Another One Against the Dogmatists: Cause they’re butter soft
Boy, you ain’t gone squeeze it, you around for no reason
- FBG Duck
Society is two people bickering.
If we try to understand the world like a math problem, we end up with something like 1 + 1 = 2 or 1 - 1 = 0
We’re actively translating an impression to understand the impression.
We’re trying to use the “math problem” as a reflection of the two people bickering.
Let’s say that math is a reflection of the two people bickering. You can replicate the occurrence with math symbols and numbers.
The math symbols can be see as the structural laws of the universe. The numbers can be see as our egos.
There’s this meditation I think is useful where you just continuously think of the word “bloom” while you meditate walking around the room. Since you can’t build on your thoughts, your thoughts being hampered by the word “bloom,” and since “bloom” is generic enough that your meditation isn’t really distracted, you can focus on your brain doing a couple things.
One, the world seems flat when you can’t build on words. Objects don’t seem as deep.
Two, you notice that there’s part of you that is receptive to what is going on but “bloom” itself is insignificant. It’s an action from you that you’re also receptive to. Not only are you receptive to it, you’re very conscious of it. But you’re not necessarily “doing” anything with it.
On the other hand, with this paragraph alone we’ve used words to contextualize an abstract concept while you’re probably sitting still and possibly mainly moving your eyes over these words. Your reception to these words are circling back to your throat, where they’re pronounced. They then go to your brain where physical cycles allows you for just enough recognition to tie old ideas together in new ways you’re unsure of. As you tie them together, you build a platform. In this platform is where you ego stands.
If everything is going well, it’s an abstract sensation and maybe even meditative. Anything can happen now because the words are reaffirmed but we’re still not sure what’s going on. We’ve left dogma behind. We only deal with the “facts.”
What are the facts? Sextus Empiricus, a Pyrrhonist skeptic, started with initial impressions. What I would call our ego. In common talk, more or less. So that your experience is fact. The fact is actually a thing handled by the ego as it processes its own reception.
The ego turns into a function, or something that is self-evident in movement. It affirms and confirms itself with no outside authority (in our case, mainly relative to society, sometimes the Earth’s atmosphere). Precisely in the movement it finds itself is where the ego exist. Our movements, insofar as they’re metaphysical, are correlated with what we call psycho-chemistry. Psycho-chemistry in a way contains both the structural integrity to form our thoughts and the thoughts themselves.
We can think about this an as economy. Each society has its own economy. Their diet may be based on their surrounding. Their religious beliefs may be tied to a physical location. We arrange things in terms of value and function. And this is economy. An example is how you structure these words.
The “self” is unintelligible before society. After society, the “self” becomes familiar relative to society’s ideals. There comes a point where the “self” manufactures its own ideals and can use those ideals in a rebellious act of “walking alone” without society. This self without a society is only intelligible to itself if it can support the structure. To integrate back into society, the self has to adopt the same value system and economy of the new society (the individual will also have an effect on the economy regardless). Either acts can be done begrudgingly, slavish, or with love, as a master.
Again, you’re reading this and if your mind is in an abstract, meditative space, it’s contextualizing the current moment with lofty references that may not be immediately obvious but which we can “entertain.” This is possible if the society you come from offered you enough tools to exist without them. Hopefully you can use those tools against them, unless you’re a dirty dogmatist that sympathize with traditional culture. Then you use this abstract space to defend your society’s dirty ideals. Only because method is holistic and if you defend the best of your people, you also defend their worst.
Insofar as we can entertain these thoughts they exist. And we entertain them in the same way we entertain our cultural norms or such. But when we entertain our cultural norms they feel “realer.” Why?
Cultural norms, again, come from society. Maybe Hegel said that the self comes after society.
That is, society came into being. Eventually, you had two people bickering from two monkeys throwing shit at each other.
You have two egos structurally reacting to each other’s ego.
Remember that the egos are like numbers. And the constraints that accord with the ego are like the math symbols. Everything together works, churns.
The thing about this, however, is the ego doesn’t exist as 1 or 2 or 3.
Remember the ego is undefined before society. It’s unintelligible. After society, you have a functioning ego that must deal with dogma within its intelligibility. But it must also move beyond dogma to better, newer, pine-smelling functions.
Let’s say you’re one of the two people bickering. You’re just a calculator to a degree as the other person is pressing your buttons. And you’re in turn pressing their buttons.
All of the sudden you stop. You do what, maybe Hegel, said was “reflect.” When you “reflect” you disengage from the actual impression you two are feeding off and simultaneously creating.
Your left with a lasting impression that only you can reference. The other person looks at you as you fall silent. They may not know how to react because they only know to respond to positive triggers as established by the society. The other person fall into thought because now they only have an invalidated impression they don’t know what to do with. But you stopped talking exactly because you knew what to do with the reference that put you in self-reflection.
Within this “self-reflection,” you’re feeding off impressions, references and you’re building a self-walking ego. An self-walking ego with no where to go but creativity (if it’s not hampered by dogma). Creativity is unintelligible and doesn’t exist before function. It requires an ego full of faith and hope.
Society is beyond capable of being re-united. We can only be receptive to each other’s unintelligibility and respect each other’s autonomy. That is, respect each other’s ability to move around. Therefore, hate speech should be protected speech because it prevents the build up of evil in silence. And you shouldn’t bring your social dogma into the internet. The internet is an abstract, free medium that shouldn’t be darken by dogma but used as a post-society aide in functioning without a society.