Complex Social Issues

In order to understand things in a world of complexity and manipulation, it is necessary that we see everything fundamentally.
This means seeking the internal state of things. There is no other way. Without this we are lost in the surface symbols and forms that only work in reference to their underlying associations, underlying associations which can be changed, and which therefore will only hold up for as long as they last. Manipulation always functions on the basis of setting up a mental association with a particular form and then using that form as a disguise while the underlying meaning is altered. The manipulation works because people become attached to form, while failing to notice that the meaning has been changed. Forms and symbols mean absolutely nothing on their own, and are given all power through what they represent and how they are used. This may seem like a simple statement, yet it is important to remind yourself of, as dwelling on it reminds and clarifies for you exactly what things symbolize to you, and brings you closer to a deeper understanding of your self.

So, again we come to the concept of the internal versus the external, mind versus body, spirit versus form and ego.

"The Outer - from the Inner, derives its magnitude -"
-Emily Dickinson

Relatability

It is perpetually frustrating having people like my art who clearly have no understanding or recognition of what it's about. The way people think is so common patterned.. I want to believe they understand and relate, I really do, of course I do, but I cannot feign disappointment like this.. especially when I'm straining to hold on to a sense of relatability.

Answers

When I was still,
for a moment, listen -
I heard my heart speak
And discovered a world inside a world
Which no one else can see

"Childhood"

Elusive Source of Inspiration

I've never felt anything that compares with this.. force. I wish there was a way to capture it, make it flesh and blood..

But maybe that's for the best.
We who know this will recognize each other by soul,
the rest are dead and lost.

"What is it?"

Shells of Social Politics

It is interesting how victim's groups work..

For an example, let's use gender.
The appearance of women, which is used to portray things and manipulate in social movements, is essentially milking certain external aspects of women as compared to men, to use to certain advantages.
That image being used to gain motivation for support is one of being seen traditionally as smaller, meeker, less physically strong, repressed, deprived, powerless and so on. It doesn't matter if it's framed in statements like "Women are physically more resilient!", such a statement is, of course, indicative of the initial underlying perception of women being weaker, smaller, or whatever, and its' tone is meant to be ironic or defiant in the face of perceived social conceptions.

But it is exactly this image that enables many women to run completely amok without checking themselves, sometimes in the most disgustingly arrogant, greedy, power hungry, insensitive, piggish nature of all. The image of Miss Piggy often comes to mind. If the social movements surrounding women I've seen are any indication, there is just no value placed on any of those positive qualities that made women appealing as a victim group in the first place. Instead, positive values are made into an image and then that image is manipulated to promote the opposite values.

In such a context, males on the other hand are sometimes inspired by this exact same dynamic to more frequently keep themselves in check and work on elements of their own equally human arrogance, greed, power and so on, as a result of their portrayal by culture as this big, powerful, insensitive macho monster.

But for whatever truly positive values a person expresses - meekness, sensitivity and so on, and even despite how much more they might have to suffer for it by existing as such a type of male in the face of the larger scheme of a power-hungry male culture, (while simultaneously being appreciated and recognized less) that just doesn't matter to people. People don't see that, people don't care. They only see the shell, and judge by it. And so, oftentimes the disgusting, arrogant waste of life pig who happens to be a woman takes all the credit, repressed status, and so on... simply because of the shell she lives in.. and at times like these, I can only wonder how she would fare if she had been born a man, with the same arrogant attitude.

What can I say about other victim's groups? It amounts to the same things.

It seems that at precisely that moment when a demographic becomes arrogant about their victimhood that things have gone too far and need to be rechecked. When they are pleading and apologizing to society for mentioning anything of it, however, when they honestly feel backwards, ridiculous and embarrassed for even bringing it up, is when it needs to be looked into. Because that embarrassment could indicate true stigma. Which is not a romantic thing at the time that it's actually being perpetrated.

It is a fact of nature that those that are truly struggling, oppressed, and so on, are unrecognized by culture, ridiculed and portrayed as an antagonist and whatnot, and so they will always be, and only recognized when it's too late. To a certain point, people really do need to adopt a contrarian mentality. Just, not when they're being reverse-psychology'd or manipulated into it. Everyone wants to be a rebel, but only when it's fashionable or comfortable.

These qualities of a person, the ones that women on some level outwardly are portrayed as possessing based on their physical stature - qualities of sensitivity and meekness, these are the real values that make a person who they are. These are what is important, not their gender, or their orientation, or any of that bullshit, and these qualities should be valued and spoken on, these alone, and nothing else of a person. I understand now why framing things from these external perspectives, from one side of the ego, labeling oneself a feminist, for example, is a mistake, which only leads to problems. What makes a person valuable is their sensitivity, meekness, their understanding, their non-power hungry nature, their loneliness, and so. I'm not impressed by women who think they're special or ironic by being loud, arrogant, power hungry, ruthless or whatever. Those are the qualities that make a person worthless, and they won't get a free pass from me just because they exist in the body of a woman. This is why I'm not impressed by people's demographical shell at all, anymore. I don't care if they're transsexual, gay, Muslim, Christian, an anti-rape crusader, white nationalist, or whatever. I'm not impressed and I don't give out points for things like that. When I think about it, it's hard to understand that it took me as long as it did to recognize that point and the importance of it. I've seen every form of person used to express a lot of ugliness. People who are constantly portrayed as the victim or alternative are at increased risk of allowing themselves to live unchecked, and so, destructive arrogance often results. You don't have any of my respect until you communicate a truly valuable deeper self.

Maybe it sounds ironic to say given that this is essentially an entry about politics, but this also demonstrates why I have always been so apolitical. This is moreso about picking apart politics and finding the underlying motivations and meaning. I believe that politics largely is symbolic for people and allows them to channel repressed hurt into superficial obsession.

Right now I'm of the opinion that all of these classic "social movements" should be marginalized and people should strive not to see things in such terms, as it only creates conflict. I think, sometimes things in particular do need to be pointed out occasionally, perhaps, as I am here in this post about certain demographics, but only in the face of such ongoing discussions, and only as a segue: quickly redirecting the dialogue into speaking on deeper values, not building another victim culture around a specific superficial demographic, so as not to generate a shallow new social movement susceptible to manipulation. I think this is essentially why I find myself so bothered and revolted whenever people bring up such issues, over and over again. It's a game, a way of knowing nothing of oneself and making strawmen instead, which can be attacked eternally in a war without end.

Intuitive Understanding of Issues

It is unfortunate that I cannot always properly put into words, (or even coherent thought within my own head), the understandings I sometimes have about things. The subtleties, conflicts, complexities, grey areas, moral ambiguities, apparent hypocrisies, etc. If I simply describe it this way, it makes it sound like rationalization of disorder or emotional impulsiveness, but this is not the case. There is a much deeper and overall intelligence at work in humans, which does not always present itself fully to a person's conscious awareness, yet nevertheless can be sensed and understood in situations which are far too complex or elusive to properly or readily explain. This kind of intelligence goes beyond simple formal, up-front, immediate logical arguments, and might be known as "intuition". It also incorporates the weighing and assessing of human emotions at work in situations, which are of course beyond the scope of pure logic but nevertheless work in their own reasoned framework.

People like to shut each other down with simple arguments of logic, pointing out of hypocrisies,  superficial inaccuracies, and generally assessing only the most superficial layer of communication. At face value. An ability to process communication on a deeper level is needed, however. For the speaker, this means listening to the nagging, subtle sense inside yourself of something amiss, or wrong (or right?) you have for a situation, even if on the surface you cannot make an immediate argument and are made to feel absurd for even trying. Remember that all feelings or intuitions come from somewhere that can be reasoned out in some way, so it is at least worth considering them. For the listener, this means being sensitive to the speaker's inner state. To closely listen to the feelings and motivations behind someone's words, even if they cannot properly verbally express them. Or even if their words are laced with apparent hypocrisies or inaccuracies. Or even if the have an undeveloped understanding of themselves, and thus come out with all sorts of defensive/offensive/diverting/projecting/repressing/etc mechanisms in their expression. To not damn them simply for not saying the right thing, the correct thing, the politically correct thing, but to honestly formulate one's own direct understanding of that person, as deeply as possible, and draw honest conclusions.

I'm not talking about being passive, or not judging anyone.. quite the opposite in many cases. Rather, I am talking about, simply, a deeper and more complete attempt at understanding.

People do not want to do this, however, they just want to deal on the most superficial level of interaction, and things are only considered valid if you effectively 'deal' on this level, in simple logical verbal expressions that make a very superficial level of sense. And then manipulation of this surface level follows, to produce any cruelty that can be effectively, socially gotten away with...

Remember our hearts do not lie on this level, nor do our hearts lie, and listening to them changes everything.

"Ego Games"

Archetypes and Meaning

A common correlation attributed to people of great intelligence, talent, or ability is often the idea that they lack social intelligence, sort of almost as a compensation for their increased abilities.

This is a classic perception that is quite widespread. The "compensation" for their increased abilities is not often attributed to other areas, but rather mostly just social ability, social power and integration.

Many brilliant people accept this assessment for themselves, we even describe it clinically in terms of things like Autism, Asperger's and the concept of a savant.

It is my assertion that this is bullshit, disguised as biological objective insight.
It's really nothing different, fundamentally, from the people who see someone being smart, perhaps someone who is beating them in an intellectually demanding game, and react by making primitive remarks about that person's sex life, their loser status, and so on.

The dull masses can't accept that increased intelligence and sensitivity creates certain conditions in the given (dulled) social world: more awareness, for example in conversation, which can often create certain sensitivities that make it harder to communicate with or tolerate a more base human, and which is often quite reversed when two such intelligent and sensitive individuals communicate. ("Sensitivity" can be seen as another word for intelligence.) It is increased social intelligence and sensitivity that they possess, not the opposite. There also can be some lack of social integration: a lack of concern with social hierarchy and practicing gearing oneself towards advancing in such an area; more concern with deeper mental pursuits rather than practicing base social integration, and thus a loss at "knowing what to say." If a highly intelligent person willingly turns their abilities towards proliferating in such social pursuits, they can often be particularly successful/capable, but if they are smart enough, they are not as likely to desire to, and perhaps cannot even stand to, even despite painful alienation and isolation. To put it more bluntly, increased intelligence is not conductive to whore society, and in fact such base power-hungry behavior is mindless and primitive. That being socially power-hungry or promiscuous is ingenuine and stupid. Further, that whore culture is predatory and destructive towards intelligence and sensitivity.

Those who are part of the masses do not generally characterize themselves as dulled defects or in need of a diagnosis, even when they are clearly the ones deficient compared to a minority. (nor do they want to admit to such a thing) and so we have the little lies and subconscious rhetoric to silence everyone from addressing the issue. One good example of this at work are the accusations of "insecurity" or "confidence".

This essentially describes the classic nerd/jock archetype. In fact, it really underlies basically everything, as the social creatures that we are, based on evolution's procreative demands. For example, let's take a look at the social movement surrounding homosexuality. Being gay is seen as something that carries a stigma, and this is the basis of the movement, the arguments. But this stigma is essentially the same sort of maligned social power that runs into problems with the power hungry, sexualized base nature of humanity. The oppressed sense usually associated with "being gay" is essentially a convoluted, external representation of this underlying sense of social malignment, (a representation: only an image, which does not have to fundamentally be the same thing despite its' appearance) and people harness the issue in both directions, either to channel vulnerable concerns about social isolation/poverty into something easier/"cooler" to talk about, (homosexuality being more comfortable to talk about then virginity) or to mask the cruelty of their promiscuity and greed by creating the image of being accepting and loving. Note the way people constantly use words like "inclusive" or "dysphoria" to pander around when speaking of homosexuality... they are trying to play off your own lonely, alienated vulnerabilities, whether for good or for bad. of course, both types will also speak against homosexuality for similar reasons. By channeling underlying, repressed concerns into a superficial image, manipulation becomes possible and confusion flourishes.

If this sounds like strange nonsense to you, consider this: When people call someone a "fag", for example, they are often referring to a person's social state, not their orientation. They are referring to these same "nerd" archetypes that I have discussed, in the classic "nerd/jock" dichotomy. They are referring to the "losers". When they call such people "fags", they are expressing their own desired social dominance over that person's lack of social power. They are emphasising the humiliation that comes with virginal and vulnerable qualities. Perhaps the unspeakably uncomfortable sense they carry over a guy's proximity from female bodies. (or vice versa) In fact, I have seen people do this (numerous times) while simultaneously apologizing for using the word "fag", as it pertains to literal homosexuality. Look at people in forums or games online, who use these words constantly. Look at the classic portrayed example of fathers who call their sons faggots and see them as defective based on their more sensitive, meek or introverted qualities, such as the gentle kid who stays home writing sentimental poetry.

The topic of homosexuality in society, like so many other topics, is mostly just kind of a convoluted adopted shell to channel these underlying issues, stigmas and instincts into, without having to talk about them directly. A distraction, which fascinates and can never really come to a conclusion because no one will really admit what they are actually trying to talk about. Not even to themselves. What important underlying values (or lack thereof) motivate them to speak passionately one way or the other.

And, like I said, that is just one example. I can point out the same phenomenon in aspects of topics such as sexism, racism, "nerd culture", politics, rape, bullying, mental illness, economics, religion, fashion, and on and on.
And people use all of these topics in both directions to manipulate the issue in different ways. Look at how so-called "nerd culture" has become this huge, popular thing, and there is sort of this unspoken sense of irony that comes with that.. the arguments about what it means to be a "true nerd" or the presence of slutty behavior, within nerd culture. Look at the way people will adopt calling themselves a nerd almost as a badge to subconsciously prove something about themselves to others, as if adopting the shell makes them a more genuine person in some way. It's all really quite ridiculous. With any self-honesty, we know what the original meaning behind being a "nerd" was about, that made it what it was: having an interest in those things that bear proximity from sex or body, social power, more mind-based pursuits, which put those individuals at a certain position of diminishment in the social spectrum. Those interests that heavily wrapped them up in their own alien world. So, classically speaking, being interested in chess made you a nerd, being interested in football did not. Having no social life made you a nerd, having a girlfriend did not. Interests pertaining to the "nerd" exterior can shift somewhat, however, as we have seen with things like comic book culture and its massive popularity, endless 'Hollywood' superhero movies, huge conventions, the cheerleader-like cosplayers, people trying to prove how "nerd" they are to gain social acceptance, and so on; and thus, the sense that the meaning has been lost.

This - this social state - is the only real, positive meaning that being a "nerd" ever had, the rest is just the associated shell, which people can adopt, without actually encompassing any of the meaning, and which, over time, can even be reversed to contain the exact opposite meaning. As with the topic of homosexuality, it's just a shell, an appearance with an initial underlying meaning which can be lost or bastardized. That meaning is the only thing of importance, appearances are useless and should be discarded in pursuit of the internal value of things.

Everything is about the give and take of love: its' abuse and bastardization; love, meekness and sentiment vs. ego and power; and denial, repression and manipulation by a society that is overwhelmingly guilty and unaware of itself.

Quantum Physics

Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, when faced head on, without looking away, demonstrate the fundamental nature of existence to be far, far stranger and more surreal then any sleeping dream I could imagine. Things like religion do not begin to compare to the 'magical' nature of lucid reality.

Science carries with it a very cold, empty feeling, but upon close examination it can be utterly enchanting and, dare I say, spiritual.

I have always hypothesized that the greatest argument I have for 'god' or spiritual reality, is the fact that I have the conception of such a thing to begin with. A hole in my soul. Would a machine, a computer, grow such a thing on its' own? Where could that have come from, but a much deeper level of reality then that which we are used to?

I am conscious, I watch my own existence and experience, and that is something that requires a far deeper level of the nature of reality than the classical one we are used to.. From this perspective there is little need to distinguish between spirituality and science, rather we are simply just scratching the surface of reality with science.

"Supermassive Black Hole NGC 4889"

Compartmentalization of Intelligence

It's fascinating,
How much skill, talent, intelligence, and awareness people can show for their trade, their job, their hobbies, or sport. And such a thing is very common. Or at least that's my opinion.. I've had twenty different jobs in my life, and there are just so many people that are highly specialized with their own trade, really know what's going on and notice all these little details which would be lost on me at the point of entry. From this perspective, so many people really seem smart and skilled.

Really, people can be quite perceptive.

But when it comes to their personal life, to the big mysteries of life, the big questions, or philosophy, none of that intelligence translates, and can't be said to reflect how... wise, let's say, a person is.

I could just be motivated to say this to convince myself that I shouldn't be intimidated by people's skills shown in school, work, and recreation, but I think I can demonstrate very clearly that this is true using one example:

Here are some statistics on religion I quickly looked up:

Christianity	2.2 billion
Islam	1.6 billion
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist	≤1.1 billion
Hinduism	1 billion
Chinese traditional religion	394 million
Buddhism	376 million

...And so on (statistics continue in smaller amounts)

The theology/ideology of these thought systems, (despite anyone's ideas of "coexistence"), is fundamentally divided. These are all (or mostly all) major life/universe views which cannot be reconciled with each other, when looked at for exactly what they are. So for any single one of these groups to be even generally correct, makes all the others wrong.

Even if we wanted to take the most popular group, Christianity, and say that it may be true, we have to account for different divisions within this group, as with all the others. That doesn't even leave a lot of people in the world who see the truth very clearly.

I suppose you can sort of take, perhaps, Buddhism and say that it could more or less be compatible with agnosticism or secular religions, but not much else. The best way I can see this, would be if all the agnostics and more generally nondescript spiritual groups (such as Buddhism, which does not necessarily require hardcore specific dogma) were correct.. which would give us maybe a Billion people or so, possibly.

But this still leaves billions of people that are just plain wrong. Think about that..

Lots of arguments can be made. People could say that people don't take their religion too seriously, it's just a cultural thing, a family thing, they haven't studied it, and so on.

But how much can a person be said to have figured out about these deep questions if they haven't even studied it? If they don't even care and just absent-mindedly accept a doctrine as specific as a particular human/s or demigods being a crucial part of a grand specific dogmatic theme, as with Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and so on?

It just goes to show the lost nature of humanity. That you can't just trust that people mostly know what they're doing, and have it generally figured out.
It's a massive trainwreck, it's utter chaos, is what it is! Figure it out solely alone, and don't let anyone intimidate you!

Alienation

No one understands. No one.
I'm supposed to cringe at myself for saying such a thing, "what a cliche thing to say." "So emo." "That's totally not fashionable." "It lacks a certain self-superioristic sense abou--"
No! Fuck you, no one understands.
I look honestly for people to understand.. they always betray. I didn't want it to be this way. I betrayed myself a hundred thousand times trying to pretend like it's not really this way, that people can relate, that they are a deep friend who knows what I do. Those who maintain constant awareness are nary around. Only a brief rare moment, here.. maybe way over there, once, possibly twice.. then, gone.
They see my gripe, and tell me, "I understand"
No, we are alone.