Self-Awareness

Self-consciousness is the central process in the human condition.
It underlies everything we are discussing about Abrahamism, Nihilism, free-will, determinism God, politics, art, philosophy etc.

Self-consciousness is relatively new - in Evolutionary time-scales it is just emerging, and developing.
Not all life-forms are self-aware, because their behaviours do not require it.
Non living matte/energy is not self-aware, because their interactions do not require it.

So we ascend the scale of sophistication from non-living patterns, unities - we call particles, types of matter/energy - to simple life-forms - plants microbes, cells - to more complex life forms where self-awareness begins to emerge as a by-product of their sophistication.
Each step requires a degree of 'separation', degree of detachment - here we see the first hints of nihilism's source - because life is a separation from cosmos - membrane, skin, exoskeleton - and self-consciousness necessitates a separation of a part of the brain from the rest, so as to begin becoming aware of itself.
This separation is never complete and absolute....but always partial, porous, fragile, incomplete, imperfect.
Without this separation life would be impossible, and self-consciousness would be impossible.
We can say this separation is constant and consistent, requiring effort to sustain itself....otherwise it is reabsorbed.
This is the agon, the source of life's pain/suffering - its constant struggle to maintain itself distinct within an environment of fluctuating energies
Flux, fluctuation is (inter)activity, and interactivity is attraction/repulsion, or harmony/disharmony between patterned and non-patterned energies.
energies are vibrations/oscillation of space....and space is possibility - therefore pattern (order) could be called 'fluctuating probabilities' within space/time possibilities.

In brief...oscillating/vibrating space means a sequence of possibilities in multi-dimensional space/time. The possibility for interacting fluctuating at a sequence - ordered or random - across dimensions - which are increasing, fragmenting = expansion of space/time.
Time can be understood as the relationship of interactions relative to a perceiving conciousness - a relationship of cosmic expansion and organic metabolic rates.

We can identify emerging self-awareness as the source of what has become the psychological ideological reaction we've named nihilism.
I've explained my positions on the matter.
Self-awareness produces insecurity, an increasing sense of vulnerability in the organism.
It can use many methods to cope...one being the projection of mental abstractions - absolutes - as idealistic healing balms, or ideas it can hide behind, dress itself up to hide its nakedness.
I've explained how and why, I think, Nihilism is a defensive reaction to growing self-awareness.

Another by-product of emerging self-awareness is related to Jaynes insight into the Bicameral mind.
The primitive mind was confused by its own inner dialogue, its own conscience.
Typically what is feared is mystified, made divine.
The primitive mind dealt with its confusion by ascribing to its inner dialogue - its esoteric interactivity - an external source.
It believed that gods, and then the one-god, was speaking to him/her.
This belief was accentuated when it adopted another's words, incorporating the semiotics of another into his inner dialogue. The beginning of memetic fertilization.

I claim that the same thing is occurring in the mind of modern, but on a more sophisticated level - self-awareness has matured since its primal infancy.
Just as man confused by his won internal dialogue believed spirits, gods, were communicating with him, so do Moderns believe that the body's judgements, choices - programmed genetically - are other than the minds...as if they were occurring to another or from an external source.
Self-consciousness is confused by its own automated reactions, its own nature.
This becomes pronounced when the culture trains the mind to believe and judge in antithesis to what the body has been programmed - genetically - to believe and judge. The body's automatic reactions confront, shame, and confuse the mind...as if they were imposed by an external will.
This is the mind/body dissonance I've also explored elsewhere.

The source is the 'separation' I spoke of earlier.
Self-consciousness becomes alienated from the rest of the brain and the body it is housed in.
Cultural training - edumucation - contradicted by natural selected judgements: mind/body conflict....gene/meme dissonance, disharmony.
Because the mind can only use itself as a standard it assumes that an external will is imposing these judgment upon it.
This is what absolute order implies....whether it is anthropomorphized, as in the case of Abrahamism, or not, as in the case of Modern beliefs about absolute determinism.
The self-aware mind assumes that all is willed, because it can will, and that all is ordered because it is ordering.
It projects itself outward as an external source...similar to how the ancients believed their inner dialogue was with an external entity.

Because it cannot account for the time-lapse - the period required to process stimuli (data, information), with its own automatic reactions to stimuli - it assumes that it's all inevitable, part of some universal programming that cannot be changed.
It has replaced the external one-god, with an external universe - all encompassing, all determining....One-God.
Now the awareness of 'self' is that of an alien other, a stranger that is willing, acting, behaving, and the part of consciousness that has become aware of this becomes the passive bystander, that can only observe and is helpless to intervene.
Essentially the part of the brain's processes that separate from the rest to become aware of self, stand by impotent watching, as the rest of the self acts and reacts: as if it were observing the activities of an alien otherness, it did not belong to but has surrendered to.

In this psychosis the awareness of self makes the body the master, and the self the slave.
On the opposite end of the binary bipolar psychosis we have the other extreme where mind is god and the body a slave or a nothing.
Mind/Body schizophrenia, has two types of psychosis.
We can call it that as we could call the belief that spirits are talking to you, in your mind, a psychosis - schizophrenia.
This is schizophrenia on a new level.

It has two variants, corresponding to 'positive' and 'pure' Nihilism.
I've alluded to them, already.
On one extreme (one), mind is god, and body the slave.
On the other (nil), mind is the slave and body is god.

The unifying concept is 'absolute'.
A concept that can only exist in the mind....because nobody can ever show - not speak, not name, not imagine - but show an immutable, indivisible, whole.

In all variants of the same issue, one theme remains constant.

The replacement of the external with the internal....the real with the idea/ideal....the noumenon replacing the apparent, the phenomenon.
This is the foundation of the misinterpretation of Nihilism, from way back when Russians coined the term.
The concept represented by the word 'nihilism' and/or 'nil' is part of Nihilism, the political and psychological tool to control the masses.

How did they define it?
As a perspective that denies the existence of God, universal morality, cosmic purpose....in other words a reality that denied the individual its own constructs, its own projected abstractions, was named 'nil', negative, even though this vary state made life possible.
so, the world that made life possible, lacking god - as it was defined by Abrahamics - denying universal morality - as this was defined by Abrahamics - and purpose, outside the mind - was 'negative' despite its observable, testable, 'positive' outcome.
This is not a perspective, a philosophy...this is psychosis.

The absolute is the foundation of Nihilism...properly defined.
Nil is what nullifies the positive, the existent, even if it does not provide what the mind desperately wants to cope with its own existence.
Language is the only way nihilism persists.

Only in the mind can man construct an ambiguous, theoretical, abstraction, and call it 'absolute'.
Using the word to accentuate to express certainty, conviction, psychological trauma, etc.
No absolute can ever be shown,a s on would anything that actually exists...but ti can be spoken, symbolized, named...like Cyclops, Mermaid, and, yes, Satyr.

I can speak of dark light, or cold heat, or liquid fire....because it's all in my head.
Vague enough to be synthesized in whatever absurd way I like.

What I can't do is use the words properly, and then synthesize the phenomena they refer to.
I can't make a watery fire....or a solid softness...or a Mermaid.
I can think it, speak the words, fantasize and combine any imagery I desire....but I cannot point it it outside my brain.
Well, not unless I externalize my mental abstractions in the form of art. I can paint a mermaid and say 'voila!!' a mermaid....or scribble and splash paints on canvas and name it liquid solidity, or hot coldness...or something poetic and no less absurd.
Women love this kind of shit. They mistake it for intricacy, creativity..a deep profound spirit....this ability to synthesize contradictions.
Weak minds love anything that helps them projects their won desires and insecurities outward.
It feels cathartic, orgasmic, reliving...calming follows.

So I can use the word 'absolute', I can even conceptualize,d raw or sculpt it, write it down, use it to express emotion, conviction....but I cannot show it.
why?
Because like the Abrahamic god it does not exist, but only as a mental neurological abstraction.
In fact, according to Spinoza the Hebrews used 'god' in their language, as we use 'god'...as an expression of something huge, extraordinary, beyond conception.
The other Semites use 'mother' in the same way....'mother of all battles' for example was how the Iraqis phrased the battle against the US.

Self-awareness - the turning inward towards self, as an outsider- can only emerge in the nervous system - the brain being its processing hub.
Semiotics is the externalization - as art - of this emerging relationship of mind to body - mind awakening to itself through the physical, through body.
This is its risk.
The risk of confusing the representation for the actual. The risk of misconstruing symbol, idea/ideal for real.
A seductive prospect...one must resist....but few can.

Just as Bicameral mind manifested multiple deities, each speaking to various people in distinct ways...so too does this disconnection of mind form body, confusing the choices and actions of body as belonging to a stranger, an external will, or as determined by an external power, is the confusion produced by its inexperience.
Primitive man thought gods or spirits talked to it, when it was its own self in dialogue with itself.....mistaking his ability to draw deer, or elk, as a magical capturing of their essence.
Many primitive tribes, in the Amazon, as recent as in the 70's refused to be taken picture of....because they thought their essence was being stolen, by the camera.

But man has yet to come to grips or to understand how consciousness works.
The mysterious is deified....mystified further, as a way of coping with uncertainty.
Moderns confuse their won genetically programmed reactions as belonging to an external being, an external will, or as being entirely and absolutely determined by external forces.
This confusion, as I mentioned, is the product of the lag between interaction and perception.

Meditation attempts to shrink it....producing the 'in the moment' state.
But absolute congruence is impossible.
Mind, a product of sensual processing, will always be slightly off from the body's automated reactivity.
Of course most individuals prefer to identify with mind...the source of conciousness, so it is always, or mostly, the physical, the body that is demonized, or considered the shell conciousness is 'trapped' in.
Freedom, liberty, as understood by moderns, is a detachment from the limitations and automatic reactions of body.

As brief as possible:

*Beauty is symmetry - order.
Proportionality is a compromise of symmetry necessitated by chaos. It is because the world is not absolutely ordered that we can experience existence as agon.
Proportionality refers to organic functionality, indicating a method of dealing with existence.
Existence being interactivity between pattered and non-patterned energies.
Perfect symmetry would be non-existent - a concepts that negates existence.
Therefore, man appreciates beauty in its fictionality, its imperfection, its potential to cope with interactivity, i.e., Flux.
We find music or anything that approached perfect symmetry - harmony in sonic contexts - off-putting,like computer generated music.
We evaluate and appreciate functionality - which is what proportionality indicates; the potential to adapt to the unforeseeable, the novel.
This is what we recognise in genius, viz., recognizing patterns that are not perceived by the average mind, or "thinking outside the box" - "box" referring to collective, conventional, thinking, or the group.

*Identity - represented by the term 'self' - is a ongoing process, a continuum. It is not a thing.
Identity stretches back to the beginning of life on earth, and can be projected forward indefinitely.
The connecting thread is memory.
To recall is to become self-aware - Know Thyself refers to this dynamic continuum stretching back in time and becoming continuously present, as presence.
These connecting memories are inherited as bio-algorythms - DNA.
So, we are never born a clean slate - tabula rasa - but we are this entire past manifested as presence, interpreted as appearance.
Our physical presence - body - is this past being constantly recollected.

*Order is intelligible; chaos is not. Only patterns can be perceived and evaluated by a pattern-recogition organ, facilitating its resistance to Flux.
Organisms consider order good, beautiful, valuable.
"Good" can be further qualified in relation to an individual's objectives, viz., what helps it realize its objectives is useful, i.e., valuable, ergo it is good; what inhibits the realization of its objectives is bad, or evil, of no value, useless.
Good/Evil - good/bad - have meaning in relation to an objective.
Good/Evil is about ethics; good/bad is about morality.
Ethics are codes that create addendums to evolved moral behaviours which all social organisms share because they make cooperative survival and reproductive strategies possible.

*Conscious minds unify multiplicity. Only in the mind does "whole, one/nil, unity" exists as an idea - ideal.
All is dynamic interactive multiplicity. Mind perceives patterns, in a state of ephemeral balance, as unities.
Energy balances in harmony, relative to a background of energies - environment - are perceived as unities.
An organism, itself, is such a balance of different patterns - types of energy - in an ephemeral state of balance - gradually losing balance due to attrition.

*When you name a pattern, or a unity of patterns, you symbolize what your mind has recognized and abstracted - converted, interpreted.
Now you can externalize it....share it, communicate it, convert it to art - language, being art.
Ethics is the externalization of addendums to moral behaviour, so as to synthesize the abstraction with the action.
Ethics/Morality is the synthesis of mind/body - a mental memory - producing a habit - combined with a genetic behavioural rule of conduct.
This mind/body synthesis is what "spirit" is.
Some call is "soul" positioning/orienting the synthesis in the body, whereas "spirit" is positioning/orienting it in mind.  
Here Father/Holy Spirit/Son, correspond to Plato's Reason/Will/Pathos - or Mind/Nervous System-Brain/Body.

*Mind becomes the one-god of the Abrahamics.
What happens to Abraham - the narrative - is a story about a man battling with his conscience; a dialogue with his own impulses.
Mind is the incomprehensible, because it is the part of the brain becoming aware of its own awareness; it is the vision that can only perceive itself through a reflection, i.e., a mirror, as an eye. But it cannot see itself seeing, it can only see the means by which it sees.
This is why Abrahamism becomes a nihilistic spirituality. It eventually dismisses the body, altogether, and worships only the mind. The mind that is not restricted by space/time; mind that can pass on its memories to other minds linguistically/logos - finding eternity.
The body can only pass itself on via another body - some sacrifice of self is necessitated.
Monotheistic one-god is a representation of humanity's collective consciousness - hive mind - projected as a universal agency.
Since mind orders or harvests order and reorganizes it, god is creator of order - the only way to "correct/heal" chaos, i.e., disorder, non-patterned energies.
Absolute order is its objective, but tis attainment - even if improbable - signifies an end of existence as we know it and experience it, and so it is paradoxical - self-contradicting but emphasizing mind at the expense of body, the intangible sacrificing the tangible - mind sacrificing body.
Abraham willing to sacrifice his son.
In Christian narrative a compromise is invented by having the son of god pay the sacrificial cost, symbolically.
Its paradoxes are erased - man's "sins" are erased. Eternity is gained. Now the mind can live forever as a collective mind - the body was the issue. Once it is eliminated it can no longer contradict such a collective.
See why Christianity and Marxism are both sides of the same coin?

*"Narrative" refers to memory representing identity - continuum - in the form of a story.
Narratives communicate a continuum of events. Events are static points in space/time - encompassed by arbitrary points - beginning/end - which is another way of saying abstraction: imploding space/time possibilities/probabilities into a cohesive, simplified/generalized form which can be stored as memory, and then communicated.  

*Laws attempt to connect all narratives.
Like understanding connects all knowledge.
They represent the underlying pattern that validate all perceived patterns.
So, laws are the underlying rules of all narratives.
This is what objectivity attempt - to unify all subjective perspectivism in an all-encopassing rule/law.

Uncertain Personæ
My body introduces itself to my mind wearing one of the many masks it was given to it; each time I must reintroduce myself, trying to figure out which organ is most dominant and which is most passive.
Know Thyself, is a catalogue of combinations, built over years of internal interrogations.

Many of these men-children doubt me because in their minds they think;
"Man, if I knew what he knows, or claims he knows, I would be banging all kinds of women, and making all kinds of money, and I would be so powerful and popular...yadda, yadda"
No you wouldn't if you truly knew what I know, and understood what I understand.
These nit-wits came to me believing that I could give them an easy solution to a personal predicament...and I didn't, because I couldn't and even if I could, I wouldn't.
These nitwits don't understand what IQ is, and why it isn't enough.
They believe anyone powerful, or influential, or famous is a genius....this is the only way they can understand it, and explain their own failure.
Was George W, smart? An imbecile who could barely speak English, becoming president?
Does Biden have a high IQ? Is Kamala Harris smart?
Was Bill gates a genius? Did he need to be?
Nope.....because IQ, properly defined and understood, is an infinitesimal factor in the grand scheme.
Would a smart person want to get laid, or make money, or be popular? Would he dedicate the necessary time and energies to accomplish this goal? Would this not contradict his genius?
Only those who understand will know what I am saying.
Are politicians brilliant? Why do they become so popular, wealthy, and influential?
Are pop icons, like cRap stars or movie stars, brilliant?...or, rather, is intelligence a hindrance to becoming popular and wealthy?

Nit wits only understand things from within their idiocy.
They only see the rewards not the costs.
Would a smart handsome man fuck every woman that came onto him?
Only if he were controlled by his hormones....and the price would be high. His playboy days would be short lived.
They evaluate smarts using hedonistic standards; immediate gratification.... primal manimals that they are.
Simpletons remain manimals, because they cannot transcend their genetic limits.

Is IQ enough?
Hardly.
Courage, yes, is another factor...but more than this....much more than this...
Collateral effects....what simpletons cannot evaluate...probabilities they cannot compute.
Is it worth it?
Determined by need/desire...another biological factor.
See negroes fucking everything that moves, fathering multiple children with multiple sluts....and?
Do they tell you the costs?
Do they have the brains to consider it a "price" or consider it the cause of their suffering?

Simpletons cannot comprehend what is superior.
They project, using themselves as their basis..
I've said this before, no?
Yes...but I haven't explained it in a way to make it comprehensible to simpletons...in their heads its all generalities, clouds in the sky, word salads.....
Simpletons cannot think objectively, they are limited by genetics, or impoverished memetics, all they can do is think subjectively.....sympathizing or antipathizing - not empathizing.
In their simple minds they imagine themselves as smart, and wat they would do, could do, if they were more intelligent.
So, when another seems more intelligent but doesn't seem to take advantage of this superiority, in the way they would, makes them doubt his superiority.
The only use of intelligence is popularity and power, for midwits, or money and sex, for dimwits.
What else would one do with it?
Right?
A dog probably thinks the same thing about humans.

"Males are the expendable sex."

Let's take a premise like this. As a male, then does that not hurt and assault one's Ego? Of course it does. The Subjectivist, dimwit, will not allow such implications, because thoughts to them have direct emotional consequences. The Narcissist cannot entertain any presumption which leads to emotional bruising or even 'criticism' of one's own self. Thus Philosophy, and all intellectual endeavors, are reduced to pathology and emotionalism. This is what they mean by 'Subjective' versus 'Objective'.

They don't understand how to believe, or disbelieve, in an idea without emotional investment. I saw this countless times on ILP over the years. They are mystified, and baffled, by the prospect that people can hold ideals that (seem to) directly attack or hurt the individual carrying it. "How can colored people support Nazism, or the possibility of a white ethnostate?!" This one is pretty common.

Then they immediately contradict themselves, politically. They immediately go on to support genital mutilation and "Trans Rights". So, in addition to the emotional investments, they have no logical consistency. It's the American 5-second memory mentality. If it didn't happen within the last 5 seconds, then it can be forgotten and ruled out. Selective memorization, selective ignorance, logic only "when it suits me", and by "me" they mean their most popular and "socially justified" ideologies, Zionistic, Marxist, Abrahamic.


Arguing with the midwits/dimwits/nitwits has become tiresome, and frankly a waste of time indeed. I value arguments with those like Silhouette on ILP. Because although they have been propagated into their belief-systems, at least the above-average intellect knows better than to constantly trip over logical fallacies and contradictions. Unfortunately, with Silhouette, he did not last as long as I hoped, and retreated from the philosophy forums.


Recently, I've been observing how people react when an intelligent person enters a group or conversation. People are automatically aware, and deeply intimidated, by intelligent individuals.

As you mentioned recently, the midwit does not understand the higher intellect, and projects upon it, its own base desires: that a higher intellect must... chase desperately after sex, after money, and after the material consumerism that their minds have been dominated with. Or social status and social "justice", that the intelligent person would automatically defend, rather than rebuke, social propaganda. They don't understand the resilience, rebelliousness required, to be "intellectual".

Because intelligence implies that average and below-average, lies and contradictions, would easily be dissipated and clarified by an intelligent mind...

The intelligent mind has a 'Choice' that the midwits and majority of Manimals do not.

Manimals are taught endless chains of contradictions, political and religious propaganda as children, in fact often made to live and die by these "prinicples" (Nationalism for example).


An intelligent mind sees the contradictions, and enters a choice.

Does s/he confront the contradiction, publicly?  Does s/he challenge the teacher, the priest, the peer, the parent?

Or does s/he silently integrate the contradiction, causing Cognitive Dissonance, and ignore it?


Speak against it, or, remain Silent?

Those in Philosophy very intimately know the consequences of both.  If you speak against "Humanity", the Manimals, then prepare for Exile.  Most will not survive such a consequence, and thus the above-average intellects lower their heads in shame, and remain silent, despite their Conscience urging them to scream out in rebellion.

So too is it with the sense of 'Justice'.

What is more 'Conservative' than the ideal of survival, that your own life and energies ought to be preserved?

What is more 'Liberal' than competition and risk-taking, that there are many circumstances in life to risk your life over?