Author Topic: Mindfuck and The Flyer Mind  (Read 1095 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

August 23, 2016, 06:37:38 PM
Read 1095 times

Reaver

  • New Member

  • Offline
  • *

  • 2
  • Karma:
    0
    • View Profile
I'd like to see what perspective people who practice magic have on this phenomenon, should be an insightful exchange.

Disclaimer: If you perform a search you may come across different places where the first posts I make on this thread are exactly the same, that's because I use the same username everywhere I go on the virtual space these days. In case anyone thinks it necessary I can provide evidence to show all those reavers and this one here are one and the same.
=================================================

The term “Flyer Mind” was used by Don Juan Matus, the Yaqui shaman who taught or tried to teach shamanism to Carlos Castaneda and it is the term I prefer to use to describe an universal phenomenon along with the term: “their mind” since that’s a remark by Don Juan: “They gave us Their Mind”

These parasitical entities have been observed through the ages and given different names: Flyers, Their Mind, Archons, Demons, Angels, Shadows, Predator, The Devil.

This is not the same as the Ego, in fact I’d say this is one step beyond the Ego.

Inevitably the contemplation of the Flyer Mind also leads to explore how so called reality can be bended.

The following is a recompilation of my writings on the subject, so at times it may seem incoherent. This is a topic which is inter-related to virtually everything in life, so you will also see that I touch on other subjects.

Word of warning: This is subject which triggers a lot of people, so at times I won’t even reply to avoid this from becoming a mess. The ideas of reality control have nothing to do with new age teachings and very little to do with what most so called teachers promote in the alternative scene. There are fine lines between make believe and practical application. I’d recommend to get acquainted with Vernon Howard’s work to have a solid foundation of “reality hack” and not just make believe to justify a mental stupor. Oh and any personal anecdote of mine will just be used as a point of reference to shed light on the subject, nothing more I’m not looking for virtual hugs nor I desire anybody’s “love & light”. Feedback will suffice.

So here it is, to begin a piece which tries to simplify the matter to have a decent foundation to build on:

—————————————————

You can’t explain the psyche with materialistic science. That’s impossible since science is concerned with the study of the material world, while psychology in concerned with the study of the mental. I know that for a mind which is heavily rational (and I don’t mean it in a bad kind of way) it is almost a heresy to claim that something intangible exists for real, it must be always backed up by science as we know it today.

The concept of “their mind” as Don Juan puts it is not some made up fantasy which denies everything that science has contributed to human progress nor is about turning a blind eye to things like some banking empire nor is it denying the existence of psychopaths looking to practice sadism with the rest of the world. It merely tries to illustrate how most, if not all, the fucked up things in this world are the symptoms of a psychological disease.

Let’s kill the wording “their mind” because it simply gets in the way for most people trying to figure out what the hell some people are talking about. I can understand why such words cause an immediate shut down, after all it almost sounds as if “their mind” was some kind of ghosts busters myth.

Let’s think in more familiar terms. If I were to say that X person is possessed by “their mind” then some people would think I was somehow bringing back some paranoia of the middle ages and I may as well call it a satanic possession, but such conclusion couldn’t be further from the truth.

This person who is “possessed” by this mind virus is someone who has gone through a heavy social conditioning over the years to the extent that this person feels very identified with their programming. In their perception; these mental constructs (which someone else build for them) are what give meaning to their life.

If you try to make this person see the truth behind it, then most likely you’ll get a hostile reaction varying in degree. Some may call you crazy, some may even go as far as killing people who oppose these mental programs. But are they the ones in control? are they actually reacting from a place of authenticity? is it their own rage?

How could it be their own reaction when we have concluded that they are the receivers of a pathological social conditioning? Thus the talk about “their mind”. It is the mental programming doing the reaction masquerading as the real person. I understand this can sound paradoxical as hell because the claim is: That person is going bonkers, we can observe it in his/her reactions, but at the same time it is not really him/her.

But then again we’ve seen what happens when a person starts to recognize these programs and proceeds to remove them and manage to handle the ensuing inner conflict. They start to get better to a degree and even their personal life seems to improve somewhat or at least their psychological life does.

By approaching things from another angle, you could say that the ills of the world are the result of serious psychological trauma. That is not to say that there aren’t bankers looking to enrich themselves and the expense of others, that doesn’t mean there aren’t people out there messing things up, that doesn’t mean every single adversity in life the common person finds if of their own doing.

All that is being said is that all those predicaments can be traced back to an origin point which is that of a traumatized psyche which in turn creates an environment suitable for sadism and masochism. These conditions then create mental programs which over time can prey on a vulnerable psyche and in turn infect them with either form of pathology. Still sound too hocus pocus? See it from this perspective:

You have a baby who is a blank slate which facilitates the influence of external forces. Most likely the first external influence the baby will come in contact with are his/her parents. Over time the child will absorb any set of values and beliefs that the parents practice and in turn will emulate these values and the health of his/her psyche will be largely determined by these values or parental conditioning.

Let’s say the child has to grow up in a seriously dysfunctional home. The child will be exposed to pathological mental programs that will impact his psyche in different ways. Over time the child may emulate those programs and become a fucked up adult, perhaps he’ll be sadistic or maybe he’ll be so broken that he’ll bend over to anyone who displays enough force. Isn’t his condition the result of social conditioning? can we really says that’s an authentic person? or is it a seriously traumatized psyche doing whatever it takes to survive?

In this example the child has become “possessed” by the pathological mind of his parents. Of course this is just a figure of speech, if you take it that literally then you have some serious rethinking to do. In psychological terms the child has been exposed to a pathological social conditioning for so long that he feels extremely indented with it and acts accordingly.

The child can be guided through a healing process, but only HE can overcome it, there is room only for one. Now the fact than only he can put himself out of such a mess does not equal a negation of the impact that his parents had on him nor their responsibility, nor does it deny his current condition. Yet we can observe that how this person acted out during his/her life was a symptom of these mental programs running in his psyche.

When we try to break this programming don’t we see similar reactions in people who’ve become heavily invested in their conditioning? they deny their pathology, they will fight tooth and nail to preserve the programming alive because they feel naked without it. In other words they are trying to preserve the mind of their programmers alive because it is what gives meaning to their life, by holding into these programs they also guarantee acceptance amongst those suffering from the same pathology so that they don’t become outsiders.

Think about christian programming. Aren’t there mechanisms in place to make the person feel guilty and scared of questioning his values? let alone leave them behind. To use a metaphor: When “their” mind is threatened it will try to preserve itself.

Had the child been out of the influence of his parents social programs then he’d never have to live with a traumatized psyche. Of course this was a simplified example for practical purposes.

We can project this dynamic on the grand scale where there are more factors at play that just parents. Yes a person is under the influence of pathological programs and there are people who propagate them and in who in all like-hood messed up a person in a direct or indirect way, but at the end of the day, it is up to this person to rise, no one else can do it for him, at most guidance and help can be offered.

Don’t TPTB try to shape the world according to their image? to their mental schemas? aren’t they infecting the world with “their mind”? their pathological mind is what paves the way for wars, famines, ponzi schemes and all that, symptoms of their mind. You may be able to mitigate those symptoms, to patch things up for a few decades, but if the root is not dealt with, then those symptoms will resurface sooner or later… maybe they’ll just manifest in different ways.

So again “their mind” is about identifying the psychological roots of this world’s ills. The psyche is the code while the events out there are the output, by studying both you will see a picture of the whole.

It’s a hard pill to swallow, I know. I’ve been there and still find myself there sometimes. It’s tough to cope with because one day you realize that yes TPTB and everything related to it are harming the world and people suffer, but even then, the real solution lies in each individual taking responsibility which consists in pulling themselves out of the mess they find themselves in even if someone else put them there.

It also has to be acknowledged that “their mind” can be very clever. So clever that it even uses “good” to camouflage itself. Good deeds, pure thoughts, good people, etc.

You can see it happenning in big pictures. Take the example of parents who actually believe that sending their children to school is actually beneficial for their children and if that wasn’t enought they also believe it makes them excellent parents. When you apply the skill of observation you can see that it may feel good, that people may believe it’s beneficial, but actually it is highly toxic.

In this example the cons outweight the pros. Yes, kids may learn to read, write and apply basic arithmetic, but along the way they exchange their potential for the “virtue” of absolute obedience. Of course their mind will seduce people and make them believe it is all for their own good.

There are numerous examples which illustrate how “their mind” uses the concept of good and good feelings to destroy people’s psyche. You can see it on the Alternative Circus too with all the spells the celebreties cast on the faithful ones. It sounds good, it feels good so it must be good and so people consume these products and ideas coming out from “their mind”. You could say people fertilize their psyche and the psyches of their off-spring so that “their mind” can reproduce and thrive.

Now this is not to say that something like altruism is an entirely evil concept nor completely useless, but we have to examine if people are applying this idea for the right reasons. Does it feel good? probably. Should we feel good about helping out other people? I don’t see why not… but answering these kind of questions don’t reveal that much so we have to take a deeper look.

Why do people feel good about it?, What factors influence them?, Who is providing the definition of altruism?, are these good intentions really beneficial? Are they fixing things on the short term? what about the long term?.

Sometimes I’ve found that I did “good deeds” because it was a mechanism to cope with my own anxiety, but “their mind” is clever so I was telling myself cute stories to avoid facing the underlying reasons for my “good deeds”. They had nothing to do with a response, but they had everything to do with a reaction to try to patch a psychological crack and thus their mind kept getting bigger and stronger.

“their mind” really hates exposure and so it uses all sort of tactics to avoid being discovered and if it is discovered then the toxic mind will use a different set of tactics, this time to convince the host that it is in their best interests to keep “their mind” alive and well.

Their mind couldn’t care less about morality, that’s just a concept which serves more as a distraction than anything else. Their mind will use ideas of good and bad alike to infiltrate people’s psyche and so you can see a lot of permutations of their mind: Some people become extremely sadistic, some others go on to live the life of saints and help everyone who looks like are in dire need and so they feed co-dependent relationships. “Their Mind” is flexible and makes use of a big scale of greys so you will see different degrees of toxicity.

One of the main aims of “their mind” is make their programs “normal” and “familiar” so that the hosts don’t question them at all because they are supposed to be a natural component of humanity.

It also has to be understood that the exploration of the artificial mind is NOT about suppressing/killing emotions, in fact doing so only feeds it, rather it is about keeping one’s emotions in check. You accomplish it by putting your own emotions under the lens of your mind to gain a deeper understanding of the human psyche (well that’s one of the methods anyway).

As it has been stated: “Their mind” takes over a person’s psyche and implants a behavioural simulacra. Based on my own experience with it, I’d say this psychological virus makes use of very subtle mechanisms to take over. The damage done to the person varies in degree.

The most disturbing aspect of it is the fact that the artificial psyche goes on self-replicating without much opposition. It is normal, familiar and in its insanity it provides people with a lot of emotional security. A toxic emotional security that is. Some people can become extremely anxious in social situations, other people become anxious by being alone. Some people can become extremely sadistic, some become masochistic. The permutations and degrees of severity of this phenomenon are too many to list.

Again, in no way is this “philosophy” telling people to become emotionless droids. Rather it is telling people to watch out for this virus so that it can be sterilized and the Authentic Psyche can unfold.

Oh and the interactions with “their mind” are far from being pretty.


August 24, 2016, 07:06:33 PM
Reply #1

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • View Profile
Quote from: Reaver
The ideas of reality control have nothing to do with new age teachings and very little to do with what most so called teachers promote in the alternative scene. There are fine lines between make believe and practical application.
Um, you do realize you came to a metaphysical site, right? Where we already teach this, and people have learned how to bend reality via the variety of practices here? Or, probably not since you already admitted that you are copy-pasting yourself at a variety of websites.

Quote from: Reaver
You can’t explain the psyche with materialistic science. That’s impossible since science is concerned with the study of the material world, while psychology in concerned with the study of the mental.
False premise, because if the mental really is based upon the material, such as the electrical field of an electron is based upon the electron itself and thus a complex electrical field made up of multiple electrons is still derived from the electrons themselves, then the distinction between brain and mind becomes somewhat arbitrary and pseudo-scientific. The problem is that science has not yet explored enough of the brain to directly "pinpoint" the mind, but they are still working on it and making some pretty amazing strides.

I'm not a fan of materialism, but you can't just rule it out with a hand-wavy sentence like that.

Quote from: Reaver
This person who is “possessed” by this mind virus is someone who has gone through a heavy social conditioning over the years to the extent that this person feels very identified with their programming. In their perception; these mental constructs (which someone else build for them) are what give meaning to their life.
"Brain washed", "social programming", "sheeple", "normal", "sociable", "well adjusted to society". What other terms are there for this?

Quote from: Reaver
If you try to make this person see the truth behind it, then most likely you’ll get a hostile reaction varying in degree. Some may call you crazy, some may even go as far as killing people who oppose these mental programs.
To clarify, most people do not react with hostility, especially if they are educated in psychology, or de-programmed, properly.

Quote from: Reaver
How could it be their own reaction when we have concluded that they are the receivers of a pathological social conditioning? Thus the talk about “their mind”. It is the mental programming doing the reaction masquerading as the real person. I understand this can sound paradoxical as hell because the claim is: That person is going bonkers, we can observe it in his/her reactions, but at the same time it is not really him/her.
Haha, tip of the iceberg, kid. Tip of the iceberg. Let me remind you of something: monkey see, monkey do. <-- that is how humans learn from the time that we are children. How do you expect humans to learn if not by watching others? Well, "by doing themselves" is one way of learning, but it is a much longer, harder road than simply mimicking someone else.

Overall you're using different words to say the same thing that psychologists have known for a long time. Well, except that you have a much more negative view of it than is warranted.

I'm going to stop reading and replying here, because I'm tired. Maybe I'll get to the rest some other time, maybe not.

~Steve
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

August 25, 2016, 09:02:59 PM
Reply #2

Reaver

  • New Member

  • Offline
  • *

  • 2
  • Karma:
    0
    • View Profile
Quote from: Steve
Um, you do realize you came to a metaphysical site, right? Where we already teach this, and people have learned how to bend reality via the variety of practices here? Or, probably not since you already admitted that you are copy-pasting yourself at a variety of websites.
You don't say? Yes, that's obvious which is why I made it clear I was interested in the perspective of magicians/sorcerers/psychics or whatever label people like to use. Yes the OP is a copy & paste, but I'm the one who wrote all of that. Obviously I have to make a distinction since new age circles use the same terminology.

Quote from: Steve
False premise, because if the mental really is based upon the material, such as the electrical field of an electron is based upon the electron itself and thus a complex electrical field made up of multiple electrons is still derived from the electrons themselves, then the distinction between brain and mind becomes somewhat arbitrary and pseudo-scientific. The problem is that science has not yet explored enough of the brain to directly "pinpoint" the mind, but they are still working on it and making some pretty amazing strides.
Sure you can make impressions on the psyche by physical stimuli, an extreme example being torture. I've never said the psychology of a person couldn't be affected by physical stimuli.

The problem with science is that it pretends the brain equals the mind so they can conveniently rationalize their approach and avoid re-framing their perspective. Another big problem is that the scientific method is far from being flawless, Godels  incompleteness theorem puts a big question mark on the scientific method and here is where scientists like to rationalize the fact that the scientific method cannot be applied on itself to prove its validity. Another problem? to assume scientists "magically" remove their bias just because they don a lab coat, base motivations aren't removed just because they happen to be scientists and their world is plagued by the very same base motivations one can find in the corporate world. For further elucidation have a look at "Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts" by Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar.

And the most ironic thing of all based on your statement reminding me this is a metaphysical site: Metaphysics wholly supports science, yet science pretends metaphysics is just a fantasy.

Obviously science as we know it has benefited humanity tremendously, but that doesn't make it infallible and it is not as mighty as people like to believe.

Quote from: Steve
To clarify, most people do not react with hostility, especially if they are educated in psychology, or de-programmed, properly.
Most people are NOT educated on psychology, let alone being deprogrammed. Then you equal hostility to violence as if that was the only possible category of hostility, at the very core, hostility means opposed in character, feeling, thought or action. I thought this was self-evident on forum where people are into metaphysics? Actually I can't generalize, but I'm wondering if you actually know what metaphysics is or if you are just pretending to know.

Quote from: Steve
Haha, tip of the iceberg, kid. Tip of the iceberg. Let me remind you of something: monkey see, monkey do. <-- that is how humans learn from the time that we are children. How do you expect humans to learn if not by watching others? Well, "by doing themselves" is one way of learning, but it is a much longer, harder road than simply mimicking someone else.
So what exactly did you deconstructed here? I'm amazed that someone into metaphysics can't even seem to draw a parallel with the Ego. Ah yes, but you didn't even finish reading the whole thing so you don't even have a vague idea of the context and thus work based upon a story in your head, so much for metaphysics, eh?

Quote from: Steve
Overall you're using different words to say the same thing that psychologists have known for a long time. Well, except that you have a much more negative view of it than is warranted.

I'm going to stop reading and replying here, because I'm tired. Maybe I'll get to the rest some other time, maybe not.
No, I'm not. Which you may have realized had you finished reading the whole thing instead of rushing to conclusions. Hint: What a few psychologists (most of them only repeat words in books) have been able to observe are but the symptoms of a disease which has been observed way before the advent of psychology.










August 28, 2016, 11:10:47 PM
Reply #3

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • View Profile
Quote from: Reaver
Yes, that's obvious which is why I made it clear I was interested in the perspective of magicians/sorcerers/psychics or whatever label people like to use.
Well then, I would suggest that you tailor your message to your audience. I know that copying and pasting is the easiest way to get a message out, but then it runs into problems where people don't feel like you're talking to us directly.

It is nice to see that you're going to take an active role by responding, rather than just pasting something and reading replies while lurking.

Quote from: Reaver
Sure you can make impressions on the psyche by physical stimuli, an extreme example being torture. I've never said the psychology of a person couldn't be affected by physical stimuli.

The problem with science is that it pretends the brain equals the mind so they can conveniently rationalize their approach and avoid re-framing their perspective.
While I agree that science is not perfect, the problem with pseudo-science is that many people understand neither the science behind the mind/brain discussion, nor do they understand the philosophy. Simple case in point: there is little reason to suggest that the mind is distinct from the brain, yet it is a favourite viewpoint for many so that they can get away with making all sorts of other claims and go unchecked.

So to reiterate, despite me not liking materialism, I could explain the psyche with materialistic science. It is not impossible, and modern psychology actually falls under the wing of modern science, albeit carefully. For instance, while physicists could discern a simple experiment of throwing two objects together and controlling all sorts of factors in order to make precise measurements and come to definitive results, psychology relies heavily upon studies, statistics, and generalizations involving large groups of people, which is inhernetly far less precise. Yet, psychology can learn certain definitive things and draw certain strong generalizations from it's studies as well, because there are rules for how to go about doing these things.

None of the things you mentioned (about Godel, meta-science of science using the scientific method to test/prove itself, or biases) invalidates science from learning about and explaining the psyche.

Quote from: Reaver
Metaphysics wholly supports science, yet science pretends metaphysics is just a fantasy.
Incorrect. There are multiple camps on either side. There are extreme camps in the metaphysical community that entirely ignore science, and others that attempt to entirely embrace science. There are extreme camps in the scientific community that simplistically dismiss metaphysics offhand, and others that attempt to honestly study metaphysics.

"Obviously science as we know it has benefited humanity tremendously, but that doesn't make it infallible and it is not as mighty as people like to believe."
I do agree with this, so long as it is not taken to dismiss science offhand.

Quote from: Reaver
Most people are NOT educated on psychology, let alone being deprogrammed.
This is my fault, as I realized after I posted that I had worded that poorly. Let me rephrase, while understanding that you may still disagree with it:

To clarify, most people do not react with hostility if they are de-programmed properly, nor do they react with hostility when someone takes the time to properly educate them in psychology. Of course, a person's willingness to open up is very strongly dependant upon themselves, and the subjectiveness of my use of the term "properly" is inherently problematic, and I probably should add something about tendancies rather than certainties.

However, I did not specify violence. You specified that in your own post.

Quote from: Reaver
Actually I can't generalize, but I'm wondering if you actually know what metaphysics is or if you are just pretending to know.
Original use of the term was in reference to a book about philosophy, where several books by Aristotle were about physics, and the next books/chapters in the series regarding were simply "after physics". From this we derive the historically popular philosophical ideas about metaphysics relating to understandings and thoughts and concepts. Much can be said about the philosophy that I won't even attempt to summarize in this short post. If you're talking about any of this stuff, then that would take on a very different form than the next definition I'll mention.

The second definition, and the way that I use the term given the context of this website, is as a generalized term to refer to the various forms of magical, psychic, subtle, etc things that the layman could generalize as magic, but which specialized practitioners decide to label a wide variety of things (orgone, animal magnetism, kundalini, pranayama, qi gong, wicca (yes, I know it's a religion, but some consider it a practice), witchcraft, spiritism, shamanism, voodoo, etc etc etc).

What definition of metaphysics would you like to specify that you are using? One of the two above, or one of your own?

Quote from: Reaver
So what exactly did you deconstructed here?
Well, let's look again what I responded to:
"How could it be their own reaction when we have concluded that they are the receivers of a pathological social conditioning? Thus the talk about “their mind”. It is the mental programming doing the reaction masquerading as the real person. I understand this can sound paradoxical as hell because the claim is: That person is going bonkers, we can observe it in his/her reactions, but at the same time it is not really him/her."

Firstly, "pathological"? Pathologies are illness/diseases/"things that are wrong". So you start off by saying that social conditioning is pathological, which is nonsensical because social conditioning is an inherent trait to humanity. To say that it is "wrong" or disease would imply that humans are naturally, fundamentally diseased, which is an incredibly unfair statement that only shows a lack of understanding of how humans learn and understand. Humans learn the way we do for reasons of survivability: if someone else figures out how to grow a crop, or open a coconut, or fashion a tool, then it is a superior mental capability that allows us to learn from the other person and do those things ourselves. This is not a disease and instead is a strength of humanity.

Secondly, "their mind" that you keep talking about is just another way of talking about social conditioning, so see the previous paragraph. It's perfectly normal for someone to teach me something like "don't talk about sex, politics, or religion at work", and for me to follow those instructions, because talking about those things at work does cause problems: I have seen it first hand for all three of them, so I do not merely have to take someone else at their word for it. There is nothing wrong with this kind of "their mind" being instilled in me, especially because they are attempting to warn me away from negative consequences. A problem does arise when people accept other peoples' teachings (for instance, you trying to teach everyone with your post) without consideration as to whether it's actually a good idea to listen to such things. There are a variety of considerations to be made, such as: is the original teaching actually true in the first place, are there times when the teaching is true and other times when it is false, under what conditions does the teaching hold true (these three are actually all different forms of the same question), do other people support this teaching or oppose it, what are the consequences for failing to adhere to this teaching, etc.

Thirdly, yes, "their mind" does do a lot of masquerading in place of a real person, because the real people tend to hide within their shells, fearing for their safety. A lot of people are little more than social constructs because they can't figure out a better way to live for themselves, and being a good little social construct helps keep them safe from the most harmful thing that most humans will ever have to face first-hand: the violence of other humans who are scorned. It's a bit of a circular circumstance: I teach someone to do something, and they adhere to it simply so I don't hurt them if they refuse to adhere to it, then they teach the next person to adhere to it and person 3 adheres to it because they are afraid person 2 will hurt them because person 2 was subconsciously aggressive in teaching it so as to help person 3 avoid being hurt by me if I were to find out that person 3 was not adhering to my instruction, etc. Not all of human interaction and conditioning is based upon such fear and potential for violence, but this gives a general idea of how the ideas progress. Another example could be how farmers in a community agree on "prices" for various commmodities prior to standardized money: "I will give you a sack of potatoes for a sack of sugar", "I will give you two sacks of sugar for a barrel of milk" (I don't know, I'm not a farmer), etc. And the truth is that while such a tendancy to hide within a shell does indeed cause mental problems for people, many people do try breaking out of their shells when they have learned enough about the complexities of human interaction such that they can feel safe trying to break out of their shells; it's a matter of increasing experience and learning, and sometimes bravery or foolhardiness. (Which you yourself said, "But then again we’ve seen what happens when a person starts to recognize these programs and proceeds to remove them and manage to handle the ensuing inner conflict. They start to get better to a degree and even their personal life seems to improve somewhat or at least their psychological life does.")

Quote from: Reaver
I'm amazed that someone into metaphysics can't even seem to draw a parallel with the Ego.
Even among the Freudians, the Ego is just one part of the mind (along with the id and the super ego).

Quote from: Reaver
Ah yes, but you didn't even finish reading the whole thing so you don't even have a vague idea of the context and thus work based upon a story in your head, so much for metaphysics, eh?
...
No, I'm not. Which you may have realized had you finished reading the whole thing instead of rushing to conclusions.
I read more than enough to see certain tell-tale signs of your level of understanding. I will read the rest of it now, now that I have some time.

Quote from: Reaver
Hint: What a few psychologists (most of them only repeat words in books) have been able to observe are but the symptoms of a disease which has been observed way before the advent of psychology.
So says you, but based on what you've said, you don't seem to even understand what psychologists have said, so do you really have the grounds to say you know better than them?

~Steve
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

August 29, 2016, 12:25:45 AM
Reply #4

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • View Profile
Double post!
Quote from: Reaver
The child can be guided through a healing process, but only HE can overcome it, there is room only for one.
Not entirely true. If the child can be programmed one way without his input (or, with only the input of his subconscious mind, and without the input of his conscious mind), then he can be programmed another way without his input (ditto as before, for subconscious and conscious inputs). Same thing with how a child who was programmed in a very wholesome manner could be reprogrammed to become absolutely fucked up. Even among those who take psychology courses and try to fix/change/better themselves, there will be many who just plain cannot learn how to completely become their own Self, and so social conditioning will remain a large part of their lives.

Quote from: Reaver
Yet we can observe that how this person acted out during his/her life was a symptom of these mental programs running in his psyche.
In case you were wondering about the tell-tale signs I mentioned, this is one of them. The denial of self-responsibility that comes from the belief that a child has no control over what to accept and what to disregard. Children actually can and do make partially-conscious-and-partially-subconscious decisions about what teachings to accept and which to only pretend to accept, based upon partially-conscious-and-partially-subconscious criteria that they are not fully aware of. For people who never learn the act of introversion, this partially-conscious-and-partially-subconscious effect continues on into adulthood, and can be discovered through a series of guided questions that would be dependent upon the subject matter of whichever thought processes you wanted to analyze in the other person.

Another tell-tale sign is the "us versus them" mentality that the words "their mind" create, along with all of the "us versus them" phrasing that you keep using. There is no "them" any more than you yourself are one of the "them", from the reference point of any other human being. To say it another way, to your own brother, you are a "them" because he is the only "me" of his existence.

Quote from: Reaver
Think about christian programming. Aren’t there mechanisms in place to make the person feel guilty and scared of questioning his values? let alone leave them behind. To use a metaphor: When “their” mind is threatened it will try to preserve itself.
Depends on the christian programming. I grew up going to church and there were a variety of voices; different people thought, believed, and preached slightly different things, and some people preached guilt while others preached love. Then I started reading the bible itself, and the bible says to study and question and learn: there is no guilt in these things because it is only by studying and learning and turning to God that a person can come to know the will of God, and can learn to discern truth from lies.

Quote from: Reaver
Don’t TPTB try to shape the world according to their image? to their mental schemas? aren’t they infecting the world with “their mind”? their pathological mind is what paves the way for wars, famines, ponzi schemes and all that, symptoms of their mind. You may be able to mitigate those symptoms, to patch things up for a few decades, but if the root is not dealt with, then those symptoms will resurface sooner or later… maybe they’ll just manifest in different ways.
Of course those with social/economic/political power will exert it: that's exactly the point of any of those kinds of power. Any single economic power, for instance, literally cannot exist by itself: it requires the presence of other economic powers in order to justify itself, and the fact that it is an economic power means that it influences other economic powers and factors. The same with politicians: if you took a politician and stuck them on an island where they couldn't interact with other people, they would just be another creature in the wilderness. But not all economic or political powerhouses are bad: many of them are the entire reason that we have such luxurious lives (in first world nations, at least) and such amazing freedoms (even if you claim those freedoms are not always freedom, or are only limited freedoms).

Secondly, the "root" of those problems is humanity itself. It's not just a "their mind" scenario: studies show that certain human behaviours and characteristics, such as a propensity for violence in certain situations, is a low-level biological effect that can at times preclude mental programming entirely, ie fight-or-flight response due to a huge adrenaline dump that the body performs all on its own when the subconscious mind recognizes danger regardless of what the conscious/programmed mind is thinking or aware of.

Quote from: Reaver
So again “their mind” is about identifying the psychological roots of this world’s ills.
Again, "their mind" is about recognizing the fundamental manner in which humans learn and develop. This can be shown to be true because we even learn from animals, who speak no human languages and who have few-if-any of the mental illnesses that humanity has. The learning process of humanity comes from the days of survival, when learning how to recognize and respond to threats was paramount alongside learning how to feed the belly; both learning processes were infinitely better off by learning by watching and mimicing others (monkey see, monkey do) rather than figuring out everything from scratch on your own.

Quote from: Reaver
Take the example of parents who actually believe that sending their children to school is actually beneficial for their children and if that wasn’t enought they also believe it makes them excellent parents. When you apply the skill of observation you can see that it may feel good, that people may believe it’s beneficial, but actually it is highly toxic.
Another tell-tale sign: "education is bad". Education is GREAT. Of course, it must be acknowledged that there are shitty schools out there, and there are shitty things that happen at school, but there are also good schools out there and there are awesome things that happen at school (which you won't find in a life outside of school).

The cons and the pros must be weighed against an individual school, as well as education itself: if a single school is a highly toxic place with a lack of desire on the part of teachers to teach, and lots of violence in the school, then absolutely it will be a bad place. My school was full of teachers who wanted their kids to learn (and even broke the "approved curriculum" a few times to make sure we did, because the approved curriculum tried to avoid certain "hot bed" topics), and there was little violence (I got picked on a lot, but that's not the fault of the school).

The pros of education are that people quickly learn how to do things that other people have already figured out, and learning things that you can then apply within society in order to earn a living in order to maintain a standard of living according to what you earn (no, lifestyles are not "equal", but everyone in my country has the opportunity to try for whatever lifestyle they want, so long as they can overcome whatever personal hurdles are in their way), and being given the opportunity to become one of the leading people in a field such that you can push humanity forwards rather than merely maintaining the status quo. The cons of education are that indeed, you are taught "their mind" because "their mind" was what figured out all the amazing things that humanity can do today; "their mind" figured out how to create all of the different components of the computer that you are using to communicate with so that you and I, who would otherwise be complete strangers to one another who could never meet in person, can talk and exchange ideas. Through education, you have the opportunity to learn how to create computers too, for the benefit of others (or just for the benefit of yourself if all you want is money from a job).

Quote from: Reaver
In this example the cons outweight the pros. Yes, kids may learn to read, write and apply basic arithmetic, but along the way they exchange their potential for the “virtue” of absolute obedience. Of course their mind will seduce people and make them believe it is all for their own good.
Education is not absolute obedience. Bad educators will use obedience in the guise of teaching, but they are not synonymous. In exactly the same way, bad people will use their influence to spread badness, but that doesn't mean all forms of teaching are bad.

Quote from: Reaver
Sometimes I’ve found that I did “good deeds” because it was a mechanism to cope with my own anxiety, but “their mind” is clever so I was telling myself cute stories to avoid facing the underlying reasons for my “good deeds”. They had nothing to do with a response, but they had everything to do with a reaction to try to patch a psychological crack and thus their mind kept getting bigger and stronger.
That wasn't "their mind". That was your mind, trying to tell you THE TRUTH of why you did something. You listened, which is good. But then you believed that it was a negative event rather than realizing it was a good event. You demonized it by saying that it was "their mind kept getting bigger and stronger" when in reality "their mind" just got a little bit smaller when you recognized the true reason for doing what you did. Patching a psychological crack was not altruistic, but it was healthy and it was good.

That's another reason we do many of the things we do: internal impulses, desires, and needs. "Their mind" is another way of talking about external influences, but humans are beset upon by a multitude of both external and internal influences. Learning to tell each influence apart from one another, and categorize it correctly into internal or external, will help with your psychological patching process, which is the mind's way of attempting to heal itself from something. Keep being honest with yourself. It takes time, but you'll get there.

Quote from: Reaver
“their mind” really hates exposure and so it uses all sort of tactics to avoid being discovered and if it is discovered then the toxic mind will use a different set of tactics, this time to convince the host that it is in their best interests to keep “their mind” alive and well.
Not really. Only some forms of external teachings also attempt to imbed psychological tactics of avoidance. The majority are simply "we do this because we 'have' to, because this is what society wants us to do". Most "their minds" are not at all intelligent, and do not "care" about being exposed because they have no feelings to care with (to be more clear on this, "their mind" is not a living thing. I can't tell whether you honestly believe it is alive, or whether you are merely strongly anthropomorphizing it).


The way that you talk about "their mind", and give it such broad powers, you sound like everything in life, whether good or bad, should be considered bad because it supposedly comes from this "their mind", which you consider bad. You are basically subverting anything that might be good and happy in the world and trying to tell people to be paranoid of it, and thus your own teaching about "their mind" is stealing away any happiness that they would otherwise enjoy. Or, to ask a question of this: based upon your beliefs/teachings of "their mind", how is a person ever supposed to be able to be happy? Or are we just doomed to misery, by recognizing the existence of "their mind"? (as you said, "some others go on to live the life of saints and help everyone who looks like are in dire need and so they feed co-dependent relationships" and thus according to you, even a saint doing all the best things that a human could possibly do, is just a product of the evil of "their mind")

Quote from: Reaver
One of the main aims of “their mind” is make their programs “normal” and “familiar” so that the hosts don’t question them at all because they are supposed to be a natural component of humanity.
Too broad, again. What is "normal" then, if you claim any semblance of normal is "their mind". You are basically saying that in order to escape "their mind", I would have to adhere to abnormal thought processes, which ... why? Because you say so? Because it will supposedly make me happier, when happiness is also already a product of "their mind"?

Throughout the whole of your post, you don't tell people what we're supposed to do to escape "their mind", nor what the supposed benefits of escaping "their mind" is, nor what a life outside of "their mind" is supposed to look like. (This is, by the way, another tell-tale sign. You have formulated part of an idea of existence, but it is missing more than half of the idea that would be needed in order to be complete)

Quote from: Reaver
As it has been stated: “Their mind” takes over a person’s psyche and implants a behavioural simulacra. Based on my own experience with it, I’d say this psychological virus makes use of very subtle mechanisms to take over.
Based on my experiences with it, "their mind" is perfectly normal OH MY GOD I"M UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE THEIR MIND BECAUSE I THINK IT"S NORMAL D: (that was sarcasm, which yes, I know you already said is a cunning defense mechanism)

Quote from: Reaver
Some people can become extremely anxious in social situations, other people become anxious by being alone.
Both of those are actually the result of two things: 1) a lack of social experiences, and 2) a different psychological problem where a person constantly criticizes themself and thinks everyone else is also criticizing them, so they can hardly bring themself to talk to others. Both of those two things are sadly very common.

Quote from: Reaver
The permutations and degrees of severity of this phenomenon are too many to list.
Because those permutations and degrees of severity are the basic human condition. You are literally attempting to demonize the basic. human. condition.

Quote from: Reaver
Again, in no way is this “philosophy” telling people to become emotionless droids. Rather it is telling people to watch out for this virus so that it can be sterilized and the Authentic Psyche can unfold.
How do we sterilize it, and how do we tell an authentic psyche from an artificial one?

Quote from: Reaver
Oh and the interactions with “their mind” are far from being pretty.
Yeah, human interactions can often get ugly when people get emotional or just plain sarcastic or cynical or whatever other thing that humans become temporarily.


----

At some point, after talking with a lot of people, you should hopefully come to the realization that a lot of people who are under the influence of "their mind", are under that influence willingly, because they've seen or experienced some examples of what happens when they try to break free, and they've decided that it is in their best interest to do as they are told. Others, however, break free and do their own thing already, live their own lives, make their own mistakes, etc. It is entirely a personal choice, and everyone makes that decision whether they realize it or not.

~Steve

PS. For the record, I am not trying to deprogram you "properly".
« Last Edit: August 29, 2016, 12:35:39 AM by Steve »
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?