Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Worldview Warfare (weltanschauungskrieg) & the Necessity of Illusion


“We are greater artists than we know.” Nietzsche.


Everyone has their personal version of reality and everyone believes theirs is not only the best version, but the only one that really counts.


Our version of reality is dependent on our physical, emotional, psychological imprinting as infants, and has little or nothing to do with conscious processes.


It never seems to occur to us, however, that our version of reality is built up from material that comes directly from other people’s versions of reality (the books we read, people we respect, and so forth).


We cling to our version of reality as if our life depends upon it. Maybe it does. Yet we know that any version of reality is incomplete, and never can be complete.


The way we view the world defines who we think we are, our constructed identity. We cannot see ourselves from the outside, except through the eyes of another.


We agree the sky is blue without ever wondering if we are seeing the same color, knowing only that we have agreed to give it the name “blue.”


We all desperately need others to agree with our version of reality, even while we insist that we are special and unique.


Does anyone ever really upturn their version of reality in a way that is meaningful? It is akin to identity-suicide.


Our versions of reality are our defense systems, our armor, against an incomprehensible, and probably hostile, Universe. It began as a necessary survival response to those first childhood experiences, the ones which presented the original threat to our well-being, so shaping the identity-armor that was later fully consolidated as a version of reality.


Parents are the first to override our sense of reality by telling us that monsters do not exist and that our invisible friends are imaginary, that we are not hungry when we say we are, and so forth.


We are looking for allies, most of all in our illusions. Complicity in denial. The rejection of conspiracy “theory” (a telling term, since it is often as fact-based as anything in the consensus realm) perhaps stems from our unconscious awareness that we are all conspiring, all of the time, to keep ourselves in the dark about this one, all-consuming fact: that we are the authors of our own beliefs.


Friendship is opposition.


When worldviews, versions of reality, go to war, the potential for breakthrough is great.


What we believe to be real becomes real. We forget that we chose to believe a version of reality because we had to. It was a necessary illusion.

16 comments:

sounder said...

We try to validate internal mental dialogue by attaching it to external versions of reality. It is a necessary compromise in order to have a place in society, (because all understanding is mediated through form.) As internal dialogue is reshaped by consensual representations, we lose some of our internal attachment to truth or reality.

We have put our insecurities (beliefs) up on a pedestal for so long, that ideas are valued for their conformity rather than for substance, which then remain unexamined.

New ideas need not destroy personal identity, it just so happens that because our identities are so over-invested in beliefs that PI will be tested as our beliefs dissolve.

Jake, I liked the bio information in your last podcast, but I do not see a place for, or people interested in discussing the subtle issues involved.

sounder said...

I mean Jason, please excuse my emptyheadedness.

aeoli kephas said...

I do not see a place for, or people interested in discussing the subtle issues involved.

what place are you referring to? is that a request? what about the forum?

People may be interested but feel uncomfortable about saying so/asking.

i expect the aeolus unmasking and subsequent replication process has left most folk somewhat unsure of what to think, much less say...?

tommy said...

"i expect the aeolus unmasking and subsequent replication process has left most folk somewhat unsure of what to think, much less say...?"

Yeah, most people, but not all... The title of "Aeolus" seems to have a built-in gooey center of confusion.

I wonder if the negative feedback to this "unveiling" is evident of our attachment to form, even if that form is actually a pseudonym used by a "hollywood hopeful"... I think we're all tired of being tricked, anyway, and I always had a weird feeling about the name "Aeolus Kephas", didn't seem to have any nationality attached to it (unless he was a time traveler from ancient Greece or something), so good job looking past the boundary of assumptive ignorance. Still don't know entirely what's going on but that comes with the territory I guess...

"walking among shadows
shady characters of faded cast
acting out their last role
beautiful lonely stars"

aeoli kephas said...

comes with the territory... trickery is the maybe not the name of the game but certainly an indispensable card in Spirit's deck; acc. to Carlos, it's the very essence of Spirit's relationship with Man, and the third abstract core:

trickery of the spirit:

"The story says that after knocking on the door of that man we’ve been talking about, and having no success with him, the spirit used the only means available: trickery. After all, the spirit had resolved previous impasses with trickery. It was obvious that if it wanted to make an impact on this man it had to cajole him. So the spirit began to instruct the man on the mysteries of Sorcery. And the sorcery apprenticeship became what it is: a route of artifice and subterfuge.

“The story says that the spirit cajoled the man by making him shift back and forth between levels of awareness to show him how to save energy needed to strengthen his connecting link.”

tommy said...

Thanks for replying. To be honest I am still confused about this whole situation, but still very interested.

I don't know whether Jason is friend or foe, but judging by the latest podcast it seems to be somewhere towards the former, especially considering that he is agreeing to do these interviews and everything. This is not the only thing that is confusing me, but maybe I'm thinking too much. It would be nice to have some context though. I have known people which, when backed into a corner, are still capable of denying any wrongdoing or deception and continue their "act", perhaps panicking in their mind yet the mask remains the same.

- signed, overly curious reader/listener (email in my profile if any further details can be revealed)

toothpaste said...

Tommy,

Would you agree that friend and foe are interchangable roles within a person? A permanent friendship is very rare and perhaps even non-existent, as within every honest friendship that I have ever had, there have been heated arguments, anger, and even violence.

Jason is providing insight into a composite of some very powerful world-narratives... even offering the opportunity to BECOME players within the narrative. In acting out these roles, we come to know them rather than believe them.

Even if he is an arrogant schmuck (is he?) there just might be something gained from following his thread. You decide.

aeoli kephas said...

i'm not arrogant, I'm the One!!

tommy said...

Well, Toothpaste, you are somewhat right on the friend/foe interchangeability, but I think we should be able to transcend that (since we don't really need to put each other through unneeded grief in merely searching for companionship, though I've had little luck with that so far) and I tend to separate the two the best I can. One thing I don't like is being "hoodwinked", and I think that's exactly what Jason here did with his Aeolus "role". The way he just up and left, it was more like he was compiling information from us than taking an active interest in our views (though that could just be my perception). Now others have taken over his Aeolus role in order to cleanse the field and bring truth to light (with added zen genius). They obviously did their homework.

I've said enough, good day Aeolus. Kephas be with you (*I talk about myself far too much to be a member of Aeolus Inc.)

aeoli kephas said...

in what sense hoodwinked?

tommy said...

I have no idea who's asking the question here. Could be Jason, could be someone else.

I guess if you disagree that any deception has been going on, I really have no clue what's actually happening here. To avoid making myself look any more like a horse's ass for not fully understanding the situation here (I thought I had a good idea but maybe not), I'll just say that I thought this whole thing was about "unmasking" someone (Jason) who had been using a pseudonym to appear as someone else, actively "hoodwinking" most of us (note the quote/unquote, as hoodwinking is the only term I can think of to describe it). That's all. No offense to Jason (though that could be impossible to imply at this point), just trying to piece this together. I'll be quiet now and stop creating answers in my mind when I should be asking questions.

Jason said...

this is Jason here (tho i could just be saying that! ;)).... I don't quite see how using a pseudonym (especially one that is obviously such) counts as "hoodwinking," or even trying "to be someone else." How is using a name given by one's parents any more "real" than choosing a "fake" one to write under?

You could argue that i reveal more about myself by creating a false name than using a given one.

Is a man with a beard trying to hide something, or is he allowing his true nature to show?

Why is it anyone's business but mine, i mean ours? I am not selling anything, after all. If you are interested in what i am saying, does personal info or lack of it change that?

Sorcerers never use trickery for personal gain, only for the sheer joy of it - and because we can't HELP ourselves.

I understand that no one likes being confused; however, confusion is a means here, & not an end.

I'm glad that someone is asking these questions tho, because I want to know how people are responding; not out of vanity (not only!), but because all this happened much too fast for me to consider what the result might be, much less people's reactions.

And I was never compiling info on anyone; the only reason i write is because I have to. That's reason enough, surely? The same applies to my "decision" to withdraw and all the rest that has ensued since then.

I am much more the witness than the "doer."

tommy said...

Yeah... I am definitely feeling like a fool right now. I've underestimated you. Apologies for the rampant mistrust.

Jason Horsley said...

no need - if nothing else you perhaps gave voice to a more general feeling "out there" that was not being spoken?

wearing the cloak of "AK" was, among other things, a way to keep a distance between myself and the audience and let the work speak for itself; but it also protected me from caring too much about whether I, my personal self, was liked or not.

Shedding that cloak then laid me open to more personal attention, even attack. But since being vulnerable, and opening to what we are most afraid of, is what I have been writing of recently, (surrender as the name of the game), it makes sense (looking back) that I needed at some unconscious level to walk the walk and set the example.

all the theatrics with the aeoli was apparently a way (I say apparently, because Spirit dictated the way it played out more than we did) to on the one hand ease my own discomfort, and on the other, to create a different sort of smoke screen - or kaleidoscopic refraction - so that only those who were really paying attention (and were willing to allow a period of confusion) would figure out what just happened?

If so then this little exchange is part of the movement passed confusion into understanding?

It's unsettling to think that people out there assume that I have some sort of agenda,or even design, behind all this, when I am really just trying to keep up with all the changes myself, and not wind up caught in some awful contradiction or peccadillo!

(after all, I did say i wouldn't be blogging any more - yet here i am)

tommy said...

Yeah, the part where you said you were leaving made me a little confused as to what was really going on when the blog resurfaced seemingly through the work of others, but you've cleared things up. I'm guessing you asked Ezra and Steve to help out with the podcast and everything?

See, the impression I got was that Steve and Ezra had "found something out" about you and proceeded to "unmask" you. It's even more funny and interesting now that I know you had a hand in this whole thing. Great show. It's sad that I had to come along and take away part of the mystery!

It is my own thoughts which perceived an agenda where there was none. Once again, it with the territory of the "conspiracy world" to question even those involved in bringing truths to light. Hope I haven't unsettled you too much. Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

"It's sad that I had to come along and take away part of the mystery!"

There are bigger things working through you tommy man, shift credit away from where you feel credit is due.