On the Spiritually Ill.

On the Spiritually Ill.

' 

"Disorder" seems to imply permanence and genetic determination. "Neurosis", as Jung used it, refers to a temporary symptom of entirely psychological (not psychiatric) mal-adaptation, such as Frankl's Noogenic Neurosis (the result of not having Meaning in one's life). I really hope that what you said about the diagnostic manual's decision to "up-date" the term is not true.'

By rejecting all neurosis as being genetic in origin we marginalize the Neurotic. The Neurotic is isolated from Society, taught to believe that he must fend for his self without support from others. This renders him a likely social deviant. The disorder to begin with is entirely constructed and imposed. As every attempt the individual makes to assert his lost humanity is rejected on the grounds of this Ad Hominem [“He is sick, so clearly what he says cannot have rational value”], he becomes more neurotic as the environment grows more Kafkaesque. Strangers and even friends re-enforce the notion that he requires treatment simply because they feel justified in his mis-treatment. He is VISIBLY neurotic, but no one wants to help him along his path to psychological recovery by resolving the deep underlying cognitive dissonances of his Absurd situation which make it hard for him to function and find sense in any thing. The situation was from the beginning entirely mental, but we labeled it physical so that we would not have to address our own mental insecurities and uncertainties.

Dm.A.A.

Hate as an Assigned Label.

Hate as an Assigned Label.

Aversion to homosexuality is not intrinsically hateful, but because we co-create reality. “Hate” is just a way to describe an emotion. By labeling homophobia hateful, one creates that, because the grim miracle of human interactions is that the Other all ways has authority over the essence of your actions, et cetera by offering you a mirror in the absence of a personal self-knowledge, even if you have some choice in rejecting the presence of that essence.

Dm.A.A

The problem with all reactionary art.

The problem with all reactionary art like Brinn's piece is that the ethical surface is the first thing to go and be scrubbed off by the natural deconstructing agents of the Unconscious. What remains is the Suggestion: the visceral content of the prose that against our will and admission seduces us with the example it sets of male behavior. Rape fantasies must not have their origin in Nature but in suggestion, but Art only perpetuates them! The media is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and Jung's words are as foreboding as ever: what you resist truly persists. The craving to rape, stifled by a strong ego but then re-directed as savage aggression towards those who have the nerve to force the fantasy into reality, is not a function of the 'body' but of the 'mind': it is social, for while one public ally condemns the rapist as a scape-goat the condemnation is only impotent and superficial. In truth: that forbidden urge is the Cognitive Dissonance which all moral reasoning strives to resolve: how can it be that there are men (or women) who do this? Sartre enters the picture. Surely the man Must be human, for his behavior is disgusting to Others. Yet that means that what he is doing is an example for all humans or at least all men. So how can I condemn him without acknowledging the validity of his example? It can only be done perhaps by recognizing the potentiality but rising above it, not by projecting that potentiality upon the scape-goat but by owning it as a part of one's self. This is much more difficult than the indignant veneer of condemnation which usually amounts only to semantics on self-defense.

DM.a.a.

Because most people are not spiritual!

Because most people are not spiritual!

What the hell do you MEAN? I am not referring to something arbitrary or voluntary like the *law*. I am referring to something entirely INVOLUNTARY. I am talking about the incontrovertible presence of God in everything that we only PRETEND not to attend to.

Well, not everyone believes in that.

Shut the fuck up. I’m not buying it. It doesn’t matter whether you believe it or not. I am talking just about the fact that for any SANE person every aspect of the material world is an entirely personal extension of the Self with its own Authority and Tenacity, that not one of these can one avail one’s self of as a means to an end without committing an infraction against one’s own Soul, that the technological mind-set is an evil that we try to drop like a drug, because in this mode of phenomenological inquiry the object is not honored as being both unitive and distinct, and everything has a kind of manic glow that evidences that we are floating in space and are dwarfed by the presence of Nature in everything. So Common Sense basically. [Andrew throws his arms in the air.]

I am all so talking about the basic fact that in all these things there is a teleology and a directionality in Time, for the game of symbols in our minds by which we devised a Chain of Being and a Utilitarian system of reasoning are not in any way related to this World, nor can they ever be, and so every seemingly cynical claim is just an invitation to deconstruct it, every rule an invitation to break it, because we all know that we are living in paradise and that this pretense towards hatred is a game because sanity its self dictates that we not mire our natural beholding of everything (as Love, as the Sun-like smile of a mother) with some artistic construct of the “Modern Man”, as though we turned a kaleidoscope and everything became fucked up, as though we and not Nature and God possessed God-like powers to deem the world “fallen” even as we hypocritically put down our selves by severance from it. I mean, come on. Common Sense. I LIKE pretending that’s not the state of things. But sometimes I just get tired of it.

Dm.A.A.

Because most people are not spiritual!

Because most people are not spiritual!

What the hell do you MEAN? I am not referring to something arbitrary or voluntary like the *law*. I am referring to something entirely INVOLUNTARY. I am talking about the incontrovertible presence of God in everything that we only PRETEND not to attend to.

Well, not everyone believes in that.

Shut the fuck up. I’m not buying it. It doesn’t matter whether you believe it or not. I am talking just about the fact that for any SANE person every aspect of the material world is an entirely personal extension of the Self with its own Authority and Tenacity, that not one of these can one avail one’s self of as a means to an end without committing an infraction against one’s own Soul, that the technological mind-set is an evil that we try to drop like a drug, because in this mode of phenomenological inquiry the object is not honored as being both unitive and distinct, and everything has a kind of manic glow that evidences that we are floating in space and are dwarfed by the presence of Nature in everything. So Common Sense basically. [Andrew throws his arms in the air.]

I am all so talking about the basic fact that in all these things there is a teleology and a directionality in Time, for the game of symbols in our minds by which we devised a Chain of Being and a Utilitarian system of reasoning are not in any way related to this World, nor can they ever be, and so every seemingly cynical claim is just an invitation to deconstruct it, every rule an invitation to break it, because we all know that we are living in paradise and that this pretense towards hatred is a game because sanity its self dictates that we not mire our natural beholding of everything (as Love, as the Sun-like smile of a mother) with some artistic construct of the “Modern Man”, as though we turned a kaleidoscope and everything became fucked up, as though we and not Nature and God possessed God-like powers to deem the world “fallen” even as we hypocritically put down our selves by severance from it. I mean, come on. Common Sense. I LIKE pretending that’s not the state of things. But sometimes I just get tired of it.

Dm.A.A.

M.A.H.O.T.Po.C.M. 1

M.A.H.O.T.Po.C.M. 1

Myths and Hypocrisies of the Politically Correct Movement.

Reflections from a student of Philosophy, particularly Phenomenology.

Myth #1: Women are exploited by the mass media for their sexual appeal, thereby disempowered. In truth: Women consensually participate in music videos and stage performances that allow them to express their femininity, which includes their sexuality. One need never feel guilty for feeling a sense of attraction to them. (The same applies to men.) If one does, it all ways reveals an underlying insecurity about one’s own feeling. Keep in mind that we “notice” in Art really what we project our selves. It may in fact be there and be intended, but we cannot become aware of it without entertaining the possibility of it first.

Life is oft a struggle between the will to dominate and the will to love. Sexuality is a form of Love, whereas Ideology is an attempt to dominate. The will to power cannot comprehend Love except in its own terms. Hence Political Thought insists that the origin of sexual attraction is “social conditioning”. Yet in fact there is no such thing as a “definite society”. “Society” is all ways a projection of the individual psyche, because no two of us are exposed to the same sum total of people. What we find at fault with Society is therefore a projection of our selves.

Why, if Society is an individual phenomenon, does it appear to be pervasive and unitive? The answer is that Love is sparse and power is strong. The Astrological Community explains that this period in history (The Age of Pisces and Era of Pisces, as well as the Epoch of Pisces) is bound to be fraught with “false prophecy” and rigid systems of control. Fascism operates in such a way that a large mass of people believe in a Truth without having the nerve to question it, thus internalizing it, however dubious, out of fear and making it their ethical calculus rather than going by their own inner hearts and intuitions. College campuses are proliferated with hostility towards the individual, drawing attention only to history’s scapegoats while ignoring the inevitability that without a proper guiding light any one of us risks committing the same evil (in fact, moreso to the degree that we are swayed or enflamed by it).

Perhaps only a minority of women and only a minority of men have the raw nerve and power to be sexually empowered. These will be the kind of Strong class that make it to the top. The system is not corrupt, and whatever corruption exists within it is still manageable to the talented musician and entrepreneur.

Simply that these individuals (and I am thinking specifically of women) “conform” to a “sexual standard” is nothing more than a reflection of the hostile power attitude that looks at its own attraction with scorn and thereby label and project their own distorted views of sexuality upon the art. Whatever conformity may be apparent is to Nature, not to society or ideology. Since “conforming to society” is all ways done poorly, revealed in its earliest attempts to be a neurotic reaction to one’s own narcissistic projection, the sense of confidence that these women employ should be evidence to the contrary: They are powerful individuals. The only question is: Do YOU have the nerve to admit that you are attracted to them? Or do you lapse into Power and a feeble imitation of Goodness that seems strong because of the façade put on by others in the Cultural Marxist, Politically Correct Movement? Whatever your choice, do not blame others for your own desires. (This is of course directed primarily at men, but to be safe I will extend this to women and invite them all so to examine the men in these videos in a similar light.)

Dm.A.A.

On the Death of Science.

On the Death of Science.

When I was younger, (Well, I all ways was younger, ostensibly.) I took a college-level class in Biology while I was in high school. I did not do very well in the class, but that ought not to count against me except as an emotional appeal to Authority. Many of my peers who had once known and prized my company for being “smart” had now lost touch with me in their pursuits of impressive Grade-Point Averages, with varying degrees of ethicality in the process. Me: The leaves and even the branches of the educational tree were beginning to fall off for me.

I had been an avid reader as a student (Well, I had all most all ways been a student.), and yet I was all ways cautious to segregate the frame of reference that was fantasy in literature from the immediate Reality of my experience. Camus’ Nostalgia for Unity had all ready become apparent to me, however anonymously: How much I longed to escape into the world of Harry Potter, with its aesthetic perfection, even though this life abounded in many joys and Harry Potter too was not without its sorrows.

There was a simple and direct reason that, every Wednesday that Brick’s Biology Class had a mandatory laboratory “experiment”, I would lag behind my partner, whose passionless fervour for grades would render her impenetrable to me. I could never find it in my heart to relate the words I had pored passionlessly over in the overwrought text-book to the immediacy of my experience; it would have been the same mad, Romantic fallacy as had I projected the qualities of the Ideal Woman, coupled with and filtered through my memories of my current mate, upon that very mate and claimed to “know” her. Yet my partner had no trouble in doing this, and she made it into one of the good schools.

What I would come to learn much later was that there was a good reason why I had grown to distrust and ultimately jettison science. Derrida would have probably called it a “logocentric epistemology”. I learned the hard way, from the afore-mentioned Romanticism, that this sort of spirited attitude, a manifestation of the kind of Sisyphian Hope that Camus spoke of, that science in fact does not work in Real Life.

Dm.A.A.