It is absolutely vital here to understand how self-awareness arises.
Self-awareness is in itself a consequence of shortcomings and
limitations, or it would not have arisen at all. Thinking is the
activation of the failure to intuitively understand and interact with
the surrounding world. No one understands or investigates this better
than Hegel, who builds his theory of the subject as a constant failure
on a constantly ongoing antagonism, which in turn drives all of the
arisen subject’s dialectical reasoning. Here Hegel sides with
Zoroastrianism and Protestantism in contrast to Taoism and Catholicism.
There is no logical or mythical order and structure in this process that
instead is clearly pathical, disharmonious and unbalanced. Instability
is right from the start built into the Hegelian synthesis, and it is
then released in the form of internal antagonisms. And it is precisely
this which, according to Hegel, makes the subject the strongest
expression of the substance. Just as his predecessors David Hume and
Immanuel Kant, Hegel attacks the Cartesian subject that has been the
norm since the mid-17th century. However they handle the issue in
different ways and come to different conclusions. Hume settles for a
stable subject that tries to relate to a mobile world, Kant, on his
part, gets stuck with a mobile subject that is encapsulated in a fixed
world (which in theory it would be able to experience directly if it
were not for the subject’s own limitations), while only Hegel succeeds
in handling constant movement at all levels of the complex. No person
and no thing is fixed. Both substance and subject are relations that
consist of other relations where relata only constitute temporarily
surfacing byproducts connected to the ongoing processes. The pathical
subject pulsates and vibrates ambivalently behind both logos and mythos.

Key insight here is that no person and no thing is fixed.

Hegel’s argument vis-à-vis Kant is that the latter demystifies the
subject in a way that nevertheless is fundamentally mystifying. Kant
works with a psychology for the soul, a cosmology for the world, and a
theology for God. Psychology for the soul is a Kantian pathos. Cosmology
for the world is a Kantian logos. And theology about God is a Kantian
mythos. All these three quantities are foregone conclusions in an
unclear manner, according to Kant. Hegel’s revolt against Kant is a
battle for a narratological liberation. The Hegelian subject is namely
liberated from all forms of preordained psychologies, cosmologies and
theologies; it has to settle for its own internal dialectics. This
speculative Pandialecticism is the Hegelian absolute. All
metanarratives -- logos, mythos and pathos -- are fundamentally
dialectical, according to Hegel. It is not even possible to speak of a
psychology, cosmology or even a theology as something other than
dialectical phenomena in Hegel, and definitely not as any preordained
eternalizations, as in Kant. Thanks to Hegelian pandialecticism, which
affirms and handles movement in all of being’s dimensions, it becomes
possible to take the path of thinking toward radical relationalism.

Yeah, that’s the insight we need internal dialectics of the sociont. What would Nietzsche, Deleuze and Guattari, and Foucault say about this? This makes me think of The Method of No-Method: The Chan Practice of Silent Illumination. Where the argument is that we have the body, we have the mind and the environment, and all of them are in motion or changing constantly.

In Zoroastrian terms we would express this as though the ameretat our
generation longs for already lies inherent in our worldview and lies
ready to pathically explode as the next generation’s haurvatat. Where
what is important is that the subject is pathical and neither logical
nor mythical. The dividual identity sprouts from the sociont and its
history as the barred absolute. In front of this barred absolute,
dividuality is awakened as the embodiment of an actual archetype in the
form of the mimicking erchtype. The subject’s primary function is to
entwine The Great Trauma in the form of an abandonment of mamilla with
the great event in the form of the yearning for phallus. Mamilla is
the barred absolute from the past, phallus is the barred absolute in the
future. The path backward is however barred forever. The subject can
therefore only hope to become the agent who carries out his
Truth-As-An-Act by submitting to phallus. This irrefutable demand for
submission is the strength of phallus as the concrete absolute.

This speaks for itself.

However monotheist phallus worship does not suffice. The sociont does
not merely need a vision and a direction, but moreover a strategy, and a
strategy one can only build on knowledge. Or to use a more solemn word:
wisdom. Therefore religion’s origin is every bit as much an issue of
mana as an issue of Phallus. Romanian anthropologist Mircea Eliade
traces the mana to the theological shift from the ancestors to the
gods. At the same moment that the ancestors, in the capacity of the
symbolic vessels for and intermediaries of the transmitted wisdom within
the sociont, are depersonified and universalized -- that is: when it no
longer matters who within the sociont is offspring to which primordial
father or primordial mother, when the entire tribe has been accorded the
same common primordial father and primordial mother -- the ancestors are
converted into the lesser gods. It is this conversion that is called
metaphysical reification, and it can only be applied to the already
dead (there is always something vulgar and dubious about statues and
other memorials of people who are still alive). The function is the
mana, a kind of impersonal but constantly present force that humanity
must struggle with in all situations. It is thus on top of this mana
that the priest names the gods to concretize what sacrifices the gods
require from the faithful.

For the masculine subject, this displacement and radical
self-identification occurs through the subject submitting to culture as
logos. For the feminine subject, the same process occurs through the
subject submitting to nature as mythos. This means that the law is
introduced to organize the outer circuit, while the inner circuit is
free to act precisely as it wishes, since it still only can act within
the confines of the consequences of the law being upheld in the outer
circuit. This explains why all the world’s prisons are full of
heterosexual men and a few lesbians, but not of heterosexual women or
homosexual men. The law is thus the name of the phallic religion that
makes it possible to expand the sizes of clans and tribes further toward
city states, nations and entire empires. And no religion carries this
out more naturally than Judaism, with its unique union between the
nation and religion under the same roof. Antisemitism is not just like
any racism, antisemitism is deep down Nation Envy.

The balance between logos, mythos and pathos is maintained through the
narrative constantly reiterating the importance of Zoroastrian ethics
through The Phallic Principle of Tribal Contribution. The question of
what the tribe can do for you is the child’s question, while the
question of what you can do for the tribe is the adult’s question. Every
time someone demands a freedom or a right without conveying something of
value in return, we are in practice seeing a little child who
vociferously tries to cry its way to even more breast milk. And this, of
course, we would rather not have to see grown-up people do, just like
this applies to subservient beggars and infuriated demonstrators alike,
both of whom give rise to virtually the same unease. A proud adult who
takes responsibility for themselves and their own, who finds joy in
contributing to the common good, is however beautiful, not least in
their own eyes.

Here, we are to think employer and employe relationship dynamics.

From The Frankfurt School to Betty Friedan in The Feminine Mystique:
the totalitarian Platonism of the Western left is underpinned by a total
ignorance of, or an equally total disinterest in Man’s pathical
tribalism. One instead chooses to focus on a logical conflict between
individual and collective that then is attacked via Platonist theories
of false consciousness. Please note that the demand that is directed
from the subservient beggar or the infuriated demonstrator always is a
demand without discernible direction or final destination. There is no
point where the demand is satisfied and where the beggar or the
demonstrator is done demanding, has taken their responsibility as an
adult and fully-fledged member of the community by starting to do their
part for the common good. These are mouths that never become satiated.
The revenue from begging and the benefits one, if applicable, has
succeeded in hassling one’s way to receiving, are usually spent in the
form of immediate consumption rather than as investments in a future
where the little child’s dependence on an offering mamilla would be but
a memory.

The childishly demanding position is not conceived as a transitory
phase. The extended paper cup outside the supermarket entrance and the
indignant list of demands from the allegedly aggrieved group will never
disappear. It is a question of compensation for supposed injustices in
the past and certainly no help for self-help. The stern and
demand-ridden gaze of the self-pitying child will never be tempered. It
is no passing phase but a permanent scenario. What we are witnessing
here is the development of the permanent dependence on mamilla, a
dependence that is seen as a given by all the narcissists who by pure
principle refrain from growing up and taking their own responsibility.
In the postcapitalist society even the slaves are no longer working. The
workers have, in Jean Baudrillard’s words, been turned into work
mannequins. Not because there necessarily is a lack of tasks, but
because these for various reasons can be claimed to be humiliating to
carry out. Hence all these reproachful gazes and angry accusations, all
these hungry mouths in all these rich societies, mouths that never can
be satiated, demands that never are met.

Whenever it is possible to score political points on claimed injustices,
the rulers get out their tax tables and start to outline changes that
are aimed at leveling. This is a principle that tends to dominate in
systems where politicians primarily strive to become re-elected and only
thereafter may consider achieving something of value. The money one
pulls in from working people as if by magic becomes common funds and the
state coffers become one big mamilla squirting out breast milk to all
who ask for it, and even to many others for the sake of re-electability.
One for instance doles out child allowance to everyone, as if the idea
that parents themselves should support their children were completely
absurd. In such a society matrichal magic knocks out phallic technology,
mythos is decoupled from logos, ideas of cause and effect are denied and
ridiculed. The entrepreneurs become fewer in step with bureaucrats
increasing their numbers, and the struggle for provision increasingly
turns into a struggle for privileges. One distributes a shrinking pie
instead of primarily ensuring that the overall pie is growing. When the
phallic principle of tribal contribution is weakened, society loses
momentum and prosperity-creating dynamics. Increasing numbers consider
themselves belonging to so-called weak groups to be propped up by a
dwindling few. With increased poverty comes increasing anarchy:
different factions that demand benefits from each other.

Furthermore the phallic principle of tribal contribution applies equally
for social groups relative to larger entities as it applies to the
single dividual. We can view two popular subcultures from late
capitalism that appear to survive and develop even in the Internet Age,
namely feminism and androgynism. Both these movements arose during
late capitalism as matrichal reactions to the catastrophes that
contributed to ending the golden age of the phalluses, with concrete
phallic failures such as Hitler and Stalin and abstract phallic threats
such as the atomic bomb and environmental pollution. Feminism further
harvested public opinion success when it proudly emphasized women’s
shouldering responsibility for half of society and demanded matching
remuneration from the state and the market for this contribution.
Androgynism also succeeded when it proudly emphasized the androgynous
caste’s contribution to society as a mediating vessel between the
male-dominated outer circuit and the female-dominated inner circuit in
society. The androgynous person does of course not become an adult by
developing from a boy to a man, or from a girl to a woman, but attains
their adulthood through blending a cocktail of both the man and the
woman. It is precisely in the role as the one who moves across
boundaries that the androgynous person discovers their adulthood,
precisely through personifying the phallic principle of tribal
contribution as the sociont’s own internal go-between.

Thus far all this is excellent. A society that is not constantly
questioned stagnates, and sustainable ideas can withstand criticism. The
problem is that both feminism and androgynism developed diverse sects
and cults marked by infantile internarcissism. The principle of tribal
contribution that generates pride and strength was eventually replaced
by the eternal accusation that can only generate bitterness and greed.
When Western feminism and androgynism in practice had finished
triumphing and should have closed down their activism in the form of a
becoming matricide -- or perhaps better yet should have migrated to
other more needy parts of the world -- the movements were instead
usurped by state-financed funeral wailers who constantly hunt
increasingly absurd renderings of alleged crimes to keep alive the
eternal production of accusations that never can be compensated for. And
as long as there is no demand for a stated final destination from these
movements, they will gladly milk the phallus via the state apparatus for
a constantly snowballing compensation for old, increasingly fabricated
injustices. If there is a system to exploit, it will be exploited. That
is: until a Messianic project arrives that reinstates the sociont and
its integrity. For the phallic principle of tribal contribution will
return with full power the moment society is presented with a complete
and authentic archetypology for humanity. We are working on it.

We are grateful for that work. It turns out this chapter effectivly is about secular politics more then anything else. And it’s basicly deconstructing the imagination of the noosphere, yet without anything else to replace it.

A clear departure occurs through the desexualisation
that is imposed upon Man when he becomes settled. The outer circuit
within the sociont is pushed into the inner circuit. Logos, mythos and
pathos are blended together in a kind of sociological pressure cooker.
Sex, violence and shamanic rituals are stigmatized. Art loses its
pathical strength and is infantilized. The phallic, worshipping gaze is
shifted from the primordial fathers, the chieftain and the priest, to
the primordial mother, the matriarch and the child. And with this shift
logos disappears for lack of pathos and is replaced by a universal
mythos that speaks of eternal peace and eternal happiness, wishful
dreaming based on the infantile fantasy of the eternal child with a soul
divorced from the increasingly adult and increasingly sexual body.

Touche!

Gnosticism arrives in history as the infantile fantasy of being able to
go directly from child to God without having to pass through sexuality
and adult life. We call this state The Peter Pan Syndrome in a
contemporary context. The dream of eternity and infinity is never
dreamed by an adult man, but by a boy who refuses to grow up and who
therefore wishes for a life without the adult body with its inherent
forces and responsibility. The original release occurs through the
priests carrying out ritual sacrifices to appease the gods. And they
teach the sociont how and where one can relieve the pressure to avoid an
explosion. The priests are looking for their own son, the Messiah.
Christianity’s illusion is that the nomadological cycle can be halted.
Christianity’s illusory hope is thus that just one single sacrifice at
one single occasion can redeem all societies throughout history and then
somehow the entire problem is solved. What a nasty surprise it must be
that even the priest must be sacrificed, naturally, which means that
both the Messiah (the son) and the priest (the father) unconditionally
must die. The rain-god is sacrificed as a virgin before his mother, and
the sun-god disappears in the process since he now lacks both a heritage
and a future.

Touche!

This is what Nietzsche sees clearly when he maintains that Christianity
had both atheism and nihilism built into its own doctrine right from the
very start. Christ on the cross merely becomes the mimicry of how the
Egyptian priests sacrificed their boy-pharaoh Tutankhamen to end the
Atenist autocracy 1,300 BC and reintroduced Egyptian polytheism. At the
same time as they allowed the Atenists to evade persecution by letting
them emigrate to be able to develop their own monotheist religion as
Judaism (see Sigmund Freud’s Moses and Monotheism). And thereby we
also get an explanation for the core of anti-Semitism, since the Jew
gets to take the blame in popular religion as he who killed the Messiah
-- as though some other tribe had infringed on the sociont’s territory
and killed the sociont’s next king -- at the same time as Christianity’s
inner core consists of a clergy that hates that the father still makes
himself known via the Jewish rabbis who are their rivals. Christianity
solves this by claiming that through Christ’s sacrificial death on the
cross, the believer has liberated himself from the Jewish Law and
replaced it with an eternal energy machine called Grace, as though the
reward for killing the father is that the judge at the end of life has
disappeared. This entails that the Christian nation is taught to hate
the Jewish rabbis, while the Christian priests can renounce the violence
in their own society -- through the separation of a heavenly church from
an earthly state -- so that they as priests shall feel superior to their
kings, cultivate their new status as self-aggrandizing, pacifist
eunuchs, and realize Plato’s and Saint Augustine’s fantasies of finally
being allowed to be and remain Peter Pan.

We know the tragedy of Peter’s death, and many other men with him. In Sweden, suicide rates are significantly higher among men than women, with men accounting for approximately 70% of all suicide deaths annually. While the highest rate of suicide is found among men aged 85 and older, the highest absolute number of suicides often occurs among men in their middle-age years.

Christianity is thus built on a failed patricide of Judaism in the same
way that Islam is built on a failed patricide of Zoroastrianism. In
Islam the murdered mobed survives in the form of the locally
interpretative mullah, who stands above the text as Shia, while the
illusory belief that the Zoroastrian mobed is murdered, and that the boy
can wage war any way he wishes without the priest’s intervention, is
called Sunni. If Christianity is the pillar-saint’s religion par
excellence, then Islam is the boy-pharaoh’s religion par excellence.
The adult, the genuine, the sophisticated and the brutally natural in
the predecessors is thrown out and replaced with the childish, the
mimicking, the easily seduced and the spectacularly supernatural. This
is civilization’s recurring curse: How easily the dialectics of logos,
mythos and pathos is sacrificed to be replaced with a more popular
vulgarized copycat. And here the unifying Abject comes into play. An
abjectification is a projection on an alien intruder with the purpose of
unifying the sociont. It matters not whether the abjectification is
motivated or completely arbitrary, the function is the same. The abject
is turned into the scapegoat and through the sacrifice of the
scapegoat the pressure inside the sociont is released and the sociont
can unify temporarily before the pressure increases anew and the need
for another abjectification rises.

It’s worth noting that killing intelligence means war wheras killing animals means hunting. The sophisticated expressions being: cosmopolitian (the network) and ecotopian (the planet).

Nomadology, whose universal symbol is the self-eating primordial snake
Ouroboros, was always doomed to be caught in this eternal loop. Only
through the phallus worship of the approaching eventology can humanity
start to dream of an end to the constantly returning hell of the lynch
mobs. The world is heading for a new order, a new nomos, that finally
can function because of history’s insights into the resilience of social
systems. And above all thanks to a great amount of new and innovative
technology. This means that communism, as the last history of Man,
comes with the problem that nomadology in itself always was communist.
So when communism later in history is to be re-established as a
collectivist fantasy via socialism, this fails completely. The
explanation lies in that the Atenist dictatorship is the worst possible
way to restore nomadology, and that nomadology never can function within
a greater entity than the sociont itself. Thus communism ironically can
only be re-established as a temporary tribal plurarchy, that is: as a
kind of digital gated community. But neither the city, nor the nation,
nor the empire can ever be communist. The global empire belongs to the
Machine and only to the Machine. Man must instead laboriously return to
the one thing he ever has been comfortable with, the sociont itself,
that is to say The Tribal Singularity. Anything else is nothing but
misanthropic fantasies with no connection to reality whatsoever.

The conclusion then is that the free and open algoritm is for the Machine only, that is to say will-to-intelligence that Reza Negarestani talks about in Intelligence and Spirit. Yet that loyalty is always hyperlocal. It’s as Alexander Bard argues dangerious to forget the will-to-transcedence. Will to transcedence is not about good versus evil, not about intelligence versus stupid, but libido and mortido as dialectics of asha versus druj. Just for the simple reason that “ who guards the algorithm’s freedom. Keeping the algorithm free and open from commercial corruption, political manipulation, and academic conformity” is itself an asha act — not truth-as-a-fact, but truth-as-an-act.

Negarestani arguably misses this: intelligence cannot bootstrap its own asha. That requires pathos.

All this requires a new and deepened understanding of time in itself as
a phenomenon. It is interestingly enough probably a voyage -- as Lee
Smolin observes in the book Time Reborn (2013) -- that hardly even has
begun, since all the boy-pharaohs and pillar-saints of the past three
millennia have preferred to dwell on infantile phantasms such as
eternity and immortality, rather than on pragmatically tangible
engineering matters such as time and space. This ironically means that
we must commence the necessary re-write of philosophy’s and theology’s
history with one massive back to go. We must start over. The simple
fact is that if we are to carry out informationalism’s Exodology, we
must not only have a sense of where we are going -- that is to say which
libidinal objective we set for our own age before the barred absolute,
while this protects us against our collective mortido -- we must first
of all know where we are and how we got here. And to do this we must
delve deeper into history than we have ever done before. Thanks, dear
Syntheos, for there being machines to aid us in this too. Welcome to the
brave new world of data anthropology.

I can only write this from the memetic horizon I’m embedded in. And from there, what I see is that there is a clear connection between the concept of prāṇa and pathic power. Especially, the trancendental view that this force, is will-to-power, that must be divided to a will-to-transcedence, and an will-to-intelligence. None of these wills are individual but rather relational, and have two diffrent libidinal objectives. The dividing line is approximatly Menopause, before and after Menopause, women contribute through giving birth to children before, which is the future, and through intelligence after, which is the past. Even if this turns out to be incorrect, it still stands that to understand time in itself as a phenomenon is to understand the dynamics of libidinal objectives throught a lifetime. Women’s will in itself is simply will-to-reproduction, throught the lifetime, the activities are the same, even if she gain more experience and therefore more wisdom regarding her activites, and yet have less energy with old age. And so we see clearly that energy and wisdom is one continium, when you are young you have superior pathic energy, yet not necessary the wisdom to handle it well.

Paradigm shift shock is the chaos that awaits when a new
information-technological paradigm breaks through. It takes time for the
constant Man to adapt to the variable Technology. The first millennium
after permanent settlement was established was for instance the
bloodiest period in human history, since the participants in question
still lacked a metanarrative about connectedness that could serve as a
foundation for a long-term, strategic collaboration. Everyone simply
helped themselves to anything they could as soon as the opportunity
presented itself. One reasoned short-sightedly and selfishly. No actor
invested in any form of future. It was not until organized religion
arrived and built joint temples on the shamanic borderland between the
river valleys -- from which it preached the new grand narrative of the
shared root-of-the-phallus -- that fairly long periods of peace could be
maintained, and trade and growth could flourish. And there is no reason
to believe that the present paradigm shift from industrialism to
informationalism, and from capitalism to attentionalism (see The
Netocrats), will be the least bit easier than previous ones.
Particularly since our entire world is shifting paradigms simultaneously
this time. While no one seems to understand what is underway while it is
underway, since the dominant actors are strapped into their old
political, industrial and academic models that have become completely
irrelevant. They are acting in a new world while they are thinking in an
old one.

This is exactly my experience, and the hope is that the shared root-of-the-phallus (will-to-intelligence) shall open up for strategic collaboration. However, it’s important to push back on this a litte bit, the claim that everyone simply
helped themselves to anything they could as soon as the opportunity
presented itself. Is true but with qualifications, some people did not possess the skills required to act effectivly in the sexual chaos that transpired there.

It is time to not only go back to history, but also to re-write history
as though it had a new Hegelian necessity about it. And this new
necessity to which the root-of-the-phallus points is the
informationalist paradigm, with its shift from a religion based on
magic -- via pathetic attempts to no religion at all -- to a religion
based on technology. Everything is history and since it concerns a
paradigm shift, the new paradigm can only be understood if it receives
its own new history. We once again visit history to understand
ourselves, but this time we do so with social-technological and
data-anthropological glasses. If religion has stopped being magical and
instead has become technological, the phallic hope will no longer be
based on a faith, but actually on what Hegel calls absolute knowledge.
The old Zoroastrian dream that the truth (asha) one day shall defeat
the lie (druj) in a battle of near-cosmic proportions comes true, when
the free and open algorithm plays its hand. Welcome to the information
society and the development of its necessary stories about itself.

The key then is to create a religion based upon the “free and open algorithm”. It’s now clear that the libidinal objective’s are (1): matrix, or naive nihilism; (2) mamilla, or cynical nihilism; (3) root-of-the-phallus, or ironical nihilism; (4) the-phallus-in-itself, or affermative nihilism. These are the diffrent libidinal objectives you can go for, with the free and open algorithm. When we thus speak of the fragmentation into four, we are talking about the male perspective.

1. Physics and Chemistry (the animal expression yet unconscious)

2. Metaphysics and Subphysics (the category in the needs system that pertains to
   mechanical expression, for instance: the craving for food, drink, sleep
   and protection, but also for sex, power and aggression)

3. Biology and Psychology (linguistic and thereby uniquely human of the drive
   system's four expressions, a more or less compulsive searching for
   something that basically is unattainable, since the objective of desire
   always withdraws and changes its guise)

4. Culture and God (to exceed the limits for the present existence)

What are the unique lessions of this then? It’s we have THE ANIMAL EXPRESSION as SACRED, but it’s understood as PHYSICS and CHEMISTRY. Yet the full picture is more complex because even though there is thus an healthy RIGHT HEMISPHERIC EXPRESSION, we haven’t yet to see an healthy LEFT HEMISPHERIC EXPRESSION. Because all the old expressions are either CYNICAL (the nihilist pretends against
better judgment that there are objective values) or IRONIC (the nihilist builds their own internal and subjective values in opposition to the surrounding world’s falsely objective values).

What remains is thus the complete death of God (understood here as objective values): the nihilist interprets the absence of objective values as a liberating possibility to create their own values and convince the environment of these created values’ excellence. Then the insight is, nobody knows or have special forsight into the informationalist paradigm’s future. One such clarification then is that if you value X then Y follows.

Settle down, are the starting point for any radically genuine spiritual practice. The weather and it’s reactions in the body-mind in the form of addiction and aversion, are gradually not acted out when you stop having self-referential thoughts that causes depression, anxiety and psychosis. Experience the whole, of which all body-minds are dependent parts, is the teaching. So the invitation is to discover what you need to settle down!

The body then is itself concerned with two activites food and sex, meaning survival which are conditional on provision and protection and reproduction which consequences are being a father and a mother to the children. Meaning eating food mindfully, and being a parent to children is genuinly spiritual activities. The less you identify with your self-referental thoughts about the body-mind, the more spiritual you are. Therefore, we have the minimalist saying with less there is more.

Then the first layer of mind is that of micro-philosophy, what we could call truth as an act. For example, you take LSD and goes out in society and do crazy and wild acts, you go out and cling to a phone, you identify with your minds emotions and thoughts, and people react by calling the police, when they go close to you, as you are about too leave the place, there is someone saying they are the police, but to you they just have cloths that suggests that they are police, the aren’t actually the police.

You resist these people that are aggressive towards you, little do they realize that you are in a LSD induced psychosis and all you need is to be meet with understanding and respect. Instead you fight the police, and when they have overpowered you, you grap for the police’s gun in the backseat of the car, thankfully none got hurt expect myself. Later during severe relational stress you develop paranoid psychosis and thinks delusional thoughts about secret service tracking your movements, these delusional thoughts is a byproduct of the traumatic encounter with the police.

And the one you take LSD with, which wanted you to watch peoples suffering in Africa. Of which you avoid and goes out in society. After having traveled to Africa, had children with an African woman, one day have a psychosis goes out, and downs in the water. The conclusion then is that patterns connect in time, that emotions and thoughts have inpact on ones life’s trajectory way beyond that moment of tempoary intoxication of psychadelics.

What you learn from this is that everything is interdepending with everything else, not just physically but also mentaly in the form of truth as an act and being in the world. So then someone trained in school might think, being in the world is about the whole nation, or the whole world, but in truth your world consists of 50 people being your close family, 160 people being your close friends and 2200 people being your close tribe members. And there is always an inside and and outside of a family, a friend group, a tribal group, and knowing where you belong in the world, gives you as sense of identity not just as a body-mind but as a mind-body that is to say embedded in relations in the present.

But what happens when we seek to become the whole of our experience, then we realize that attachment and aversion are movements of waves on the ocean. OCEAN being an acronym of Openess to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism. We then see that Psychology as a field (with is based on the axiom of self-referental thoughts) have made the distinction between positive emotions and negative emotions, which obviously corresponds to clinging to experience and avoiding experience, rather then be with experience, and not partal but the whole of it.

There is an name of not identifying with your self-referental reactions, emotions and thoughts. And it is called to be humble, humbleness transcends all traits within yourself and others and open you up in the service of unity. The infinate becomes the many which becomes that one, the god’s and godess’s head: your eyes are looking what you are looking for. Thus, when I ask what’s needed to settle down and open up to the whole of experience. My answer is that I need to cultivate humbleness—that’s spirituality. What you need to settle down, that’s for you and your teacher to decide.

Deleuze was wrong when he said that philosophy was Greek in it’s origin, in the co-written book with Guattari. The same way that Deleuze & Guattari was wrong about Hegel (according to Žižek) and right about Nietzsche (according to Bard & Söderqvist). Philosophy is nothing but the artform of thinking and contemplating. It’s not bound to a medium such as the written book or printed paradigm’s of radio and television. It can occur in a YouTube channel or at a Substack newsletter which both are interactive language.

As such Deleuze was right, that philosophy isn’t academic in it’s disposition. Because academia is just one mode of doing philosophy in. And history of ideas are in itself not philosophy, it’s history of ideas. One way communication is thus what academia have become learning the past is not the same as creating or co-creating the future. My own experience going through academia, this is what you learn, you learn the history of ideas as an undergraduate, you don’t learn how the world works, because there is no consensus on that.

Philosophy as it turns out, is the Greek word of an older Avestan word, Mazdayasna, which is both means friendly devotion to wisdom. The bridge between Persia and Greece can be found in Heraclitus and his fragments of thinking which inspired Hegel and Whitehead among others. But then Mazdayasna itself is Persian in origin. And it’s poetic invocation and and service to the community which we can read 3700 years after the likely composers death, Zoroaster.

With Zoroaster as our exemplar archetype of what an philosopher is, we learn that, philosophers try to be long-term, way beyond there own death. The origin of philosophy thus have two ideals wholeness (to live a complete life) and transcedence (to leave a legacy to your community that suvives you).

There is three ways thus to contribute as a philosopher: construction, reconstruction and deconstruction.

1. Construction: Comming up with genuently novel ideas.

2. Reconstruction: Novel combinations, assamblages of ideas you’ve never heard before.

3. Deconstruction: Killing a lot of shitty ideas out there.

And then we see clearly that Zoroaster is the bridge between east and west. With hinduisms’s oscillation (prānta) prior to and buddha’s negation (śūnyatā) after the Zoroasterian Event. And thus we speak of the Silk Road religions as being the origin of many other novel ideas in history.

Subscribe now