Masculine Mystique

Psychoanalysis of Masculine Mystique

(Rudy 'n Fred ?)


They don't call 'im Jew-liani for nothing.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070730/D8QN4AHO0.html

Giuliani: Dems Want Nanny Government


July 30, 4:06 PM (ET)


(Murdoch gets Dow Jones. They don't call this month Jewlie for nothing)

By PHILIP ELLIOTT


MEREDITH, N.H. (AP) - Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani on Monday accused Democrats of favoring a controlling "nanny government" as he continued his bashing of the rival party

****

CNN, NBC and Fox Jews were all smirking heavily about Hillary's recently lowered neckline, dear, dear, ... "How long..?" you ask yourself, "did you think it would be before Hillary's tits became conservative fodder?" after all, they've living off slick Willie's cock sucking for over ten years now, and counting.

The unconscious associations with "Hillary" go back to the the brief Clinton "honeymoon" period after it looked like the sexy 60's had finally driven the Nixon criminals, Reagan Reversers, and Bush's international bloodline snake cultists back into their caves. Twin sister of Lorena Bobbit. Whacked off a US Marine's dick. Shove queers up the nose of barrack's CeO's. Cartoon pictures showing Hillary under a Christmas tree opening a box containing a large jagged edge knife. Tagged "Use it. I did - love, Lorena.) Rush Limbaugh starts hooting up "feminazis", and picture-smearing Ross Perot. (In Linder-ese, Limbaugh is "crypto-kike"; not the same as kikealike. Both terms mirror the Archetype of Medieval Jew as Old Adam, prima materia, untransformed lead. (No Second Adam in there) This was the birth of America's Baby-boom generation's emasculated "Killer mommy" group fantasy. From henceforth, Hillary, Bill and the pill; if they don'y getcha' the abortionists will.


Given this, it could only be a matter of time before there appears, Walla! -- "Masculine Mystique"! No, no Betty Friedan to document it. Only Franklin Foer, The New Republic and Fred (Thompson, not Flintstone)


From The New Republic: The Masculine Mystique of Fred Thompson
Franklin Foer Jul 27 (4 days ago)

Dear Reader,

"How did Fred Thomspon become the front-runner for the Republican nomination--before he has even declared his intention to run? In our latest issue, Michelle Cottle offers an explanation: Thompson, she says, projects an old-school masculinity that holds particular appeal for Republican voters. Subscribe today for only $9.97 to read the issue with this cover story."

*****

"Thompson" represents the inner essence of all males who do not intend to let themselves be mutilated, physically or psychologically, by any killer mommy bitch, and stand ready to fucking kill her if she even thinks about it.

This male ego-defense mechanism develops, in time, in reaction to nagging bitch mothers abuse. It follows by lawful flow of instinctive process in these conditions. It's called "male rebellion". Females are not -- or are not supposed to be -- called upon to react rebelliously in the same way toward the Mother, but toward the Father, as the figure standing between them and going out with boys (having sex). This is the matching SyZyGy of Male-Female/Father-Mother/Son-Daughter opposite-intersection-lineages. These compress ("tesselate") into S*double in the phrase "Oedipal/Electra complexes." The rebellious ("dark") side of maleness retains (kill<=> Mother) fantasies; the rebellious ("dark") female side retains (kill <=> (emasculate) Father) fantasies. The psychodynamics of the latter has played out over the duration of the last two millinia. The story is, The Father reconciled himself to the son's perpetual rebelliousness ("Z"-ing over from Electra's situation resolved: it comes down to who gets her) by sacrificing His own, which is identical with (one third) of His essence-substance incorporated in the flow of processes in an individual human body (believed by Christians to have been uniquely that of Jesus Christ). The said resolution between daughter and Father, however, was subsumed under her (the young female/daughter's) relation to Mother, through Mother, of "Father's child"; that is to say, through her passive-receptive role in being impregnated by a second one-third of Being-Father essence (may every woman be 'Mary' -- so vehemently resisted by Mary Daly). It is this, the bottom of the "Z" unfolding => the daughter's relation to the Mother, the War Within The Feminine => that was laid aside as historically unresolved. Jung spoke of the Anima (feminine, psyche) as "inclining to" the Animus (masculine, physical) in the Age of Pisces. The psychoanalytic faces of Parents of Aquarius, at Age's birth, are Nancy Grace, as Mother; Glenn Beck as Son**; Rupert Murdoch and associates doing the UnHoly Ghost on your soul.

(** daily staple on CNN, 8-10 pm weekdays, followed by Anderson Cooper. Nothing but crime and punishment on MSNBC after Olberman at 8.)

****


Brief metaphysical warning: Prolonged over-exposure to any wrongly constellated completing factor can cause permanent damage to the to7ality* (*unit of lawfully completing seven-stage life-cycle trajectory).

In particular, since any reference to parents (even by analogy), as sources-of-our-arising, evokes the emotional bond each has to the psychic totality of their own arising, then, given that whatever resonates to this evocation resonates through the essence totality, damage to function due to substitution of wrong Mother completing factor can be severe. What are called 'logicnestarian growths'* (*automatic confabulation of unconsciously associated mental content") will occur on nodes of the to7ality trajectory called "StopInders" (cf. psychosemiotic Enneagram). The lawful process evoked by over-stimulation of Bad-Mother-Dominance, for instance, would be that called "ego-defense" against love going out toward aggressive, overly seductive or otherwise abusive Mothers or Mother figures. These, as individuals themselves, of course, have a psychodynamics with issues its own, mostly entirely oblivious to the fact that their manifestations affect the inner reactions of children, even as their parent's had done the same to them.

Now, with the American Group Fantasy just discovering Barbara Bush is daughter of Satan, himself (no telling how G. W. was conceived), the double-sumultaneous play-out of


Perpetual Iraq/Mideast war for Israel abroad


<=>

Perpetual Killer Mommy politics at home.

becomes utterly obvious. I will that it be stopped.

The Analogy Between Minds and Computers

The Analogy Between Minds and Computers

"It's shocking how little we know about consciousness."
E. Dietrich

"Follow the argument wherever it may lead." old philosophical adage.


Such an excellent and helpful summary of mind-brain-memory-learning research by four professors at Binghamton University is presented by the summer '07 magazine (not online), written by Jim H. Smith in accessible layman's terms, it challenges a critical (but not unfriendly) philosophical overview and response.

"I'm an ardent supporter of computationalism," avers philosopher Eric Deitrich, who specializes in cognitive science and artificial intelligence. "He views the brain as a machine doing computations," Smith explains.

So ... we would-be intellectuals have an "-ism", here, based on a grand analogy. Brains and computers. Both "compute". "By understanding how computers can be 'trained' to gather and assimilate information, Dietrich and his students hope to better understand how humans analyze information." Humans gather and assimilate information; computers are programmed to do that as well. "Computation" applies to what what both do, as an operation on input to turn it into output. Perceptions, including language, are worked over, 'computed', by the brain to give coherent communications. The same kind of external-internal interaction can be arranged for computer-inputs to assimilate, collate, and print out words for.
This is the grand analogy.

This becomes a most pertinent observation in the scheme of things, because (continuing with the quotation) "Dietrich believes one key to how the brain's machinery works is analogies -- the wilder the better."

This paragraph, following the first, illustrates what is called a "text - token double" in psychosemiotics. First, a sweeping analogy is USED -- but being so, is not labeled as such.

Then, walla! what was implicit, 'there', but not singled out for recognition, turns up in one word, "key to how the brain's machinery works." What has been first conjoined under the text "computationalism", namely the analogy between brains and computers, appears as the very word "analogy" -- giving token to the unspoken. Is this Jim Smith's ordering? or Dietric's dynamics? It doesn't matter. It illustrates a particular way of analyzing the flow of sign-use through consciousness constitutive of mental processes in general.

That, at least, is the contention of psychosemiotics. This is the new analytical discipline that begins form content of consciousness under text and token of sign-use. This duality in the function of the sign in communication, by sense and sensation, has been overlooked and ignored by philosophers in general ever since Sumerian Marduk priests tricked the ancient, pre-Biblical Babylonians. What is processed by "the mind" first through text (signs used referringly, to stand for something other than themselves) may be re-processed, or "tokenized" later, as if some type of 'scanning loop' had found a match and come up with the right word.. Such a 'scanning loop' does the job of arranging the flow of conscious content in such a manner that token follows-up text. (Cf. use of the phrase "Descartes' cogito" as philosophical jargon.) But, also, we can consciously scan, then deploy tokens for what is getting unconsciously 'texted' -- particularly when experience is unfolding a drama. ("Hey! are you copping out?")

There is no question that we do this. The results could be elaborated in detail, contrasting "square" with "unsquare" tokening of text ( and paradox theory, e.g, "this is not a sentence"), and the introduction of self-contradiction and logical fragmentation by "squaring under self-contradiction". These require a formal apparatus to present succinctly. What the article proceeds to quote Deitrich on is the ubiquity of analogizing.

"Analogies happen nearly daily for most people," he says. (sic1) "Often it's more frequent than that. As near as we can tell, you have no control over it. (sic2) The mind uses these comparisons to understand new concepts." (sic3)

Comments: sic1 This is curious grammar, as if drawing analogies between this and that were something that "happens", an event. However, if processes flowing through consciousness are taken as a totality constituted by relating to sequences analogically, any actual noticing, or deliberate remarking on some specific, vivid analogy ("history repeating itself here"), implicitly bringing to mind both terms compared, then the content in this case is a "double" of textuality itself, in the token. That is what gives the phrase "happen nearly daily for most people" its communication -value: it is a tacit text-token double, "squaring" what the psychic apparatus carries out in mechanical linkage to arrange the double, by what is observe to "happen". using the psychic apparatus. Thus, a "douible-double". A kind of Grand Tautology: predicating text on token, and vice versa.

sic2 The question of "control" bridges the unconscious use of "analogy drawing" to "computation", what computers can be programmed to do in comparing "recognized" (scanned) patterns. This is a conceptual slide, or deflection, from conscious => textual, logical analogy-drawing, and unconscious (constitutive) analogy drawing. The issue of what philosopher's once discussed as "free will", back when psychology actually sanctioned use of the term "will" at all, edges in here. "Maybe everything I do and think is just a pre-programmed brain-pattern unfolding." This, however, again conflates the work of text and token. Actual acts of exercise of (what was once called) will, such as voluntarily raising or not raising one's hand, is textual, infused with intentionality, whether articulated or not. The meshing of gears in the psychic apparatus, including the head-brain, is called upon for the token side contribution. This is totally taken for granted in the process of intellectual mind-work. When reasoning is done in order to direct action, syntheses of the complexities in conscious content are subsumed under high-level text. The name for any Kantian "perceived object", for example, is a subject of sentences predicating various properties of it. (Truth or falsehood in any given case doesn't have to come in here.) What is synthesized under them can be taken apart, and re-appear as tokens, isolated and by analysis, prompted from consciousness. Now, "will" comes in in the ordering of these token elements isolated by analysis. Completion of the aim of this will, or meta-will, is in the unified schema of TokenSpace.

Quoting again: "What is really interesting about the mind is this: the farther apart two ideas are, the deeper the thinking involved." (sic4)

And that can be taken to absurd lengths. Lets.

Placenta Cosmos -
as the fetus first emerged from one,
so the soul of man emerges from the second

(isolates and analyzes belief in the survival of the soul after death, in a place beyond the stars.)

These are linked by the analogy between birth, gaining deliverance from the womb, and re-birth, taught by (some forms of what is called) Christianity as necessary to deliver the soul from the body.

This particular bit of analogizing can be readily explained by the idea of a template imprinted under trauma, making how we escaped the womb a model (analogy) of how ego-consciousness may survive the body. This goes with psychohistorian L. deMause's interpretation of Christ as fetal hero fantasy. Second birth to overcome death is the template. "Born again," however efficatious in sin-cleansing, is a token of the process lived through earlier. But having come thus far, tokening the very drama of emergence from womb into 'outer' cosmos, it is possible to take the isolate/analyze process further, and reconstruct the grammar of analogies derivative from THIS (rebirth) analogy. For instance: "salvation of the soul by believing in Christ". This is a "squaring double", taking sign-uses (S*n) predicated on sign-uses (predicated on....S*1) up to the highest level, thus completing the totality of consciousness under sign-use. In the psychosemiotic system modeled on the enneagram, n in S*n = 7 (or, alternatively, 9). The hierarchy of textual predicate levels is the sequence S*7 ......S*1. This is interpreted on the schema of TokenSpace as the totality of consciousness under sign-use, upper left (NW) quadrant.

The reference to templates of repeating cognitions and behaviors connects text and token through neuro-psychological functioning. A wholistic factor introduces itself at this point. The actual patterns "seen", "found", "used", by a person in daily life, when dealing with, recalling, and communicating experiences, are notoriously dependent on the functioning of the psychic apparatus. What the Mind Wills and what the Body does can be two entirely different things. The body responds to what Moves it; and this, again notoriously, is often less than ideas pertaining to the totality of conscious being. Quite the opposite it may be, in fact. It doesn't take a Freud to point predict pretty much where acting according to rational will leaves off, and acting according to what are now called "hormones" begins.

There is one major supplementation offered here to Deitrich's computationalism, is this. Recognize the gap between extensional (computerized) and intensional (mentalized) pattern-sequencing. This is illustrated by the diffeence between leter sequences such as ... AABBCCAABB ... are scanned by a computer, vrs. when "in the beginning" is scanned by a Bible believer.

Recognize a deep formal construction source of compilation of predicates of predicates of predicates....in a single system of unified conscious content. This yields a system of textual levels generated by 'loops' through conscious content assembled by three different contributing memory functions. The system as a whole distributes 'atoms of meaning' through the hierarchy of communicated meaning, from sense-data (S*2) to God (S*7).

This raises the question of soul. Two further quote of Deitrich is relevant here. "In my view, what lies at the core of being human will remain essentially mysterious." What is not clear, and he could clarify it, is whether what connects consciousness and soul, as used in traditional philosophical -religious contexts is not a distinct metaphysical substrate. I think would not object to that (might be inconsistent if he did),

The second quote is: "Computers are challenged by thinking that requires nuances. (ed.- these are Smith's words) "They're like savants," Deitrich says. "They do one thing very well, but they're only as good as their programming. The human mind may not be able to match them at what ever they're especially good at. But the human mind does so much more." We have taken him up on this, through psychosemiotics. There are loops, templates, ontogenic development, dreams and Freudian displacement to be accounted for -- thus far. We've got to hide what the soul is from them.
****
****


The "anatomical preparation", Freud called it. The peripheral sense sense organs harvest stimuli that strike the body from without. These are blended, and conjoined under signs use, in in many, many ways, with stimuli that reach the brain from nerves terminating on various internal organs, In giving an account of, or mapping the constituent inner processes, Freud stayed strictly on the side of consciousness. It is not to be expected that ideas, thoughts, concepts, even motivating factors (such as desire) should be localized in organs, such as brain-firing routes, as if "mother" were stored in compartment Cx#94, or whatever.

The common omni-present flow of mind-body process carrying on the functions required for conscious sign use.

Elements Essential to S* (sign-use) Processing

1. synthesis of qualities of the 5 senses under signs for perception of objects ("It"'s: Hume perceiving melting wax, for example);

2. qualia of feelings and impulses (from W. Reich: feeling/libido, impulse/anxiety; ex. of blend: "I felt like I was going to hit him." (libido => Active element of Omnipresent Okidonakh);

3. memory-inputs from two sources, hippocampal and amygdalan
for the two segments of sign-use processes for objects (1.) and for organic states (2.) -- assertoric (Logical S*) expressive (Emotional S*);

4. a scene, setting, or 'theatre' onto which can be projected a duplicate of conscious content under sign use. This 4th essential condition of conscious sign use corresponds to Thoth's tablet, Locke's tabula rosa, Kant's phenomenal intuition. From this, tracing even to Descartes method of systematic doubt, comes the representation of TokenSpace: the space formed by signs used in the act of communicating.

Mapping Analogies:

Space and TokenSpace

"Dietrich believes one key to how the brain's machinery works is analogies -- the wilder the better. "Analogies happen nearly daily for most people," he says. "often it's more frequent than daily. As near as we can tell (modesty, modesty), you have no control over it. The mind uses these comparisons to understand new concepts." Dietric's team is drawn to this analogy-creating rendency because "what's really interesting about the mind is this: The further apart two ideas are, the deeper the thinking involved." (add: "to link them" ? -assume meant)

Comment: So wouldn't Kant say. (Dietrich having an undergrad flashback). Kant deduced a system of Analogies of Experience from the conditions of unity of representation. "The principle of the Analogies of Experience is: Experience is possible only through the representation of a necessary condition of perceptions. Proof "Experience is an empirical knowledge, that is a knowledge which determines an object through perceptions, It is a synthesis of perceptions, not contained in perception, but itself containing in one consciousness the synthetic unity of the manifold of perceptions......(continues) " (Critique of Pure Reason - Kemp Smith, 208)

But what, in metaphysical terms, ARE the conditions of unity of representation, as mediated by empirical knowledge (note: double meaning: what knows is empirically known, through perception.)? Here is exactly where Kant's transcendentalism, efficient as it is, leaves metaphysics in the lurch. The "transcental" notion of a provable "God" is a Transcendental Illusion ("He" isn't "out there" -- no use looking); but what of the "one consciousness containing the synthetic unity of the manifold of perceptions" when the word used for the transcendental illusion is tossed into the heap? -- becomes a one of signs among other representations? This is where a systematic metaphysics is required to complete Kant's unfinished project, from "above" and from "below". What happens when "God", previously projected as transcendent, is in effect imanentized through the flow-of-anatomical-process passing through regular stages to conscious sign-use in communication (the highest teleological product of the system as a whole ("totality")? That is the metaphysical question hanging "above" our (humanity's) head, of what completes its totality. "What happens when the empirical consciousness comes to an understanding of its material condition?" This is the question of what completes the totality from "below". One way these two poles of the totality link is in the old wives tale (encouraged by preachers) that God sends dreams. Your dream, properly understood, is a message from God (he will help you understand). "He is creator of all; therefore, surely, of your perceptions in the sleeping state. He is speaking through your sub-conscious, using the psychic apparatus to communicate.

Btw, Freud also described dreams as like communications -- "expressions", not intended for anyone but the dreamer. Like a drama put on the inner screen by some unseen producer. The "God" explanation wouldn't have been science, really. Dreams, empirically studied, link to re-flux quasi-perceptual (lowest level phenomena) content from external and internal sensory-motility stimuli in the altered (but recallable) psychic state. After coming across the 'flash-back' effects of trauma, hysterical conversion, hypnogogic waking states with acted-out fantasies, plus reckoning in the energy-components released at birth (after 'travail' -- little empathy is ever expressed with the fact that an infant comes closest to death from an-oxidation; with terrific heat, squeezing; than at any other time of life -- he . It is to be supposed these oldest, most common neural routes, organ-hookups, and emotional responses


suppose we posit an analogy between TokenSpace and (what is called) Space, as the container of' objects. Now suppose the words "The Holy Sun Absolute completing the Cosmic Totality" is written in the upper-left hand (NE) corner

space', by extensional measurement)

Contents of consciousness correspond to what B. Russell called "sense data", making explicit the blending of the two essential components of any actual articulate situation: the S*, and the non-S*: Quality and qualia.

Through these processing 'stations', taken as categories, or undefined (primitive) expressions needed for the metalanguage of talk about psychic processing, it is possible to trace a hypothetical "totality of input under quantity", namely, the neuro-physiological quanta (measurable multiplicities) of energy arising from several locations in the body that are "burned off", or used up in the process, as when light in an electric bulb goes off. That accounts for its metaphysics. The First Transformation that occurs in the process of communication, tracking In-Out S* loops, goes from anatomical expenditure, through Quality/Qualia content, to signification: an assembled whole, depositing a dream in sleeping (lowest brain-wave) states of consciousness. This is the derivation of the definition (verbal equivalents) of "Content of Consciousness" and "S*(Ql, v)") (v for qualia/intensity; correlated with amygdalan memory and motility):

C'C =df. S*(Ql, v)

This is not a construct intended for deductive use. It is a way of putting together a grammar for predicating on "contents of consciousness under sign-use" as a sell-determined form.

AIEIOIUOA

AIEIOIUOA

http://www.slate.com/id/2170307/?gt1=10238

Should You Trust a "Gut Feeling"?The limits of gastrointestinal knowledge.

By Samantha Henig
Updated Friday, July 13, 2007, at 6:16 PM ET


In a conversation with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune on Tuesday, Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff said he thought there was an increased risk of the country coming under terrorist attack this summer—speculation he attributed to "a gut feeling." President Bush has also been known to turn to his digestive organ for advice: Explaining the Iraq invasion a few years ago, he told Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward that he was a "gut player." How much does your gut actually know?

Plenty. In fact, your gut is so packed with neurons that in the 1990s one gastroneurologist, Michael Gershon, dubbed it the "second brain." This enteric nervous system looks a lot like the network of cells that exists in your actual brain, and it uses all the same neurotransmitters (including 95 percent of the body's serotonin). It can operate on its own—that's without cranial consultation—to start or stop the flow of digestive enzymes, regulate pH levels inside the gut, or expel that week-old sushi that you ate against the better judgment of brain No. 1.


Scientists first caught on to the gut's unique ability to do its own thing around the turn of the last century. Two British scientists, William Bayliss and Ernest Starling, realized that the muscles of a dog's intestine contract in response to pressure. This reflex continued even after the scientists had severed the nerves connecting the intestine to the brain and spinal cord. Other organs (as well as arms and legs) depend upon the central nervous system for this type of behavior. The gut, it seemed, had a mind of its own.


Although the gut is the only organ able to keep itself pumping, churning, and spewing, its "thinking" capabilities are limited. We know when it's telling us it's full or needs to be emptied. But most of the messages that the gut sends never enter our awareness. Within the relatively new field of gastroneurology, scientists are still trying to decode what those messages are and how they affect us at a subconscious level. Some suspect that our emotions could be influenced by these signals from gut to brain.

What about the sensation of knots in your stomach—isn't that the gut's way of telling you to be wary of something (like a terrorist attack)? No, it's the other way around. If your brain perceives that you might be in mortal danger, it tells your body to start shutting down. Digestion would be a waste of much-needed energy in a life-or-death situation, so the lower portion of the gastrointestinal tract contracts to push everything out.


Got a question about today's news? Ask the Explainer.


Explainer thanks Michael Camilleri of the Mayo Clinic, Michael D. Gershon of Columbia University, and Emeran Maye of UCLA.





***What "brains" are, and the difference between vegetatinve (one), animal (2) and human (3) brained beings.





"...for the better understanding of the difference between the various brain-systems of beings, namely, the systems called 'one-brained', two-brained,' and 'three-brained.'


"Know first that, in general, every such cosmic formation called 'brain' receives its formation from those crystallizations the affirming source of whose arising, according to the sacred Triamazikamno, is one or another ofthe corresponding holy forces of the fundamental sacred Triamazikamno, localized in the Omnipresent-Okidanokh,. And the further actualizings of the same holy forces proceed by means of the presences of the beings, just through these localizations."





(comment: two phases of the common-cosmic Trogoautoegocratic-process are indicated here. 1. the formation of special organs ('brains'); 2. the transformation of natural processes corresponding to or congruent with these organs for the sake of the organism as a whole.





"...let us talk, though not in detail, about the results the Omnipresent-Okidanokh actualizes by means of these being-brains....


":The Omnipresent-Active-Element Okidonokh enters into the presences of beings through all the three kinds of being-food.


"And this proceeds because this same Okidanokh obligatorily participates in the formation of all kinds of products which serve as all three being-foods, and is always contained in the presences of these products.


"And so, my boy, the chief peculiarity of the Onmipresent-Okidanokh, in the given case, is that the dprocess of 'Djartklom' proceeds in it within the dpresence of every being also, but not from being in contact with the emanations of any large cosmic concentrations; but the factors for this process in the presences of beings are either the results of the conscious processes of 'Partkdolg-duty' on the part of the beings themselves, ...or of that process of Great Nature Herself which exists in the Universe under the name 'Kerkoolnonarnian-actualizations,' which prccess means 'The obtaining-of-the-required-totality-of-vibrations-by-adaptation.'


"This latter process proceeds in beings absolutely without the participation of their consciousness."





("Djartklom': "the dispersal of any given constellated being-unit into the three fundamental sources from which it obtained its prime arising. (Only then) do these sources, each separately, give the beginning for an independent concentration of three separate corresponding formations, within the given cosmic unit. And in this way, rhis 'Omnipresent--Active-Element' actualizes, at the outset, in every such nrw arising, the sources for the possible manifestation of its own sacred law of Triamazikamno.")





(What Death brings; why Remorse is felt)





"..only after the said cosmic unit has been completely destroyed do these holy ssources of the sacred Triamazikamno, localized in the 'Omnipresent-Active-Element-Okidanokh,' reblend and they are again transformed into 'Okidanokh,' but having now another quality of Vivifyingness of Vibrations."





(Comment:---the totality of life vibrations undergo transformation into the DO of a higher octave..)





".....(fundamental cosmic second-degree law existing in the Universe, under the denomination of the 'Sacred Aieioiuoa") --"There proceeds within every arising large and small, when in direct touch with the emanations either of the Sun Absolute itself or of any other sun, what is called 'Remorse," that is a process, when every part that has arised from the results of any one Holy Source of the Sacred Triamazikamno, as it were, 'revolts,' and 'criticizes' the former unbecoming perceptions and the manifestations at the moment of another part of its whole--a part obtained from the results of another Holy Source of the same fundamental sacred Cosmic Law of Triamizikamno."

Consciousness denied?

Originally Posted by Helios Panoptes
Do not be fooled (1) into believing (2) that there exists a thing denoted by 'consciousness.' (3) Consciousness is a property. Animals have consciousness, mental states have consciousness(perhaps in two different senses). I see posters speaking of consciousness as if it is the sort of thing that an apple is or that a chair is. It is not. It is like goodness or redness.

1. OK. -- assuming you were wisely directing this metaphysical advice at the reader, and not just farting words. By GOD! I just say: lets not be fooled about anything!

2. "Believe", doesn't denote anything at all -- readiness to fart sideways, maybe; certainly nothing apart from use of the word, as opposed to 'cosciousness.' However, "fooled into believing"... yep. there's something there, maybe. The word is supposed to contrast with "know", I guess. What you're left with after stupidity aha. But the Greeks got along with 'opinion' v 'knowledge'. "Belief" is nothing without the "propositional attitude" lead-in given it by Russell.

Whatever does not exist apart from the word used to communicate it

(=> 'denotation' has clear rules of use only in a syntactically reconstructed object language, where it means "undefined descriptive constant"; its use in informal contexts smacks of too much wiki woo)

has no objective reality oputside consciousness.

Consciousness obviously exists apart from what is communicated by the word (remember the bunnies) -- or else neither this, nor what you wrote could get communicated. (Consciousness is the mental processes underlying thought, which uses signs to communicate.) (Bunnies ain't got grammar -- two brained being; essence, but no soul.) You should try to use the study of philosophy to get to know yourself.

3. You fumble over the category-name to fit 'consciousness' under:

-- is a 'property' (what of? -- Macrobius wants to know)
Are you saying properties don't exist? (well, I'll bet I could find you predicating on 'property' terms, thus generalizing over predicate variables, thus assuming the existence of universals, thus contradicting yourself if you deny consciousness exists because the word stands for a "property". It's actually very easy contradict oneself in trying to think about philosophical issues. Best to start with the law of non-contradiction, move into truth tables, quantum theory, relations, then take it from there, whatever the fuck you think you "believe". That will keep you linearized until you can see through this Dennet-Dawkins reptilinalia, picked up by the snakes in academic philosophy departments who are mostly far less far along than yourself, when it comes to consciounses, if not intellect. Now that unintelligible mishmash is disappearing up the arses of undergraduates these days.

-"is an event".. I happened to be present at the U. of Wisconscin faculty colloquium at which Fred Dretske, golden-haired boy from nearby Minnesota, specifically criticized the prevailing subject-predicate ('monadic' for experienced-exemplified properties, 'n-adic' for relations) syntactical framework by defending the notion of 'event', for which he had arguments and a schema. (His grasp of formalisms was nonpareil.) But, cutting to the chase, this merely fractured the essence-body of philosophy further. Next, causation fell; then, the analytic-synthetic distinction; then, the general scheme of an Ideal Cognitive Language coming through Logical Empiricism (cf. the Minnesota School, Feigl; Bergmann, at Iowa -- Weinberg was at Madison) AS their 'positive' contribution,

fell into default ....

It was replaced by Quine's too slick and easy quantification logic, with its "open" and "closed" "sentences" -- tacitly invoking the ever present spectre of a formal domain, while systematically obfuscating its clear outlines which go back to his simplification of the way to prevent type-paradoxes in a fromal metalanguage (just stratify the 'x's and 'f's" for
(x) f(x) so that 'f' cannot be substituted for 'x'; thus neither f(f) nor ~f(f) is well formed. Easy for him to say.

But as demonstrated here in all the examples of "squared" sign" uses I have harped on in lo these many posts of mine -- from signs of signs to consciousness of consciousness to the totality of content of consciousness under (a specific order of ) sign-uses -- this doubling of S* is, in fact, not only the virtual key-note of ordinary discourse, invoked by Plato whin speaking of Justice Itself, and whereever the Bible uses the phrase "King of Kings", etc......not only the portal entered whenever ordinary conversation turns to philosophy ...it is one main formal feature of psychosemiotics (takes up where the object-language of science leaves off, now that we know how to circumscribe it). (You want to see doubles, look at Kierkegard, anywhere.)


Russell's theory of logical types must be retained as a definite, non-variable, token-specific hierarchy, I hold, in order to: 1. legitimately stratify levels of predicates over individuals in a single system, through the apriori condition of the consciousness of them as content under S*. That is the outline of my proposed psychosemiotic system: sign-use; the distinction between text and token in (every instance of) sign-use; the doubling of text x token as a unique, non-sentential conjunction, matched or 'mirrored' by the formula for S* ^ ~S* -- when a text negates its own token, as in "this is not a sentence" etc.

2. as a formal analytical propadeutic to prevent
bobblehead hasnumuss logisticisians from doing armchair metaphysics.

Quine was how the Catholics controlled Harvard. Next to him, Dershowitz is all mouth). Its not his formal moves that are wrong, it is the malformed informal metalanguage
that misleads here. His moves led to set theory, on the one hand, having eliminated actual property-predicates in langauge as names ... and Einstein's Theory of Light*,
on the other hand (=> exists only when you are saying it with him). Not that Einstein's bobbleheaded (not: hasnamuss --at first) vision of riding in on a light beam travelling through space light years away, away, away....thunk. YO! E= Mc^. .. is just his imagination. It's actually a textualized form of consciousness. But only one of a kind, which doesn't work on the token side unless you are prepared to equate consciousness and light. Is that OK with you? It's not like scents and flavors, which are contents of consciousness (unless you deny their connection by memory -- through consciousness, by 'reminder', recall -- and say "the flavor smells the scent, the scent tastes the flavor", which is absurd.)


(Each individual's private self-awareness is a space it is logically impossible for another's to be identical with
or 'set inside of'. However, its essence -totality can be wrongly completed if the person whose consciousness it is identifies with the textual content of sign-use in communication as foundation of metahysical truth.
vs the tokens, whose causal particularity bring us back to consciousness as a process). The continuity of consciousness grounded in memories retained from the time spent in mother's womb, forward, is the empirical ground of individuation latent in personal being-essence all the way through.)

Contents of consciousness may be called events -- awareness of the blue spot on the wall, over there, is an event; but consciousness itself is the process all such events have in common, qua awareness. (One doesn't
say the river is a current; currents are in the river. Similarly for content and consciouness.)

ADDED: (you can be conscious without being aware that's what its called, just as you can say "I don't believe I'm conscious" consciously. Only in the latter case you would be a nut.)
__________________
I ain't down here for your money
ain't down here for your love
I don't want your love nor money
I'm down here for your soul.
plucked from The Anonymous Air

The Jewification of Amerika

Letter to the Editor, July 8, 2007
The New York Times


"The Times' courage; Bush's 'cowardice' " might be one appropriate heading for today's New York SundayTime's editorial page, juxtaposed to Frank Rich's "Profile in Cowardice" article about the President's commutation of I. L. Libby's sentence.

Except that surely wouldn't catch the actual historical link. Obfuscates it, in fact. The Times' courage in finally calling for troop withdrawal, now, is off-set by its failure to print what, apparently, every other news organization knew, that the leaker was R. Armitage. If Robert Novak knew it, why didn't you?

The actual link between Libby's commutation and Iraq goes through The Lobby, as the Israeli influence network skewing U.S. Middle East foreign policy has come to be called, after the article by Mearsheimer and Walt on the topic. And The Lobby extends through Libby, AIPAC, AEI, Lieberman and John Burns, Idealist neocon right-wing rotting Alpine root in there with arch Jews Safire, Rosenthal, et al

In the words of Andrew Speaker, who was informed over the phone to report to a hospital in Italy because he had a hyper drug resistant strain of tuberculosis, "What's changed?", to prompt the editors to call for Iraq withdrawal now? Could it be linked to the timing of the London bomb threats, to coincide with what bleeding bit of patriotism could be wrung out of native July 4th pride?

What we see taking place here, held just off-stage, correcting the nice contrast between courageous Times and cowardly heads of state, can only be called the Jewification of Amerika. Suddenly everywhere.
Norman Mailer will be stabbing his wife in the belly again down the hall, on the right. Robin Williams will be having the burps on Larry King. Schmoozing Scumer and Mayor Koch.

"Need protection from suicide bombers? Let experienced professionals help. They know the enemy." That is the ticket both parties will be running on/from, the take-over and hijacking of America's Homeland Security apparatus and Corporate secret agencies, trickling down into police harassing hi-school girls in the classroom . Their Man for '08" Fred Thompson. (get him out fast) "Always the most decisive one in Law and Order episodes," observed one Fox News guy. Thompson v Bloomberg. Now there's a ticket.

The psychodynamics is Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome: Exaggeration or fabrication of illnesses or symptoms by a primary caretaker.
( http://www.kidshealth.org/PageManage...icle_set=22205 )

"We'll protect you from the evil, terrorist Muslim Islamic fascistic Ideology of Hate jihadists." Could be one sneaking across the border right now. Maybe locked up inside some luggage from China. "Deadly al Queda cells spreading everywhere." If you cop a plea by listening to any of these poisonous poison anecdotes, your tacit admission of complicity and guilt might spared you the worst, so long as you agree to be protected by The Protectors.

This situation gives those responsible for the Iraq carnage, the Libby Lobby Lieberman Loon goons, the key to every house, bathroom, basement in America; no-knock warrants, and arrests on suspicion. Its what the Nazis did in Germany. We "extremists," that is, whoever rejects identification of U.S. interests in the Middle East with Israel's, get to be bracketed as "the jews" this time around.



(I'll include my real name and send this to the eds. Don't tell me it doesn't stand a Chinaman's chance in hell. Anybody knows that.)

For the Phora: what I was responding to

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/op...08sun1.html?hp

Editorial
The Road Home

published: July 8, 2007

It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

The L you say

THE L YOU SAY

("HE'S LOOSE!" )


Crystalizing Sign*Lines

Around the Bardic Triad

(Or: Another Republican 4th of July gone by.
'07 ' this time around)

Remember when "L" connoted:
Left
Liberal
Liberty
...Love

I think there is a PsychoSemiotic Police Bund attached to the politburough somewhere assigned to break that up.

Replace it, without through away its 'brown paper bag', sexy clout, by a new set of L's from Hell (see below).



Method:
This work follows the Story unfolding in current events, by stringing together "Signature Tokens", from separate, independent contexts, as key Signifiers*. The contexts are textual content tangent their uses.

The Signature Tokens thread the collective unconscious, laterally as it were, given as a totality outside of time. They also, at the same time (!) provide an episodic trajectory through the historical process of those participating in the Group-fantasy communicated. In other words, properly laid out, the Story of Archetypes in Sign-use is the Story Of both What is Happening Now, in mass, collective-consciousness terms, and Why & How this occurred.

The Signs (S*) are: words, pictures, persons, vignettes, carried as "news" and "culture" in the main stream media (MSM).

"The Daily Bread" of interchanged S*-tokens is taken as a totality*, namely, a (non-integral, in the mathematical sense) field of TokenSpace*, the space of relationships of conscious content under sign use.

The term, TokenSpace*, with the asterisk standing for "in use", correlates with John Locke's tabula rose, Descartes' extreme doubt about the existence of the external world, Bertrand Russell's sense datum, A.J. Ayer's 'language of appearance', and, in general, all those who have followed Kant's Critical consolidation of the phenomenal dimension of human knowledge and experience. It stands for each person's awareness of themselves as a person on "this (their) side" of the two-way nose bridge, looking at, into, another similar being by reading, listening to, conversing with others.

And perhaps it would not be too premature to point out that this implies, as a presupposed metaphysical starting point, a theory of truth, namely, what is true in a string of S* is what synthesizes reality, as confirmed by others.

With no more ado, I cut to this crystal: the July 4th from L.

London
Libby - Lobby - Lieberman

Linked*: Two non-car bombs in London: 1 -1 in the fibonaci
series, "squared" by the Link to Scotland through the "yard"

(note: this is key to the crystalizing Bardo planes. From the very outset, in 'thinking' (cathectng, in thought) on "the Failed London Bombing", one is required to fill in the gap between what actually occurred, which was almost farcical as serious terrorist act, and how it "played out" (or "up"), confabulated by officials and the MSM as a illustrating a global terror plot by al Quidaists.

The Scotland Yard - Glascow, Scotland Link is by use of the word "link" repeatedly to refer to the two (non-) car bombs in London's historic centre. "They were linked", it was said from the start, then over and over. But neither could have "gone off". The word "device" was used vaguely, of the cars with inflammables, and the cell phone containing a 'treasure trove of information' (sic) leading to immediate on-scene nabbing of the suspects as they were pushing their vehicle into the hospital's door before bursting into flame. Those were the pictures and words. Turns out to have been a ring of Muslim Medical Men (wait, M! -- this is L's turn). Undaunted by their failure to blow up Piccadilly, the zealots drive North to try to (non-) blow up the very hospital where they worked. How full of hate is that. "Allah!" the one on fire called out, it was said.



Jewish columnist Tom Friedman makes a big thing of this.
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/opinion/04friedman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fThomas%20L%20Friedman

"I knew something was up when I couldn’t get a cab. Then there were sirens and helicopters whirring overhead. I stopped a passerby to ask what was going on. He said something about a car bomb outside a disco six blocks from my hotel. A few hours later, I finally found a taxi. The driver warned me that it was nearly impossible to get across town. Another bomb had been uncovered in a car park. Next day, more news: a suicide bomber had driven his Jeep into an airport and jumped out, his body on fire, screaming “Allah! Allah!”

Where was I? Baghdad? Kabul? Tel Aviv? No, I was in England. But it could have been anywhere. The Middle East: Now playing at a theater near you."


Oh how quickly we believe
When once we predicate to deceive

Another S* quirk is the symbol "XMD" turning up in the MSM. It was used for the super-strain of Tuberculosis recently all over the news, in early May, due to the alert that a Demon TB CARRIER, was possibly aboard your plane. This we all know now to have been Andrew Speaker, apparently no more contagious now than he was when given tacit permission to travel, before the CDC and Dr. Judith Gerbering injected themselves into the case on the bases of what has proven to be a false positive test. (his father presciently taped the approval) Well, for "X-" MD's, the Killer Doctors Cell, what should turn up but another link. "Those who cure you will kill you", says a voice from the Demon jihad past overheard by the MSM.

When predicates are built on other predicates, on other .... in TokenSpace*, and at the bottom of the stack of turtles holding up this universe of discourse there is nothing, a Zero for reality, except for that supplied by the person's imagination. Understanding that non-existent phenomena will lay hold on the person on Bardo Planes, that is to say, stages of release from karmic influences that cling to consciousness in the Tibetan Book of the Dead.

Three Bardo planes tangent to the 4th from HELL

Bardo 1. The Terror Plane Bombs bursting; nails shattering faces, skin

Bardo 2. The Political Plane (-Bill and Hill -- and what a trip --
Did someone say Tripp? (Remember Linda?)
And Starr? -- (Remember Ken?)

Politics => Starr - Tripp redux (at best; at worst, its Giuliani v McCain)

Bardo 3. Cosmic Dissolution - Prions, Worms, diseased blood cells, all seeping up, in, through the cracks to hell itself. Someone left the Cosmic Gate Open.