it is not unlike tribalism or tribal orthodox, something that has its utility depending on whose side you are on.

Americanism may seem really great to Americans and really bad to others and often does.

I have other gripes about the scientific orthodox.

You may object to that term, orthodox, but that is exactly what it is since it has long taken leave of what used to be called evidence, and especially the evidence of one's own senses. It has veered off into very abstract domain and commanded it with a range of power and influence unheard by the old religions.

That in itself is remarkable if nothing else.

Consider this analogy:

Suppose there is an ocean of good clean water.

Then suppose that in order to access it one must fathom its existence and imagine how best to extract it from underground or even from high above, wherever.

Then suppose it possible that a scientific elite convince you that they know best how to tap into it.

You point to this water science and say, "Look. It works. The ancestors never found a way to extract water. All they could do is fight over their versions of its quality as a god."

Yes. You have your water.

But you do not have your own access to it.

You have water plus science and industry.

You pay for it in the name of freedom and this introduces a kind of niggling paradox for the more astute among you.

Every major exchange we have of all resources involves the function of communication.

This is a thesis statement.

In every relationship with the elements of our survival, we must take from something or someone else. And man has worked out a complex system for doing this physically and politically.

And yet in every case we are never taking from one part of the ocean but from the entire ocean. And acknowledging that seems to have something to say about how nourished we really get by it and or by its creatures of thought and of flesh - usually our thought and its flesh.

This is a kind of communication whose benefits and ills are hopelessly confused depending on where you are in the even just human food chain.

What do you need?

What do you get?

How do you like that?

Whom do you trust?

Why?

Is there a better way?

To say that one system of communication with our living nature is exhaustive of the best use of even the most modest and tentative faith is absurd, as absurd as saying that Janism is the best way to get clean water.

It is a matter of allowing the brain to entertain a wide range of parameters for knowledge and story (collections and sequences of cause and effect relationships with which our own brains are built up) whilst keeping with what works best for Mankind as a whole.

And my opinion is there is not best way yet.

All we have is how we communicate all we have with everything and everyone else, with whom we are always giving and taking life.

This is a personal thing.

If science has found the best way to arbitrate for the most fundamental kinds of knowing (of representing our sensory experience, transforming it and applying it to the extraction of resources that answer to personal needs as well as to all the needs, for right or wrong, of systems of power, of all communication and its animal origins) then it has exceeded its own mandate - to remain objective, open minded and, above all, sensitive to the whole range of human experience, which means respecting each person's freedom to determine for themselves and by their own mind and senses what is true for them. Science itself must make certain assumptions. One is that the human brain exported by all of human history is competent to make accurate representations and transformations of crude elements. The other is that science is the best or only way to arbitrate for all that is known or knowable, something that science itself cannot prove with science. This is not necessarily its failing but its greatest potential for advance, as with any human being.

What is true has at least three meanings, depending upon how it is employed:

1) What persists amidst all change of state or orientation to other ideas or systems.

2) What we want to persist.

3) Something that may or may not persist; to say that it persists is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false; contingent persistence.

We can appreciate, therefore, why human beings invariably wish to know more than they know and remain remarkably easy to prevail upon as to what is True or False.

But all the above is an article of the wider set of all genres of knowing, most of which are necessarily excluded from either of science or religion.

These would include, among other things, knowledge passed along through the voice of one's ancestors as they relayed across all bounds their experiences, joys and sorrows, their royal as holy inheritance by birth of their natural or wild blood, their right mind. Born sensible of this entire vast living temple of knowledge festooned with every aspect of nature seen and unseen, knowledge of this nature would then be constituted by our ability or will to resolve the voices of our own bodies (spirits) with all that we are born sensible of or, failing this, to account for any world that would disabuse us of this critical liberty and to what effect, an inquiry that could but impugn every kind of knowledge produced by such a society, however integral it may be for the surviving appetites and ambitions of its wholly symbiotic constituent human organs (and psychoses). These harmful conditions (as often recapitulated by the brain for one's own physical or social survival) would come to restrict the organs of voice and so of brain development, creating a persistent if hidden scream, of sorts, a scream instrumental to all subsequent human ills, none of which could ever be resolved without listening to the Knowledge in this scream.

In this sense, this pathological social scream would be True and perhaps the only truth, as we have defined it, that, unlike most of what passes for truth in a cybernetic-industrial society, cannot be impugned with even the most exacting critical scrutiny.




kbernstar
He doesn't require a belief in god. What he's arguing is basically one of the ways of Aquinas. Gradation. Peterson argues that the foundational belief of Western morality that there is a good and bad is transcendent and like with the gradation argument of Aquinas, for you to be able to argue that there is "good" or a "bad", there must be a best. Whether you personify this "best" as god or some abstract entity is immaterial, merely that there is one.




Rayn Gryphon
+kbernstar Nonsense just sounds better.




kbernstar
+Rayn Gryphon That may be the case but there is a reason Aquinas is considered one of the greatest Western philosophers. The first 4 of the 5 Ways of Aquinas are strong arguments for the existence of a god. The interesting thing is that after him, the only arguments against him aren't to refute the existence of a god but the existence of THE god (the 3 omni Judeo Christian/Abrahamic god). So in a way, Aquinas proved the existence of a god or gods and the minds after him have only been able to argue the specifics of the type of god that exists.




Rayn Gryphon
+kbernstar Tell me then. What is the best intelligence?




kbernstar
+Rayn Gryphon If we're talking in a strict philosophical sense, then Anselm's GCB would be the best intelligence.




nikolaneberemed
Just two things to point out. The god of Abraham is also the Islamic god, why leave that out from the Judeo-Christian(-Islamic) combo? Because it does not support the narrative. Muslims worship the same god theistic Jews and Christians do - the god of Abraham. A quick search reveals this uncomfortable fact.


And second - there are no sound arguments for the existence of any gods. All are based on logical fallacies.



Rayn Gryphon
+nikolaneberemed Agreed.




Rayn Gryphon
+kbernstar Okay. Try another way. What is a god?




kbernstar
+Rayn Gryphon Why don't you brush up on Anselm and Aquinas and then come back? You think you, as some random YouTube commenter has made some amazing breakthrough that no one else has made in a 700 years? LOL. If you did, you'd have published a book and be the most celebrated Western philosopher in centuries. You would know what god is if you knew what GCB was or what the first 3 ways of Aquinas were.




Rayn Gryphon
+kbernstar You sound very sure of yourself about something that is, by definition, wholly beyond your ken.




Rayn Gryphon
"Anselm's GCB is the best intelligence."

By all means. Regale us with the "best intelligence" that you are clearly smart enough to know all about and constrain all debate to as an effective ultimatum and supreme arbiter for any other thought as a sign of just how smart and powerful you really are.

That's not schizophrenic at all.




Rayn Gryphon
Have you have communicated with any of your ancestors?

No?

Then you have not even made it out of the nursery school of life and were never meant to by the gods of your corrupted faculties of abstract reasoning, of your own relationship with all your relations, with your whole mind and environment.

The best intelligence is that of your own fucking mother and father.

So spare me the Imperial godshit dogshit you call the "best intelligence."

Learn to crawl before you walk on water if you want to come at me and my heritage you pint-sized moron.

Btw, I have written a book, over forty of them. I give them away for free because I am free motherfucker.

How many books have you written?

Or are you too used to the taste of Anselm's cock? 




kbernstar
This is why atheism is untrusted. Not because it is the rational choice, but because the loudest representatives of atheism are people like you who are so uneducated about the philosophical processes that it is embarrassing. Not only did you assume I was religious because I read and understood Anselm's ontological argument as well as Aquinas's cosmological, but you are so arrogantly ignorant that you could not be bothered to understand them yourself before attempting to argue against them.

You're a fucking moron, Rayn. Until you understand what the GCB even means, attempting to converse with you is less productive than conversing with a potato because at least a potato has a function.




Rayn Gryphon
+kbernstar very sorry to have met with your approbation.











comments from


Maps of Meaning: 8 Dwelling on Paradise (TVO)

https://youtu.be/0qz1ZKR4hkE



Rayn Gryphon commented on a video on YouTube.
This is stupid.





 exquisitedoom Lapointe
    Rayn Gryphon why




Rayn Gryphon
+exquisitedoom Lapointe To answer that question I would have to watch this again and I don't listen to this idiot anymore.

43 years of walking upright gives me that confidence.




Rayn Gryphon
2:00 What is wrong with this hypothesis stated as a fact?

Answer that and you won't need or want to take a course in psychology.




exquisitedoom Lapointe
But he said "it's reasonable to assume" which is not a statement of fact. I'm truly trying to understand the criticism here.




Rayn Gryphon
+exquisitedoom Lapointe Don't strain yourself. Cults have a lot to offer the true seeker. But until you reject your education you will never own yourself.

and THAT'S A FACT.




exquisitedoom Lapointe
+Rayn Gryphon oh, nevermind you're just nutts. Moving on then.




Rayn Gryphon
+exquisitedoom Lapointe indeed.














Axiom 965 - Language and Cultural Psychosis

   
Sufficiently chronic or acute trauma will create neuro-vascular trauma or psychosis (a kind of venereal psychological hypothermia and its pathological equation with concepts or largely unprovoked and unpredictable contradictory even group reflexes of as often wholly unspoken optimal survival prestige questioned on pain of degrading if not violent aspersions as to one's birth, intelligence, health, sanity or fate, a tribal orthodox of familiar survival prestige totally compatible with that of innumerable conventions of the very modern society that would farm just such a developmental degradation in order to extract the human capital necessary to fuel, protect and embellish its every appearance of freedom at costs subsequently unheard of by the mass psychosis in terms of their actual proportion and so most informative voice come pathological scream - as in the Residential School System or the medical-military Inquisition of yesterday and today), a neuro-vascular psychosis or narcissistic delusional psychopathy that runs through whole families, for the family itself must be psychotic for this to happen and so the symbiotic heritage of the family divorced from the mental and emotional intelligence of every member of that family. 

And so the psychosis created or produced by inhuman trauma will forever be wholly compatible with every instrument of that trauma that is not that trauma converted into proportions that exclude all but the most ready justification for the subsequently psychotic if now biological need to dominate others, on an wholly unprovoked and unpredictable basis, smuggled into all confidence relationships in order to, among other things, communicate the psychosis or the impressions of come propensities for aggression (propensities symbiotic all the instruments of cultural genocide vaunted as the only means for human safety, progress and salvation the world over), for unpredictable and unprovoked inveterate diminished capacities for reason (in science as in all other religions) as for adequate provision for the stated and unstated needs of other people or living systems instrumental to all that Man subsequently loves or objects to married like wholly disproportionate good and evil, fantasy and reality to the Biblical Jehovah who continues to aptly characterize all humanity beyond all awareness converted into all that threatens the very autonomic systems of a human species whose autonomic systems become registered by birth, marriage and cultural  matriculation with or effectively owned by the apparatus for mass conditioning and its thriving international metaphysical military intelligence command structure or "multiculturalism," autonomic and endocrine systems and all the fruits thereof owned beyond all subsequent interest or any but the most baffling anxiety, even when prompted as such by the screams of one's own children and irrespective of intelligence, occupation, health or "spirituality," spirituality, religion and science serving as euphemisms for delusional psychopathy if you were a cultural anthropologist of even rudimentary intelligence from a couple centuries into the future and Jesus had already come back with a set of working genitalia.

[As I understand it, the inimitably compelling language of genitalia (emphasis on Gen) and all the organs of communication have inspired much of the conceptual and physical architecture of modern society.]

This is called conditioning.

The conditioning of psychosis (psychosis subsequently highly compatible with and even thirsty, above else, for the rudiments of though from the very teat of the initial trauma and its "culture") is the foundation of all education and of all of the set of prison, cult, military, child, social and family psychology in a cybernetic-industrial society.







I'm no expert, but have you noticed that people will bow down to just about anything in this world and wonder why we are so poisonous?

I'm no expert, but Have you noticed that people will bow down to just about anything?

If the world tells us nothing else it is that when it comes to religion and medicine there is plenty of ignorance to spread around.

Can you see it in the skies of your mind's delight?

Even the sky is poisoned; the sky and every heaven of it.

For you own all medicine and knowledge by birth because you are the only one who can own your entire relationship with all life's medicine and knowledge; you are immersed in its as visceral as ephemeral rivers of living creative intelligence. Hence this unfolding interdisciplinary study and practice of living creative intelligence and human heritage. So why do you bow down to modern medicine?

Can you see it?

Man is and has been so ignorant, so desperately mentally and developmentally poisoned (and poisonous) for so many generations that even if handed the purest nectar of enlightenment it would in any even decent human being be completely converted into pure warm piss, into more glorified ignorance justifying more war against the "ideologically inconsolable." In such a world, any even good insights get used, primarily, to shore up the confidence of its psychotic disorientation to one's heritage, a disorientation that, however lamentable, becomes subsequently indispensable to life by the altered and so normalized parameters (parameters wholly compatible with a military cultural command structure settled in and among one's own surviving "culture") of the attendant psychosis.

Sufficiently chronic or acute trauma will create neuro-vascular trauma or psychosis (a kind of venereal psychological hypothermia and its pathological equation with concepts or largely unprovoked and unpredictable contradictory even group reflexes of as often wholly unspoken optimal survival prestige questioned on pain of degrading if not violent aspersions as to one's birth, intelligence, health, sanity or fate, a tribal orthodox of familiar survival prestige totally compatible with that of innumerable conventions of the very modern society that would farm just such a developmental degradation in order to extract the human capital necessary to fuel, protect and embellish its every appearance of freedom at costs subsequently unheard of by the mass psychosis in terms of their actual proportion and so most informative voice come pathological scream - as in the Residential School System or the medical-military Inquisition of yesterday and today), a neuro-vascular psychosis or narcissistic delusional psychopathy that runs through whole families, for the family itself must be psychotic for this to happen and so the symbiotic heritage of the family divorced from the mental and emotional intelligence of every member of that family. 

And so the psychosis created or produced by inhuman trauma will forever be wholly compatible with every instrument of that trauma that is not that trauma converted into proportions that exclude all but the most ready justification for the subsequently psychotic if now biological need to dominate others, on an wholly unprovoked and unpredictable basis, smuggled into all confidence relationships in order to, among other things, communicate the psychosis or the impressions of come propensities for aggression (propensities symbiotic all the instruments of cultural genocide vaunted as the only means for human safety, progress and salvation the world over), for unpredictable and unprovoked inveterate diminished capacities for reason (in science as in all other religions) as for adequate provision for the stated and unstated needs of other people or living systems instrumental to all that Man subsequently loves or objects to married like wholly disproportionate good and evil, fantasy and reality to the Biblical Jehovah who continues to aptly characterize all humanity beyond all awareness converted into all that threatens the very autonomic systems of a human species whose autonomic systems become registered by birth, marriage and cultural  matriculation with or effectively owned by the apparatus for mass conditioning and its thriving international metaphysical military intelligence command structure or "multiculturalism," autonomic and endocrine systems and all the fruits thereof owned beyond all subsequent interest or any but the most baffling anxiety, even when prompted as such by the screams of one's own children and irrespective of intelligence, occupation, health or "spirituality," spirituality, religion and science serving as euphemisms for delusional psychopathy if you were a cultural anthropologist of even rudimentary intelligence from a couple centuries into the future and Jesus had already come back with a set of working genitalia. 

[As I understand it, the inimitably compelling language of genitalia (emphasis on Gen) and all the organs of communication have inspired much of the conceptual and physical architecture of modern society.] 

And so the psychosis created or produced by inhuman trauma will forever be wholly compatible with every instrument of that trauma. 

This is called conditioning.

(People are everywhere intentionally or unintentionally (and what is worse?) conditioned to believe that a sufficient degree or level of education will generally tend to stymie or eliminate (or immunize you from) any propensity to suffer and so extol the virtues of an effectively violent tribal orthodox. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ask not who educated you but rather who have you rejected as the inerrant source of your education in life?)

This conditioning is and always has been and will always be absolutely fundamental to all cultural propaganda, to every institution and regulatory body (think about that, regulatory body that is not your body or family and bears little to no relation to them) of a cybernetic-industrial society and its every wholly and even astronomically symbiotic constituent human organs (or with every constituent human and family psychosis and so propensity for prioritizing the communication of psychosis above that of any and all surviving human knowledge, congress and communication across every scale of every profession and social stature on Earth).

"Language is the foundation of civilization. It is the glue that holds the people together. It is the first weapon drawn into conflict."

"This is the kind of thing you write as a preface. Dazzle them with the basics."

"Great, even if its wrong."

"Wrong?"

"Language isn't the foundation of civilization. Science is."

This is a small sample of dialog from a cultural propaganda science fiction film called "The Arrival."

Science is a language that is not a language, a religion that is not a religion, and so it is most accurate when drawn into corporate fiction. There is real science, but we never hear about that. Science like all schools is ruled by the military command of humanity after the likes of Roman Catholic fascism, the monopoly upon force and faith insinuated into in order to gain the surviving biological and psychology heritage and industry of Man who is the god behind all decidedly terrestrial (or as celestial as any Hollywood space aliens) gods and Big Bangs, Evolution and Democracy.

This movie goes on to draw the very fundamentals of human language, heritage and cultural as personal brain function into question, to torture it, in fact, by skewing every mooring of the human mind in time and space and our ability to draw from the past and make choices for our future, for our course through life.

Because this is what a cybernetic-industrial society does and does so well it can entertain millions of people by talking about it in a film that portrays an "alien" species who can travel faster than light across untold cosmic distance (or across time in circles within circles that make up their "language") and yet relies upon us puny humans to translate their language instead of the other way around; the whole plot revolves around the many character, a linguist, deciphering their language and entering as as do we the viewer into the alien species' odd concepts of circular time and space, concepts that draw every fundamental coordinate or mooring of human heritage and brain function into question while revolving around the emotional loss of a baby daughter to cancer with the understanding that, even if given a million choices, nothing could be done to prevent this in a society that raises billions of dollars for "cancer research" every year. Human moorings are often under the water of our profoundly emotional nature, which is why the military cults tell us that "Atlantis was covered by a deluge and lost" to everyone but psychotic (spiritual) opportunists.

The conditioning of psychosis (psychosis subsequently highly compatible with and even thirsty, above else, for the rudiments of though from the very teat of the initial trauma and its "culture") is the foundation of all education and of all of the set of prison, cult, military, child, social and family psychology in a cybernetic-industrial society.

The Arrival is, of course, run by the military both in the film and regarding its production, a military whose ancient mandate is to baffle every native organ of human communication because whatever science, medicine or religion, or any psychotic may say, we alone own all medicine, knowledge and gods, because these are the fruits of our way of relating with our ancestral blood, something that nobody else can own. 



Cults have a lot to offer the true seeker. But until you reject your education you will never own yourself.

and THAT'S A FACT. 

People were as good as honoring their heritage as they are at making money (no one can make money without psychotic delusion), war would end.

Saying that any "great war" had to happen is exactly the same as saying that a football game had to happen - it telegraphs total fealty.

If you matriculate in any kind or degree of education and remain loyal to its imperatives and authorities then you have learned nothing.

It means less than nothing to be good at school or human culture.

Being good at either is like being good at starving the weakest children to make room for the captains of industrial-grade corporate fiction and its wholly symbiotic inventory of mass developmental arrest vaunted as exceptional upon any delusional pretense, most of which are on the order of spongebob squarepants.






nikolaneberemed
We can tentatively conclude that animals aren't religious because we have found no shrines, no animals performing rituals or doing anything that would suggest they worship any invisible animals in the sky. So the real argument from ignorance here would be to say that animals are religious. Saying that they are not is in line with all observations ever made. It's not conclusive, but there are no rational reasons to think that any animals are religious. Also, we managed to teach some primates sign language and other forms of communication, so you can ask them if you really want to know.


As for the unknowns, if the whole argument for god is that which we still do not know, then this god of the gaps has been and will continue to fade in light of new discoveries, until it finally vanishes in a poof of actual explanations and real understanding. Isn't it more honest to say there are things we don't know than to insist that's where god is hiding?



Rayn Gryphon
Niko, I do not argue that animals are "religious," in the sense that you seem to be employing that rather versatile term that lends itself to the liberty or not of its user. I argue that I do not know. Such is a matter of "faith" one way or another, nor would I use animals or some human claim upon their "nature" or motivations (to a god-like degree beyond that of pure speculation or purely personal relationship with our environment, which is quite essential to all communication of life and liberty worthy of the name) to equate a faith with fact.

But you do open with your mind an opportunity for me to clarify this equation of faith and fact in a more functional manner:

And that is that just because something is not necessarily true (as in "there is no reason to ascribe human concepts or religion to animals," a faith whose "fact" is wholly contingent upon imputing human sensibilities to animals or depriving animals of any semblance of human (or natural) intelligence that we can only bound in discrete categories on a provisional basis, the basis of working faith we equate with fact upon pain of losing the very liberty we would extol in the first place) does not make it necessarily false, nor does is necessarily follow from the fact that something is not necessarily false that it is necessarily true.

That is a functional definition of the fallacious equation of faith and fact that I would like to think you are meaning to rightly deride and expose for the violent insult to any intelligence that it is and must be, however enlightening the fact that such a fallacy is so prevalent and indeed almost biologically necessary for so many people.




nikolaneberemed
+3
I don't think that religion is necessary for people, it was either carved into their young minds, before they could think critically, or adopted as a defense mechanism by a vulnerable mind, like someone who lost a family member, is an addict or in any other situation that makes the person willing to believe a soothing lie. Reality has to be abhorrent for a person to reject it and adopt a soothing fantasy.


As for logic, I agree that we do not have definitive proof of religiosity of animals or lack thereof, but all the evidence is pointing in one direction and no evidence is pointing the other way. That's why I said tentatively.



Rayn Gryphon
Niko, first off I really like that comment for several reasons. One is that I share your view of the circumstances surrounding religious indoctrination. I would only make more clear than I have (which is my fault not yours) that I grade religion on a curve that includes just about everyone in that humans seem to need some scope of knowing that is, as you put it, tentative, a kind of tentative knowing that has a very powerful or rich currency with human psychology if not empirical science (though the utility of contingent knowledge is best demonstrated by science!), a knowing that can in fact come to be equated with an unequivocal fact beyond its functional or even healthy scope (of knowing out of purely social and psychological imperatives themselves contingent upon a host of ages of human experience, most of it fairly barbaric). In science for instance, evolution and the Big Bang (loosely related cosmogynies or genesis stories if by story we mean a sequence of causes and effects apprehended as held to be definitive by the human brain) are considered so much better than the Biblical genesis story as to be effectively fact where Genesis is pure fiction. I would argue in a manner irreverent to both science (or scientific faith or orthodox theory of complex provenance that cannot but on faith make adequate provision for all of the vagaries and vicissitudes of the complex works and god-like influence of the entire scope of human society) and religious faith that science and religion is in some ways a poorly contrived duality because science and religion are less like North and South than Paris and France.

So I agree. But I would like to leave room for a less well defined but perhaps more versatile use of concepts of religion, faith and knowledge in the most scientific sense, if only for the purposes of discussion among those who with to make provision in their understanding for that of others, especially since whatever someone's faith or knowledge, it has its reasons, its causes and effects, as you rightly point out, and it is just such a field of all or any even barely comprehensive scope of cause and effect relationships in which we are wholly immersed that must be approached with a kind of reverence for its invariably psychological effects upon the human brain and, for all we know, the mind of other animals, since science itself places us square in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, notwithstanding our peculiar functions as humans and the endless novelties thereof.

Faith if only the faith of contingent theory or knowing practiced if by different levels of competence is shared by everyone. The question then is what kind of faith, to what end, by whom and why.

On what basis is one faith "wrong" and another "right" if not by parameters that must themselves suffer the same kind of tentative a nature that has itself proven quite changeable over the centuries.

Science says that this change moves toward progress and out of darkness. But these are subjective terms for most people depending upon how you have lived and how you wish to live. The only common territory being whatever we can say for sure about the commonality of human desires.

Science has done a great job of moderating the kinds of conflicts that invariably crop up around faith that suffers or enjoys such a monumental emotional investment wed with social acceptance. In this it is not unlike tribalism or tribal orthodox, something that has its utility depending on whose side you are on.

Americanism may seem really great to Americans and really bad to others and often does.

I have other gripes about the scientific orthodox.

You may object to that term, orthodox, but that is exactly what it is since it has long taken leave of what used to be called evidence, and especially the evidence of one's own senses. It has veered off into very abstract domain and commanded it with a range of power and influence unheard by the old religions.

That in itself is remarkable if nothing else.

Consider this analogy:

Suppose there is an ocean of good clean water.

Then suppose that in order to access it one must fathom its existence and imagine how best to extract it from underground or even from high above, wherever.

Then suppose it possible that a scientific elite convince you that they know best how to tap into it.

You point to this water science and say, "Look. It works. The ancestors never found a way to extract water. All they could do is fight over their versions of its quality as a god."

Yes. You have your water.

But you do not have your own access to it.

You have water plus science and industry.

You pay for it in the name of freedom and this introduces a kind of niggling paradox for the more astute among you.

Every major exchange we have of all resources involves the function of communication.

This is a thesis statement.

In every relationship with the elements of our survival, we must take from something or someone else. And man has worked out a complex system for doing this physically and politically.

And yet in every case we are never taking from one part of the ocean but from the entire ocean. And acknowledging that seems to have something to say about how nourished we really get by it and or by its creatures of thought and of flesh - usually our thought and its flesh.

This is a kind of communication whose benefits and ills are hopelessly confused depending on where you are in the even just human food chain.

What do you need?

What do you get?

How do you like that?

Whom do you trust?

Why?

Is there a better way?

To say that one system of communication with our living nature is exhaustive of the best use of even the most modest and tentative faith is absurd, as absurd as saying that Janism is the best way to get clean water.

It is a matter of allowing the brain to entertain a wide range of parameters for knowledge and story (collections and sequences of cause and effect relationships with which our own brains are built up) whilst keeping with what works best for Mankind as a whole.

And my opinion is there is not best way yet.

All we have is how we communicate all we have with everything and everyone else, with whom we are always giving and taking life.

This is a personal thing.

If science has found the best way to arbitrate for the most fundamental kinds of knowing (of representing our sensory experience, transforming it and applying it to the extraction of resources that answer to personal needs as well as to all the needs, for right or wrong, of systems of power, of all communication and its animal origins) then it has exceeded its own mandate - to remain objective, open minded and, above all, sensitive to the whole range of human experience, which means respecting each person's freedom to determine for themselves and by their own mind and senses what is true for them. Science itself must make certain assumptions. One is that the human brain exported by all of human history is competent to make accurate representations and transformations of crude elements. The other is that science is the best or only way to arbitrate for all that is known or knowable, something that science itself cannot prove with science. This is not necessarily its failing but its greatest potential for advance, as with any human being.

What is true has at least three meanings, depending upon how it is employed:

1) What persists amidst all change of state or orientation to other ideas or systems.

2) What we want to persist.

3) Something that may or may not persist; to say that it persists is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false; contingent persistence.

We can appreciate, therefore, why human beings invariably wish to know more than they know and remain remarkably easy to prevail upon as to what is True or False.

But all the above is an article of the wider set of all genres of knowing, most of which are necessarily excluded from either of science or religion.

These would include, among other things, knowledge passed along through the voice of one's ancestors as they relayed across all bounds their experiences, joys and sorrows, their royal as holy inheritance by birth of their natural or wild blood, their right mind. Born sensible of this entire vast living temple of knowledge festooned with every aspect of nature seen and unseen, knowledge of this nature would then be constituted by our ability or will to resolve the voices of our own bodies (spirits) with all that we are born sensible of or, failing this, to account for any world that would disabuse us of this critical liberty and to what effect, an inquiry that could but impugn every kind of knowledge produced by such a society, however integral it may be for the surviving appetites and ambitions of its wholly symbiotic constituent human organs (and psychoses). These harmful conditions (as often recapitulated by the brain for one's own physical or social survival) would come to restrict the organs of voice and so of brain development, creating a persistent if hidden scream, of sorts, a scream instrumental to all subsequent human ills, none of which could ever be resolved without listening to the Knowledge in this scream.

In this sense, this pathological social scream would be True and perhaps the only truth, as we have defined it, that, unlike most of what passes for truth in a cybernetic-industrial society, cannot be impugned with even the most exacting critical scrutiny.




kbernstar
He doesn't require a belief in god. What he's arguing is basically one of the ways of Aquinas. Gradation. Peterson argues that the foundational belief of Western morality that there is a good and bad is transcendent and like with the gradation argument of Aquinas, for you to be able to argue that there is "good" or a "bad", there must be a best. Whether you personify this "best" as god or some abstract entity is immaterial, merely that there is one.




Rayn Gryphon
+kbernstar Nonsense just sounds better.




kbernstar
+Rayn Gryphon That may be the case but there is a reason Aquinas is considered one of the greatest Western philosophers. The first 4 of the 5 Ways of Aquinas are strong arguments for the existence of a god. The interesting thing is that after him, the only arguments against him aren't to refute the existence of a god but the existence of THE god (the 3 omni Judeo Christian/Abrahamic god). So in a way, Aquinas proved the existence of a god or gods and the minds after him have only been able to argue the specifics of the type of god that exists.




Rayn Gryphon
+kbernstar Tell me then. What is the best intelligence?




kbernstar
+Rayn Gryphon If we're talking in a strict philosophical sense, then Anselm's GCB would be the best intelligence.




nikolaneberemed
Just two things to point out. The god of Abraham is also the Islamic god, why leave that out from the Judeo-Christian(-Islamic) combo? Because it does not support the narrative. Muslims worship the same god theistic Jews and Christians do - the god of Abraham. A quick search reveals this uncomfortable fact.


And second - there are no sound arguments for the existence of any gods. All are based on logical fallacies.



Rayn Gryphon
+nikolaneberemed Agreed.




Rayn Gryphon
+kbernstar Okay. Try another way. What is a god?




kbernstar
+Rayn Gryphon Why don't you brush up on Anselm and Aquinas and then come back? You think you, as some random YouTube commenter has made some amazing breakthrough that no one else has made in a 700 years? LOL. If you did, you'd have published a book and be the most celebrated Western philosopher in centuries. You would know what god is if you knew what GCB was or what the first 3 ways of Aquinas were.




Rayn Gryphon
+kbernstar You sound very sure of yourself about something that is, by definition, wholly beyond your ken.




Rayn Gryphon
"Anselm's GCB is the best intelligence."

By all means. Regale us with the "best intelligence" that you are clearly smart enough to know all about and constrain all debate to as an effective ultimatum and supreme arbiter for any other thought as a sign of just how smart and powerful you really are.

That's not schizophrenic at all.




Rayn Gryphon
Have you have communicated with any of your ancestors?

No?

Then you have not even made it out of the nursery school of life and were never meant to by the gods of your corrupted faculties of abstract reasoning, of your own relationship with all your relations, with your whole mind and environment.

The best intelligence is that of your own fucking mother and father.

So spare me the Imperial godshit dogshit you call the "best intelligence."

Learn to crawl before you walk on water if you want to come at me and my heritage you pint-sized moron.

Btw, I have written a book, over forty of them. I give them away for free because I am free motherfucker.

How many books have you written?

Or are you too used to the taste of Anselm's cock? 




kbernstar
This is why atheism is untrusted. Not because it is the rational choice, but because the loudest representatives of atheism are people like you who are so uneducated about the philosophical processes that it is embarrassing. Not only did you assume I was religious because I read and understood Anselm's ontological argument as well as Aquinas's cosmological, but you are so arrogantly ignorant that you could not be bothered to understand them yourself before attempting to argue against them.

You're a fucking moron, Rayn. Until you understand what the GCB even means, attempting to converse with you is less productive than conversing with a potato because at least a potato has a function.




Rayn Gryphon
+kbernstar very sorry to have met with your approbation.








comments from


Maps of Meaning: 8 Dwelling on Paradise (TVO)

https://youtu.be/0qz1ZKR4hkE



Rayn Gryphon commented on a video on YouTube.
This is stupid.





 exquisitedoom Lapointe
    Rayn Gryphon why




Rayn Gryphon
+exquisitedoom Lapointe To answer that question I would have to watch this again and I don't listen to this idiot anymore.

43 years of walking upright gives me that confidence.




Rayn Gryphon
2:00 What is wrong with this hypothesis stated as a fact?

Answer that and you won't need or want to take a course in psychology.




exquisitedoom Lapointe
But he said "it's reasonable to assume" which is not a statement of fact. I'm truly trying to understand the criticism here.




Rayn Gryphon
+exquisitedoom Lapointe Don't strain yourself. Cults have a lot to offer the true seeker. But until you reject your education you will never own yourself.

and THAT'S A FACT.




exquisitedoom Lapointe
+Rayn Gryphon oh, nevermind you're just nutts. Moving on then.




Rayn Gryphon
+exquisitedoom Lapointe indeed.



















Saturday, 27 May 2017

Sobering Thought; Monumental Heritage


I'm no expert, but have you noticed that people will bow down to just about anything in this world and wonder why we are so poisonous?

I'm no expert, but Have you noticed that people will bow down to just about anything?

If the world tells us nothing else it is that when it comes to religion and medicine there is plenty of ignorance to spread around.

Can you see it in the skies of your mind's delight?

Even the sky is poisoned; the sky and every heaven of it.

For you own all medicine and knowledge by birth because you are the only one who can own your entire relationship with all life's medicine and knowledge; you are immersed in its as visceral as ephemeral rivers of living creative intelligence. Hence this unfolding interdisciplinary study and practice of living creative intelligence and human heritage. So why do you bow down to modern medicine?

Can you see it?

Man is and has been so ignorant, so desperately mentally and developmentally poisoned (and poisonous) for so many generations that even if handed the purest nectar of enlightenment it would in any even decent human being be completely converted into pure warm piss, into more glorified ignorance justifying more war against the "ideologically inconsolable." In such a world, any even good insights get used, primarily, to shore up the confidence of its psychotic disorientation to one's heritage, a disorientation that, however lamentable, becomes subsequently indispensable to life by the altered and so normalized parameters (parameters wholly compatible with a military cultural command structure settled in and among one's own surviving "culture") of the attendant psychosis.

Sufficiently chronic or acute trauma will create neuro-vascular trauma or psychosis (a kind of venereal psychological hypothermia and its pathological equation with concepts or largely unprovoked and unpredictable contradictory even group reflexes of as often wholly unspoken optimal survival prestige questioned on pain of degrading if not violent aspersions as to one's birth, intelligence, health, sanity or fate, a tribal orthodox of familiar survival prestige totally compatible with that of innumerable conventions of the very modern society that would farm just such a developmental degradation in order to extract the human capital necessary to fuel, protect and embellish its every appearance of freedom at costs subsequently unheard of by the mass psychosis in terms of their actual proportion and so most informative voice come pathological scream - as in the Residential School System or the medical-military Inquisition of yesterday and today), a neuro-vascular psychosis or narcissistic delusional psychopathy that runs through whole families, for the family itself must be psychotic for this to happen and so the symbiotic heritage of the family divorced from the mental and emotional intelligence of every member of that family. 

And so the psychosis created or produced by inhuman trauma will forever be wholly compatible with every instrument of that trauma that is not that trauma converted into proportions that exclude all but the most ready justification for the subsequently psychotic if now biological need to dominate others, on an wholly unprovoked and unpredictable basis, smuggled into all confidence relationships in order to, among other things, communicate the psychosis or the impressions of come propensities for aggression (propensities symbiotic all the instruments of cultural genocide vaunted as the only means for human safety, progress and salvation the world over), for unpredictable and unprovoked inveterate diminished capacities for reason (in science as in all other religions) as for adequate provision for the stated and unstated needs of other people or living systems instrumental to all that Man subsequently loves or objects to married like wholly disproportionate good and evil, fantasy and reality to the Biblical Jehovah who continues to aptly characterize all humanity beyond all awareness converted into all that threatens the very autonomic systems of a human species whose autonomic systems become registered by birth, marriage and cultural  matriculation with or effectively owned by the apparatus for mass conditioning and its thriving international metaphysical military intelligence command structure or "multiculturalism," autonomic and endocrine systems and all the fruits thereof owned beyond all subsequent interest or any but the most baffling anxiety, even when prompted as such by the screams of one's own children and irrespective of intelligence, occupation, health or "spirituality," spirituality, religion and science serving as euphemisms for delusional psychopathy if you were a cultural anthropologist of even rudimentary intelligence from a couple centuries into the future and Jesus had already come back with a set of working genitalia. 

[As I understand it, the inimitably compelling language of genitalia (emphasis on Gen) and all the organs of communication have inspired much of the conceptual and physical architecture of modern society.] 

And so the psychosis created or produced by inhuman trauma will forever be wholly compatible with every instrument of that trauma.

This is called conditioning. 

(People are everywhere intentionally or unintentionally (and what is worse?) conditioned to believe that a sufficient degree or level of education will generally tend to stymie or eliminate (or immunize you from) any propensity to suffer and so extol the virtues of an effectively violent tribal orthodox. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ask not who educated you but rather who have you rejected as the inerrant source of your education in life?) 

This conditioning is and always has been and will always be absolutely fundamental to all cultural propaganda, to every institution and regulatory body (think about that, regulatory body that is not your body or family and bears little to no relation to them) of a cybernetic-industrial society and its every wholly and even astronomically symbiotic constituent human organs (or with every constituent human and family psychosis and so propensity for prioritizing the communication of psychosis above that of any and all surviving human knowledge, congress and communication across every scale of every profession and social stature on Earth).

"Language is the foundation of civilization. It is the glue that holds the people together. It is the first weapon drawn into conflict."

"This is the kind of thing you write as a preface. Dazzle them with the basics."

"Great, even if its wrong."

"Wrong?"

"Language isn't the foundation of civilization. Science is."

This is a small sample of dialog from a cultural propaganda science fiction film called "The Arrival."

Science is a language that is not a language, a religion that is not a religion, and so it is most accurate when drawn into corporate fiction. There is real science, but we never hear about that. Science like all schools is ruled by the military command of humanity after the likes of Roman Catholic fascism, the monopoly upon force and faith insinuated into in order to gain the surviving biological and psychology heritage and industry of Man who is the god behind all decidedly terrestrial (or as celestial as any Hollywood space aliens) gods and Big Bangs, Evolution and Democracy.

This movie goes on to draw the very fundamentals of human language, heritage and cultural as personal brain function into question, to torture it, in fact, by skewing every mooring of the human mind in time and space and our ability to draw from the past and make choices for our future, for our course through life.

Because this is what a cybernetic-industrial society does and does so well it can entertain millions of people by talking about it in a film that portrays an "alien" species who can travel faster than light across untold cosmic distance (or across time in circles within circles that make up their "language") and yet relies upon us puny humans to translate their language instead of the other way around; the whole plot revolves around the many character, a linguist, deciphering their language and entering as as do we the viewer into the alien species' odd concepts of circular time and space, concepts that draw every fundamental coordinate or mooring of human heritage and brain function into question while revolving around the emotional loss of a baby daughter to cancer with the understanding that, even if given a million choices, nothing could be done to prevent this in a society that raises billions of dollars for "cancer research" every year. Human moorings are often under the water of our profoundly emotional nature, which is why the military cults tell us that "Atlantis was covered by a deluge and lost" to everyone but psychotic (spiritual) opportunists.

The conditioning of psychosis (psychosis subsequently highly compatible with and even thirsty, above else, for the rudiments of though from the very teat of the initial trauma and its "culture") is the foundation of all education and of all of the set of prison, cult, military, child, social and family psychology in a cybernetic-industrial society.

The Arrival is, of course, run by the military both in the film and regarding its production, a military whose ancient mandate is to baffle every native organ of human communication because whatever science, medicine or religion, or any psychotic may say, we alone own all medicine, knowledge and gods, because these are the fruits of our way of relating with our ancestral blood, something that nobody else can own.




Cults have a lot to offer the true seeker. But until you reject your education you will never own yourself.

and THAT'S A FACT. 

People were as good as honoring their heritage as they are at making money (no one can make money without psychotic delusion), war would end.

Saying that any "great war" had to happen is exactly the same as saying that a football game had to happen - it telegraphs total fealty.

If you matriculate in any kind or degree of education and remain loyal to its imperatives and authorities then you have learned nothing.

It means less than nothing to be good at school or human culture.

Being good at either is like being good at starving the weakest children to make room for the captains of industrial-grade corporate fiction and its wholly symbiotic inventory of mass developmental arrest vaunted as exceptional upon any delusional pretense, most of which are on the order of spongebob squarepants.






nikolaneberemed
We can tentatively conclude that animals aren't religious because we have found no shrines, no animals performing rituals or doing anything that would suggest they worship any invisible animals in the sky. So the real argument from ignorance here would be to say that animals are religious. Saying that they are not is in line with all observations ever made. It's not conclusive, but there are no rational reasons to think that any animals are religious. Also, we managed to teach some primates sign language and other forms of communication, so you can ask them if you really want to know.


As for the unknowns, if the whole argument for god is that which we still do not know, then this god of the gaps has been and will continue to fade in light of new discoveries, until it finally vanishes in a poof of actual explanations and real understanding. Isn't it more honest to say there are things we don't know than to insist that's where god is hiding?



Rayn Gryphon
Niko, I do not argue that animals are "religious," in the sense that you seem to be employing that rather versatile term that lends itself to the liberty or not of its user. I argue that I do not know. Such is a matter of "faith" one way or another, nor would I use animals or some human claim upon their "nature" or motivations (to a god-like degree beyond that of pure speculation or purely personal relationship with our environment, which is quite essential to all communication of life and liberty worthy of the name) to equate a faith with fact.

But you do open with your mind an opportunity for me to clarify this equation of faith and fact in a more functional manner:

And that is that just because something is not necessarily true (as in "there is no reason to ascribe human concepts or religion to animals," a faith whose "fact" is wholly contingent upon imputing human sensibilities to animals or depriving animals of any semblance of human (or natural) intelligence that we can only bound in discrete categories on a provisional basis, the basis of working faith we equate with fact upon pain of losing the very liberty we would extol in the first place) does not make it necessarily false, nor does is necessarily follow from the fact that something is not necessarily false that it is necessarily true.

That is a functional definition of the fallacious equation of faith and fact that I would like to think you are meaning to rightly deride and expose for the violent insult to any intelligence that it is and must be, however enlightening the fact that such a fallacy is so prevalent and indeed almost biologically necessary for so many people.




nikolaneberemed
+3
I don't think that religion is necessary for people, it was either carved into their young minds, before they could think critically, or adopted as a defense mechanism by a vulnerable mind, like someone who lost a family member, is an addict or in any other situation that makes the person willing to believe a soothing lie. Reality has to be abhorrent for a person to reject it and adopt a soothing fantasy.


As for logic, I agree that we do not have definitive proof of religiosity of animals or lack thereof, but all the evidence is pointing in one direction and no evidence is pointing the other way. That's why I said tentatively.



Rayn Gryphon
Niko, first off I really like that comment for several reasons. One is that I share your view of the circumstances surrounding religious indoctrination. I would only make more clear than I have (which is my fault not yours) that I grade religion on a curve that includes just about everyone in that humans seem to need some scope of knowing that is, as you put it, tentative, a kind of tentative knowing that has a very powerful or rich currency with human psychology if not empirical science (though the utility of contingent knowledge is best demonstrated by science!), a knowing that can in fact come to be equated with an unequivocal fact beyond its functional or even healthy scope (of knowing out of purely social and psychological imperatives themselves contingent upon a host of ages of human experience, most of it fairly barbaric). In science for instance, evolution and the Big Bang (loosely related cosmogynies or genesis stories if by story we mean a sequence of causes and effects apprehended as held to be definitive by the human brain) are considered so much better than the Biblical genesis story as to be effectively fact where Genesis is pure fiction. I would argue in a manner irreverent to both science (or scientific faith or orthodox theory of complex provenance that cannot but on faith make adequate provision for all of the vagaries and vicissitudes of the complex works and god-like influence of the entire scope of human society) and religious faith that science and religion is in some ways a poorly contrived duality because science and religion are less like North and South than Paris and France.

So I agree. But I would like to leave room for a less well defined but perhaps more versatile use of concepts of religion, faith and knowledge in the most scientific sense, if only for the purposes of discussion among those who with to make provision in their understanding for that of others, especially since whatever someone's faith or knowledge, it has its reasons, its causes and effects, as you rightly point out, and it is just such a field of all or any even barely comprehensive scope of cause and effect relationships in which we are wholly immersed that must be approached with a kind of reverence for its invariably psychological effects upon the human brain and, for all we know, the mind of other animals, since science itself places us square in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, notwithstanding our peculiar functions as humans and the endless novelties thereof.

Faith if only the faith of contingent theory or knowing practiced if by different levels of competence is shared by everyone. The question then is what kind of faith, to what end, by whom and why.

On what basis is one faith "wrong" and another "right" if not by parameters that must themselves suffer the same kind of tentative a nature that has itself proven quite changeable over the centuries.

Science says that this change moves toward progress and out of darkness. But these are subjective terms for most people depending upon how you have lived and how you wish to live. The only common territory being whatever we can say for sure about the commonality of human desires.

Science has done a great job of moderating the kinds of conflicts that invariably crop up around faith that suffers or enjoys such a monumental emotional investment wed with social acceptance. In this it is not unlike tribalism or tribal orthodox, something that has its utility depending on whose side you are on.

Americanism may seem really great to Americans and really bad to others and often does.

I have other gripes about the scientific orthodox.

You may object to that term, orthodox, but that is exactly what it is since it has long taken leave of what used to be called evidence, and especially the evidence of one's own senses. It has veered off into very abstract domain and commanded it with a range of power and influence unheard by the old religions.

That in itself is remarkable if nothing else.

Consider this analogy:

Suppose there is an ocean of good clean water.

Then suppose that in order to access it one must fathom its existence and imagine how best to extract it from underground or even from high above, wherever.

Then suppose it possible that a scientific elite convince you that they know best how to tap into it.

You point to this water science and say, "Look. It works. The ancestors never found a way to extract water. All they could do is fight over their versions of its quality as a god."

Yes. You have your water.

But you do not have your own access to it.

You have water plus science and industry.

You pay for it in the name of freedom and this introduces a kind of niggling paradox for the more astute among you.

Every major exchange we have of all resources involves the function of communication.

This is a thesis statement.

In every relationship with the elements of our survival, we must take from something or someone else. And man has worked out a complex system for doing this physically and politically.

And yet in every case we are never taking from one part of the ocean but from the entire ocean. And acknowledging that seems to have something to say about how nourished we really get by it and or by its creatures of thought and of flesh - usually our thought and its flesh.

This is a kind of communication whose benefits and ills are hopelessly confused depending on where you are in the even just human food chain.

What do you need?

What do you get?

How do you like that?

Whom do you trust?

Why?

Is there a better way?

To say that one system of communication with our living nature is exhaustive of the best use of even the most modest and tentative faith is absurd, as absurd as saying that Janism is the best way to get clean water.

It is a matter of allowing the brain to entertain a wide range of parameters for knowledge and story (collections and sequences of cause and effect relationships with which our own brains are built up) whilst keeping with what works best for Mankind as a whole.

And my opinion is there is not best way yet.

All we have is how we communicate all we have with everything and everyone else, with whom we are always giving and taking life.

This is a personal thing.

If science has found the best way to arbitrate for the most fundamental kinds of knowing (of representing our sensory experience, transforming it and applying it to the extraction of resources that answer to personal needs as well as to all the needs, for right or wrong, of systems of power, of all communication and its animal origins) then it has exceeded its own mandate - to remain objective, open minded and, above all, sensitive to the whole range of human experience, which means respecting each person's freedom to determine for themselves and by their own mind and senses what is true for them. Science itself must make certain assumptions. One is that the human brain exported by all of human history is competent to make accurate representations and transformations of crude elements. The other is that science is the best or only way to arbitrate for all that is known or knowable, something that science itself cannot prove with science. This is not necessarily its failing but its greatest potential for advance, as with any human being.

What is true has at least three meanings, depending upon how it is employed:

1) What persists amidst all change of state or orientation to other ideas or systems.

2) What we want to persist.

3) Something that may or may not persist; to say that it persists is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false; contingent persistence.

We can appreciate, therefore, why human beings invariably wish to know more than they know and remain remarkably easy to prevail upon as to what is True or False.

But all the above is an article of the wider set of all genres of knowing, most of which are necessarily excluded from either of science or religion.

These would include, among other things, knowledge passed along through the voice of one's ancestors as they relayed across all bounds their experiences, joys and sorrows, their royal as holy inheritance by birth of their natural or wild blood, their right mind. Born sensible of this entire vast living temple of knowledge festooned with every aspect of nature seen and unseen, knowledge of this nature would then be constituted by our ability or will to resolve the voices of our own bodies (spirits) with all that we are born sensible of or, failing this, to account for any world that would disabuse us of this critical liberty and to what effect, an inquiry that could but impugn every kind of knowledge produced by such a society, however integral it may be for the surviving appetites and ambitions of its wholly symbiotic constituent human organs (and psychoses). These harmful conditions (as often recapitulated by the brain for one's own physical or social survival) would come to restrict the organs of voice and so of brain development, creating a persistent if hidden scream, of sorts, a scream instrumental to all subsequent human ills, none of which could ever be resolved without listening to the Knowledge in this scream.

In this sense, this pathological social scream would be True and perhaps the only truth, as we have defined it, that, unlike most of what passes for truth in a cybernetic-industrial society, cannot be impugned with even the most exacting critical scrutiny.




kbernstar
He doesn't require a belief in god. What he's arguing is basically one of the ways of Aquinas. Gradation. Peterson argues that the foundational belief of Western morality that there is a good and bad is transcendent and like with the gradation argument of Aquinas, for you to be able to argue that there is "good" or a "bad", there must be a best. Whether you personify this "best" as god or some abstract entity is immaterial, merely that there is one.




Rayn Gryphon
+kbernstar Nonsense just sounds better.




kbernstar
+Rayn Gryphon That may be the case but there is a reason Aquinas is considered one of the greatest Western philosophers. The first 4 of the 5 Ways of Aquinas are strong arguments for the existence of a god. The interesting thing is that after him, the only arguments against him aren't to refute the existence of a god but the existence of THE god (the 3 omni Judeo Christian/Abrahamic god). So in a way, Aquinas proved the existence of a god or gods and the minds after him have only been able to argue the specifics of the type of god that exists.




Rayn Gryphon
+kbernstar Tell me then. What is the best intelligence?




kbernstar
+Rayn Gryphon If we're talking in a strict philosophical sense, then Anselm's GCB would be the best intelligence.




nikolaneberemed
Just two things to point out. The god of Abraham is also the Islamic god, why leave that out from the Judeo-Christian(-Islamic) combo? Because it does not support the narrative. Muslims worship the same god theistic Jews and Christians do - the god of Abraham. A quick search reveals this uncomfortable fact.


And second - there are no sound arguments for the existence of any gods. All are based on logical fallacies.



Rayn Gryphon
+nikolaneberemed Agreed.




Rayn Gryphon
+kbernstar Okay. Try another way. What is a god?




kbernstar
+Rayn Gryphon Why don't you brush up on Anselm and Aquinas and then come back? You think you, as some random YouTube commenter has made some amazing breakthrough that no one else has made in a 700 years? LOL. If you did, you'd have published a book and be the most celebrated Western philosopher in centuries. You would know what god is if you knew what GCB was or what the first 3 ways of Aquinas were.




Rayn Gryphon
+kbernstar You sound very sure of yourself about something that is, by definition, wholly beyond your ken.




Rayn Gryphon
"Anselm's GCB is the best intelligence."

By all means. Regale us with the "best intelligence" that you are clearly smart enough to know all about and constrain all debate to as an effective ultimatum and supreme arbiter for any other thought as a sign of just how smart and powerful you really are.

That's not schizophrenic at all.




Rayn Gryphon
Have you have communicated with any of your ancestors?

No?

Then you have not even made it out of the nursery school of life and were never meant to by the gods of your corrupted faculties of abstract reasoning, of your own relationship with all your relations, with your whole mind and environment.

The best intelligence is that of your own fucking mother and father.

So spare me the Imperial godshit dogshit you call the "best intelligence."

Learn to crawl before you walk on water if you want to come at me and my heritage you pint-sized moron.

Btw, I have written a book, over forty of them. I give them away for free because I am free motherfucker.

How many books have you written?

Or are you too used to the taste of Anselm's cock? 





kbernstar
This is why atheism is untrusted. Not because it is the rational choice, but because the loudest representatives of atheism are people like you who are so uneducated about the philosophical processes that it is embarrassing. Not only did you assume I was religious because I read and understood Anselm's ontological argument as well as Aquinas's cosmological, but you are so arrogantly ignorant that you could not be bothered to understand them yourself before attempting to argue against them.

You're a fucking moron, Rayn. Until you understand what the GCB even means, attempting to converse with you is less productive than conversing with a potato because at least a potato has a function.




Rayn Gryphon
+kbernstar very sorry to have met with your approbation.







comments from


Maps of Meaning: 8 Dwelling on Paradise (TVO)

https://youtu.be/0qz1ZKR4hkE



Rayn Gryphon commented on a video on YouTube.
This is stupid.





 exquisitedoom Lapointe
    Rayn Gryphon why




Rayn Gryphon
+exquisitedoom Lapointe To answer that question I would have to watch this again and I don't listen to this idiot anymore.

43 years of walking upright gives me that confidence.




Rayn Gryphon
2:00 What is wrong with this hypothesis stated as a fact?

Answer that and you won't need or want to take a course in psychology.




exquisitedoom Lapointe
But he said "it's reasonable to assume" which is not a statement of fact. I'm truly trying to understand the criticism here.




Rayn Gryphon
+exquisitedoom Lapointe Don't strain yourself. Cults have a lot to offer the true seeker. But until you reject your education you will never own yourself.

and THAT'S A FACT.




exquisitedoom Lapointe
+Rayn Gryphon oh, nevermind you're just nutts. Moving on then.




Rayn Gryphon
+exquisitedoom Lapointe indeed.