I am the person who will destroy China. (madman101) wrote,
I am the person who will destroy China.


Finally YAY.

(late PS - btw - even though I won't be discussing the title in this, Part ONE, keep the title in mind, and you might be more inspired to free-associate as you read these thoughts)...

[Starting weds noonish febr 12 2014]: I always have tonnes of theme post thoughts early in the morning, when I shouldn't write - and then it tends to disintegrate later, esp. after I sleep. So - here I go again, trying to piece-meal a theme post together...

first: We often think of control as a bad thing. Controllaholics and freaks are definitely to be avoided - because they almost 100% of the time tend to be dysfunctional, destructive, sadistic, etc. One ironic thing that we should learn in life - (and I am TELLING YOU TO DO THIS he haw) - is that those in control, and virtually ALL controllaholics, are the way they are because, even though they may have all the money and drgggs and guunz (and lawyers) in the world, and even though they may be IN control, THEY ACTUALLY PATHOLOGICALLY FEAR BEING OUT OF CONTROL, and therefore, they ARE psychologically out of control. They have externalised the onus of control, to whatever - to money, to the Wall Street ticker, to militants, to their insatiable fear of a "potentially mob-violent mass population (of we the commoners).

One thing they tend to miss, though, is the extent to which the mass population is deferential to them, being dependent on their authority, their "hiring" means - or "connections" -, their money, their moral approval, their media icons, their opinions, etc. THEIR PROMISES, (i.e., their LENDING and CREDIT). When elite controllaholics are out of control, even psychologically, then you can bet that the mass population who are currently vastly supporting the elites STATUS QUO SYSTEM, will privately turn against them, out of a perception of theft or injustice or double standards. And this private turning generally turns to a public turning, and public dissent or airing of grievances. But with little education of the actual system and the insideousness of the crimes committed by the elites against them, and with little cross-association or COMMONS - such as common ethics, strategies, resources, etc. - this "going-public" of the anger of the hitherto-mystified masses often has little other recourse, mentally/emotionally/practically, than to resort to mob behaviour, riots, violence. Finally, in such a limbic mental state, the masses tend simply to IMITATE what they see as the crimes which the elites have been scheming against them. If they see theft, they will riot in theft. If they see brutality, they will riot in brutality, and so forth. This is not a STRICT rule, but one of high correlation. Nor would all rioting be restricted to mere "imitation". Or, should I say... cop-ulation, ha? (We got fucked, so now we fuck you!")

So, this is why it is important that leaders advocating civil disobedience is important - because mere mob rioting is too easy to put down, so merely reinforcing the martial law or militant state, which exists to defend not so much the STATUS QUO, (which had been reinforced by much of the commoner population), as it exists to protect the status quo interests of the elites, to which much centralised CAPITAL is linked and controlled. It is all about the control of MONEY, which is thought to be a thing-in-itself, though it is not. This is quite comperable to the elites' CENTRAL BANKS "morally" refusing to forgive loans to credit-overextended or "bankrupt" countries, (etc.), who's trouble followed from moral violations of trust, such as loose lending, or poorly regulated hedge funds, rating agencies, and gambling bank/investors - on vacuous "securities" which mean nothing IN THE REAL WORLD. Instead, they, for the elites, force the mass populations to stupidly take the hit, and to fall into squalour and "austerity". This is a justification by the elites to compensate for their failure of return on investments, by stealing away the guaranteedpensions, savings, financial instruments, TAXES - ("too big to fail"), AND PRIVACY AND RIGHTS - and ultimately LIVES - of the mass population. This is a personal psychological problem, but it is also the WAY of etropic, poorly-regulated CAPITALISM, or whatever system of control - religion, and what-have-you. There IS NOTHING "MORAL" ABOUT THIS.

To rationalise, justify and fascilitate this manic, immoral extension of CONTROL by the status quo elites, there is a "public ethic" promulgated which identifies PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS as enemies. Terribleists. Whistle-blowers. Commies. Minorities. Entire COUNTRIES become painted as being, basically, irresponsible adolescents, needing to be disciplined. And the masses are all expected to buy into this. This promulgation of externalising BLAME, or spite, is a BIG MISTAKE, since it avoids identifying the REAL ECONOMIC PROBLEMS, and therefore it becomes an insatiable social and political ADDICTION which ultimately marches towards genocide and war. All to placate the elites fear of being out of control. You see, because they have externalised their onus of control, then all the population ends up footing the bill of their psychological and moral delusion, by externalising blame and hanging so-called "enemies". See how it works. The common people end up adopting the paranoia of the elites, and then are compelled to go off and fight amongst themselves, in order to defend it, unless they instead resort to a public turning, which often means rioting over unfair food prices - the most tangible effect of the dysfunctional economics, thieving INFLATION, and "austerity". But as long as each citizen is kept feeling alone, isolated, alienated or helpless - i.e., UNABLE TO CONTROL - then the resort to a public turning may be thwarted by the elites. This is done through various routes: bureaucratic programmes, the media, police surveillance, etc.

The whole problem is that people are brought away from trusting in their inner self, voice or drum-beat - THEIR OWN DAEMON - and so they put their faith in external devices and authorities, i.e., FALSE IDOLS. But this is not unconnected to economics or psychology - being a contageous fear of losing means or resources, reverting to a limbic fight/flight stress mode. Thus follows: moral hazard, the danger of collective action, the violation of the commons, ad a RACE TO THE BOTTOM. So - you see why someone like a Jesus often enters the picture at such times, and urges people to relax, forgive, meditate, swith over to new COMMUNITY economcs, etc. And people ask, "On what authority do you say these thngs? WHO is your FATHER?!?! We demand an answer!!!" And Jesus says, "Well, I've got this whole nebulous concept of 'HEAVEN', and my FATHER is floating around up there giving me instructions, but HE can't be proved by logic, the state, your science, or whatever. JUST TRUST ME, DUDES! JUST TRUST YOURSELVES! TAKE A SWING FOR A NEW LIFE YO!"

What is an "Absolute"? What is "transcendence"? What is "fundamentalism"? What is denial? What is control. Munch on these question for a while. the answer is this: Just as with every subatomic particle, EACH OF THESE IS A DOUBLE EDGED SWORD - A TWO WAY STREET - and, as manipulated by the PSYCHOPATHS: A FORKED TONGUE.


[Resuming 3:30pm same day]: Well, OK. When our brains slip down into reptilian and/or limbic processing, this is because our body feels threatened, by a potential loss of control. We not merely react in FEAR, (and its cousin, DESIRE), we become controlled by our body's insistence on interpreting incoming sounds, sights, information, and memories. We are becoming more immediate, more animal, and more DETERMINED TO PRESERVE THE EGO, even as it may be represented (no longer by the super-ego, but) by the ID. Thus, external, real-world sense and logic flies out the window, and we adopt a very selfish ethic of existential SURVIVAL. ME, ME, ME. Whatever, "ME," means - which can be anything in words or lies - that's what we want to serve. The animal body comes first, and this is the new logic - a logic of selfishness. Body is me, lies serve this immediate "truth." (Also, lies, like other addictive substances, serve to support a feedback-loop, where high stress is maintained, and the selfishness continues, or amplifies).

{see tags, psychology, paradoxical learning}.

Interestingly, this movement towards animalistic psychopathy is more pressing upon the poorer, common masses, who more realistically DO have actual means and rights and money and food and security and CONTROL being taken away from them, by the elites, by the middle class, by other poor, by in-fighting, by circumstance. Thus, these people resort to fight/flight, and a style or public manner wherein lies are rote reactions; where skepticism and hate are rote reactions; where fear of being shot is a rote reaction, etc. The law of the jungle. Even though the psychopaths amongst them, (who rise up and thrive in power and control), in precisely this kind of prison-like climate of fear and control, do access their higher brain functions, absolutes, associations and PLANNING, they do so LESS than the psychopaths amongst the ELITES, who seek to deliberately perpetrate this disabling climate of fear. The psychopaths amongst the elites rationalise, DENY and CONSPIRE less based on a threat to their REAL NEEDS, (as in the animal and "jungle" worlds), and almost entirely based on a perceived threat to their WANTS which they have redifined as "NEEDS". Thus, to the psychopathic elites, any slight diminishment in the rate of in crease in profit-taking, via their investments, well, this is perceived as a DIRECT THREAT TO THEIR EGO and to their BODY. Thus, to them, there is no amount of money in the worl that can satisfied this false, externalised dependency, (desperate to grasp control), which is also a feedback LOOP, assisted by sexual, drgggg, cult, etc., dependencies, all rationalised by higher brain absolutes and associations and denials, as also ratonalised by a very INSISTENT and NERVOUS BODY.

Even more intersting, to me, is this: Whether occurring amongst the poor, or being perpetrated by the blithe habits and assumptions of the elites, this fear-driven slide towards animalistic psychopathology, where people CRAVE CONTROL because they FEAR LOSING CONTROL, and where all external logic becomes subservient to the ME ME ME ego-body, and its lies, ironically creates A NEW LOGIC WITHIN SOCIETY, as within ECONOMICS. And that is this: When everything goes to the dog-eat-dog, and its everyone for themselves, and each person is his/her own logic and "truth", with infinite rights(!), then finer, rational, scientific logics of society COLLAPSE, and there arises, in their place, "Logics of Death" [see tags} - or of meaness, or of SPITE. (See also this article):


Eat or get eaten. Shoot first. This is the same, "Rush to the Bottom," et al, mentioned above. It is upon these new logics of death that the psychopaths rely in order to maintain or enhance their status-quo investments and capital. Being anti-productive, these logics work to corrode or collapse the social and economic systems. Basically, society is maintaining capital investment in a now dysfunctional economics or status quo, and everyone starts reacting like their own lives are being threatened, when in fact BETTER LOGICS AIMED AT TRANSFORMING THE SOCIETY INTO A NEW RATIONAL ECONOMICS IS WHAT IS CALLED FOR. But such requires RESPECT for higher-brain associations. And that, plus empathy and security, is precisely what the dysfunctional order seeks to destroy. The article I linked you to above says that an environment of SPITE gave rise to cooperative and altruistic approaches. That is correct if you look at evolution as progressing from animal to high human, with us all treading water, desperate to hold off the whole tide of animal spite. As if cooperation was a chimera, born from jungle survivalism. I feel, instead, the whole contest between this survivalist ethic of (selfish-justified) SPITE, and the ethic of (externally rational) COOPERATION, has been going on since FOREVER - ("For my father is the Alpha and the Omega"). Remember, I believe that the WILL of BEING is as fundamental a force in nature as is Natural Selection, especially as viewed from the Darwinian, "Survival of the Fittest." Also remember that I believe that information and memory is not constrained by our bodies - but this goes into my whole area of, "Physicology" - later on that..

Note again, also, that these logics of death evoke widespread attitudes in society where SEXUAL SATISFACTION is linked to CONTROL and CONTEST and FIGHTING and FEAR and DOMINANCE, etc. This reflects what goes on in the more private SELF, when one slips down into more fear-driven, stressful, fight/flight brain and body processing. Of course, these logics espouse the political ideas of MIGHT MAKES RIGHT, "externalism", etc., including the public justification of lies and crimes BY FAVOURED PEOPLE.

The logics of death, or of spite, which are grossly irrational for the general public good, and instead favour a handful of "winners" or monopolies or elites over the welfare of the vast population, are ironically an external replacement of society's formerly rational and COMMON ethic, attitude or philosophy - which WAS external - by a mass private ethic of fear, which now becomes EXTERNAL in society - (like the "public turning" mentioned above). (See also posts re: "groupism").

This is how THE COMMONS IS FRANTICALLY, ALMOST DESPERATELY, DESTROYED - BY ADVANTAGED GROUPS (CORPORATIONS) WHO ULTIMATELY SEEK UNIVERSAL DOMINANCE, OR UNLIMITTED PROFIT INCREASE. These are in fact DYSFUNCTIONAL groups, who tend to rely on corporate welfare subsidy by the state - all in defense of a dysfuntionalising STATUS QUO. Or - fear. And rampant desire. Thus, people resort to the most sensible choice of solving problems: ELECT MEGALOMANIACS INTO OFFICE!!!

And this is why the name, "Chris Christie," is another ironic joke being played on us by our cute little Origami Universe.


[Resuming 5:30pm same day]: I'm just plowing along today, aren't I?! Speaking of EGO, btw, I am not always opposed to Ego or Egoism. I sometimes mention, "Divine Ego," which is another one of my orphan terms. Let it ot be confused with Hitler's misinterpretation of Neitzche's, "Uberman," or, "Superman," (made incarnate in our present, "Interstate Highway System," which sounds like I don't know wtf I am saying, oh, but the you would be wrong, so wrong). Oh - note how the USA superhero, Superman, jumps his private self into a PUBLIC COMMONS PHONE BOOTH, where the extent of his public influence is multiplied by the millions, by the amazing modern technology, empowering the common man, the telephone... Well, back to Ego - - - yes, Ego is necessary for survival, and for identity-within-society, following from (another one of my terms), the EXISTENTIAL BIAS - or.. the right to conform logic to one's own selfish, private needs to some extent. And these are truths we hold self-evident. Also, just as the existential bias is fundamental to all (in) the universe, so I have asserted that EMOTION is common throughout all existence, being inherent within information itself - but that's for other theme posts. {see tags}.

If you think about our media-obsessed culture over past decades, or maybe since day 1, you see that we tend to look back on earlier epochs as being better than today, (or worse than today). (Norman Goldman was discussing this very topic just last night). Many crazy fundamentalist tea-baggers tend to look back on the conservative 1950's as being better than today. On the other hand, most liberals, and generally the wider pop culture, has looked back at the 1950's as being WORSE than today - filled with McCarthyism, fear of A-Bommms, and lots of freaking CONTROLLAHOLICS. The 1950's also spawned, "MAD MEN," who objectify or belittle women, smoke and drink too much, and are especially rank in their childish competition to get ahead. Well, MAD MEN is only a partly-true depiction, seen through the ever-foggier lense of our slowly collapsing society. We like to look back and tell ourselves that things were worse - so today seems more sensible and rational. It isn't, ha ha. Or - maybe some of us look back and see things as being BETTER then, just to give us some kind of conservative consolation that we are RIGHT and MORAL, compared to today's collapsing society. Well, that, too, is only a partly-true depiction. Fact is, things WERE worse AND things WERE better back then. What's my point?...

The point is this. In a lot of ways, the 1950's were "better" than today, if it is realised that much of the crazy crud back then was tolerable BECAUSE SOCIETY AND THE ECONOMY WERE ALL BOOMING, compared to today's collapsing systems. (Well - today's systems are collapsing, but, similarly ambiguous, there also remain the POTENTIALS TO SWITCH OVER TO MORE RATIONAL SYSTEMS, rather than to fall into shortages, riots and war). For example, many men who are now considered bad, like Dulles or McCarthy or Nixon or Hoover... or Hoover, were actually, "good" by the day's low standards, since they were integral to a greater system which, in general, was progressing quite well. In retrospect, we could say these men didn't know wtf they were doing, or that they were possibly working AGAINST the greater interests of progress - or maybe they were actually FACILITATING THE BOOMING SYSTEMS, just as the injustices of low wages or of skewed terms-of-trade or of wifey-stay-at-home may support the booming, glorious rise of systems like IMPERIALISM. But, whatever, these men were generally seen, or confused, by the general public, as being very helpful in the country's jolly march into prosperity and power. (Similarly, men considered chauvinists today may, if living in the 1950's, often have been regarded as cool and smooth and powerful - kinda like James Bond or something. Like smoking cigarettes has stupidly been seen as cool).

In other words... Maybe they were in control. Maybe they were out of control. But, society lumped all these guys together as being, GOOD CONTROLLERS in systems that were BOOMING. They were regarded well, and were more respected. That's why people chose to bite their lips and not mention certain things - kinda like the mores in Japan today. All for the greater good. Stick it out, and eventually we will all arrive at the end of the rainbow, all happy and free. And, well, a lot of that actually panned out. A lot didn't. If you see today's collapsing empire as following from those days of modernism, then I would agree that most of those "lies," back in the 1950's, did NOT pan out well at all. Look at the mess we're in now.

(BTW - why did they attack the WTC Twin Towers? They were THE ULTIMATE SYMBOL OF THAT AGE OF MODERNISM).

Well, who can separate how much of the 1950's was great because of common economics, from how much was great because we were an IMPERIAL COUNTRY screwing - controlling - the world? But when systems run smoothly, then so do social dynamics and politics, pretty much. Therefore, men in general, or those in control, are basically respected more, and life is easier for them, while still harder for smaller minorities. That is to say, those who CONTROL are appreciated for their apparent control and methods - and economic theories - and plans - and cruelties - etc.

So, you see what I'm trying to say here? Control is not always bad, and not always good. As far as it can be defined, it is what it is: a double-edged sword. A two-way street.

So - now we have elites, and a respective population, which is more and more investing itself in a status quo which has become seen, by many such as madman101, as being mainly unviable - and this is referring to oil, our centralised money and capital systems, the always-grow systems, even the reliance on labour as defining the genesis of value - wherein contending forces like the internet are imposing. These CONTROLLING elites can therefore be seen as largely screwing things up and destroying the future. Fearing as much, they may be interpreted as fearing becoming OUT OF CONTROL, and are therefore psychologically, indeed, OUT OF CONTROL. Their investments, mainly, are going into what can be seen as failing systems. But they won't see it. Just like craven idiots of the 1950's, they can not see the destruction that lies ahead, resulting from their continuing, addictive control, and manners of denial. Yes? See what I'm saying? It all links together.

Elite systems and paradigms of "authority" - autocracies as defined by history - are not wont to give up control so easy. Not only because their higher brains are convinced that they are on the right track - e.g., Bernanke, Greenspan, Bush, etc. - but also because their BODIES INSIST ON CONTINUING THE PATH OF DESTROY-AND-DENY, as part of the fight/flight reflex, well-rationalised by high-minded theory, (e.g., SUPPLY-SIDE), as so much of their much-WANTED, ("NEEDED"), MONEY - (a "thing in itself") - is invested in the status quo - e.g., loans, derivatives, etc. So, if they do manage to lend out money, they keep lending out money to those up-and-comers who only support a status quo future. Ain't gonna happen like that, yo.

So - "control" is a relative concept, unless, of course, it becomes plainly apparent that the systems of control are actually destroying the planet and causing mass extinctions - then, um, even if the conservative talk show hosts continue to lie, as all gamblers do, well then that sort of control needs to be transformed or removed.


[Resuming 7:30pm same night]: (But maybe by then we will be in space, mining for gold, and prophylactics, and Bitcoins).

How is control a relative, or ambiguous, concept?

As discussed, when we look back on times-gone-by, only we in retrospect can judge, or estimate, to what degree certain controls were useful. Men and women of the times, back then, though adamant in their philosophies, religions and approaches, were in fact, deep down, not really sure what they were doing. So, always pretend strength when under more stress, yes? DENY DENY DENY. But, the thing is, they really convinced themselves, en mass, that they had a good grip on reality. But, really, they were a collective gaggle of GAMBLERS. But, the point is, it is HISTORY which judges the success of past attempts to control - and, "History is written by the winners." I.e., even then, we simply refer to abstract philosophies or theories, en mass, to help us judge the NOW, and so the THEN.

Related to the whole, "in retrospect," thing, control is also relative because THE FUTURE cannot really be predicted - or created, or controlled. (In fact, we control nothig, but more on this esoteric idea later). As I said, unbeknownst to even the most deluded, or the most skilled, players, all "controllers" are really GAMBLERS, in the denial of their addiction. Therefore, control is ambiguous, up until it is judged to be a success. And, sufficient to the times, the way control is "proved" to be "successful" - (or is denied to be unsuccessful) - is through some EMOTIONAL PAY-OFF. That could mean, until the gambling machine finally, (randomly), starts ringing and flashing, and lets out a bucket-load of coins. The player assumes this is a result of his planning and predicting and CONTROL. So, he or she is overjoyed, because he or she just made a whole lot of "MONEY"! But money is not the same thing as reality, as we now know, looking at the Fed's policy of "QUANTITATIVE EASING." Money is the Monopoly money - of a GAME. It is given some value only to the extent that we, trusting together, agree to give it some value. But, the gambler sees his winnings as A THING IN ITSELF, and so enjoys this emotional pay-off, "proving" the correctness of his (somewhat superstitious) "control."

When we receive an emotional pay-off, like this, it is our BODIES agreeing that our higher brains, dealing in their associations, concepts and their INFORMATIONS, have been correct - correctly planning, and grabbing food, and conquering obstacles, and such. I.e., in overcoming entropy, as it threatens to annihilate OUR BODIES. Another, almost essential and ubiquitous emotional pay-off is in SEX. Even if the elite psychopaths gambling on their DERIVATIVES INVESTMENTS may be selling their souls, and the store, investing, as they are, in effectively gross SUPERSTITIONS, they can still delude themselves that they are being SUCCESSFUL in their controls, since they keep coming into increasing supplies of money, SEX, or approvals via cult ideologies, or vacuous absolutes of the higher (social) brain. Rationalising carnal knowledge.


[Resumed 8:45 same night]: Another way control is ambiguous? Well, when we think of control, we often think of forceful, or militant, control - or at least of physical skill, as in an athlete. Or, we think of school teachers commanding respect through the force of their authority, if not their conniving. These are actually more basic kinds of control, as opposed to more subtle, associative, higher-brain, or ZEN control. I'll just call this Zen control for now. Well, when we are in Zen control, we are moving things about in a PARTICIPATORY, or democratic, manner. The "force of wills" merge and cooperate. This is when our brain waves resonate with the dualities and rhythms of the smaller beings or bits or particles. If there is ambiguity here, it is spread out into a kind of energy, rife with life. This is where we tune into the wonders and ways of the universe, and find inspiration, sometimes in the form of, "Eureka" moments, dreams, or psychic experiences. But, if our bodies are nervous and afraid, well, our bodies get priority, and they step in and say, "OK, Congressional Neo-Cortex, we are shutting you down! Now it is time for rule by the mob! The body politic."

So, on the other hand, when we slip into our nervous body's Reptilian and/or Limbic mode(s), then control is very black vs. white - very fight vs. flight. So, in one moment, we may think we are in control of some fight, and then in the next, we are running for our lives. So, in this way, control is very ambiguous - because outcomes are more and more unpredictable, and/or mistaken, since, hey, the forebrain has been removed, so what do you expect?

Similarly: The Nethers. Recall that I discerned that there was some kind of DESIRE thing going on w/ N-Girl, towards me. And yet, ironically, she is all of the sudden attacking me, banging on the walls, attempting to hold their Reptilian relationship together. This is what would be expected in a society based on FEAR, etc. So, control, at this emotional level, can be an ambiguous confusion, forever between FEAR and DESIRE. Here, I suggest looking into Buddhist, Zen, etc., writings on the meanings of "FEAR" and "DESIRE", and how they both, "tie us to this lower world." Also, do not forget that manic or addictive or psychopathic control attempts often end in PARADOXICAL BEHAVIOUR OR RESULTS, where, e.g., in sex, pain becomes pleasure, and vice versa. This is an aspect of our existence, just as the law of the jungle is an aspect, along with cooperation and altruism, etc.

TBC - (resting now due to oncoming headache. Look out!!!).

[Resumed 9:20pm same night]: Where control is ambiguous, as in a culture of FEAR, or in the mind-games of the filthy rich, then tensions may be resolved by bullies or other "authorities" into defining what ambiguous situation may in fact be, e.g., AN INCIDENT OF RACISM. When a fearful society elects leaders to mae these interpretations for it, transforming ambiuity into negative events, conducive to the desires or wants of the elites, and manipulative of the fears or needs of the poor, then social PRIVATE anxieties become externalised, and so a public turning occurs, externalising blame, against "foreign" or objectified and dehumanised enemies or enemy-groups. Thus riots against established authorities may occur, or wars defending established authorities may occur, etc. - it all depends on the situation and circumstances. (Just a tantalising little note: all of market capitalism, through, e.g., the decades of the last century, can be seen as a very slow unfolding of this very same process of externalising blame, coming out of one system of moral control, setting new values, moving into some new system of moral control - but this is an economic discussion for later posts).

When we speak about control, what we are speaking about is mainly an attempt to PREDICT, and then to manipulate, something in reality. (In between these is the PLANNING of how to manipulate, which also requires the ability to predict outcomes). These three elements are what "control" is generally made of, as far as I see it. Psychologically, control has a lot to do with personal interpretations and perceptions and emotions. And, control can be filtered through ideologies of manipulation and of denial, where control may be completely and openly asserted, or where control may be completely denied. In its ambiguity, there is a lot of room for defining who is "controlling." And, when we say, "The Banksters are in control," we often seem to be able to easilly reconcile with the simultaneous concept that the banksters are completely OUT OF CONTROL!" Well, what is meant is that the banksters command the system, but do not know what they are doing - endangering our futures as they are. In other words, they are in control, behind the wheel, but are out of control, running us off a cliff.

So, this being in control, yet fearing being OUT OF CONTROL is really a psychological conflict between what one is TRYING, and what may really LIE AHEAD. So, we look at them and cry, "Lies! All lies!" But they believe their own lies, and, in their heads, they insist on feeling RIGHT, on the best path, or else they would not have the courage to venture on so. So foolishly, but yeah.

People are everywhere blaming each other for vicissitudes of the weather, and other such natural, "mistakes." Back in the old days, people got religion, and this allowed them to collectively "predict," or superstitiously guess at, the weather, and also to focus their collective blame. (Religions are, for one thing, a way of systemitising superstitious control, and blaming certain people or entities for mistakes or blasphemies upon that control). But the mistake is truly made when people think that PREDICTING the weather, (superstitious though that may be), is the same thing as MANIPULATING the weather. We select authorities to make us think that we are able to manipulate and control reality, when such is ultimately never true. We vainly assume that our social will can somehow overcome fate. (This is an inherent flaw of being itself - the ego). We are today making the same mistake, in a fundamentalist mindset, only towards the eventual collapse of our empire.

I am presently feeling that I am becoming too ill or tired to do this post justice. So I hope to do a PART TWO, where I will pick up on these tail-end ideas, and bring the whole thing forward.

But first I want to mention that when we PREDICT, in our attempt to control, then we are simply measuring or OBSERVING. Ultimately, we cannot predict the smallest of particles, and so, ultimately, we shall fail at predicting - and controlling - any macro reality or system or economy. The National Security State is antithetical to the basic tenets of this country's beliefs, which have some allowance, (e.g., Deist theology), for this wrong "worldliness" of control, or Magog, or whatever - Mamon or something...

I'd also like to mention that since control is fundamentally ambiguous in all these ways, there arises in a society or environment the need for basic rules of conduct, such as common law, the Magna Carta, the Inalienable Rights, constitutions - and REGULATIONS OF ECONOMIES - in order to facilitate some kind of agreed-upon control approach. Otherwise, its back to the RULE BY SPITE, etc.

Finally, since control is ambiguous, so much depends on will, interpretation, belief, faith, psychic force, or PLACEBO, to make control become real or a success. So much depends upon the wider divine. Those resonating brain waves. The finest associations. What we see, we change.

And, so, what is DENIAL? What is PLACEBO? What is "moving forward"? What is TRANSCENDENCE? Sadly, and magically, these are all earth-bound concepts, and none is not a double-edged sword. A two-way street. What is control?

The essence of the worldly need to CONTROL is the very fear of being OUT of control.

Who am I? What am I doing here?

OK - more later.
Tags: +++, psychology - control

  • The Science of Woops

    Arthur W. Galston (April 21, 1920 – June 15, 2008) was an American botanist and bioethicist. As a plant biologist, Galston studied the…

  • The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

    They are saying that, "Politics makes strange bed-fellows," regarding Bernie's support of Trump regarding the TPP. But the TPP was the…

  • The Wasteland

    I got a card from a young woman (married) whom I have not communicated with since High School. She sent me a $20 bill. This was in response to a…

  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded