Posts Tagged ‘sanity’

Pathological Sanity

Wednesday, September 6th, 2017

Anytime you can not speak of your accurate and realistic observations, you live in a controlled society. This means that your society is in the process of decline and has already collapsed, and is awaiting a coup de grace from some invading Vandals or Conquistadors.

We cannot speak of everyday truths at this time. Things we observe, if they contradict the going narrative, will end our careers, friendships, families and futures. And so, we self-censor, which is even worse than government censorship or the cabal censorship of large dot-com agencies.

That in itself tells us something. When accurate observations about reality are taboo, this means that civilization at that moment is based on something other than realism. This means that it has a secret to hide, and that this secret clashes with what it knows of the world around it. In other words, civilization is afraid of reality, because too much truth will point out what it is hiding.

In a roundabout way, this answers a question you may have had while sitting in history class, bored out of your mind and daydreaming as is the norm in school, all those years ago: what was it like to be in Rome or Greece before they fell? Did people know what was happening? How did it happen? What did it look like?

The answer now becomes abundantly clear. People in those societies simply went insane. It started with a few, and everyone else imitated them, and because they were afraid of sane people, they became pathological in their desire to exterminate sanity. Once that was done, everyone focused on illusions while their world crumbled around them, and if they woke up at all, it was too late.

In the centuries before the fall of Rome, bad behavior accelerated. People indulged in fetishes and excesses, became entirely individualistic and disregard tradition and sanity as a result, accepted corrupt business practices, and spent more time demonstrating their allegiance to the “right” ideas than on trying to counteract the problem.

They all went insane, for practical purposes, because they were imitating each other instead of paying attention to the road ahead.

We are seeing the same thing happen now. Our official dogma of egalitarianism cannot be questioned, and so there are many areas we cannot discuss. Those proliferate as we achieve more equality, because then we see more of the inequality of ability, and in the end, find ourselves vastly confused because ideology conflicts with reality.

Civilizations die because of behaviors which most humans find difficult to limit in themselves. What we think of as “sanity” is relative to the behavior around us; when people begin behaving in insane ways, we intensity the insanity while thinking ourselves sane.

Our morality and actions are referential and deferential to other humans which came before us. This is sometimes called “precedent,” but in reality, it is a trend, and like all trends it starts as an idea, and then other humans emulate it. This inward-looking tendency to a group obliterates any ability to see the whole picture, which requires seeing ourselves as a species struggling for sanity, with history as a record of what did and did not work, and how well those worked.

That measurement invokes concepts that are lost to most, such as scope, duration and quality. Scope means how deeply the effect goes, and other “dominoes” that fall when a concept takes over one area of society and then, in light of its “success,” is applied to others; duration considers for how long it succeeds, and then what the long-term effects are, which are often the opposite of those in the short-term, leading to an inversion because what once seemed good becomes awful; quality refers to how well it succeeds, meaning

We turn away from those complicated questions of the whole picture, and focus on a human-only perspective comprised of ourselves and others, in order to avoid looking at history, our existential needs and how humans as a biological species are subject to Darwinism both as a group and as individuals. The thought of being the victims of natural selection offends us because it means that we are at risk, and cannot survive simply by wanting to, but have to understand how our world works, and are graded on that by our success or failure.

As part of this great indulgence of fear and human wants, groups of people tend to agree on insanity because it makes it easier to endure the fear. The problem with this is that like any trend, this insanity gains momentum and quickly spirals out of control, culminating in reality-denial that subjects the group to the same events that it feared enough to make mention of them taboo.

For those who want to restore civilization, the only successful counter attack is pathological sanity, or a dogmatic insistence on a realistic outlook and discipline of the self to it, such that we are at lesser risk of a natural selection event and also, to beat back the human tendency to crave denial, projection and as a result, solipsism and insanity.

This change is feared by many people because if we implement any hard standard, it means that some will fall below that level and require ejection from civilization. However, if we follow the Darwinistic model, it makes sense that in every generation we will be ejecting people who have deleterious mutations, birth defects, or just general ineptitude that makes them weaker specimens. This, too, is sane.

On the other hand, the prevalence of this fear explains the power of the mental virus known as equality. The notion of equality appeals to the individual because it says that no one will face a loss of social status for being inept, and therefore, that people can feel “safe” from social threats, and that society will do its best to save them no matter what they do. It is an anti-Darwinistic notion.

When we see people cuck, or give in to the tendency to go along with the herd, we are witnessing the power of this fear. It seduces all but the strongest because they are mentally addicted to the vision of a world where they are safe from the consequences of their own actions. That is an illusion, and for that reason becomes insanity when it is portrayed as reality.

Pathological sanity retaliates against this by affirming that life is never safe and that all actions have consequences, and that us hiding those merely prolongs the disaster. In addition, it notes that it is impossible to escape loss of social status for doing something stupid, in that those above the individual on the Dunning-Kruger scale can and will notice the screwup.

The only means of adopting pathological sanity is to invert the fear, and point out that insane and inept people are a bigger threat than our fears for our personal safety. The real safety is found in competence; false safety is found in protection of the individual without regard to their actions and the results — including side effects — of those actions.

As civilization leaves the era of ideology, in which we constructed elaborate theories to justify conditions where the individual was made safe at the expense of the group, focus returns to the organic society. People will be more concerned with the health of the society around them and its future, and less about preserving those who, in the name of fear and safety, insist on equality despite its destructive effects.

The Subreal

Thursday, February 23rd, 2017

A person doing a science job fills out a series of forms concordant with the appropriate regulations to request allocation of government resources to a proposed study.  The forms go through the bureaucracy, moving from one office to another, eat ink to propel themselves and mature enough to watch the fresh new forms they’ve spawned move on through their own approval processes.

The rubber stamps are collected, the study is approved, and begins.  More people doing science jobs are recruited or reassigned, and the government resources are channeled into the subcontractors and lowest bidders.  Science papers written by other science-doing people are read.  After an acceptable duration of extensions past the deadline, a new science paper has been created by this set of science-doing people.

A press release is sent out, and a hundred news articles are excreted from the appropriate templates making the same recommendation that resulted from the study in appropriately different words.  The conclusion of this highly structured time and effort is this: you, person in the general public, should not clean your ears with q-tips because you might press too hard and damage your ears.

This is not fiction, not a contrived example — this happened.  And this type of thing happens often, every day, all around us.

It is subreal.

The subreal is the hyper-mundane minutiae with which the modern world forcefully confronts us.  It hits us with a sense of wondering confusion similar to the surreal, but instead of being fantastical, instead of having a feel of being far-fetched and bizarre, it’s the opposite — it’s banal, so shockingly unremarkable and un-nuanced.  The painfully unimportant things that are treated so seriously and carefully.  The contradiction between being so outrageous, yet simultaneously so unworthy of outrage, beats us down psychologically and induces a passive apathy.

We are being forced to have public discussions on whether someone should have a legal right to choose their pronouns.  Who wants to care about this?!  What possible response to this makes any sense but ridicule?  And yet, academics must put significant intellectual effort into its refutation, lest it grow and metastasize unchecked.  This feels like it can’t be real.

It’s the routinization and systematization of that which could be done without conscious thought, like a mandatory corporate seminar that provides an acronym of steps on how not to sexually assault coworkers.  This puts the nuanced, organic experience of social interaction onto rails that apply a coarse legalistic set of rules to allowable behaviors, as if programming a robot.  Maintain at least 0.8 meters separation between coworkers.  Do not comment on physical appearance.  Do not touch each other, unless only the palms of the hand touch in an allowed way.  Disable all reproductive subroutines.

It’s a society whose culture consists of the lowest common denominator of human experience–propaganda that somehow seems to manage to inject synthetic hormones for sentimentality into the naked facts that: we all eat, we all have positive feelings for our children, we all don’t want to die — and further, that this deflated one-size-fits all husk of a culture is celebrated.

It’s an environment where the most popular forms of socializing revolve around groups who merely like a manufactured and mass-replicated entertainment product.  Satisfy your need for human interaction by repeating phrases from the product, or relating your excitement at an aspect of the product.  This will not be difficult, you may simply choose an aspect that is present in every incarnation in the genre: mutual agreement with your co-humans can be found in relating the satisfaction from seeing the oppressed character righteously pummel the ultimate oppressor who has no motivation but irrational hate, or in the saccharine pleasure of the invariantly repeated melody.  Everyone you meet will do the same, and so you will feel accepted.

Where an entire life can be lived without experiencing any semblance of a noble action requiring courage, loyalty, or honor.  The phrase “so brave” is more likely to be uttered with derisive irony than genuine praise, and the phrase “I love you” is made routine and has the sincerity of corporate marketing.  Popular ethics is composed of Kindergarten teacher admonishments: be nice, don’t hit, and don’t you think you should share?

It’s a mechanized life, scheduled down to the minute, of not really doing things, but being places chosen from an approved menu of options.  A job?  Choose one from the classifieds.  A career?  Choose a program from a school.  Show up at this time, then leave at that time.  At night, return to your shelter, chosen from the options offered by your realtor.  Companionship?  This app gives you several options that have been determined to match by an algorithm whose inputs include your choices of entertainment products.  We’ll make sure that if you are a person who watched and liked Star Wars you won’t have to talk to a person who watched and liked the New York Mets.  We understand you’re not a person like that.  It’s important!

Go on an adventure, buy yourself a motorcycle.  But you must also buy and wear one of these Department of Transportation approved helmets, and you must not leave your boot laces tied too long.  This is for your safety, and if you don’t do so you may receive a printed piece of paper designed to enforce the regulatory details resulting from decades of revised legislation which means that you must pay the government the amount that legislators have agreed will make the general public safer.  Once you meet all the regulations you may have fun on your approved exciting adventure.

What are you?  You are a clump of cells which are clumps of atoms.  Where are you?  You are on an insignificant pale blue dot lost somewhere in the incomprehensibly vast emptiness.  Why?  As experts in the mundane, we can confidently assure you that none of this means anything.  There is no forest, only a clump of trees.

When the vitality, the idiosyncrasies, and meaning has been sucked out of life, what is left is the subreal.

In this environment, being real is radical.  Sanity is not an extreme, it’s sandwiched between the surreal and the subreal.  It’s a sum that’s more than it’s parts.  It’s fitting details into a larger coherent context.  It’s an acknowledgement that rigid, explicit rules miss important exceptions and are often an avoidance of a solution.

What is real is honesty, identity, courage, loyalty, virtue, responsibility, and much more than words or abstractions can capture.  The system produced by the subreal is like a ship with only a maintenance crew and no captain: the handrails are cleaned daily and the engine operates within the specified parameters, but none have awareness beyond their assigned tasks.  When this system inevitably finds itself in stormy waters, those of us with souls will find joy in the richer, fuller experience of life that will arise.

Inner war

Sunday, April 6th, 2014


Whether we like it or not, we Westerners are all infected with degenerate thoughts, habits and morals.

This goes especially for the youth. If you are under 30, you will almost certainly have been contaminated during your upbringing (unless you were raised in the forest by wild animals).

You have been bombarded by stupefying entertainment-culture and governmental equality-propaganda from the moment you were born. It was probably ingrained in the belief system of your parents, and it most certainly affected your social environment and any notion of “coolness” and “being accepted” in a very profound way.

In fact, your entire life has been lived in the midst of degeneracy and broken ethos even when it seemed “nice.” And if you belong to the vast majority, you probably haven’t even noticed it. You’ll be one of the millions of people shrugging it off, thinking “it isn’t that bad” and then proceeding to perpetuate the rot.

If you belong to said group, then these words will probably mean nothing to you, and if you parse them at all, you will probably think that they mean something entirely different from what they do.

But if you are one of those rare few, who has always sensed instinctively that something was profoundly wrong with society, and if you feel this as a despondency emanating from the gut of your very soul, then this is for you.

This is a declaration of war.

But not a war with some great outer enemy. It’s an inner war. It’s all within.

What is misery? What is it to feel powerless? What is it to despair?

It is anything but your sense that something is wrong with society. It is all that tries to keep your inner dissent down. It is everything trying to convince you that nothing is wrong.

Because everything is wrong: everything but that inner voice telling it like it is.

That inner voice is something rare. Something beautiful. Something subtle, but strong. It is called sanity.

Sanity is your spirit, your will, your love and your life. It is the real within you, that cannot be drowned by all the artificial nonsense that surrounds you. Commercials cannot kill it. Propaganda can’t. Rock music and reality TV can’t. It’s there, and it will be there till you die.

You can try to ignore it, and maybe you’ll succeed. But thinking that everything is okay won’t make it so. That will only reduce your life to a never-ending quest for the temporary fix: Something to silence that sanity, because you’re mistaking the sanity for the cause of your misery. You think that the voice reminding you of society’s insanity is the insanity itself. But it’s the other way around.

Don’t question the inner voice — obey it. Fight for it, kill for it and die for it: Fight everything in yourself trying to keep that sanity down. Cleanse the insanity from your soul.

Make no mistake: This is war. And we have a name for this war: It is called life. There is a name for fighting too: It’s called living.

You are a soldier. The dishonor of desertion is a fate worse than death. Don’t even think about it. Banish the thought from your mind, because this war is destiny, and only the fool or the madman plots to escape it. It cannot be done.

Instead, acknowledge it. Say yes to every battle great or small. You are fighting for the only thing worth fighting for: a life in accordance with itself.

Say yes —

And slowly but surely, you’ll find yourself in natural surroundings more often than before. You’ll cut back on excessive socializing, favoring time with the people you truly like and respect. You won’t need TV. Reading is reserved for the timeless classics. You’ll make an effort to appreciate classical music, and you will be rewarded — instead of playing that tired old predictable popular stuff over and over again. Perhaps you will start building stuff. Perhaps you’ll start to promote some sanity to the ones who’ll listen, without shame, guilt or fear.

Not saying that you will do all of these things specifically, but the essence remains: your sanity wants to be challenged — and you will meet the challenge with joy, because your soul is fed up with the empty calories of modern life. It wants to be rewarded, and it knows that no reward comes without effort.

Accept the challenge —

And you will breathe deeper, every breath being sweeter than the last.

You’ll discover that life is an adventure — dangerous, wild, and free.

Not the fixed “freedom” of a multiple choice test, but the real, dangerous, thrilling freedom of actually being free.

You will come to peace with the fact, that nothing is certain but death. But this won’t matter, because you will finally have something truly worth dying for.

You will have life. And you will be living for the pure sake of it. Living till your very last breath.

Daring to be sane in an insane world — what greater challenge can there be?

There’s only this one way to free yourself from the insanity of society: free yourself from the false notions of yourself and everything insane you’ve ever been taught to be. Don’t ignore the conflict: Fight it — and overcome yourself.

True freedom awaits on the other side, and it is as real as reality itself.

The End of Logic

Saturday, March 29th, 2014


Logic has held a special place in Western philosophy since the time of Aristotle and Plato.

It depends upon logical language, which is words having specific, exact, and agreed-upon meanings.

It also depends upon an agreed set of assumptions about the basic nature of things.

For a long time, logic was more or less dependable. It was one of the foundations of civilization.

Enter the notion of ‘equality’, which first claims, then demands, then writes into law, that all people are equal.
Combine that with political correctness, which changes the meanings of words, often inverting their meaning completely, and the result is that logic becomes purely arbitrary, depending upon whatever one’s personal meaning of the words used happens be, along with the baseline agreement of the way things are, changing from person to person.

What do you get? Spend any time on an online forum, especially one populated by self-imagined intellectuals, and you will find utter chaos. No two people can exchange information on anything. Because each will claim that their logic is logic, and that anybody else’s is not, if it in any way disagrees with their own. This leads to a curious binary state of either ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’.

If one agrees with a statement, one does not challenge it, so its logic is taken to be sound.

If one disagrees with a statement, there ensues a battle to establish whose logic is more logical, or if it is even logic at all.

In this climate, it becomes impossible to actually get anywhere, since the logic that is the most popular is the one that prevails.

Should one actually know what one is talking about, which, in itself is a rare thing among people so lacking in real-world experience, one finds it is beyond the bounds of possibility to convey what one knows, to those who can merely theorize, without knowing, purely on the basis of their own flawed logic.

The most common flaw is the baseline assumption that everyone is equal. From there, everything else crumbles.

Another one is the assumption that there is no God, and religious people are insane, and thus valid targets for justifiable — often shockingly cruel — abuse.

Yet another, is that ‘nobody can know’ whatever it is that is presumed to be unknowable, so their statements can be ridiculed as delusion.

Along with the labeling of anyone with knowledge not known to the larger group, as a charlatan, fake, or egomaniac.

Logic, sadly, no longer has much to do with anything, and henceforth will be about as useless as mammary glands on a bull buffalo.

We have arrived at a point where it is no longer possible to ‘talk to people’ as a means of communicating anything much more complicated than the state of the weather. And even that may well fail. In fact, the only people one may successfully communicate with, in any satisfactory way, are those few people one may meet that already hold views, or knowledge, substantially similar to oneself.

The really, really terrifying thing about all of this, is that only older people will have a comparison to make, regarding just how far this decay has gone. The young, having no such comparison to make, have no idea anything is even wrong. They can — to an astonishing degree — no longer listen, deduce, reason, think, or learn, except in rare cases where their own particular brand of rebellion happens to mesh with the fast-disappearing tradition of civilization.

And older people, apart from being not-listened-to by the young, and often ridiculed, instead, are inevitably dying out, and so are ever less able to contribute anything that might slow, or reverse the coming dissolution.

A woman said to me once, imagining me as a man of violence, that: “You can always talk to people, you know”.

It wasn’t particularly true, even then. It is very, very much less true now.

What is Reality?

Monday, December 15th, 2008


Defining concepts — always a good idea before using them — becomes difficult the closer one comes to the simplest concepts. Questions broaden to the point where words seem useless. If we apply our analytical minds however, we will see that the question which faces us is not words, but an ability to connect what is represented to its manifestations in our lives.

For example, asking “what is reality?” thrusts us face to face with the connection between our knowledge of the world — scientific laws, maps and legends, history and philosophy — with the tangible thing in front of our faces. Zen masters traditionally answer the question “what is Zen?” by slapping the asker, breaking through the barrier between us thinking of reality and us experiencing it. Reality includes our faces — and scarily, our brains.

The instant we start describing reality, we plunge into paradox. Our words are descriptions of reality in symbol, making it seem far away, when the words and brains creating and perceiving them are part of the same reality. Between two or more of us, we can share our observations through symbols, but we cannot convey the experience itself — which is absurd, since we’re living it. We can tell each other what to notice, and how to organize our thoughts, but not convey reality itself.

In this we see the problem of perspective: any division of intelligence smart enough to recognize itself will, in that moment of recognition, start creating a model or map of the world within itself, and processing reality through that filter, so as to keep the distinction clear. Instead of seeing the world through a model of the cosmos, it sees the world through the recognition of itself as separate. We generally call this a human problem, but that is arrogance, as it’s a problem of intelligence given to any individual creature.

Inverting this paradox requires that we recognize that we know the world through ourselves, and then discipline ourselves so that we can accurately perceive the world. This adjusts our perspective to the more realistic level of the cosmos: we see that instead of being that which the sun orbits, we are the bits of fluff that orbit the sun, things that are both conscious minds and meat that can be killed and eaten, or reshaped into small geographies as is inevitable in our deaths. It is ludicrous to think of consciousness as something which can be consumed, yet when we get eaten by sabre-tooth tigers, our consciousness departs.

From a purely human perspective, events occur to us, and we assume therefore that we are the object or cause, when in fact we are part of the media through which actions occur. Like observers in a snowstorm, moving forward, we see snowflakes rushing at us — but forget that our forward motion through time against a constant backdrop is what causes this illusion. When we recognize this we see that reality is two things, both the tangible in front of our face and the intangible ability to predict the actions of our world on a systemic level. The latter is the burden of consciousness.

While we cannot say that reality “is” physicality, a nihilist might describe reality as “convergent upon the physical,” meaning that no matter what abstractions exist, they are proven in the physical. We explore using play, or its more formal term, The Scientific Method, by which we try out gestures that seem plausible, note the response, and refine our ploys until we can control the result we will get.

This is why the ancients eschewed dualism for an idea of sacred and profane; the sacred was the abstract that could never be touched, and the profane was the tangible, which was an incarnation of the idea kept on the level of the sacred. The idea alone is pure because it emerges from the interacting forces of nature over time, and this condition is more real than how things appear to us in our perspective, because we can see only one thing at a time in a single tense, the present.

In other words, similar situations beget similar emergent patterns, and so reality is consistent and we can use the scientific method to perceive it, but when we retreat into only what is tangible, we miss out on the greater part of reality by pursuing the illusion that something right in front of our faces is more real than what we know will become true, thanks to the indirect means we have of discovering our world.

In this context, we can see how nihilism is a type of idealism — an idealism of the immanent. It denies the inherent, the thing in itself, the human judgment and morality, because these are all valuations of the sacred from within the profane, when the opposite order is necessary. The sacred is the cause, or rather polycausal origin, which manifests itself in physical forms time and again.

This double paradox means that while we would like to say reality is the physical, reality includes our minds and our ability to predict the interaction of forces that, while invisible to us, create the physical. Reality is history. Reality is science. Reality is awareness of unreal things like patterns, cycles and laws, and if we ignore these, our physical reality reacts — without it appearing that such a reaction was likely.

A map on the internet telling us where a mine field is has nothing to do with reality, until we step into that unmarked field like any other and a huge explosion destroys us. Reality is not the words others use to describe it until the sabre-tooth tiger they warned us about finds us by a campfire asleep. You cannot see a disease in transmission, because it kills you nonetheless.

Humanity has split into two basic camps. One side wants to ignore any reality but immediate sensation, and so is blind to the implications of its decisions. The other side wants to pay attention to predictions, but cannot see how when these predictions become corrupt we must work outward from what we know to what we can project. The nihilist, in the middle, wants to be both deconstructionist like the first and structuralist like the second.

Reality is a slap on your face. It’s also politics, because people act on that. It’s also the internet, because it informs people and they act on that. It is also every word every written, every symbol every created, and so forth, because people act on those. Reality includes all of these; reality is also a determination of which of these are correct, and an awareness that much as ancient people prepared for winter even though in summer they could not feel cold, we must pay attention to our predictions that are both prediction and accurate, or realistic.

We call things realistic when, because they’re well adapted to reality, they predict reality accurately. Nothing can be 100% accurate because for it to be accurate, it would have to be the whole of the cosmos itself and thus control exactly what would occur, but we can get close. Predicting where a crashed plane and its injured passengers are, even if off by a kilometer or two, is better than saying “we cannot predict with 100% accuracy, so let’s give up now.”

In that sense, we who want to discover reality are under a dual burden: to remove the garbage other people heap on us with their observations tainted by fear, emotion and a desire to manipulate us; also, to use the scientific method and knowledge to figure out how our world works and predict it. Making fire and avoiding nuclear war are the same thought process.

Right now, that leaves us — when we step back to the cosmic perspective — seeing a species struggling between those who want to hide in their own tangible perspective, and those who want to see the big picture. We see an overall decline of the quality of human thinking and the quality of human beings as we get more neurotic with this split. And we see ecocide, nuclear proliferation, and further existential angst in the wings. But those are topics for another article.

So what is reality? Reality is what’s outside of your face: a world arising continuously as the result of many interacting forces of matter and idea. As detailed above, to understand it, you’re going to have to master yourself and face reality as the functional mechanism it is, which is something few humans do.

This is why most humans are anti-realist: it’s as inaccessible as heaven to them. But to ask the question “what is reality?” is a good first step toward releasing us from the prison of our own perspective, and allowing us to see the infinite potential of this world hiding behind the shadow of human form.

Recommended Reading