So, I've been watching a Deep Dive on TempleOS (by 'Fredrik Knudsen') - and that's the mental
backdrop or effective inspiration for me writing this.
The important connection to what's been going on for me recently is probably the matter of
mental stress, possibly leading to a psychotic break and what-so-ever follows. But the story of
the guy behind TempleOS is oddly similar to my own. So, there's that. And boiling it all down
to a coherent string of words ... well, I suppose, for once, requires a good amount of distance
from any one particular issue one might deem relevant.
The matter of stress is relevant to me because during my - uh - "mental break" I had to wonder
about how common this kind of situation is and how people, especially believers, 'can' realistically
deal with it. It's the kind of thing I "feel" (think to perceive) in a lot of atheist rhetoric.
It's easy, from a believer's perspective, to view every dedicated atheist as some kind of hurt
child that's dealing with this kind of trauma. It is what leads us to believe that atheism is
really just about rebelling against God. Once that belief had time to sit in us, we - I believe
- get kind of cautious of what atheists think are 'good points', like ... gotcha's that we can't
answer in a satisfying way. And our minds fill in the blanks creating this weird "us versus them"
conspiracy thinking. I mean ... this is probably way too simply put.
Now, I'm not sure how much of a "spectacle" this "mental break" of mine was. I mean - at first
there was some cognitive decline, then a few words on the matter and then a more verbose outburst
of aggression. I don't know - it's weird thinking back like that. I'm sure it's not even all that
important, but ... to me personally it was a big deal.
I, to my understanding, had lashed out enough to tarnish whatever good will or optimisn I think
I had acquired. Like - well ... I suppose an underlying theme or topic here may be the concept of
sanity in terms of a pragmatic believer's mindset. An atheist may here understand best what I'm
trying to get at. The story of the guy behind TempleOS makes for a great example. And yea, to me,
he's like a sad or failed version of me. Which is perhaps why I feel like I have a bit of an
obligation to write a few words on the matter. But that also gets to one of the thoughts that have
settled in my mind during the few moments that led up to me deciding to write this. It's that
whenever I'm writing about things, one of the things that make me feel the most crazy, is when I'm
like ... taking responsibility for things that nobody asked me to take responsibility for. Like
just previously, speaking of "running defense for fragile egos". But yea, there's a process
behind it. I see that it's an issue these days, I understand that something needs to happen -
but ultimately the danger is that I'm involving myself in a matter that I don't really have much
to say about. Experience wise. So, then I'm merely involving myself because I think it's important,
however carrying my ignorance - first and foremost - into the matter based on the assumption that
my opinion is important. And yea, it may well be important - but this topic may not be where it
matters. Sort of. I mean, when I express frustration or ... something less polite ... with "those
people" ... that's as real and "core" as it gets - from me. So, it's not particularly useful I'd
argue. So, what "emerges" from it is some kind of hubris or arrogance. I may have the best of
intentions - but not enough substance to "fill the void".
I mean, I guess there's ways. Like, what's my taste in men? What's my philosophy of gender and
harmony? There's enough, I guess, to convince myself to dig into it. And letting go is difficult
because it's like admitting defeat or worse ... allowing things to go further down the shitter.
But what can I realistically do?
Eventually these matters, when properly observed, soon become way too complicated/complex for any
one human to handle - and that's where one is met with the "final" fork in the road. Do I let go,
or do I insist on my battle? The latter then requires a level of attention and care and probably
intellect from a sufficient amount of people - which in theory may be fine, but in practice ... may
very well be unattainable. So it's a decision between sanity and insanity.
I've been through a lot. For here, that's a matter of mindscapes. Worldviews. "Religions" in a way.
Or a series of videogames I've started to play - metaphorically speaking - some of which I may even
have finished to the end. From all that I, once again (I assume), "am asking for ... " XD ... no,
want to compare the mind or the psyche to a landscape.
So, it all starts with our spawn-point. As we grow older we learn what the world we're a part of is
all about - and from the options available to us we choose a way forward. What's important is the
time we have, which we use to consolidate aspects of this surrounding within our psyche.
So are there familiar paths, for instance. Whether you consider yourself lawful and orderly, or
evil and chaotic - the familiar paths are there. Though we may speak of them as paths that are
contrasted by "the wilderness", that wilderness - if it is inhabited - is also inhabited by folks
that somehow ended up familiarizing themselves with its ways.
This isn't about chaos and order. The paths, in this image, are sense, reason, habits, all jumbled
into some more and other less concrete ideas of sanity and insanity. And as for those that lost it,
know they lost it and embrace having lost it, well ... we may still find sanity in such things as
'a sense of self preservation'.
Then, eventually we settle. We have a place we call home and so on. Like ... me getting high ...
that's me walking down a path that has formed; And as I hope to find inspiration or maintain an
open mind that way - it's comparable to hunting. Well, as part of a routine or whatever. Then,
ever so often I'd sit down to write about things. That then takes me somewhere else. Mental
constructs - things built or things still under construction - and between my understanding and
my ambition there are these paths also.
And what I've realized during the few moments leading up to my decision to write this is, that I
have "built roads", we might say, so that I wouldn't have to wander through the wilds.
What I mean by "wilds" is, that I for instance have avoided writing about certain things. Things
that may very well be familiar to me. And thinking of writing about this topic made me realize
that I'm actually not all that familiar with these things. I'd struggle to find the right words.
It's "off road". Always there, but ... I suppose I ended up avoiding those parts for a good reason.
In a way ... the guy behind TempleOS, or his story, is like this tall mountain in the distance.
Day in and day out I pass by the jungle that surrounds it - maybe here and there my paths also lead
a fair bit into it - but these wilds themselves are to my mind quite literally "rocky terrain".
So, I assume that we all have some common understanding here, though we might see things differently.
Anxiety for instance, being nervous, these kinds of things - they are a response from us as we step
into unknown terrain. Or terrain we feel ill equipped to handle. Some people on the other hand are
just dropped into "places like that" - and I suppose the survivor's bias that comes out of that is
the "wisdom" that it "builds Character".
Well, it forces one to adapt, to find strengths that outlast the threats - and so, yea, that builds
Character - but it also deforms it. It skews it relative to its profile. It's survival of the fittest
in the actual darwinian sense. To say: It's random!
But yea. From survivors we can learn the ropes of dealing with certain things. But 'survival' in this
sense is hard to measure because 'death' in this sense isn't literal death. So, those that die still
end up living somehow - and how we draw the lines depends on how we view the world.
Like ... it's odd how the guy behind TempleOS refers to everything bad by the N-word. So, here there's
a racial view onto the matter. Like, if you fail - whatever standards - you must be an N-word to some
extent. And if you're black, you're basically dead by default. So, the wisdom that emerges is practically
useless; Because merit here is regarded 'after' the color of ones skin.
Way back when I had just started to actually work on a video-game engine, there was one night where I
was lying on our living room's floor, watching TV while scribbling in my sketchbook. I may have had some
weed at the time, probably, those "moments" led to two images - abstractions of the conscious I'd say -
that can be related to fighting.
Since then, on and off, my mind flies off into fantastical representations of my work here, where my work
is transfigurated into feats of combat. And I suppose that 'stress' is one way of making an actual case
for how that's not even bad or wrong.
For once, the more abstract and philosophical you get, the less you can rely on hard facts and data to
confirm your conclusions. Eventually you face an enemy, that's some manifestation of reality, that you
can then either overcome or you're overcome by it. It's like a test for your conclusions. If they were
right, you can handle it. If they weren't, you can't. Then, if you got defeated - you can either accept
it and perhaps try to lean from it, or you can try to denie it ... and ... that's not automatically
'IRL defeat' either.
So, people that are overcome by reality and deny it - they don't die. They continue to exist and thanks
to the internet they even have ways to confirm one another. And on that front, the wilds isn't necessarily
an empty place - but a place riddled with zombies and ghouls and other weird things that don't really
respond to the initially established concept of "combat power". They may say "facts don't care about your
feelings" - so that "combat power" is more and more about actual combat power. Well, not hand-to-hand or
such, except ... well, looking to the middle-east ... yea, maybe.
But so, "to not get gaslit" for instance is a test to your sanity, your convictions and such, but measured
against your will or ability to pursue a matter. And things like that. But so, as the "weighting" of the
conflict shifts, one - I have to say - needs to be careful not to forget the initial premise.
So, trying to find divinity in the random noise of the world is a very ancient idea. Dipping into it was
also one of the first things that I've tried on my journey. Be it "listening/tuning-into the Matrix" or
writing Oracle Code using RNG. Eventually however I started to feel distant to God. More and more so.
So, maybe I started to miss some 'actual' divine substance and thus turned away from that. And here I
suppose I must say: Don't listen to the voices! However they may want to coat themselves. They may try
to tell you that "His sheep will know His voice" - rather than asking you whether or not you actually
know it - to essentially just goad you into listening to them.
I suppose it's a very common fallacy ... and perhaps the one that most people fail to overcome.
Well, I certainly had to struggle with it. In essence it's driven by a sense of entitlement that is grown
within the scarcity of well developed Gnosis. So, the promises of the Bible that lead one to assume that
believing in Jesus is sufficient can lead to a whole range of nonsense. Not all of it benign. Mormonism
is a step up from that, at least in theory, because it provides at least some tools to question and
evaluate. It's at least "more than nothing" when it comes to the matter of that scarcity - as it also adds
at least 'some' context to the idea that certain parts are missing from the Bible. So are there those
promises that may very well be real - but without the context that those promises are valid within, they
are in the matter of the fact empty ones!
So, Love for instance. If I were to be overcome by a strong sense of Eros for a particular individual;
And I fail to understand that there's some inherent Chaos to the dynamics of this world, it's easy to
assume that it must be God's will. That might very well be a classic example of this problem.
Beyond that, it's easy to see the matter of God as a simple binary revolving around the question of His
existence. I mean, when all you got or need is "belief in Christ" - the writing's pretty much already
on the wall like that. But if the belief then is enough, the significance of His existence looses its
meaning. The belief becomes a practice bound to rituals and concepts of what's sacred and profanity -
and the wisoms lean into parsing the world accordingly. To proove, for instance, that God is real,
rather than understanding what to do with that. Which is then where we come to "the Believer's Twilight"
- we might say, to take a cue from Ms. Wynn's work. So, this idea - in a sense - of calling "the Perfect
Predator" your friend, perhaps. It's like kids arguing which dad could beat up all the other dads. God
exists, and we'll all see eventually.
And I'd argue that "the Devil" latches onto that. Which is how we get to "modern" day US Republicans
for instance. They promise that - that ... "God power" or whatever ... that "we'll show you" attitude
comes out - the "we shan't be laughed at any longer" ... which ultimately requires them to get violent
because it just keeps getting more and more ridiculous. I mean - how many times has yet another interview
with Trump been "the most deranged interview yet"? At some point rock bottom isn't fun anymore - so yea,
maybe we stop laughing, but ... this I'm certain isn't THE way!
And I must know because I'm the messenger.
Uhm ... well. Anyhow ...
With sufficient knowledge one may understand that the concept of 'knowledge' is also a bit janky in this
context. It's a similar issue - as knowing and not knowing make up two extremes between which the
fool doesn't see much else that could be relevant. It's either this or that. And yet, so the story goes,
it ultimately boils back down to 'belief'. Then there's understanding 'from' belief - at which point it's
actually just a small step to conceptualize belief 'from' understanding. The problem being that 'understanding'
is ... not a fool-proof concept either.
Understanding can only truly unfold in knowledge. But that doesn't need to be knowledge of facts. Though ...
knowledge of facts certainly helps to set certain boundaries. Though when it comes to the divine, those
are easily overcome again.
But, as the saying goes: When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And that's not always
a bad thing. Sometimes you need certain things done ... and you must innovate with what you have to get it
done. I've ran into various situations where I needed something done, so, in my household for instance -
and despite all the junk I had laying around I often enough didn't have enough. Like so, sometimes the right
tools are indispensable.
Anyhow - the concept of 'sanity in terms of a pragmatic believer's mindset' should, my argument, entail
strategies to 'not die', in this combat oriented sense. Which firstly concerns one's own salvation of course,
because ... that's the built in thing. Then, from having found said salvation, one can move forward to share
it. But ... my mind has kind of run out of juice here ... so ... I want to close things out like this:
Remember: True strength is a matter of the heart
The dark clouds are getting closer to me
In every moment...
I'm so excited by this feeling
Even if it's dangerous.
OK! Bring it on right now!
I'm the strongest of the universe
All I do is show you my unlimited power
Go! Kamehameha!
Get ready!
Fight it out!
Fight it out 'till the end of world (Beat the Spirit Bomb)
Look around and you'll know that
You're not fighting by yourself
Get ready!
Fight it out!
Fight it out for the dream of world (Fusion, you and me)
Let's gather the power of our friends!
Never gonna give up
Fight it out and do our best
To save our planet Earth
And I say
Go! Kamehameha!
Fight it out!
Wow!!
Fight it out!
Yeah!!!!
Fight, fight it out!
Mankind is born into Cringe!
Rejecting it, rather than overcoming it, is one thing taking us closer to the abyss
Or not?