"Faithless" - Part 2: Assumptions

First things first:
    Since I summoned the Seven Demons - it seemed like one of them didn't really have anything to do. But I also didn't really know what to do about ... it? Him? Looking at me ... sad and confused. But recently I figured that it would be nice if I ... had someone or something ... to take care of possible ... nuisances in regards to ETPs - and that's where I remembered that there was basically one Unemployed Demon this whole time. It shall thus from now on be his duty to keep the ETP-sphere clear of Antichristian meddling.

So, since last time I wrote, Shaun has uploaded a video - and in the first few minutes we can get the idea, that the subject of that video is basically a female Vaush. Except if you want to mind in which way the two individually associate with the various groups involved.

Yet, in wokescold country, there is no nuance to be had - other than Vaush won't apologize for this and that misstep. Which - I'd think - makes him basically indistinguishable from 'the enemy', in their eyes.

And I ... I'm wonder what a meaningful angle from which to approach this from would be.
I mean - yesterday I wrote something along the lines of: they (the wokescolds) look at the PIBPS, probably, and it's like the same as Conservatives - being Racist, Misogynist, Transphobes and stuff; And I had to pause because I thought I could develop this into some deep and insightful starting point - but ... instead I found, at least for the time being, that's really just it - end of the story; With nothing left to expand on.

Which is also where I thought I was at. Like, being done - and yet it seems I'm writing even more now. At least yesterday I didn't spend much time doing things - wrote for about 3 1/2 hours - and then had to watch 3 episodes of Supergirl before being ready to sleep. Which got way too late ... yikes.
I mean, not too too late. But still somewhat irresponsibly late.
And now I just got back home and think like I should catch up on some sleep - but on the one hand I've still got an appointment later and on the other I'm ... like ... writing ... stuff.


In my Script I'm at a point where I want to follow the topic [of topic] up with a piece on Assumptions. So however a thought that occurred to me independent from that - as it is due to that, that I want to write about it there. Instead I'm now however writing about it here - to take it into a slightly different direction.

[Topic] was about 'evidence' in the light of availability, whereby it is the theory's job to check for possibly available evidence - and between theory and actually available stuff - there's a sphere of assumptions, we might say; And therein there's a set of 'ideal assumptions' that most closely align with the 'final data' as it were.

In other terms do assumptions have Quality - one, that if there were no God, would remain unqualified until there is a framework of observation for it; And be 'universally relative' to the set of available knowledge. It thereby most likely is of yet determinable quality - as per some external reference frame perhaps - yet within one's own reference frame that qualifier cannot exist until a viable connection exists; And then yet again infers its validity from that respective set. Maybe in conjunction with yours.

On the other hand however, we have what I called 'frozen Truths'. In the broader sense, there are plenty - as they merely exist as implied from a certain logical environment. As a set of Axioms or Assumptions. I regard Math to be one such thing - and as that the pivotal example of a frozen Truth of absolute quality. It doesn't matter, where what how is - as in any possible form of existence, its quality can be implied. Except for those where no consciousness exist. I would argue that these cannot exist - other than in a hypothetical. And it is thus also only in a hypothetical, wherein math could not be a quality; Though with some dependence on how we want to define it.
In a setting of consciousness - math is evident from any quantity of object. In a setting of form - math is evident from the relative geometry of its components. In a setting of ... "dimensionality" - math is evident from the relative scope between existent objects.

God would hereby be the highest frame of Reference, as it is with Him that the first "Two-count" did create scale in space - and therefrom an "artistic" quantification of the perceived relativity - which further translates into dimensionality.
So ... in form of an 'absolutistic' base measurement.
This is an assumption - that however intimately follows an implied Model of God/Existence.
Functionally - the statement that "From God/Existence extends a primary frame of reference" would be a stronger version of the Assumption, one that is ... 'axiomatically correct'.

And perhaps that is to demonstrate, that correct assumptions can be made. Here we can even see the quality of a given assumption - versus now that of whether or not God exists. It's quality is very high - while whether or not You believe in God, of what persuasion Your perceived God is and such - lets the Assumption of Gods existence be very low at first.
The quality of the strong Assumption hereby, well ... is established in Math.

Concerning God do I have my set of Assumptions - and therefore believe, that God holds primary base measurements of everything that can be measured. It is what I maintain as a primary Frozen Reality - and that would be that.

Returning to the topic:

I was, yesterday, about to further expand on a matter of 'being real'. But I chose not to; And it stands to reason that the topic of being 'real' or 'authentic' or 'true to ones self' and such is a bit underexplored. To say, I would have written something as a given - while trying to scope out 'how given' it actually is from different perspectives. And I think that the base problem with that is, that we have different Layers of 'truths'.

It is what we can consider to be the real life equivalent of "complex characters" in fiction. Well, I'd argue that a change of mind is constituted by an alternate layer of truth that provides reason to become the more dominant 'mode of operations' - as via a data-point perhaps. Biases come in form of conditioning and intensity - for instance - implying that we hold an implied bias that at first assesses the quality of any given data point. A slim exception would be physical stimuli - as they have the power to impress themselves onto ones consciousness.

Respectively are there 'states of Enlightenment' - or "a state" of Enlightenment (conceptual/individual) - that can, in their extremes, be described as modes of unity with reality. So, knowledge of reality, or impressions, beliefs, etc. - that align with reality. Perhaps as produced by a curious and open mind.
These would provide a frame of reference that is in tune with one of higher quality - and possible baggage. The point is, that these are the better versions of lesser alternatives; And "one's distance" to these better versions roughly outlines the assumption, that we do by default exist as subjective to those lesser alternatives. Individually and Separately. These in turn provide an array of data points that must yet be undone or disclosed - and therefore a tree-list of possible steps.
In regards to our 'Layers' - there is one, actual or abstract, that aligns to our understanding of reality. So, every step up or down that list corresponds to a possible change of mind; And each in turn can - along the axis of time - be regarded its own layer. This depth corresponds to the individual potential of attaining Enlightenment, as it were.

Now, 'being real', if I were to listen to my Therapist - were about connectivity with the real world. In this sense is there a state of Enlightenment that pertains to our social capacities. Or so one of decision making when it comes to the various matters around us.
'Being Real', to me, is about a deeper cognitive synchronicity with one's own "quirky nature".

"Quirky Nature" is for once a consequence of being discrete entities that attains temporal qualities of individuality by merely existing within a set of circumstances. Or so, the 'nurture' side of things.

This 'nurture' in a deeper sense however also corresponds to our 'dominant state of mind' - and such - as this is how we develop "a Horizon". "Opposed" to that however is an ego - and one primary way it perpetuates its own eminence (emanation) ... is by stimuli. With that, we do firstly exist within and as our own reference frame.

So - we learn, per chance, that "Nazi bad". It becomes a part of our Horizon - and subsequently, nobody wants to be a Nazi. But ... what is a Nazi? What makes a Nazi? How does one become a Nazi?
And yea, if we take a look through history - we can look at things through a lens of military activity. And sure enough - where there's a people that have a military - there are boundaries - - - and as we well know ... of those we have a lot.
Here Nazis behaved pretty much in line with what would up until have been the default expectation for a major Empire. The Term "The Third Reich" directly stems from "The Holy Roman Empire" - the so called second of which being a glorious idea of a past to maybe connect to.
Now, if we think about Nazis, we do however not think about that part as much as we think about what they did with Jews. Like, in particular, or alongside the others they did those things to. And so we come to a layer of concepts or truths that either constitute that behavior within a Colonial setting - or describe the differences between itself and other 'Empires'.

Now, encouraging each other to use inclusive language ... does at first certainly not seem like it belongs into that set. We'd rather have to think of something that might follow from using inclusive language.

Not treating women and minorities as second class citizens is a relatively new one - it's absence however isn't particularly unique to the Nazi ideology. And sure - people might say that women are exalted actually; Sure, but ... still not equal class citizens.
And yea - I suppose everyone can try to rattle it through their head if they'd want to take the deal, as it were - and recognize from there what kinds political ideation it produces.

From that now - my argument so is, that there is a kind of 'political ideation' relative to an individuals 'state of mind', which determines ones primary ideological arrangement with reality.

In simple: One becomes a Nazi by sympathizing with an ideological arrangement that corresponds to Nazi ideology - and I suppose we might say that this also constitutes a spectrum.

break for pause

But I digress. So - being true to ones self, ... well, becomes a bit of a joke considering that it could entail in about anything one so might choose. Beyond that it isn't entirely about choice either. But in as far as we may presume our state of mind to be always short of perfection - we cannot realistically hold ourselves to those standards either.

[the next day]

... apologies ... uhm ... that was ...

Anyhow. So - assumptions. It is now not only that properly understanding the matter lends itself to the conception of guessing as an art or skill - sure, sometimes also called and otherwise comparable to deduction - but also that in imperfect world view practically implies certain assumptions as constitute elements of one's psyche.
This is further also a matter far more pervasive than one might think at first.
Assumptions - and that's generally what I was trying to get at - intrinsically regulate our relationships with our environment, at least where we don't have concrete information. And even where we do - we still, well, have our biases.

So, concerning the actual topic at hand, there's I'd argue a trust issue. One that may be very complex - as there are a variety of reasons I can think of, of how one would arrive at wokescolding. And sure - that's also what we find in the right wing spheres.
So is there, at the core perhaps, the matter of 'virtue signaling' - which may at first be a way for an individual to come to terms with an ideology. It may also be used as a form of social mating call. Either way is a norm being created that in turn becomes a norm people may become dependent on ...
Anyhow ... am I under the impression, that people may end up with a bag of skepticism when people behave in ways that do not comply to their perceived or desired normality.

That is ultimately also what challenges 'the intellectual crowd' - which does not necessary include everyone whom one might regard as an intellectual. The problem here is, that 'the intellectual crowd' is tuning in for intellectual content. Here, an argument is heard in regards to its substance - rather than by its appearance. And people who want to make intellectual statements - I'm sure - do by occasion encounter individuals that ... well ... "don't get it" - as it were. Most common to me is what I'd call "atheistic deafness" - though it's basically the same as "christo-fascistic blindness". Where, upon taking a closer look, we can 'find' what ideology informs certain assumptions and such.

And I don't think I can exempt myself from these kinds of failures.

Now, these are what I'd yet call "hard assumptions". There are however also what I'd call "soft assumptions". Both as pertaining to ones individual alignment to reality/an environment.

So - uhm --- allegedly, or ... let's say, ... I got high yesterday - leveled up my SF6 skills with Chun-Li - wrote some stuff - but also had some time pondering upon my physical condition. That because I've been abstinent since my Surgery.
Thereby I basically came to relive my journey since then. Now, when I get high after a long time of abstinence - I start to get somewhat paranoid once the high really kicks in. I mean, it's an unusual state of mind after all - and so there's a "huh, this isn't normal" type of reaction that triggers a fear response - which in the state of highness, I'd argue, leads to the formulation of theories. With however also my surgery being on my mind - the very first state I settled into, was to think of my Vagina as an enormous wound. Or as charged by how some would refer to it: the result of a brutal procedure. I felt scared - and with all the sexual innuendo and implications I share echoing in onto my mind ... I wasn't really in a fine place. Emotionally. In a sense I panicked - and all I could internally "say" was 'no' - on repeat.

It took a bit for certain things to settle in. For once that the procedure went over fine - as of which I dared to relax a bit and ... tried to settle with this new body of mine. And from there on I came to relax more and more - and ... so the part of being happy because "the thing" didn't bother me anymore, for instance, started to matter. And then, apart from what I had written in the past - or what people's perception or expectation or all that might be - I came to relax into a fine state of masturbatory fantasizing.

In essence can we hereby highlight two states of mind that emerge from the same context - and are yet counter to each other. Generally I'd use terms such as "belief" when describing the modal difference here - as that sure is a part of it. As for assumptions - there's the assumption that a thing is bad versus the assumption that that thing is good. Both are supported by some intellectual value or 'truths' - and though it's not so much that I chose which one to believe in - we might yet, for the lack of better terms perhaps, describe it on terms of being a decision. Or perhaps trust. Even 'open mindedness' or 'objectivity' work.

Now, I also couldn't help myself - in part due to what types of things go through my mind while relaxed in bed - but to see this through the lens of rape. "The echoes from the past" - as it were - would be whatever 'invader' existed in that narrative - and the harrowing impression of my naughty parts being in equivalence to what pain or violation were to occur. As per what happened - one piece of advice one might extract from my story ... well ... is 'to relax'. And with that we have another situation that makes for a good example in the broader scope of this topic. And such.

So, you can "make me" say, that if you get raped, you should just ... relax. And I'm sure that one willing can find ways to further iterate on that. I myself, well ... could technically join in with agreement - but I'd have to add that in this particular instance one would have to take my advice with a pinch of salt.

In further depth is the "rape scene" here none that filled me with joy. I was worried of my health and wellbeing - as also extending into thoughts of life in general. It is then from a state of relaxation where I would further find my own peace with sexual matters - that I come to a comfortable understanding of that 'life in general' and successively 'health and wellbeing'. Now, asking one to just relax, is to demand one to look for possible comforts with a given situation - and it is the quality of those that would determine whether or not it were sound advice.

Now - if you wanted to be simple about it, regardless of whether it's stupid or not, you here have an example of "someone who tells people to relax when they're raped and all will be fine" - as some kind of Christian advocate for science and left wing politics. And presented as that - I have to agree, that it would make sense to assume that there's no way ... I should be taken seriously.

Upon looking deeper into the matter, merely excluding the last part of the explanation, may yet have you in a stunlock as the imposed narrative may appear to impose an unsolvable problem. At that point it were due to me merely having expressed myself poorly - that one might regard me as problematic. It's nothing wrong and probably a somewhat common experience - but still.

And the issue is, that these problems mostly stem from "hard assumptions".

Apparently there's a lot more that could be said - but my internal switch has been flipped to "the end" - and so, ... I'll leave it at that.