GRAMMATIZING THE ESCHATON
American history is now totally corrupted by the accumulated contradictions to its official*narrative, as spun by the 24/7 news cycle. Too many know too much about too many crucial things for it* to continue. Whatever is asserted by a politician, government official, even military man must be negated (taken back, apologized for) as soon as it is said.
This is a minimal generalization from reading Jesse Ventura’s “AMERICAN CONSPIRACIES: Lies, Lies and more dirty lies the Government tells us.”
Ventura’s excellent accounts expose many inconsistencies between what has become the Official Narrative of the “American Conspiracies” he considers, from Lincoln’s assassination, to Wall Street and The Secret Plans to End American Democracy, (Chapter 14) …(between these) and specific facts, as well or better attested to than those the O*N are based on. It’s one hell of an ass kicking book.
(Philosophical note. On a formal meta-language for neutral discussion of the issues in context.)
Ventura’s prose is the vernacular of American folk-talk of the ‘10’s. “Jesse The Body” is everyman’s everyman. Here’s Willie Nelson, …many from the old crew rising, let it be. How we talk it is how it is.
In constructing a formal grammar for discussing the incidents he takes up, and what we are left with in considering them, I shall use these abbreviations:
****
BMT*(S*ii O*N (<= S*iA*H)) This expression is synonymous with:
*Big Media Tokens predicating on the Official*Narrative resulting from Actual *Happenings. Asterisks mark psychosemiotic juxtapositions within the same sign-meme.
It is needed as a schematic to represent the levels of discourse, with the gaps between them grammatically bridged (“predicated on”, “<=”) to constitute a new unit available for further use. Such constructions, though complex, allow accuracy in repeated recurrence of the same ideas, memory loops, in the narrative content of “America”.
****
This work establishes a divergence between two streams of “how we talk”, two grammars of Sign-use. Here is a "double" that puts them together squarely: "We* prefer to be lied to ably, than told the truth, boldly," (Sheff’s acute phrasing.)
The split is glossed over in the media of mass communication by sign-uses Freud called “compromise formations”. (cf “reaction formation”; ‘formations’ being S* complexes mechanically repeated in situations, as in memes, mantras, rhyms and rythms). These “bridge the gap” between people’s different “takes” or understandings by conjoining all content with its negation (sarcastic, mocking, scornful).
Ex.: “Truthers”, “birthers”, “nutjobs”, “leftists,” loonies,” “extremists”, “dangerous conservatives”, “blathering idiots” and the like)
Perhaps the best touch of sarcasm is Chapter 10: “But what’s important in this whole thing is that tour policy has always been consistent…” –Oliver North, PBS FRONTLINE interview )
PSYCHOSEMIOTIC FORM => FRAME OF INTELLECTUAL (brain 1) PERCEPTION This organizes intuition of form in communication
***
note to above
S*i for “the Official Narrative “ (S*i(O*N)<= “S* stand in place of O*N salva vertate throughout TokenSpace. S*ii for a distinct, but psychosemiotically related, sign use for “Contradictory Fact” (C*F). Thus: S*i & S*ii represents the conjunction of Official Narratives and Contradictory Facts, for these incidents.
Common discourse has yet to coin a term for Big Token Incidents*, Ex. “JFK’s Assassination” – those S* carried in all the mainstream media of communication so psychologically shocking to the normal flow of process* that they become assimilated as “We” content of the collective grammar. Constituent of the American Group-process, whatever other narratives are constructed. I token them here “BTI*”. Thus, alongside the BTI* Ventura considered could be included, through similar research; the OKC bombing, Columbine, the anthrax poison letters following 9.11, and a host of other stock examples all other various historical narratives must include. “We” content, for the American Group-Process, whoever participates. But now split as (S*i & S*ii)
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Dialectic of The Holy (religion and existentialism)
Chapter 4 Dialectic of Religion and Existentialism, Hegel, Instinct and Projection
Alternate Frames
Existentialistics (as an “I” position for self-and-others): non-religious completion of conscious “I” totality vs. thought. Religious sign-use frames the conscious totality “under God”. The same conscious totality is framed in non-religious sign-use as “existentialism”. The same generality, or inclusive application, of binding limits of private tokenspace are subsumed under both “God” and “What Is”, relative to different token levels. Thus, existentialists can understand what religionists communicate, though they do not make assertions using the sacral terms, by aesthetic resonance to echoed holiness. There is freedom of choice in the level of sign-use for the totality in texting tokens (QIII).
****
The Case for Religion
Karmic feedback from projecting texts for the totality: looping in their measure of the Holy.
The religious S* user will say to the existentialist: “you are depriving yourself of karmic feedback by not speaking religious language, though the intonations may reverberate privately at higher notes in the octave. What is latent should be made manifest in order not to lose integrity of personal frame over the developmental life trajectory from birth to death. Nothing external can do this except by reflection (‘projection’). The opposite view leads to idolatry, worship of objects as Holy. Yet, projections from womb existence, birth trauma, libido-proprioceptive impressions proceed ‘instinctively’, whenever a flow-of-energy event draws content aroused (‘loops in’) these developmental levels. From them arise the unconscious group-fantasies acted out in public tokenspace.”
…
Existentialist Reply
The non-religious existentialist may well reply thus: “Advancing projection of the Holy in public Tokenspace, as opposed to private, is refuted by Hitler’s Germany. “Die Fuehrer” cathected instinctive reaction of folk-Germans to projected Holiness. “Heil” is short for “Heilege”. ”Heilege Nacht” -- Holy Night -- is sung every Christmas the world over to echo Incarnation of the Holy. But German blood consciousness would not have regarded this bond as idolatrous, but a manifestation of the Holy Spirit itself, according to Hegel’s notion that The Trinity culminated world history after the Incarnation in Prussian Spirituality.”
If religious sign-use frames factual discourse, then the dialectic of religion and existentialism as alternate grammars of self-reference, (this dialectic) turns on issues pertaining to idolatry and communication of The Holy. Psychosemiotics holds that the subjective unity connecting a completed life trajectory of life “on the token side”, requires some resonance of fetal origins from which the sense of holiness originates, as a completing factor. Such projection completes consciousness, not thought. On the other hand, projections of the Holy lead by group-blood instinct to Church-State fascism. Herein is the proposed meta-frame for a new level of dialectic.
*****
Dialectic, Antinomy, Irony and Self-Contradiction
Dialectic: Predication of incompatible alternates of/on the same subject term. Ex.: The self-professed “orthodox” wing of Judaism projecting use of The Bible as Holy deed to Jerusalem. Christians reject use of the Old Testament as vehicle of The Holy apart from the New Testament . The Orthodox Jewish projection forecloses the symbol of union of opposites in the Incarnation. This private group-fantasy is politically shielded from negation by respect for the Name. Because the Germans used it (‘Judenhassen’ for badgering Jews), “Name the Jew” is dialectically potentiated by “Orthodoxy”. What Freud identified as the “reaction-formation” mechanism, built into the grammar of “anti-Semitism”, is “knocked off” by discourse that “names the Jew”. It now comes down to a metaphysics of The Holy in history.
*****
Antinomy -When both sides of a contradiction can be proven <= when asserted, reality foreclosed under self-contradiction (Note: unreconstructed grammar of ordinary language allows asserted foreclosure.)
-of pure reason <= Kant: Space is both finite (bounded) and infinite (unbounded) in extent; -both infinitely and non-infinitely divisible into particles. Similarly, temporal duration is both finite (“time had a beginning and will end”) and infinite (“time did not begin, will not end”). In these and other points of medieval controversy unresolved in the Modern era, Kant shows the contradictions reason led to, proving both sides of these propositions, arose from silent assumption (unconscious projection) of a subjective factor as objective – in this case, space and time. The fact that assuming they had objective existence led to antinomies was Kant’s argument for showing their subjectivity. He called space and time “forms of sensory intuition”; apriori conditions of phenomenal given-ness; only constructs of dinge an sich. This doctrine of subjectivity of perceived space ant time was the radical edge of 18th-19th century Idealist metaphysics. Acceptance of the irrefutably established anatomical mediation of knowledge of the external world by sense perception framed the issues later philosophers were required to work through.
Hegel’s philosophy elaborated Kant’s Idealist – Realist dialectic of perceptual knowledge as historical, absorbing both space, time, and all contradictions into the Absolute –his version of the completing totality – as partial perspectives. This theme, of The Absolute resolving all possible contradictions of reason within itself is continued in the Scottish philosopher T.H. Green, and Britain’s F.H Bradley in the late 1800’s. Dialectically trumped, to use its own terms, by G.E. Moore and Bertrand Russell’s phenomenal ‘realism’ (“sense datum” theory of perception).
Alternate Frames
Existentialistics (as an “I” position for self-and-others): non-religious completion of conscious “I” totality vs. thought. Religious sign-use frames the conscious totality “under God”. The same conscious totality is framed in non-religious sign-use as “existentialism”. The same generality, or inclusive application, of binding limits of private tokenspace are subsumed under both “God” and “What Is”, relative to different token levels. Thus, existentialists can understand what religionists communicate, though they do not make assertions using the sacral terms, by aesthetic resonance to echoed holiness. There is freedom of choice in the level of sign-use for the totality in texting tokens (QIII).
****
The Case for Religion
Karmic feedback from projecting texts for the totality: looping in their measure of the Holy.
The religious S* user will say to the existentialist: “you are depriving yourself of karmic feedback by not speaking religious language, though the intonations may reverberate privately at higher notes in the octave. What is latent should be made manifest in order not to lose integrity of personal frame over the developmental life trajectory from birth to death. Nothing external can do this except by reflection (‘projection’). The opposite view leads to idolatry, worship of objects as Holy. Yet, projections from womb existence, birth trauma, libido-proprioceptive impressions proceed ‘instinctively’, whenever a flow-of-energy event draws content aroused (‘loops in’) these developmental levels. From them arise the unconscious group-fantasies acted out in public tokenspace.”
…
Existentialist Reply
The non-religious existentialist may well reply thus: “Advancing projection of the Holy in public Tokenspace, as opposed to private, is refuted by Hitler’s Germany. “Die Fuehrer” cathected instinctive reaction of folk-Germans to projected Holiness. “Heil” is short for “Heilege”. ”Heilege Nacht” -- Holy Night -- is sung every Christmas the world over to echo Incarnation of the Holy. But German blood consciousness would not have regarded this bond as idolatrous, but a manifestation of the Holy Spirit itself, according to Hegel’s notion that The Trinity culminated world history after the Incarnation in Prussian Spirituality.”
If religious sign-use frames factual discourse, then the dialectic of religion and existentialism as alternate grammars of self-reference, (this dialectic) turns on issues pertaining to idolatry and communication of The Holy. Psychosemiotics holds that the subjective unity connecting a completed life trajectory of life “on the token side”, requires some resonance of fetal origins from which the sense of holiness originates, as a completing factor. Such projection completes consciousness, not thought. On the other hand, projections of the Holy lead by group-blood instinct to Church-State fascism. Herein is the proposed meta-frame for a new level of dialectic.
*****
Dialectic, Antinomy, Irony and Self-Contradiction
Dialectic: Predication of incompatible alternates of/on the same subject term. Ex.: The self-professed “orthodox” wing of Judaism projecting use of The Bible as Holy deed to Jerusalem. Christians reject use of the Old Testament as vehicle of The Holy apart from the New Testament . The Orthodox Jewish projection forecloses the symbol of union of opposites in the Incarnation. This private group-fantasy is politically shielded from negation by respect for the Name. Because the Germans used it (‘Judenhassen’ for badgering Jews), “Name the Jew” is dialectically potentiated by “Orthodoxy”. What Freud identified as the “reaction-formation” mechanism, built into the grammar of “anti-Semitism”, is “knocked off” by discourse that “names the Jew”. It now comes down to a metaphysics of The Holy in history.
*****
Antinomy -When both sides of a contradiction can be proven <= when asserted, reality foreclosed under self-contradiction (Note: unreconstructed grammar of ordinary language allows asserted foreclosure.)
-of pure reason <= Kant: Space is both finite (bounded) and infinite (unbounded) in extent; -both infinitely and non-infinitely divisible into particles. Similarly, temporal duration is both finite (“time had a beginning and will end”) and infinite (“time did not begin, will not end”). In these and other points of medieval controversy unresolved in the Modern era, Kant shows the contradictions reason led to, proving both sides of these propositions, arose from silent assumption (unconscious projection) of a subjective factor as objective – in this case, space and time. The fact that assuming they had objective existence led to antinomies was Kant’s argument for showing their subjectivity. He called space and time “forms of sensory intuition”; apriori conditions of phenomenal given-ness; only constructs of dinge an sich. This doctrine of subjectivity of perceived space ant time was the radical edge of 18th-19th century Idealist metaphysics. Acceptance of the irrefutably established anatomical mediation of knowledge of the external world by sense perception framed the issues later philosophers were required to work through.
Hegel’s philosophy elaborated Kant’s Idealist – Realist dialectic of perceptual knowledge as historical, absorbing both space, time, and all contradictions into the Absolute –his version of the completing totality – as partial perspectives. This theme, of The Absolute resolving all possible contradictions of reason within itself is continued in the Scottish philosopher T.H. Green, and Britain’s F.H Bradley in the late 1800’s. Dialectically trumped, to use its own terms, by G.E. Moore and Bertrand Russell’s phenomenal ‘realism’ (“sense datum” theory of perception).
Friday, April 23, 2010
Religion : The World : : existentialistics : facts
Chapter One: New I AM* a’rising
Chapter Two: How Symbols, expressing marriage of opposites, bond individual-group consciousness in communication.
CHAPTER THREE
From What Is Is … To What It Is To Be
(Existentialistics)
(Question to philosophers: If “is” is not a predicate, what can possibly be the referent of “existentialism”? The answer proposed here: Secularist (trans-religious) group TokenSpace totality.)
S* is
In addressing a popular audience on an important philosophical point, Bertrand Russell advised “Start with a premise no one can deny and proceeding irrefutably step by step to a conclusion no one will accept.” I have always held to that as an ideal, and propose to follow it here, beginning with what “is” is, as previously established in Chapters One and Two, with fresh undeniable examples.
WHAT “IS” IS .. and: What is is, and isn’t
The word “is”, in English, is used to express these logical functions: assertion, predication, class membership and inclusion, identity, existence. By derivation from contexts of use, e.g., “Jones is at home”; “the spot on the wall is blue”; “Jones is a FreeMason”; “a man is a cellular organism”; “Jones is Jones”; “Jones is”. Calling use of “is” for these functions “logical” means they are indicated in the meta language of formalized logical discourse by individually specified token inscriptions: predication by juxtaposition (‘Fa’ for “a is F”, epison e for class membership; ‘U’ for class inclusion, “=” for identity; no sign for assertion or existence. “Existence is not a predicate,” Kant noted. What it is ‘to be’, the being-ness of existing things, is shown, not said, was Wittgensteins dictum. (“existing things” is a double non-indicator). What is shown by signs used in communication, by their use, belongs to consciousness, not thought. It is the rationale, or logos, of formal logic, itself, that determines the rules for well-formed formulae. These (‘wff’ of logic text books) are required to connect all true S* into hypothetico-deductive systems (language of the organized sciences). These systems (of systems…), as a totality, constitute “the field of empirical science” <= conflating the concept of a set of indefinitely numerous particulars (‘field’ of points) and the representation, plus method by which it was devised). Again, the act of asserting that (some) S* is the case, expressed by “is” in actual predication, is similarly shown not said.
Definitions*:
“truth” => property of “S* is” when S* correlates 1-1 with fact – L. Wittgenstein)
“reality” => what is communicated by text of true S*
“phenomenality” <= being consciousness of reality, truth => including S* by-their-tokens. (The totality of content of consciousness under sign-use.)
Summary: what is phenomenal includes what is real which includes what is true.
The entire spectrum, from S*1 – cellular totality affected by sign-use; to S*7 – completing conceptual being-totality, is spanned for the individual by Religious S*. This octave* spans both the individual totality, as user of all S* of personal TokenSpace, and correlated external totality of ‘lateral planes’.
RELIGIOUS SIGN-USES (S*5.7/1 => existential totality of 2nd Brain content) FRAME PERCEPTION of lower level S*3 content of consciousness mediated by external-internal receptors in QI. They contribute the sense of “I” (S*5.7-1) linked to “God” (S*7-1) <= completion in/through the upper triad; and “Cells” (S*1) <= completion in/through the organic anatomical apparatus. Religious S* used by a person in actual conversation “go beyond” what is communicated about facts to what is communicated by the fact that they are facts* -- for the one using them. (“Use”, in psychosemiotics, is what “assertion” is to logic: the psychological activator, as it were, of the showing.)
RELIGIOUS SIGN-USE frames how facts are experienced, not what the facts are. THAT IS WHY PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT ‘RELIGIONS’ ASSUME “WE” CAN “ALL JUST GET ALONG” IN A NATION BASED ON THE PROTESTANT PRINCIPLE OF RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE.
This, however, is precisely where positivism goes wrong, ‘flips the use without the users’, negates consciousness in subordination to text. The FRAME is as real as the FACTS framed, metaphysically. This was disguised for/by Descartes by squaring the text on utterance of its tokens. (“I think..” etc.) This led to “rationalism” (“The real is the rational”) as a philosophical metaphysic. The absolute duality he drew between (mental <=unextended; and material <= extended) reality was between the upper and lower triads of consciousness, which are organized as space-to-Space, token-to-Text spanning the octave. FRAMES are as real as material fields; they are only negated as entities subject to predication when arrived at internally by sharp discrimination between what belongs to the objectively perceived field, and what belongs to the perception of it. When “the mind” is taken in essence as only the non-materiality of the body’s consciousness of it, structured through sign-use, as Descartes did, contents of consciousness contributed by the Frame are omitted from metaphysical recognition, as “God” re-enters his system back-door, as it were, after having been excluded by systematic doubt. The “back door” is inference from veracity of the text through the token –only a demon deceiver could make all things false; “I AM” must be true any time I think it; therefore God exists <= the totality completed on the subjective side, through token use, is completed on the objective side through text in Descartes’ argument. I could not not exist. (But with certainty only "as often as an "I" think(s) "I am"! -- "I"-use at one moment cannot logically bind its use at a separte and distinct moment,so using "God" to prove veracity, as if anatomical functioning played no role in binding time, does not 'square the circle' <= properly conjoin tokens of both Upper and Lower triads in the phenomenal unity of sign-use.
THE CHIEF THREAT TO AMERICA'S LIBERAL IDENTITY DETERMINED THROUGH ITS HIGHER ORDER PROCESSES IS 'ORTHODOXY': IRAELI (Kahanr), CATHOLIC (Roeder); EVANGELICAL (Westborough Baptists)
tbc
Chapter Two: How Symbols, expressing marriage of opposites, bond individual-group consciousness in communication.
CHAPTER THREE
From What Is Is … To What It Is To Be
(Existentialistics)
(Question to philosophers: If “is” is not a predicate, what can possibly be the referent of “existentialism”? The answer proposed here: Secularist (trans-religious) group TokenSpace totality.)
S* is
In addressing a popular audience on an important philosophical point, Bertrand Russell advised “Start with a premise no one can deny and proceeding irrefutably step by step to a conclusion no one will accept.” I have always held to that as an ideal, and propose to follow it here, beginning with what “is” is, as previously established in Chapters One and Two, with fresh undeniable examples.
WHAT “IS” IS .. and: What is is, and isn’t
The word “is”, in English, is used to express these logical functions: assertion, predication, class membership and inclusion, identity, existence. By derivation from contexts of use, e.g., “Jones is at home”; “the spot on the wall is blue”; “Jones is a FreeMason”; “a man is a cellular organism”; “Jones is Jones”; “Jones is”. Calling use of “is” for these functions “logical” means they are indicated in the meta language of formalized logical discourse by individually specified token inscriptions: predication by juxtaposition (‘Fa’ for “a is F”, epison e for class membership; ‘U’ for class inclusion, “=” for identity; no sign for assertion or existence. “Existence is not a predicate,” Kant noted. What it is ‘to be’, the being-ness of existing things, is shown, not said, was Wittgensteins dictum. (“existing things” is a double non-indicator). What is shown by signs used in communication, by their use, belongs to consciousness, not thought. It is the rationale, or logos, of formal logic, itself, that determines the rules for well-formed formulae. These (‘wff’ of logic text books) are required to connect all true S* into hypothetico-deductive systems (language of the organized sciences). These systems (of systems…), as a totality, constitute “the field of empirical science” <= conflating the concept of a set of indefinitely numerous particulars (‘field’ of points) and the representation, plus method by which it was devised). Again, the act of asserting that (some) S* is the case, expressed by “is” in actual predication, is similarly shown not said.
Definitions*:
“truth” => property of “S* is” when S* correlates 1-1 with fact – L. Wittgenstein)
“reality” => what is communicated by text of true S*
“phenomenality” <= being consciousness of reality, truth => including S* by-their-tokens. (The totality of content of consciousness under sign-use.)
Summary: what is phenomenal includes what is real which includes what is true.
The entire spectrum, from S*1 – cellular totality affected by sign-use; to S*7 – completing conceptual being-totality, is spanned for the individual by Religious S*. This octave* spans both the individual totality, as user of all S* of personal TokenSpace, and correlated external totality of ‘lateral planes’.
RELIGIOUS SIGN-USES (S*5.7/1 => existential totality of 2nd Brain content) FRAME PERCEPTION of lower level S*3 content of consciousness mediated by external-internal receptors in QI. They contribute the sense of “I” (S*5.7-1) linked to “God” (S*7-1) <= completion in/through the upper triad; and “Cells” (S*1) <= completion in/through the organic anatomical apparatus. Religious S* used by a person in actual conversation “go beyond” what is communicated about facts to what is communicated by the fact that they are facts* -- for the one using them. (“Use”, in psychosemiotics, is what “assertion” is to logic: the psychological activator, as it were, of the showing.)
RELIGIOUS SIGN-USE frames how facts are experienced, not what the facts are. THAT IS WHY PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT ‘RELIGIONS’ ASSUME “WE” CAN “ALL JUST GET ALONG” IN A NATION BASED ON THE PROTESTANT PRINCIPLE OF RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE.
This, however, is precisely where positivism goes wrong, ‘flips the use without the users’, negates consciousness in subordination to text. The FRAME is as real as the FACTS framed, metaphysically. This was disguised for/by Descartes by squaring the text on utterance of its tokens. (“I think..” etc.) This led to “rationalism” (“The real is the rational”) as a philosophical metaphysic. The absolute duality he drew between (mental <=unextended; and material <= extended) reality was between the upper and lower triads of consciousness, which are organized as space-to-Space, token-to-Text spanning the octave. FRAMES are as real as material fields; they are only negated as entities subject to predication when arrived at internally by sharp discrimination between what belongs to the objectively perceived field, and what belongs to the perception of it. When “the mind” is taken in essence as only the non-materiality of the body’s consciousness of it, structured through sign-use, as Descartes did, contents of consciousness contributed by the Frame are omitted from metaphysical recognition, as “God” re-enters his system back-door, as it were, after having been excluded by systematic doubt. The “back door” is inference from veracity of the text through the token –only a demon deceiver could make all things false; “I AM” must be true any time I think it; therefore God exists <= the totality completed on the subjective side, through token use, is completed on the objective side through text in Descartes’ argument. I could not not exist. (But with certainty only "as often as an "I" think(s) "I am"! -- "I"-use at one moment cannot logically bind its use at a separte and distinct moment,so using "God" to prove veracity, as if anatomical functioning played no role in binding time, does not 'square the circle' <= properly conjoin tokens of both Upper and Lower triads in the phenomenal unity of sign-use.
THE CHIEF THREAT TO AMERICA'S LIBERAL IDENTITY DETERMINED THROUGH ITS HIGHER ORDER PROCESSES IS 'ORTHODOXY': IRAELI (Kahanr), CATHOLIC (Roeder); EVANGELICAL (Westborough Baptists)
tbc
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Mysterium Conjunctionis
SHORT HISTORY OF WHAT I AM IS
CHAPTER TWO Mysterium Conjunctionis
-SYMBOLS => Union of Opposites in Upper Triad. What you know* is herein contained. (Ex.: the Word before it became Flesh: carnal incognition.)
-Or: Aquarius as The Age of Titillation
Summary of Chapter One: America’s soul has been seduced by false appropriation of Biblical => philosophical =>liberal democratic political “I AM”’s distributed mechanically each day, 24/7, throughout the population by the media of mass communication. (Ex.: Christ => Deutchbank passion)
continuing…
Objective Containers
Constructs from all token types are provided by the ambient S* of each individual’s group womb-surround (cosmic, planetary, national, local), where-whenever they exist. Each 3 brain being (person) occupies a standpoint in the objective space-time container of the womb-surround. This objective container is internalized by the person’s image of themselves acting in, and addressing, this containing totality as “audience”. Each “they/you” is an “I-Me” unfolding an individualized “Self”, in so far as it retains inner continuity between later present moments and birth. Thus, the Symbolic representation of life’s developmental trajectory as a Self will be a composite unity of the basic psychological opposites traversed at different levels and durations of S*5, “I/me” sign-uses. Graphics of the stages on this process are constructed by masters in the form of mandalas, which are thus Symbols of the Self as an Archetype. It’s* psychosemiotic form as a union of opposites is also shown in depiction of The Self, as completed totality, as Tom Thumb -- the ‘little guy” “I” on the stage of human history.
Each Zodiacal Age, being a balance of psychological opposites attained thus far by humanity, largely through The Bible in Western civilization, posits a signature Self symbol for the advancing period. Traced through “people of The Book”, as some call those educated on Bible templates, these Ages coincide with: Taurus (4000 bc) => Ram (2000 bc) => Pisces (0 bc-ad) => Aquarius (2000 ad). The Self Symbol of Pisces was Christ (‘fisher of men’); that of Aquarius is the water bearer, poured water not reaching the ground.
Some take Luke 22.10 to mark the transition from Pisces to Acquarius. In it, The Master is dispatching Peter and John to arrange a room* for himself and the twelve* disciples in which the Jewish Passover* will be observed, symbolically substituting His* body* and blood* for the bread and wine used to commemorate Moses/YHWH’s slaying of the first-born throughout Pharoahs Egypt, sparing the Children of Israel who as an enslaved Tribe, painted blood of a lamb sacrifice on their lentil. This is the deep symbolic meaning of crucifixion: a Passing-over, Squared* by Incarnation of Holy Passover “Day”remembrance: Son’s blood on the Cross <=
(overlaying) ‘redemptive’ lamb’s blood on the lintel. Against this background, the words: “Behold, when you have enered the city, a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him into the house which he enters. Then you shall say ato the master of the house, “The Teacher says to you, “Where is the guest room where I may eat the Passover with My disciples?” This is the template re-enacted in each Catholic mass to this day. Reading the symbolic S* it connects => The Christ*Word of Pisces will/has become the water poured out in Aquarius that does not hit the ground. (Leaving the esoteric meaning of this detail tbc)
***
Metaphysical Appendage
“Audience*” addressed in sign-use is Quadrant II of the S* matrix, continuing the silent, perpetual Archetypes shining in Objective TokenSpace tranquility through the containing ‘atmospheres’.
Recap: QI = SW; QII =NE; Q3=NW; Q4=SE (use left-to right bow-tie loop to link the regular N-S, E-W map quadrants ( + )
QI-- process=> QII – Audience* => QIII – token/texting (the seven token type hierarchy S*7-1)) => QIV – Resultant (actual S* sequence => karmic feedback through re-uptake of S* in QI <= completed transit of all four quadrants of tokenspace, as an internal totality, in any actual occasion of sign-use. ) (cf. “Mad Cow” recycle)
The S*7-1 (QIII) on each person’s private* Wall (*phenomenal content of consciousness), are linked ‘on the other side of the nose bridge’ to other’s use of the same S*. As when A says to B: “Do you see the blue spot on the wall over there?”, and B responds “I do”; so that the same (roughly speaking; allowing for variation in the percepts) color quality is present in two distinct visual fields under the predicate “blue”. When the word “blue” is exchanged in conversation without a visual quality, it is said to communicate by means of “the idea of blue”. Each normal person is able to call up a mental image of a blue percept, and to pick up an object reflecting that hue, upon hearing the word. Shifting from signs for qualities, type S*2, to signs for groups, type S*5.321, the category of “We”- tokens purports to bridge this ontological gap in the communication situation -- the ‘two-sided nose bridge’. The notion of “the same word”, taking any “word” as S*, an actual sign-in-use, analyzes into: A. distinct tokens in private tokenspace; B. common textual content.
The We* vocabulary contains signs assumed to communicate identical content whichever side of the bridge one is on. Among S* in general, this would include first and foremost number, operations on numbers in arithmetic, algebra, calculus; measurements applying numbers to gradients in size, motion; geometry; maps and co-ordinate systems; then, in the twentieth century, these uses of number merge with – or emerge from – formal deductive logic and set theory. The fixed certainties of mathematical-logical relationships have been properly taken, throughout Western thought, as a field of knowledge determined entirely through its own inherent rationality, or “logic”, in the most general sense of textual order. Informally, in meme-talk, this is “Plato’s Heaven – the world of Pure Forms” reached by thought alone. The lower, empirical world is not fixed. It is incessantly changing, in all six directions (cf. The Timaeus), at every locality. Except in the sky, where cyclic change measured by number and geometry was also Unchanging, and the natural content of perception onto which mathematical certainty was projected was “The Heavens”. This content was the common We => number => cosmic container => of Logos/Rationality known in astronomy (also: music, grammar). It is only natural that human intellectual development should have proceeded through belief in One God Intelligence ‘known’ through the rationality displayed in the spheres of celestial bodies. Quotes are put around ‘known’ here because the question of “what knowledge” is, if attained, was metaphysically undetermined, since: A. the word for it was related to sexual intercourse (as in carnal knowledge), therefore given with sublimated cathexis; and B. the distinction between drempt vs. physically situated reality was not clearly drawn in ancient minds to criticize ‘knowledge’. As a result of these two factors, “knowledge of God” would cathect a very powerful content, desire for completing personal totality by ‘knowing’ God in Heaven through rationality. This drive could go with splitting off of sexuality from the psychic totality, with possible repression; but need not necessarily do so. The question for psychic development raised next is: What is the relation of sexuality to The Holy? For once “God” enters into communication as a Name for common We* content, the powerful but most easily neglected content of The Holy presents itself. That is because the common ever-arousable birth trauma-drama, from which the experiential datum arises at a developmental level below sense perception. but pervading a given present totality. At its acme, a ‘flashback’, influx of vivacity without diminution of quality.
“God” (S*7-1 (Holy) complete the common text of psychic totality, taking S*1 as lowest level fetal-origin dream-state totality.
Sacred texts complete the soul totality. This is the I AM => Anima, for men and the I AM => Animus, for women. Sacred texts are thus a mysterium conjunctionis, a union-of opposites. This is depicted by the Moses-Aaron//snake-rod double double, through which the I AM of “YHWH” entered human communication. From which, the narrative of Jesus Christ redeems humanity (if accepted as doing so).
****
The seque from John Stevens, liberal protestant male member of the Supreme Court, to Elena Kagan, if it occurs. reverses opposites: gender (male to female), religion (Protestant to Jewish), and sexual orientation (hetero-to-homo). But these opposites manifest only in private personal Tokenspace, at three soul vertices*: gender attraction, sense of the Holy, libido discharge. Perception of The Other (from either side of the gender divide) with attraction; sense of cosmic beauty strained through fetal origins of experience (from which the common bio-neural sense of The Holy originates); cathected-to as higher-order Oxygens* completing the totality of brain functions. (Psychosemiotic note: text completes token totalities, as: all A’s, B’s, C’s… are conceptually given as “alphabetic characters”, available for use in word combinations, indices, metaphors, and ‘tweeting’. Only by a context tacitly specifying a set of rules of use (spelling, grammar) are complete idea-messages, or ‘thoughts’ formed. )
The psychosemiotic calamity befallen American national discourse consists in re-texting ITS sacral tokens to apply to Others (Catholic and Jew) private group fetal narratives. In effect, converting all that is Christic in the crucified Son of Man into the earlier, animal-child sacrifice opposites of shared group fantasy. <= This is ‘neoconized secular’: “America” as Church-State container for the common denominator Mother-based consciousness. Aquarius as the Age of Titillation.
CHAPTER TWO Mysterium Conjunctionis
-SYMBOLS => Union of Opposites in Upper Triad. What you know* is herein contained. (Ex.: the Word before it became Flesh: carnal incognition.)
-Or: Aquarius as The Age of Titillation
Summary of Chapter One: America’s soul has been seduced by false appropriation of Biblical => philosophical =>liberal democratic political “I AM”’s distributed mechanically each day, 24/7, throughout the population by the media of mass communication. (Ex.: Christ => Deutchbank passion)
continuing…
Objective Containers
Constructs from all token types are provided by the ambient S* of each individual’s group womb-surround (cosmic, planetary, national, local), where-whenever they exist. Each 3 brain being (person) occupies a standpoint in the objective space-time container of the womb-surround. This objective container is internalized by the person’s image of themselves acting in, and addressing, this containing totality as “audience”. Each “they/you” is an “I-Me” unfolding an individualized “Self”, in so far as it retains inner continuity between later present moments and birth. Thus, the Symbolic representation of life’s developmental trajectory as a Self will be a composite unity of the basic psychological opposites traversed at different levels and durations of S*5, “I/me” sign-uses. Graphics of the stages on this process are constructed by masters in the form of mandalas, which are thus Symbols of the Self as an Archetype. It’s* psychosemiotic form as a union of opposites is also shown in depiction of The Self, as completed totality, as Tom Thumb -- the ‘little guy” “I” on the stage of human history.
Each Zodiacal Age, being a balance of psychological opposites attained thus far by humanity, largely through The Bible in Western civilization, posits a signature Self symbol for the advancing period. Traced through “people of The Book”, as some call those educated on Bible templates, these Ages coincide with: Taurus (4000 bc) => Ram (2000 bc) => Pisces (0 bc-ad) => Aquarius (2000 ad). The Self Symbol of Pisces was Christ (‘fisher of men’); that of Aquarius is the water bearer, poured water not reaching the ground.
Some take Luke 22.10 to mark the transition from Pisces to Acquarius. In it, The Master is dispatching Peter and John to arrange a room* for himself and the twelve* disciples in which the Jewish Passover* will be observed, symbolically substituting His* body* and blood* for the bread and wine used to commemorate Moses/YHWH’s slaying of the first-born throughout Pharoahs Egypt, sparing the Children of Israel who as an enslaved Tribe, painted blood of a lamb sacrifice on their lentil. This is the deep symbolic meaning of crucifixion: a Passing-over, Squared* by Incarnation of Holy Passover “Day”remembrance: Son’s blood on the Cross <=
(overlaying) ‘redemptive’ lamb’s blood on the lintel. Against this background, the words: “Behold, when you have enered the city, a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him into the house which he enters. Then you shall say ato the master of the house, “The Teacher says to you, “Where is the guest room where I may eat the Passover with My disciples?” This is the template re-enacted in each Catholic mass to this day. Reading the symbolic S* it connects => The Christ*Word of Pisces will/has become the water poured out in Aquarius that does not hit the ground. (Leaving the esoteric meaning of this detail tbc)
***
Metaphysical Appendage
“Audience*” addressed in sign-use is Quadrant II of the S* matrix, continuing the silent, perpetual Archetypes shining in Objective TokenSpace tranquility through the containing ‘atmospheres’.
Recap: QI = SW; QII =NE; Q3=NW; Q4=SE (use left-to right bow-tie loop to link the regular N-S, E-W map quadrants ( + )
QI-- process=> QII – Audience* => QIII – token/texting (the seven token type hierarchy S*7-1)) => QIV – Resultant (actual S* sequence => karmic feedback through re-uptake of S* in QI <= completed transit of all four quadrants of tokenspace, as an internal totality, in any actual occasion of sign-use. ) (cf. “Mad Cow” recycle)
The S*7-1 (QIII) on each person’s private* Wall (*phenomenal content of consciousness), are linked ‘on the other side of the nose bridge’ to other’s use of the same S*. As when A says to B: “Do you see the blue spot on the wall over there?”, and B responds “I do”; so that the same (roughly speaking; allowing for variation in the percepts) color quality is present in two distinct visual fields under the predicate “blue”. When the word “blue” is exchanged in conversation without a visual quality, it is said to communicate by means of “the idea of blue”. Each normal person is able to call up a mental image of a blue percept, and to pick up an object reflecting that hue, upon hearing the word. Shifting from signs for qualities, type S*2, to signs for groups, type S*5.321, the category of “We”- tokens purports to bridge this ontological gap in the communication situation -- the ‘two-sided nose bridge’. The notion of “the same word”, taking any “word” as S*, an actual sign-in-use, analyzes into: A. distinct tokens in private tokenspace; B. common textual content.
The We* vocabulary contains signs assumed to communicate identical content whichever side of the bridge one is on. Among S* in general, this would include first and foremost number, operations on numbers in arithmetic, algebra, calculus; measurements applying numbers to gradients in size, motion; geometry; maps and co-ordinate systems; then, in the twentieth century, these uses of number merge with – or emerge from – formal deductive logic and set theory. The fixed certainties of mathematical-logical relationships have been properly taken, throughout Western thought, as a field of knowledge determined entirely through its own inherent rationality, or “logic”, in the most general sense of textual order. Informally, in meme-talk, this is “Plato’s Heaven – the world of Pure Forms” reached by thought alone. The lower, empirical world is not fixed. It is incessantly changing, in all six directions (cf. The Timaeus), at every locality. Except in the sky, where cyclic change measured by number and geometry was also Unchanging, and the natural content of perception onto which mathematical certainty was projected was “The Heavens”. This content was the common We => number => cosmic container => of Logos/Rationality known in astronomy (also: music, grammar). It is only natural that human intellectual development should have proceeded through belief in One God Intelligence ‘known’ through the rationality displayed in the spheres of celestial bodies. Quotes are put around ‘known’ here because the question of “what knowledge” is, if attained, was metaphysically undetermined, since: A. the word for it was related to sexual intercourse (as in carnal knowledge), therefore given with sublimated cathexis; and B. the distinction between drempt vs. physically situated reality was not clearly drawn in ancient minds to criticize ‘knowledge’. As a result of these two factors, “knowledge of God” would cathect a very powerful content, desire for completing personal totality by ‘knowing’ God in Heaven through rationality. This drive could go with splitting off of sexuality from the psychic totality, with possible repression; but need not necessarily do so. The question for psychic development raised next is: What is the relation of sexuality to The Holy? For once “God” enters into communication as a Name for common We* content, the powerful but most easily neglected content of The Holy presents itself. That is because the common ever-arousable birth trauma-drama, from which the experiential datum arises at a developmental level below sense perception. but pervading a given present totality. At its acme, a ‘flashback’, influx of vivacity without diminution of quality.
“God” (S*7-1 (Holy) complete the common text of psychic totality, taking S*1 as lowest level fetal-origin dream-state totality.
Sacred texts complete the soul totality. This is the I AM => Anima, for men and the I AM => Animus, for women. Sacred texts are thus a mysterium conjunctionis, a union-of opposites. This is depicted by the Moses-Aaron//snake-rod double double, through which the I AM of “YHWH” entered human communication. From which, the narrative of Jesus Christ redeems humanity (if accepted as doing so).
****
The seque from John Stevens, liberal protestant male member of the Supreme Court, to Elena Kagan, if it occurs. reverses opposites: gender (male to female), religion (Protestant to Jewish), and sexual orientation (hetero-to-homo). But these opposites manifest only in private personal Tokenspace, at three soul vertices*: gender attraction, sense of the Holy, libido discharge. Perception of The Other (from either side of the gender divide) with attraction; sense of cosmic beauty strained through fetal origins of experience (from which the common bio-neural sense of The Holy originates); cathected-to as higher-order Oxygens* completing the totality of brain functions. (Psychosemiotic note: text completes token totalities, as: all A’s, B’s, C’s… are conceptually given as “alphabetic characters”, available for use in word combinations, indices, metaphors, and ‘tweeting’. Only by a context tacitly specifying a set of rules of use (spelling, grammar) are complete idea-messages, or ‘thoughts’ formed. )
The psychosemiotic calamity befallen American national discourse consists in re-texting ITS sacral tokens to apply to Others (Catholic and Jew) private group fetal narratives. In effect, converting all that is Christic in the crucified Son of Man into the earlier, animal-child sacrifice opposites of shared group fantasy. <= This is ‘neoconized secular’: “America” as Church-State container for the common denominator Mother-based consciousness. Aquarius as the Age of Titillation.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Short History of What Is Is
SHORT HISTORY OF WHAT IS IS
(ultra condensed: I S IS ISIS)
DIRECTLY FROM EARTHGOD MOTHER GAIA TO YOU (via your “I”… Gottcha!)
I AM <= first asserted by shape-shifting YHWH-ELOHIM entity manifesting to Moses.
Falsely appropriated by Bible believers as (God)(I) (as token of personal self-reference, as yet barely grammatized in ancient world; cf. “The Origins of Consciousness”). The psychosemiotic psychohistorical function of The Bible is passage of command power through the bloodline of descendants who internalized it.
THOUGHT THINKING THOUGHT <= Aristotle’s construct first defines an inner life to “I AM” as philosophical Completing Totality (self-caused cause; unmoved mover). This act, historically reiterated parallel with internalized Moses Bible “I AM”, Jerusalem with Athens, brings the concept of “Name”, externalized as “for all that exists”, under the categories of representative thought. Plato had arrived at a unifying concept of “soul” for the upper triad* (of the seven token types of S*), but had left his conceptual construct of What-is-that-can-be-thought ontologically detached from the perceived world of the lower triad. Aristotle’s metaphysics of form-completing-matter, through the energy of ‘actualization’, constructs the “marriage of opposites” of heaven-earth for the Greek-Christian world to follow.
I THINK; THEREFORE I AM <= Descartes’s irrefutable (for whoever utters it—psychosemiotic origin modern democracy) text internalizes the “I” part of the old Bible heritage (Guttenberg, Luther, Calvin have ensued) as an “innate idea”, creating a double self-reference feedback loop through the conceptualized allusion to birth. This loop links memories of birth-rebirth fantasy with rational (brain 3- <=cortical) function, thus further internalizing Moses’ “I AM” content, this time through actual already-materialized psycho-neural conduits leading to and terminating on different regions of what is called “The Brain”.
() => () => () => psychosemiotic deconstruction.
=> WHAT ‘I AM’ IS <= false appropriation of snake brain presence into thought consciousness, via rationalization of unconscious group birth-rebirth fantasy. This internalized construct is the narcissistic you-U hook for America’s Anima, reeling in buck$ for brides on the trot line of life, in the land where corporations vote and popular front issues pandering to narcissm of the depraved rule domestic politics.
WHAT “’I AM’ IS” IS <= appropriated internalized mechanical mode of self-reference, externalized in tokens of historical rebirth fantasy constructs, assimilated to texts of the on-going historical narrative. “Atheism” and “theism” become dialectical opposites pivoting around false psychosemiotic assumptions. One becomes, for themselves, the “I” the are expected to be, for others.
WHERE IS AMERICA’S “I” IN THIS? WHO WILL SAY “I AM THE AMERICAN I AM “ ?
*****
note: this image of earth as the snake-reptile brain’s domain continues into the New Testament in “these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast our demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them.” (Mark 16.20). This empowers the disciples as they “go unto the ends of the earth” (the Great Commission). This is a continuation of the shape-shifting power of Moses staff; also referred to in John 3.14f. “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.” This is one of, if not the most, revered Christian scripture. It comes early in the New Testament, teaching rebirth (“unless one is born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God”)_through the Son of Man descended from Heaven. The snake-handling cults of Christianity continue this ritual of the Great Commission’s empowerment to this day.
THE GREAT DE-COMMISSION
Passing the torch from Supreme Court Justice John Stevens Protestant liberal grace, to Jewish Female (lesbian, rumored) Elena Kaplan #1: The Christic element in America’s Protestant tradition, last Spiritual revenant of the religion of the founding fathers, leaves the Supreme Court. His replacement on the bench (if she gets it) is opposite: by gender, religion, sexual orientation, three of the most fundamental factors of personal life. Yet, America’s political grammar will lump them as “liberals”, thus transposing the Christic element represented by Stevens into the multi-cultural/ethnic ‘inclusive’ “leftism” represented by Kaplan. It is the psychosemiotic victory of Jewish-Catholic victim psychology politics over Christ. The snake brain wins.
(ultra condensed: I S IS ISIS)
DIRECTLY FROM EARTHGOD MOTHER GAIA TO YOU (via your “I”… Gottcha!)
I AM <= first asserted by shape-shifting YHWH-ELOHIM entity manifesting to Moses.
Falsely appropriated by Bible believers as (God)(I) (as token of personal self-reference, as yet barely grammatized in ancient world; cf. “The Origins of Consciousness”). The psychosemiotic psychohistorical function of The Bible is passage of command power through the bloodline of descendants who internalized it.
THOUGHT THINKING THOUGHT <= Aristotle’s construct first defines an inner life to “I AM” as philosophical Completing Totality (self-caused cause; unmoved mover). This act, historically reiterated parallel with internalized Moses Bible “I AM”, Jerusalem with Athens, brings the concept of “Name”, externalized as “for all that exists”, under the categories of representative thought. Plato had arrived at a unifying concept of “soul” for the upper triad* (of the seven token types of S*), but had left his conceptual construct of What-is-that-can-be-thought ontologically detached from the perceived world of the lower triad. Aristotle’s metaphysics of form-completing-matter, through the energy of ‘actualization’, constructs the “marriage of opposites” of heaven-earth for the Greek-Christian world to follow.
I THINK; THEREFORE I AM <= Descartes’s irrefutable (for whoever utters it—psychosemiotic origin modern democracy) text internalizes the “I” part of the old Bible heritage (Guttenberg, Luther, Calvin have ensued) as an “innate idea”, creating a double self-reference feedback loop through the conceptualized allusion to birth. This loop links memories of birth-rebirth fantasy with rational (brain 3- <=cortical) function, thus further internalizing Moses’ “I AM” content, this time through actual already-materialized psycho-neural conduits leading to and terminating on different regions of what is called “The Brain”.
() => () => () => psychosemiotic deconstruction.
=> WHAT ‘I AM’ IS <= false appropriation of snake brain presence into thought consciousness, via rationalization of unconscious group birth-rebirth fantasy. This internalized construct is the narcissistic you-U hook for America’s Anima, reeling in buck$ for brides on the trot line of life, in the land where corporations vote and popular front issues pandering to narcissm of the depraved rule domestic politics.
WHAT “’I AM’ IS” IS <= appropriated internalized mechanical mode of self-reference, externalized in tokens of historical rebirth fantasy constructs, assimilated to texts of the on-going historical narrative. “Atheism” and “theism” become dialectical opposites pivoting around false psychosemiotic assumptions. One becomes, for themselves, the “I” the are expected to be, for others.
WHERE IS AMERICA’S “I” IN THIS? WHO WILL SAY “I AM THE AMERICAN I AM “ ?
*****
note: this image of earth as the snake-reptile brain’s domain continues into the New Testament in “these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast our demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them.” (Mark 16.20). This empowers the disciples as they “go unto the ends of the earth” (the Great Commission). This is a continuation of the shape-shifting power of Moses staff; also referred to in John 3.14f. “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.” This is one of, if not the most, revered Christian scripture. It comes early in the New Testament, teaching rebirth (“unless one is born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God”)_through the Son of Man descended from Heaven. The snake-handling cults of Christianity continue this ritual of the Great Commission’s empowerment to this day.
THE GREAT DE-COMMISSION
Passing the torch from Supreme Court Justice John Stevens Protestant liberal grace, to Jewish Female (lesbian, rumored) Elena Kaplan #1: The Christic element in America’s Protestant tradition, last Spiritual revenant of the religion of the founding fathers, leaves the Supreme Court. His replacement on the bench (if she gets it) is opposite: by gender, religion, sexual orientation, three of the most fundamental factors of personal life. Yet, America’s political grammar will lump them as “liberals”, thus transposing the Christic element represented by Stevens into the multi-cultural/ethnic ‘inclusive’ “leftism” represented by Kaplan. It is the psychosemiotic victory of Jewish-Catholic victim psychology politics over Christ. The snake brain wins.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
