Tag Archives: PHILOSOPHY/PSYCHOLOGY

The Direction of the Conversation

Image

Most people do not study enough philosophy to realize that it is about something real.  Most people don’t learn to debate well enough to learn that if it can’t be argued rationally it is crap.  Most people don’t learn the logical fallacies or the cognitive biases.  Conversations have a direction.  The conversation is either moving towards reason in a rational direction or one party is arguing against reason, arguing for vagueness, making emotional appeals.  You are either reasoning or rationalizing.  You are either talking about something real, good, true and useful or you are trying to make a turd smell like a flower, which is it?  Be honest with yourself.

It is out of necessity that great philosophers had to pre-empt conversation.  They only want rational conversation.  Don’t waste my time with your horse shit.  You can’t prove anything using irrational means.  That is what praxis is.  You can only prove something using rational means, that is why we have due process.  If you don’t communicate correctly you don’t think correctly and you don’t act correctly.  So the reason that you aren’t communicating correctly is because you are engaged in strategic behavior to make unreason appear to be reasonable.

Image

STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION:

A phrase coined by Joxua/Shivah to describe irrational communication used to control or manipulate the flow of conversation.

Conversation blocking- a form of strategic communication designed to stop a conversation or to prevent a topic from being discussed

Conversation dropping- a form of strategic communication designed to prevent a person from acknowledging their wrong or from participating in a conversation that is going a direction they don’t want to follow.

Communicating understanding- from shared state theory of communication meaning to communicate accurately your perspective on a subject based on understanding the topic, thinking before you speak, accounting for how it will be interpreted by the listener, listening to yourself as you speak and observing pragmatically the persons understanding of what you said and their application of it.  Associated with Socratic dialectic.

http://terminclature.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/strategic-communication-definition-by-joxuashiva/

RELATED ARTICLES

PROBLEM CENTRIC NARRATIVE

PROBLEM CENTRIC NARRATIVE

Downward spiral of emotional morbidity.

The Pole Position in Relationship

Image

Women have a strategic advantage in relationship that they tend to exploit unbeknownst to themselves. These instincts, behaviors, and strategies have been hardwired into the human organic computer through millions of years of neural myelination that have been passed on in the form of cellular memory.  Women don’t think about it, they don’t do it consciously, they aren’t aware that they tacitly interpret and judge reality in the experiencing of it.

The female mind was created to be in relationship with children.  The woman thinks that femininity is superior to masculinity, that is why she is female, as such when their is a disagreement between the male and female she refuses to look from his perspective or compromise or negotiate.  She uses her bias and the feminine bias of society and the children to get her way.  She basically hijacks the relationship and holds it for ransom.

If you observe women’s arguing styles you realize that they can’t get over their programming, they act like a mother in the following ways.  They presuppose their moral authority, they try to control the narrative as though they are talking to a child.  They correct the narrative, changing words, they are not just expressing a different sentiment they think that they have the final edit on the conversation.  They talk over you, interrupt your, nag, whine, repeat themselves, refuse to agree, participate, or move towards the solution or compromise, they quote people outside of the relationship whose opinions don’t matter and they will even violate the boundaries of the relationship by bringing people into the argument who are not part of the conversation in order to take their side.  These are not the behaviors of a person who is in relationship or a person who give equal credence to their partner.  The correlation between psychopaths and the narcissistic narrative has recently been discovered and fascinatingly, my theories show that the female brain, especially in relationship with a male brain acts psychopathicly, whereas the male brain is more sociopathic.

Image

The female brain operates from moral authority, operating on superficial aesthetic snap decisions as to what looks right and what sounds right.  The female mind is in relationship with its own authority and as such wants to expand and intensify its authority so it uses illegitimate behaviors and strategies in relationship to create a disparate impact in its own favor.  While men think about creating value for the relationship women think about getting what they want from the relationship and in this way women attack the relationship.  Even in a relationship of two women will try to increase their status, social climbing.  Women don’t debate analytically offering evidence,  and reasons, or being open to experiment, they argue emotionally not being able to conceive of any other solution besides the one that they are leaning towards.  They ask leading questions, they try to control the direction of the conversation, they force an emotional moral frame editing the consideration set of the conversation as if they were the arbitrary judge of the conversation and they try to force you to participate with their premise.

The female mind sees reason as a hostile, alien, influence and refuses to participate with it, or she will conflate moral authority with sapiential authority and herself the high priestess of both, but she is absolutely incapable of not being perfectly predictable in her positions and behavior.

Image

The woman acts as a mediator between father and child, a liaison, a go between, and she can use her position to bring the family unit closer together or to sabotage the father.  She can try to win the child’s favor so that he likes her more by spoiling the child.  If the father competes in this way it is more damaging for the child because he can play the parents off each other and the child starts to think in terms of possessions instead of relationship.  The mother can misrepresent the father to the son and further damage the relationship between them.  Some women go so far as to make the father an object of contempt and ridicule to the children.

Image

For those of you that are familiar with my theories on emergent properties in collective judgments of societies you might remember this piece I did to illustrate how society protects women from men they are in relationship with.  Note further that the man is basically accepted into a society by having children, that is his root in society, his entrance into a society.  Women use every possible strategy to expand and intensify their control, to make it permanent.

Most cultures have an age of adulthood which has historically ended the authority of the mother and begins the authority of the father and the preparation of the child to be a responsible and functional part of society, which also means that the issues that the mother has protected and instilled in the child through invasive narrative or psychological manipulation have to be removed and the child has to be made mentally and emotionally healthy and a contributor to society.  The child is also at this time responsible for the laws of the land and is no longer able to make appeals to feminine authority in the form of mercy and charity claiming to not be responsible for their actions and the consequences thereof.  The problem with America is that none of the social strictures on women apply and at the same time women are unconscious of their instincts and processes and of the evil they do innately.  They don’t have to scrutinize themselves or criticize themselves and they refuse to take responsibility for their actions or the consequences of them.  At the same time the refuse to confine their attentions and judgment to realms in which they are valid and get good results, completely incapable of not tacitly judging and interpreting everything from the position of moral authority.  Refusing to participate with reason they are passive aggressive and perceive themselves at the same time as being passive resisters and reformers of society while all they are really doing is making society weak and vulnerable.

Image

Women are Aggressive Communicators

Image

All of the nastiness and aggression that men are accused of can be found in the communication behavior of women.  I have spent a lot of time studying relationship and patterns in relationship and events in the world and how they are allowed or created by how people relate to one another.  Ever since I was a child I was hypersensitive to sounds and communication styles.  I used to get sick to my stomach listening to live music, and I developed a psychosomatic response to the sound of Diane Chambers, Shelley Long‘s character on cheers.  It wasn’t until I read A. R. Luria‘s book THE MIND OF THE MNEMONIST that I truly started pondering my sensitivity to sound.  I have an almost autistic level of sensitivity to sound, Diane Chamber’s timber made my heart race and I became agitated and my eyes dilated and I wanted to kill something.  I am not like other people, my mind is always working.  I relax into philosophy and higher thought, I am not happy if I don’t have a good conversation or learn something new every day.  This caused me to ponder the difference in communication styles between men and women. http://alfrodull.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/the-most-annoying-character-on-tv/

Image

I recently watched this documentary on Seaworld and noticed something interesting, they said that Tillikum was harassed by the two females he was originally put in the tank with, they would bite him for no reason and leave bloody marks on him.  Tillikum was a larger than average male killer whale.  After studying Deborah Tannen‘s male and female communication rituals and coming up with my theory that male and female brains are actually two different type of intelligences with different approaches to life, value systems, and strategies in relationship I found it interesting how similar Tillikum’s experiences were to my own.  Women will henpeck me and provoke me with no provocation on my part just as they did to him.  I began to ponder if this wasn’t because as a large male he represented a potential threat to them so they started testing him or trying to gain psychological leverage over him.

All of the nastiness and aggression that men are accused of can be found in feminine communication rituals and strategies.  When left alone the female mind acts like a parasite to the male mind.  Women are aggressive in passive ways, they are passively aggressive, covertly hostile.  I have always found it fascinating how over time the woman eventually manages to leverage herself to the point where she takes complete artistic control of the relationship and the man while in it is not allowed to be himself or to be interested in what he is naturally interested in.  Women indulge themselves in female pornography, puppies, kittens, babies, but men are judged as bad for being interested in the type of pornography that creates they pornography she enjoys.

Image

As I become aware of the subtle processes and strategies that women use I realized two things, society in general doesn’t detect them because they are considered normal.  Society has been trained not to scrutinize women or look for them to be the cause of the bad.  Society in general has a feminine bias.  Society will blame other things for the behavior of women.  If somebody says, “man that lady is a bitch, she really did a number on me.”  Somebody will respond, “she must have really gotten screwed over by some man.”  Not only is she rescued from her own behavior, blame for her behavior is put on some imagined male scape goat and she is allowed to go on her crazy way, unscrutinized or blamed, working her evil will on the universe.  The ancients didn’t keep men and women separate to protect women, they did it to protect masculinity from femininity.

Image

Millions of years of gender reinforcement create neural myelination that passes down through cellular memory.  Men are insensitive to their own feelings because life is hard and they have to do unpleasant things so that they and their women and children can live, and women have to be sensitive to their own feelings because they need to feel that feelings are valid in order to be good mothers and take care of horrible little maggot poop factories that wine, because babies communicate no analytical data and only emotional data.  Women and men and children are insensitive to men.  Go figure.

Not just that, you can see that women have adopted communication strategies designed specifically to manipulate the male mind which is sensitive to sound.  They speak in a high pitch, with a rapid cadence.  Persian women have adopted the behavior of speaking in low manly tones to communicate dominance and to turn men off sexually.  All of this works on a subliminal level, women don’t realize they are doing it, and neither do men.

Image

Women ask for mercy from their man, they beg for quarter, they start the relationship by asking him to tell her a lie or perform a herculean labor and then when he fails or fails to protect her from reality of the truth she blames him for a situational problem.  Women use leading questions herding men in certain directions.  “Why don’t you play with the children?”  and then when they start liking him more than her, “How come you spend so much time with the children?  are you some kind of freak?”   Women use humiliation rituals.  “How come you spend so much time with your boyfriends, are you gay?”  She tries to define a real man by what he does for her and what he puts up with from her.  How is it that women are the arbiters of what it means to be “real men” are men the judge of real women?  ‘Cause I have some ideas, just sayin’…

THE INEFFABLE NAME, RABBI BA’AL SHIVA REVEALS OCCULT SECRET

Image

The reason that the ineffable name can’t be pronounced is because it is “pronounced” with your thoughts, actions, and emotions, as well as your words.  The Greeks Hellenized and the Greek God Zeus, Jupiter, Jove became the Jewish god Jehovah.

A forgotten concept in early philosophy was Praxis, it means walking your talk, letting your philosophy inform your behavior.  The words practice and process come from that word as in due process.  Since in the cult of the Augures even the high priest was not above the law even he had to adhere to the Praxis.  If your philosophy didn’t get results in the world it was invalid and you were irrational, lawless, godless.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxis

Jesus was called the Logos because he was the incarnation of logic, he practiced the sciences of the day, philosophy, praxis, debate, and healing medicine.  He was a wandering philosopher and a shaktipat guru.  All of the sciences have the suffix “ology” as do all of the philosophical arts.  He was the son of god because he was reasonable, just as the high priest of the cult of the augures, from where the word Auctoritas or authority comes from had to obey and communicate the law like a prophet.  He did not arbitrarily manufacture the law like a tyrant.  The law of reason, success in relationship, was pre existent and immutable.

Philia (/ˈfɪljə/ or /ˈfɪliə/) is one of the four ancient Greek words for love.

Philia (Greekφιλία) in Aristotle‘s Nicomachean Ethics is usually translated as affectionate regard or “friendship“.[1]

A true friend is one soul in two bodies.

Aristotle

The word philoish, or philosophical family, from which the word philosophy means when multiple people subscribe to the same philosophy or world view and praxis.  Jesus followers were those like a guru.  They were his philosophical family, they subscribed to his world view.

Logic (from the Greek λογικήlogos)[1]

Logic was studied in several ancient civilizations, including India,[4] China,[5] Persia and Greece. In the West, logic was established as a formal discipline by Aristotle, who gave it a fundamental place in philosophy. The study of logic was part of the classical trivium, which also included grammar and rhetoric. In the East, logic was developed by Buddhists and Jains.

Logic is often divided into three parts, inductive reasoningabductive reasoning, and deductive reasoning.

24“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

28When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.

Image

Image

THE LINGUISTIC BARRIER IN PHILOSOPHY

Hu27MYs

All of the great philosophers reappropriated terms, changed or expanded definitions, or created new terms.  I refer to this as thought technology.  One of my favorite pieces was a philosopher whose name escapes me that suggested that rocks and objects perform in the act of their existing a type of thinking known as “prehension”.  Not comprehension but that which comes before actual thought, prehension.

Most people have a cognitive bias.  They look to prove themselves correct and they don’t look for new information, they are, as Nassim Nicholas Taleb says, “epistemically arrogant.”  People try to prove their world view correct because if it isn’t correct it has negative survival data for them.

People that are constantly pushing the boundaries of their understanding eventually break out of being trapped in the forms, the words, the ideas, that were created by others and given to us.  As long as you are trapped in the words you are only going to be able to see what others saw.  You are only going to be able to do what others have done.   Only wizards, linguistic philosophers, and drug addicts break through this barrier.  You have to give yourself permission to create terms and change definitions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism

option-1-layers

THE BLACK SWAN

Image

THE BLACK SWAN $200 SHIPPING AND HANDLING NOT INCLUDED. http://www.etsy.com/shop/WisdomBeacons

 

http://lynnmarie1.tumblr.com/

I painted this piece with some Maori tribal designs and a sunset, it is very meaningful to me for many reasons not the least of which is the correlation with the in breaths and out breaths of Brahma, and his vamana being a swan.  I identify with the black swan.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, one of my favorite authors wrote a book called the black swan about unpredictable events being the major mover of the stock market.  The swan represents to me those unpredictable events.  People are epistemicly arrogant they over value what they know and they undervalue what they don’t know and they bias mine to prove themselves correct and ignore evidence that they are wrong.

There is also a cognitive bias associated with it.  If one thinks that all swans are white then anything that doesn’t directly confront that incorrect belief supports it.  Which means if you see a black crow, or a pink flamingo it confirms your incorrect belief that all swans are white.  This kind of thinking prevents people from detecting their own horse shit and it makes an environment rich for outliers, people and events you never see coming….

….LIKE MYSELF!!!

Just because it has never happened before that you know of, doesn’t mean that something is preventing it from happening.  Life doesn’t have any narrative that it has to fulfill.

Nihilo necesare sequitur, nothing necessarily follows.

THE VAMPIRE SOPHIA

Image

 

Alex sat in the corner of the open air coffee shop as it approached midnight, it was in the downtown part of old town Pasadena.  All of the yuppies came to clubs in the area to show off their cash and to dance badly, but the coffee shop was quiet with the eption of lounge music.  At the moment nobody was there.  He had a stack of notebooks on his left and a stack of books on his right and one of each was open on the table in front of him.  He held one open while he wrote in the other.  He still preferred pen and paper to all the modern technology.  He dropped his pen and paper to rub his tired eyes.  He was frustrated and depressed, discontent with everything.  It wasn’t that he disliked himself, he loved himself, he wouldn’t want to be anybody else, what irritated him was the way he was treated, perceived, evaluated, and ranked by others.  He couldn’t get promoted, he couldn’t get acknowledged, he couldn’t even find a loyal friend.  Attractive by anyone’s standard he was also an artist, a writer of fiction and essays, he was experienced with performance arts and public speaking, he had danced professionally, he studied philosophies that others would never in their lives be able to begin to comprehend.  But all of this seemed to count against him, people were intimidated by him.
 
He suspected that the only thing that could change his fate was something he had spent all of his life trying to uproot from his life, the irrational.  He could lie, he could tell people what they wanted to hear, he could manipulate them, and rob them and sabotage them.  He could appear to be their friend and then stab them in the back, and then they would like him, not because they wanted to, but because they had to.  The very concept was repellent to him and yet it seemed to work for everyone else.  The world was litigious, acquisitive, vexatious, full of phony people and gilded gargoyles.  Rats scurrying about trying to prove to each other that they are something they are not.  Failing to recognize that one communicates to others what one is by being, not by doing. 
 
He didn’t want to be right about people or about society, he wanted to be wrong but over and over again his worldview was upheld, or when it appeared that he had found someone that was different from the others he was disappointed yet again.  Then he would get depressed.  Then he would get creative.  Then he would delve deeper into philosophy and express his feelings through art.  And then he would get smarter, and then he would see more, and then he would see that the corruption and perversion had run even deeper and social failure was even more inevitable than he had thought before which would begin the downward spiral all over again.  He didn’t know how much longer he could take it.  All he wanted was to be treated nice, and to be understood, to have someone to love, and to belong somewhere with something resembling a family, people that would protect him and support him and appreciate him.  But just as the ocean cannot be contained in a thimble the average person was incapable of understanding him. 
 
As he sat there wallowing in despair, he was unaware that one of the oldest vampires alive was listening in on his every thought.  She sat perched atop the alleyway.  She was riveted.  Nos Feratu, much like viruses do not appear alive until they are near living organisms, and the more alive the organism, the more active vampires become.  She was aroused beyond measure, this creature so rare, intoxicating her with his eloquent pain.  Everything a person knows and does is in their blood, and his blood was rich and juicy.  Her eyes were fixed on him like a hungry tigress stalking a sambar deer. 
 
Time seemed to stop, and silence descended on the alley.  Sophia, that was her name, turned into a black mist and disappeared into the shadows, soundlessly appearing and slinking towards Alex in an alien manner.  She was small of stature, and her limbs were deceivingly delicate in appearance, her facial features were a pleasant blend of roman and Egyptian.  Her dark eyes were surrounded by thick black lushes that looked like twin, Gothic butterflies.  Sophia was drunk on the genius and passion that wafted from the soul in front of her.  It was everything she could do to contain her blood lust, but 900 years experience reminded her that this was a rare moment to be made to last as long as possible, to be teased out until it was unbearable.  She used every scrap of her will power to remain in control of her hunger. 
 
Alex noticed her with a start and instantly she was in front of him looking deep into his eyes glamouring him so he wouldn’t try to flee, which would have been futile anyway.  
 
“Shhhhh!  Relax!  I am not going to hurt you, yet.”  Her fangs were thick contrasting starkly with the rest of her harmless appearance.  “I am going to release you so you can talk to me don’t try to run ok?”  she squeezed his cheeks and shook his head as she spoke. 
 
Alex nodded distantly.  
 
Sophia pulled his chair away from the table and curled up on his lap.  “I feel your pain.”  her hand slid up his chest and pulled his collar down.  “I understand you.”  She made a pouty face as she spoke, her fingernail made a tiny incision in his exposed chest, and she watched the blood accumulate and run a little before she deftly scooped it up with her tongue.  It was as good as she had expected, her eyes rolled back and her head and her back arched.  She moaned as she tried to remain composed.  Her chest heaved as her intensified arousal increased her heartbeat.  Fluidly she pulled herself up to straddle him and grabbed his face in her hands.  She sucked his lip into her mouth and tugged on it playfully, biting it quickly, before letting it slip out of her mouth.  She salivated as she watched the blood accumulate and run down his chin.  Running her fingers through his hair she pulled his head back and licked up the blood.  Kissing him, sucking the blood from the wound.  She licked his tongue as though she could taste him, tasting his own blood.  
 
“I could take you away from all of this you know, if I wanted to…..  I could make you a king, a warrior king.  I could make you a god.  No more pain, no more suffering, no more having to treat human trash as equals.  Just your will, whatever it might be, not even your will, your whim.  Does that sound good to you?  Would you like that?…..SPEAK MY PET!”
 
Alex couldn’t believe what he was experiencing.  He had never even contemplated whether vampires were real or not and now this succubus was upon him, loving him, taking away his pain, eating him, understanding him.  He didn’t speak out of thought but out of reflex.  He reacted to the first time in years not being in a state of constant misery.  “yessssss”  He rasped. 
 
Sophia’s body became taut and she snapped into him like a cobra and bit into his neck with a crunch.  Her face was sprayed with blood from an ejaculation from his jugular.  She came to her senses again and closed the wound, while she wiped all of the blood from her face and swallowed it.  It would be sacrilege to waste a single drop.   
 
THE END. 
 
FOR NOW……

Image

THE PHILOSOPHICAL NEED FOR GOD

Image

Thank you Adam Wolfe for the photoshop..

.https://en-gb.facebook.com/pages/Adam-Wolfe/383505548376524?ref=stream&hc_location=stream

I would like to point out that the concept of god was arrived at philosophically and out of necessity.  First of all if you want to make a positive rational assertion for why people should have inalienable rights or why you shouldn’t be allowed to force people to work seven days a week you cannot hinge that assertion on science or evolution for that matter.  You have to assume a universal force or law on which to peg it.

Image

Image

The original concept of god was created to prevent the problem of infinite regression.  What was the cause of that? well what was the cause of that? Well what was the cause of that?  GOD!  It became obvious that there needed to be a cause that was not in the linear world, a causal world.  Which makes sense in a way.  Because if the big bang created time as we know it then time is an illusion.  There must be a time before time and that time is the real time, since time was created and didn’t exist before the big bang.  Time itself is an illusion.  Somewhere the universe is completely intact and unexploded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

Philosophically speaking god cannot move and must not move, any movement of god is a negation of godself.  This is why you have meditation.  In sitting in contemplation you are being like god.  Making yourself like god.  Image

So how does he work his will on the world?  Through the agency of the holy spirit.  If you examine Plato’s cave and he being the father of religion.  The forms of the cave, the forms of the good, the ideas or idols are the philosophical uncorrupted concepts.  Only the philosopher king can see anything but the shadows, he beholds the shapes.  He is free and he observes the stark naked epiphany of the universe.  What is needed to succeed in relationship, the praxis of the rational.  The law is immutable, unchanging, and pre existent.  You are doing it right if you are surviving well and succeeding together.

Image

Image

DESTROYER OF WORLDS

Image

 

 Lynn Marie Le asked me why I am called “The Destroyer of Worlds”.  There are a lot of reasons, my online handle for years has been Shivah Solomon.  My handle, which is also my spiritual name, means Death and Peace.  There is no peace until their is death, but it is a metaphorical death, a philosophical death, the death of ignorance, of delusion.  Shiva is the Hindu god of death.  

“The soul is, in a way, phenomena.”

~Aristotle

In my philosophy a person’s soul, is their world, or the world as they understand it, it is their ontology, but their are hidden subjects, a person is aware of phenomena and we can all see phenomena, but the meaning of the phenomena is different for every person.  I might use a sword or a scissors or a chopsticks completely different than they would.  Their relationship with the phenomena is different.  Also the relationship between phenomena is informed by their soul and that is not immediately obvious.  It informs a teleology of reaction.  This is said and this is done, now this is how I react to it.  

I am a rather brilliant debater and what I have found is that people cling to their world view.  They project their sense of self onto it and when you start to destroy their world view they start to panic.  Falsifying their world view has negative survival data for them and some people would rather die than know that they are wrong, the problem is their incorrect world view also informs their judgments and their relationships and the way they are in relationship with me and the world.  So as I start to hack through the Gordion Knot that is their world view they start to repeat it like an insane person.  Perseverating as their ignorance and delusion starts to go through its death throes.  It is as though chunks of their world are falling apart and they start trying to put it back together again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseveration

It is considered a virtue for some reason to back down from crazy people or wrong people.  I disagree with this conception.  That is what makes the world a sucky place to live.  Idiots and fools and people to stupid to know that they are wrong getting their way because they can’t handle reality and I am expected to tip-toe around them and their issues?  Their is no pleasant way to tell an idiot that they are an idiot and the sooner they find out the better it is for everybody.  

 

Image