Author: Britton William Frost

Writegenstein #6: Meditations on Perception

Britton William Frost1 Comment

We find certain things we see puzzling because we don’t find the business of seeing puzzling enough.

-Ludwig Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations 212)

Vision affords us a picture of reality. It needs no context or explanation unless our goal is to understand it, for most things, we merely see, and we don’t understand them. We so often take what we see at face value or, the opposite, infer something from it that is not there, based on conditioned expectations. Since we all possess different modes of perception and judgment and have different conditioning, there are unlimited interpretations of every picture.

To say that what is in our visual frame is the basis of our understanding, a full picture would be necessary — all of what came before, what is happening now both in and out of frame, and what is to come. This is impossible. Our visual field would be overloaded if we had access to everything at once.

It is, rather, the nature of human perception to filter all sense data and extract only what is relevant to the current intention, based on the knowledge and awareness of those objects present. We do not, conversely, see all that is present and construct a viewpoint on that basis. There will be very little construction, if any at all.

We mostly derive the meaning of objects from their uses. We do not define a pencil as a long, cylindrical stick filled with graphite. We define it as a writing utensil. If one had never encountered a pencil, he may not define it as a writing utensil, but perhaps as a stabbing tool.

Indeed, some who do know the intended use of a pencil may still define it as a stabbing tool.

However, if an object had no known utility, and one could not be found, then would it also lack an identity? Usage is an expression of a particular kind of understanding.

Objects that are known to us carry baggage in our minds. We have preconceptions of them.

It is not usage itself, but the totality of collective preconceptions that define a thing in itself.

We see a physical object at the low end of analysis, a concept at the highest end, and usage is somewhere in the middle. We exercise our will not to observe more of an object than we need to. If we have a conception of it already, we in fact need to see very little of it for the purposes of usage or understanding.

Philosophy is a study of concepts. It is also the study of distinctions – such as the one between physical objects, uses, and concepts that I am making right now. A distinction is a kind of concept.

The most common question a philosopher should ask is “what do you mean?”. Understanding meaning implies the understanding of a concept.

Definitions in response to the question “what do you mean?” are often frustratingly pragmatic, for most people think in pragmatic terms as to serve their own ends. This does not satisfy a truth-seeking philosopher, however. Pragmatism reduces to relativism – that we can create our own ends, and that attempts to justifies any means. It is the ends, however, that need questioning. Ends are products of the human will, and the human will alone has the capacity for moral judgment.

We sift through our visual field for relevant concepts. Higher cognitive functioning does so by spreading known concepts across all available objects, scanning them for a match. Lower functioning perception attempts to identify particular objects that the subject is familiar with.

Excluding intuitive knowledge (which is neither pragmatic nor empirical in nature), a wider range of objective knowledge will theoretically give us a larger pool of data from which to realize relevance. However, regardless of how large that pool is, realizing relevance must be founded on something deeper. We do not only sift objects based on what we know, for that would only allow us to apply existing knowledge without providing a basis for learning new concepts.

Whether conscious or unconscious, values provide a basis for action. The concepts that we associate with objects direct us to the relevant path for acting on those values. When the foundation of values is from inclination rather than conscious cultivation, we can merely observe our behaviors. It is not until we catch ourselves in an act that we can notice patterns in those behaviors over time. Then we go ahead correcting the values from the bottom-up. This is to learn life’s lessons the hard way. If we were more introspective, we would give more careful consideration to the values themselves.

Materialists mistake the brain for the input receiver when really it is the eyes and other sense apparatuses that receive input. The associations we make between objects and concepts are conditioned and can therefore be unlearned.

Fluid/creative intelligence is roughly the ability to see beyond the limited range of utility of an object as identified by convention, to virtually unlimited uses, and to be able to apply alternative uses when relevant. This is why tool use was such an important step in our evolution. This takes new forms today with the birth of a new technological device.

A severe lack of fluid intelligence is demonstrated by the creators of a device who intend a singular purpose or category of purposes for that device. They may be as low in fluid intelligence as they are high in computational intelligence. I would bet that there exists a negative correlation here, for the more intelligent one is, the more complexly they see the world. Everything is infinitely simple just as it is infinitely complex, however. This is why an unintelligent person is every bit as likely, perhaps even more so, to be wise.

One can intend a use for a new device, but that is not to say that people will not go about finding new uses for it. Technology itself, with its limited programming, cannot account for the infinite creativity of the human mind.

People who lack fluid intelligence lack foresight – they have to be shown that an idea works before they can see that it would.

However, we all see an object in accordance to its relevance to our existing knowledge and intended purposes.

Whether to see an object as a tool for a defined goal or an unconscious psychological one, such as to preserve the ego, makes no difference. This is still to limit the essence of a thing to a pragmatic conception. Whether or not that conception is in accordance with what is the case depends on how the drive for that goal is founded. The essence of the object can only be realized outside of the pragmatic context set by a subject.

We so often jump to a judgment, not only without thinking about and understanding what we have observed, but without thinking about and understanding how we are observing. Our data will be insufficient in this case, and so will our judgment be a reaction based on preconditioned beliefs and modes of perception.

Truth is not relative, however, insofar as we can observe ourselves and sharpen our perceptive tools.

To believe that truth is relative is to presuppose that improvement is impossible. “Improvement toward what?”, I would ask.

Relativism also presupposes the existence of truth. To claim that truth does not exist is a truth-claim.

Self-awareness is a prerequisite for real objective knowledge. You cannot know others until you know yourself. You cannot understand others until you understand yourself. You cannot love others until you love yourself. This goes for group as well as individual settings.

To be self-aware is to understand your own conditioning. It is your responsibility to to work diligently to peel back those layers so your core may be exposed and so that you may operate without those conditioned restraints. The result is vulnerability which causes many short-term struggles for the benefit of deeper connections, and authenticity which leads to the elimination of superficial connections for the sake of infinite long-term potential in every area on your life.

You have no control over your environment, but only over how you respond to it.

An Astrological Aspect is a Miniature Consciousness Within Yourself

Britton William Frost1 Comment

Presuppositions

Before continuing with this short and accessible thesis, it is imperative that the reader understand and agree with the following set of presuppositions:

  1. Truth exists
  2. Truth exists on different levels of complexity
  3. God is a personified conception of Truth-itself, i.e. Truth at the highest level of complexity which contains all things known and unknown
  4. A fact is a truth at the lowest level of complexity, e.g. all raw scientific data
  5. A fact requires infliction of the human will to have meaning; facts alone are simply phenomena of nature
  6. Nature is amoral
  7. The human will, being connected to the transcendent, is the only thing that possess moral capacity
  8. As humans, it is our duty under God’s law to give moral consideration to all endeavors
  9. Astrology isn’t complete bullshit when given moral consideration and that of the presuppositions 1-8
  10. Astrologism is to astrology as scientism is to science: the former concepts are incoherent belief systems serving as gods/truths unto themselves, while the latter concepts are methods of inquiry intended for the human will to serve higher Truth

There are elaborations of these points in much of my other work from the past and future, as well as in the work of great thinkers of the past, all of which is a matter of loosely dancing around the fire of truth. This is all one can do, for to enter into that fire is to die, and that categorically should result in our facing God directly, which is not possible in this mortal life.

The thesis

There is an affinity, I have found, between astrological aspects on the specific level and consciousness on the general level. An aspect is a small consciousness within yourself.

Each planet in astrology — sun and moon included — represents a different part of your personality. The sun is your ego, Mercury is how you structure communication, Venus is your feminine nature, Mars is your masculine, etc. Depending on the constellation with which a planet is aligned, and the house in which it is situated, it will be expressed in a different style and show prominence in a different context of your life respectively.

REMINDER: It is should be the case that by reading this now, you share the aforementioned list of presuppositions and therefore are not, from a materialistic proclivity, getting bogged down by the mechanistic question of how these or any astrological connections can be possible, leading that to blinding you from the higher truths (unverifiable by empirical pursuits alone) being described here and toward which all endeavors (scientific and otherwise) should aim.

An aspect is a relationship between two planets based on how they are positioned. There are a variety of angular relationships that planets can share; each creates a new energy — a unique trait in itself. The major aspects are: conjunction, opposition, square, trine, sextile, and inconjunction.

So is the case with consciousness more broadly. Consciousness is neither a material entity inside the brain nor the same sort of thing out there in the objective world that we access with our material brain. Consciousness is a different type of thing altogether — a unique energy that is produced when one subjective being interacts with the objective world. A mind is the conscious state of being in an individual, persistent through time.

A relationship does not produce a consciousness; it is a consciousness unto itself, produced by two or more conscious beings interacting.

We speak of relationships of all sorts as entities unto themselves, do we not?

There is a unique power and energy produced when two or more people interact. It is its own thing. It may be similar with that of others who have similar traits in or out of common, but no two relationships are identical just as no two individuals are identical.

Some connections seem good (conjunction, trine, sextile), and others seem bad (square, opposition). Even a lack of connection (inconjunction) indicates a disconnect which can be reflected in differing values or an inability to understand each others values.

What seems good possesses difficulties, what seems bad may yield great benefit when faced, and what seems disconnected may have great potential for compromise. These dynamics or combination of dynamics are reflected in the combinations of aspects shown between areas of two or more people’s natal charts as well as in the combinations of aspects within one’s own chart.

The totality of all conscious energies combining at once — including individuals, relationships, and those resulting from groups and cultures — is what is referred to by psychoanalysts as the collective unconscious. This too results in a unique energy which is greater than the sum of all individual parts — this is the source of all things (Truth/God).

A personality trait — represented by a planet placed in a particular sign in a particular house — is to your the entire birth chart as an individual person’s consciousness is to the collective unconscious.

Astrology is split, like all disciplines are, between the authentic practitioners and the self-fulfilling ones, the truth-seekers and the fashionistas, the scientists and the materialists.

Astrology is not a belief structure — it is not scientism. It is, rather, a subject of inquiry into a specific area of reality — i.e. the human personality. It does not claim to be or to know the exact source of its truth or Truth itself. It does not stand in for God as the materialists would like to believe of science. Likewise, science more generally is a method of inquiry into one level of reality — i.e. the level of facts — containing nothing more than hope that the predictions made on the basis of those facts will prove accurate.

The predictions that contain observable patterns and regularities always leave room for admission that the patterns themselves are not emergent from the facts, but rather are emergent from some greater source that gives rise to all facts and patterns contained within it. Again, it is not the sum of the facts.

Understanding of our metaphysical reality cannot happen from the bottom-up, if at all.

Nor should we claim to know the source of Truth, for we cannot say anything more precise than ‘God/Truth/Being/etc’. To realize this is to be truly-curious and to fear nothing other than God. It is only God that should be feared, and when one fears only God, it is only then that one’s path is surely right.

In the genuine study of astrology, it is similarly understood: “the stars may impel but do not compel”. We can only accept that Truth/God exists, that moral law is final and universal, and that it is our duty to consciously accord our decisions with what is good — i.e. in practical terms to act with no motivation to produce a consequence. We may often react from fear of the Truth, but that is ok as long as it is accepted.

Astrology, like science is for the physical realm, is therefore nothing other than a tool for understanding ourselves so that we may more closely orient our action toward the good.

Simple placement descriptions — e.g. Aries sun in the 4th house — often spark a feeling of validation or rejection in us. This is a surface reaction based only in how we view ourselves, and our perspective of ourselves may be either true or untrue in nuance just as that description may be.

No wonder pop astrology focuses solely on these placements, and often only the sun at that. The sun is the ego — the most reactive placement apart from Chiron. Fashion is meant to appeal to our emotions, not to spark critical thought.

They are surface descriptions of traits isolated from the greater context of the natal chart. Funnily, the extent to which and style in which one is sensitive and reactive to a description, or to the opinion of another, is often indicative of particular elements:

Fire is volatile, water is containable, earth is indifferent, and air is unaware (or don’t care). Once the reaction dust settles, all are capable of reaching the same conclusions about what is true and untrue.

An aspect, though isolated too in its own right, shows greater complexity than a single placement but less so than that of the entire chart.

Conclusion

The new energy produced by the angular relationship of the two planets involved, being a consciousness unto itself, is of primary importance. The houses those planets are in reveal context and are of secondary importance, for an energy that is greater than the sum of its parts can transcend contexts. The sign dynamic says something about the style in which this trait is expressed. It is of tertiary importance at best since it is, in fact, already implied by the type of aspect itself and since its expression is largely context-dependent (e.g. not all Cancer sun people are the same, obviously).

The law of identity in logic states that every instance of an individual thing — material or abstract in appearance — possesses its own identity and is an expression of the abstract concept of one). As per that law, everything we can identify as being unique, occupying its own abstract space at a given time — whether a fact, a placement, an aspect, a birth chart, an individual, a relationship, a culture, or God progressively — is situated in some place within the hierarchy of consciousness between an insignificant, unconscious, context-dependent fact on the bottom and Truth/God/Collective Unconsciousness itself at the peak, and can be identified as an individual energy on its own.

We conscious beings, connected to higher Truth and consciousness, are situated somewhere in the middle of the hierarchy. So are the astrological aspects within us, but, as we must remind ourselves, they are tools at the disposal of our human wills, ultimately intended to sharpen that very will which uses it.

Psychology of the Hegelian Dialectic

Britton William FrostLeave a comment

To put it very simply, the Hegelian Dialectic is G.W.F Hegel’s theory that the progress of cultural views toward truth is anything but linear. Instead, the conventional thesis causes rebellion and, therefore, the birth of an anti-thesis. Belief patterns oscillate between those two extremes, both of which have certain particulars correct but are out of touch with general truth. People are split into those two camps at once until the anti-thesis eventually becomes the new thesis. That causes a new anti-thesis to arise, and the cycle repeats with each new thesis’ being slightly closer to the overarching truth but which may still overcompensate regarding the specifics. Imagine a pendulum swinging where belief is split between one peak of the swing and the other, truth itself is the force of gravity, and as the pendulum slows down, ideally, people should come together in submission of the truth at the pendulum’s resting point in the middle. This process, according to Hegel, takes at least three moves.

There is a political application of this theory — a cultural misinterpretation, in my view — that suggests that this dialectic process begins with a pragmatic agenda (usually control, power, and money), and instead of each step’s getting closer to the truth, it rather gets closer to fulfilling that goal. The problem here is metaphysical: pragmatism alone cannot provide a ground to account for the contents of the theory, nor for the act of theorizing itself. What grounds the goal toward which the dialectic aims? Is it nature? Is it a common value among the participants? Is it their conscious agreement? Each of these is logically unsound, for truth is neither determined by mere survival (naturalistic fallacy) nor by consensus (argumentum ad populum). It still requires we fallen, mortal beings to have faith in something as a grounding for that goal, just as we must appeal to something higher than ourselves in discerning truth. We will leave that here for now, however.

We can certainly observe the Hegelian Dialectic in microcosmic form when we observe the evolution of an individual’s beliefs. It is not our first impulse, when we are confronted with new information that challenges how we think, to simply observe that information and our responses to it — to watch the pendulum swing as well as to be self-aware, that is. No, it is our first impulse to map that information onto our preconditioned pattern of thinking, whether that means to accept and adopt the conventional thesis or to rebel against it. The former is the result of one’s being temperamentally more agreeable, and the latter less agreeable, from a Big-5 trait perspective. So, regardless of our temperament, the same holds true: we tend to ride the pendulum to the other end and back again, repeatedly, as to learn most of life’s lesson’s by trial and error. I don’t intend to commit the composition fallacy here — i.e. that what is true of individual parts should be true of the whole — but rather to draw an analogy between individual psychology on the specific level and the Hegelian Dialectic on the general.

An example of this would be the case of someone’s growing up with an inadequate Christian education or family life, and they overcompensate for that in young adulthood by becoming an atheist, perhaps because they read “The God Delusion” by Dildo Dawkins or something. With growth and wisdom, and after many debates with friends and family members, they eventually evolve into adopting a more stoic mindset and grateful attitude, and they find their way back to a more focused, spiritual (even Christian) perspective on reality and life.

I want to place emphasis on the grateful attitude that is required to see the truth. It is one thing to be able to interpret facts, and even to see higher patterns of truth, correctly. But, in doing so, there is no guarantee that one will know what to do with that information. An authentic, stoic mindset involves gratitude. There is power in indifference, yes. It allows one to remove emotion from the initial analysis and see things clearly. Without gratitude, this will cause apathy, for one can see and understand truth on a mechanistic level yet still feel some desire to correct what is to what one thinks should be the case. This is an interference of the ego. To be grateful is to understand and to consciously, in every necessary moment, control that ego response rather than to act on it in an attempt to control the world. Gratitude, not indifference, allows for true acceptance of that which is out of the individual’s control. From there, one is not bogged down in the negative attitude that the ego would create in reaction to the truth, but rather, a world of higher learning opens up to one.

Community roles and individual relationships are crucial both for development and as a test for one’s true attitude. It is also a product of ego for one to consciously decide “I am grateful.” It is another thing to test that against social pressure. An example would be in letting go of a romantic relationship and being “grateful” that one’s former partner will move on to other things and people that are better suited to them than one is. One can experience a feeling of unhealthy possessiveness over other people as well over their environment. In fact, people are simply part of that environment that the untamed ego seeks to control. They are mere objects — means to one’s end. Regardless of that end, one should not treat others merely as a means, but rather as ends in themselves. True love is expressed, perhaps more often than not, after that relationship is over with. It comes with the acceptance that the former lover has freely moved on — and in being grateful for that. Romantic relationships are the ultimate test of gratitude because they are so muddied by emotion. It is the context in which the line between intuition and emotion is the least clear. Intuition knows that to be grateful is to be free, and that is to be loved. That is true compassion. Emotion, empathy included, is the chemical response that the ego impulsively triggers when it does not accept what is.

To dilate back out to the general, the Hegelian Dialectic is the cultural context for ego expression. It is the natural result of group-based thinking which is, in fact, submission to cultural fashion at the expense of based, critical thinking. It can be consciously and systematically directed by a government entity’s appealing to the pity and emotion of the public, and persuading them that those impulsive, involuntary responses are virtuous. Therefore, it takes one absolutely no work to join the team of “the good”. One must only remain a slave to one’s emotions and be able to call out anyone who does not share that sentiment, no matter how well-reasoned their opponent’s position may be. The reward for this, in today’s technocratic culture, is not personal or spiritual fulfillment, but rather material convenience which one would, in reality, be better off finding a way to provide oneself. Whether Hegel’s claim that there is unity in truth at the end of the road, however, regarding the core things that are near and dear to us as individual, spiritual beings — e.g. what should be normalized regarding family, love, sex, beauty, etc. — remains to be seen.

Writegenstein #5: The Grounding of Belief

Britton William FrostLeave a comment

“If we have a belief, in certain cases we appeal again and again to certain grounds, and at the same time we risk very little — if it came to risking our lives on the ground of this belief… There are instances where you have a faith — where you say ‘I believe’ — and on the other hand this belief does not rest on the fact on which our ordinary everyday beliefs normally do rest.”

Ludwig Wittgenstein (Lecture I on Religious Belief)

Though Wittgenstein didn’t write explicitly about ethics and moral philosophy, he admitted that the whole business of philosophy was of a moral kind. Statements like the one above make that clear.

He continues from this statement to flesh out the logic of the different “states of mind” that one will possess (or be possessed by) in the case of stating whether or not one believes in Judgment Day versus the case of actually facing judgment directly. These cases, of course, are very different things. In simply stating whether or not one believes in Judgment Day, one is risking nothing. In the face of judgment, however, a matter of speaking the truth could mean a matter of life or death.

One cannot consider this scenario without its psychology. To state beliefs is merely to speak. One’s ego is all that is needed to do this. It is one’s being, however, that acts. Assuming our goal is to become more morally-upstanding beings, we should accept as our task to integrate our ego with our being. Deeper truth of our beliefs is in our action. Speak less, perhaps, observe our actions more, and then speak in accordance with our actions. We may be inclined to stay silent until we correct those actions, for, more often than not, we are not embodying that being we’d hope to be — i.e. the very ground on which our beliefs and statements regarding our beliefs should stand.

Writegenstein #4: The River-bed of Thoughts

Britton William FrostLeave a comment

“The mythology may change back into a state of flux, the river-bed of thoughts may shift. But I distinguish between movement of the waters on the river-bed and the shift of the bed itself; though there is not a sharp division of the one from the other… And the bank of that river consists partly of hard rock, subject to no alteration or only to an imperceptible one, partly of sand, which now in one place now in another gets washed away, or deposited.”

Ludwig Wittgenstein (On Certainty, 97, 99)

This excerpt, of those I have read, best illustrates my affinity with Wittgenstein’s thinking which is likely just as profound as it seems scattered. The analogy of movement of water, the soil underneath, and lack of that on the bank, to the process and changeability of one’s thinking — so clear that I feel no need to explain it much further.

However, I will note that each person might identify with a different part of the river in how they think. Some are as fluid and malleable as the water itself, having virtually no thoughts of their own. Others may, like the river-bed, have much surface malleability and fundamental flux only over medium-term spans of time, but to inevitably give into influence from the turbulent, surface currents — i.e. they are not swayed by superficial fashion but are still strongly influenced by others.

And the fewest, I would suspect, have a standpoint analogous to the bank. These are more secure in their thinking and more objective in their perspective. With nothing more than the occasional crumble of dirt or rock breaking off into the river — pieces that perhaps they could do without — they can securely observe the flow of the river and willfully choose if and when to let those pieces get carried away as not to compromise their foundation.

As per Eleanor Roosevelt’s famous quote, the river is he who speaks of people, the river-bed is he who speaks of events, and the bank is he who speaks of ideas… because only he can.

Writegenstein #3: The Beginning

Britton William FrostLeave a comment

“It is difficult to find the beginning. Or better: it is difficult to begin at the beginning. And not try to go further back.”

-Ludwig Wittgenstein (On Certainty, 471)

What, though, IS the beginning?

It is in our nature as spiritual beings to believe, and so it is the case, that all things are on some level connected. This is an intuition we have that coherence matters, and it serves as the basis for all religions. Can we mortals, however, really connect all of the dots?

Of course not. But, this is why we must submit to faith — faith in truth, God, or whatever it is that we regard as ‘the beginning’. The nature of that thing evades us. It must, for it is everything all at once — the 12th House, in astrological terms — and is therefore that of which we are a very small part. It is a logical necessity and is the same thing for all rational/spiritual beings.

To lack fear and acknowledgment of something of this nature is to simply not be in tune with ourselves, others, or reality in the broadest, metaphysical sense. It is to sell ourselves short of something transcendental. Even our rejection of it is a willful choice which we could not make had we not been part of it to begin with.

O.T.U.J.A. — A Brief Guide for Acting Right in Turbulent Times

Britton William Frost1 Comment

Welcome to OTUJA which stands for Observe, Think, Understand, Judge, Act. This is a draft of a five-step guide for acting well and intentionally, especially important when there is a high risk of emotional influence on decision-making.

Anger, frustration, excitement, fear, pity, empathy, joy, etc.

Emotions are a matter of the subjective being alone — mere reactions to external stimuli. They are neither indicative of nor serve as evidence for any general reality. In the case that an emotional impulse does seem to reflect general reality, that is merely coincidental and should be accepted humbly. Emotions are not reasonable bases for action in any case. To act on the basis of an emotion is to act in self-interest and to therefore disregard the well-being of others. One’s emotions are one’s own responsibility to control. The more one allows their emotions to flow freely and impact others, the worse that person is, insofar as I can tell.

It should be considered that fully-justified action may be an unattainable ideal. Of course, everyone must act with some degree of self-interest and emotional influence from time to time in order to survive in the world. That still does not justify it, for martyrs can be perfectly justified in their final act. The best one can do in desperate times (while maintaining that survival is necessary) is to act from an unreasonable basis with the intention to prevent that from becoming a general pattern of behavior in future cases. OTUJA is a guide for formulating a good pattern of decision-making and therefore to maximize overall well-being around them in general, despite what exceptions may have to be made for necessary, expedient ends. The more consciously and frequently this process is applied, the purer one’s intentions will be, and the better a person that one will be, quite simply.

If you will notice, as I have mentioned the word a few times already, intention matters. What I mean by this term could also be described as an aim or purpose. This is not to be confused with goal or consequence. In each step of this process, as I will repeat, the intention is to set a foundation for the following step.

1. Observe

Acknowledge that your first intention is to think clearly (the next step). In order to do this, you must observe. Clear your mind. Identify whether or not you have any emotional impulses. If you do, then take deep breath, take a walk around the block, bash your head on a concrete wall — whatever necessary — until those impulses have at least gone dormant (if not, then congratulations: you are not a decision-maker. Go find a wiser, cooler head to depend on). Observe all that you can impartially, without bias for or against the subject(s) involved and for any outcome which might affect you, emotionally or practically. Love blinds in this step. The more you care about the subject, the hotter the lens through which you will perceive it. Whether it is your child who was kidnapped or a random straight white guy being curb-stomped by ANTIFA in the street, don’t let your initial emotional reaction jump to a premature judgment. Simply collect factual data about what you can see — as much of it as possible. Without impartial observation, thinking is not possible.

2. Think

Now that you have a basis of observations, acknowledge that your next intention is to understand what is going on. This means that you must first think critically about your observations as well as continuing to think about your own mental states during that process. The most important thing here is not to compile and organize all of your data in the construction of a viewpoint, but rather to filter out all of the useless information which, by the way, will be the majority of it. To develop a good filter, it is necessary to have knowledge of, and preferably also a cultivated sixth sense for, logical fallacies. These are errors of relevance and inference that hinder good reasoning. Once you have sifted through all fallacious data, look for patterns in the observations that are left over (there may be nothing left over, which is often the case during political unrest for example, in which case you should remain neutral and walk away from the situation entirely). Consider as many different interpretations of that remaining data, real or hypothetical, as you can. Without critical, analytical thinking, understanding is not possible.

3. Understand

Take your reasoned analysis and acknowledge that your next intention is to formulate a judgment on which to base your action. What is the most reasonable and least self-interested interpretation you can possibly make as a result of the thinking you have just done? Do you actually understand what is going on here on all levels? Do you sympathize with the local case and have a bird’s eye understanding of the greater conceptual patterns if any? Has this happened before, and are there any lessons from history to be learned here that you can draw understanding from? Without understanding to the highest, broadest, and most detailed degree conceivable, valid judgment is not possible.

4. Judge

Judgment is not bad. Judgment is necessary for action. Judgment without observation, thought, and understanding is bad and often leads to poor and destructive action. Acknowledge now that your intention is to act. In order for your action to be well-intended, the conclusion you have drawn from the first three steps must be valid. For a judgment to be valid, by logical definition, the truth of its conclusion must follow from the truth of its evidence. No matter how carefully you have completed the first three steps, you may not be comfortable with making a judgment at all. That is OK. Feel free to go back to any of the steps to analyze whether you missed a crucial bit of information or overlooked an interpretation that could have led to a more confident and reasonable judgment. Know that you are under no obligation whatsoever to have an opinion on anything or to act if you do not think that your judgment is true. Let your intuition be the final judge. An opinion can be based on as much as nothing, so it is better to have reasonable disbelief than to have unreasonable belief. At least reasonable disbelief will yield well-intended actions.

5. Act

In the case that you have formulated a well-reasoned judgment, acknowledge now that your intention is to accept the consequences of the action that you are about to produce. Act confidently and without apology. Apologies are not about actions themselves but rather about having done JA without OTU, and sometimes about having done A without OTUJ!

X. Intuit

The final bullet point and x-factor I would like to mention is intuition. Intuition, I must make clear, has no basis whatsoever in one’s personal emotions, beliefs, or conditioning, although those things can be partially based on it and will often overlap with it to some degree, blurring the line between intuition and personal baggage. It is our connection to the universal unconscious, to speak in Jungian terms, and is intrinsic to our nature. It is our spiritual and truth-guiding force, and it by its very nature cannot be wrong. In the case that an intuitive decision is wrong, it is because of interference of the ego, emotions, or a value structure that needs reform. This is to “trust your gut instinct” with regards to what is true. The more naturally emotional one is, the more difficult it will be, I suspect, for them to rely on their intuitive instinct, for the greater the risk that their intuition will be hindered by emotion. Cultivating intuition takes a lot of fine-tuning. As everyone’s is buried underneath layers upon layers of emotional and conditioned influence, I cannot give any general advice on how to do that. That is your personal duty and obligation to yourself and to the world.

The OTUJA process should be repeated as needed. You will make mistakes. That’s OK as long as it is your ongoing intention to act in accordance with truth — i.e. to do good for the sake of itself and to accept the consequences of that humbly — rather than to act in order to produce a consequence to begin with. This is what it means to be an authentic, moral being.

I must emphasize once more that OTUJA is intended toward an ideal, for one cannot and should not attempt to control external variables. That is not the point. The point is to focus on oneself, one’s own thinking. Every step of this process is extremely difficult. Even the first, to simply observe without emotional or self-interested bias, often requires monk-like meditation in the face of emotion-stirring crises. Sometimes it will seem impossible. When it does, inaction alone will show good character.

Under the condition that you apply OTUJA as consciously and frequently as possible, and that you get a wee bit better every time you do, you will probably start to think critically about some popular false beliefs. The following truths (any of which I would be happy to defend at length) are just a few that may arise:

  1. Very few people (including most who claim to love you) care about you, and they like you even less when you speak the truth.
  2. Almost all information is meaningless and must be sifted through for truth nuggets to be found.
  3. To have knowledge of the logical fallacies is to have taken the intellectual red pill. This is one of the greatest transcendental values as well as the greatest personal dangers of formally studying philosophy. Your bullshit filter will be flawless, and you will never see the world the same again. This will either thicken your skin beyond what you thought was possible or send you spiraling down a well of crippling depression. Either way, you will be forced to find solace in isolation (see 1).
  4. Non-defense-based violence is never justified, no matter how useful.
  5. “Eye-for-an-eye” is a counterproductive approach to justice, personally and generally.
  6. “Moral relativism” — the philosophy in which you believe that shit doesn’t stink just because your shit doesn’t stink to you — is false.
  7. People are mostly good, albeit reckless, self-centered, and ignorant.
  8. There is no connection whatsoever between being smart and being wise. An equal degree of good and evil is intrinsic to us all, and one uses one’s available tools to intend good rather than evil precisely to the degree that one is self-aware.
  9. Self-awareness is the foundation of being a genuinely good and authentic person. It is a endless struggle. It never ends.
  10. Activism — the belief that action trumps the other prerequisite steps in the OTUJA process so that it is perfectly acceptable, regardless the ideology on which it is founded, to act without proper justification or civility — is irrational animal behavior against which forceful defense is always permitted.

Good luck.

Self-Bonding > Pair-Bonding

Britton William FrostLeave a comment

Almost three years ago, I started wearing a ring on my left middle finger because I found it in a box while I was moving, and I thought it looked cool. After a bit of research on ring symbolism, however, I found that the left middle finger represents order, structure, and personal responsibility. In astrology, it represents Saturn which coincidentally is the dominant planet in my natal chart. Saturn governs restraint, the ability to set boundaries based on logical principles, and it often results in rather conservative social viewpoints. I was like “sweet, that sounds like me”, so I kept wearing it and still do.

One of those viewpoints is that you should not get involved in someone else’s life until you have yourself somewhat figured out. I didn’t date in high school, nor did I have much of an active interest in women until I was in my mid-twenties. As a young observer not totally blinded by my testosterone drive, it seemed to me that people couldn’t set proper boundaries for themselves when it came to relationships. They couldn’t help deferring to others in the face of their own problems, sometimes at huge costs. As a Saturnian, I just didn’t understand that lack of self-restraint.

Most relationships seem unhealthy to me; most people, in my rather psychoanalytical view, seem to enter them on the basis of a deep personal and potentially clinical issues that absolutely must be dealt with. The individuals are pawns during each other’s healing, making a dramatic demise inevitable. There is plenty of folk psychology meowadays, unknowingly based on immature social-constructivist philosophy, that says that this is “totally OK” (emphasize with an annoyingly feminine tone of nurturing approval) – that we should learn to heal in the context of a relationship because that’s just how people naturally evolve as social creatures. We cannot have the foresight to avoid having to learn from our mistakes, so we attract those who are roughly as emotionally fucked up as we are, and the goal of a relationship is to grow out of that fucked-up-ness together.

While I see value in that, for we do attract and deserve no better those who are as emotionally as fucked up as we are, it is far from ideal and totally preventable to enter a relationship on this basis. We can cultivate our intuition and develop foresight to not always learn the hard way.

Perhaps I am not much of a social creature, and maybe my sex drive is lower than that of the average near-prime male, but a good person to me is self-aware, identifies and deals with their problems alone, and goes to great lengths to avoid involving others in that process. If you cannot stand to be alone, then you should practice by getting your own place, and get comfortable with the fact that when you’re left alone staring at a wall on a Saturday night with no one to entertain you, your subconscious mind will bring some very dark and disturbing things to you consciousness. You should learn and accept that these are very real parts of yourself which, if not meditated on, will eventually control your behavior without your conscious consent, at which point you will be so ego-controlled that you still may not learn from those mistakes. So, do that before you involve yourself with others, or else those others will be collateral, helpless while you sloppily come to terms with yourself because you couldn’t just sit down and meditate without having a screen of useless, dopamine-triggering bullshit in front of your face for five minutes.

At least for me, being with someone else is for mutual enjoyment and for nothing else. The last thing I would want is for them to make their problems mine (at least without the intention to improve – I’m more than happy to help someone who needs and wants that) and for me to burden them with my problems. I have my faults, but I am very well-adjusted in at least this way. I have a perfect track record of having had no relationship drama as a result of this principle. I can honestly say that I have seriously burdened not a single soul with my troubles. How generous of me.

In my years of maturation, have grown obsessed with being alone. It all started… well, from birth of course. This is in large part a natural proclivity. My parents sometimes recall my waking up in my crib and happily entertaining myself with my toy cars for any length of time until my parents decided it was time to take me out. Later on, I remember going to sleepovers and on camping trips with other kids (on the rare occasions that my parents were able to convince me to), playing variations of hide-and-seek, and feeling most at peace while I was by myself, hiding, especially in stark contrast to the social context of being with other kids minutes before which epitomized ‘unpeaceful’. My thoughts were finally able to flow without distraction. My mind and body were finally able to rest. It reminds me of how a married man with kids says he only has time alone while he is in the bathroom taking a shit, and he cherishes that time sweetly. Being the “old soul” that I am, I was so relaxed in those moments of hiding that I felt my bowels move too, and I do recall once or twice actually shitting my pants. So, even as a very young child I felt alone, but I was was at home in that state. At home, alone, with a shitpie in my pants.

I have had roommates over the years who certainly did not understand the concept of healthy solitude, so they couldn’t respect that in me or in anyone else. I would spend an unhealthy majority of my day mulling over how imprisoned I felt from having to live with them. They simply didn’t understand what I thought were common social rules: having the basic decency to avoid bothering the people they lived with unless they really needed something, keeping their shit out of the common areas and cleaning the kitchen after use, turning the handle before opening and closing a door in the morning and at night when they weren’t sure if their roommates were sleeping, etc. These are basic things, no? Unfortunately, one or two of them were good friends of mine, but it was still not worth keeping them in the house even if that meant ending those friendships. My mental health was at serious risk. I had to kick multiple out for “disturbing the peace”.

“Home” is a sanctuary – a place for peace – regardless of how poor or well-off you are. Those who don’t define ‘home’ in this way are not peaceful, and they seem to lack awareness of others and of themselves. I’ll pay the extra money to live alone no matter how bad things get, always. The point is, though, that these people also had serious problems in their relationships if they were able to have one at all. Their inability to be alone made it difficult for them to pair-bond intimately. I didn’t really have a problem with finding a relationship. Looking back, I just didn’t want it. I just saw it as the only way to explore sexuality in a safe and consistent way — a trap many fall into (I’ll eventually write another piece on why that norm should be destroyed for the sexual well-being of all).

I remember telling my girlfriend at the time, who conveniently lived over an hour away, that I could not wait to have my own place and that I foresaw my wanting to live alone for the majority of my life. It was then that certain adult values started to surface for me, and coming home to peaceful solitude everyday was one of the main ones. She of course was bothered by this as it didn’t line up with her scheme.

At 20ish years old, I suppose she didn’t have the foresight to know that it wouldn’t work out in the long-run. Maybe I should have been more clear that it was never my intention for it to, but that is difficult to realize and articulate when taking it day-to-day is the natural approach. Genuinely taking it day-to-day, in practice, does not entail that kind of discussion to begin with. Does that make sense? Like, you can’t tell a quality woman (and I do consider all women of my past to be quality women. I picked them, after all) “Look, this is day-to-day. I live for myself. I’m here for our mutual enjoyment and for no other reason. No marriage, no kids. When one of us loses interest, we’re done. That could be tomorrow or ten years from now. Got it?” She’ll simply leave for a situation that that has more promise for the future no matter how deluded that promise is. I suppose I showed that enough. She would often say “I know that if you didn’t want to be with me, then you wouldn’t be.” That was correct, and it extended my interest in her. The breakup was eventually mutual and peaceful.

When I finally did get my own place immediately after college, it proved to be a necessary move. It was quite a lazy time though. I didn’t feel that I had the energy to be as creative and productive as I was hoping, but at least I spent much needed time resting, catching up from literally years of sleep lost and mental restraint due to living with others prior to that.

Relationships that followed further solidified my desire to remain single and alone. I successfully stuck to my strict no-cohabitation rule. This worked out so well for me that it made me question further why people pair-bond at all – i.e. why they don’t value themselves above shared goals such as family, and seeing other people, that require so much self-sacrifice. I don’t get it. What is in that deal for me? How would that do anything but hold me back, not to mention exhaust the hell out of me? I suppose that not everyone is a radical individualist like I am. Some people actually put social interaction, sex, nurturing, etc. above themselves in their value structures. Confusing still.

My confusion about this goes deeper, though. It spills into my confusion about love itself. People who pair-bond, move in together prematurely and sacrifice large parts of themselves for shared goals that don’t seem worth it, also claim to love each other. I cannot accept love as a virtue or a goal in itself at all if this is what love is.

Love to me should be freeing, liberating. It should be a deep understanding, acceptance, and enjoyment of the fact that I am one individual, she is another, and that there is nothing we can or should do to interfere with that. Maybe it will last one night, or maybe it will last a lifetime. Either way, it should be nourishing. It must not be a prison. It must not be a context for judgment or accountability, for that is one’s own responsibility. It must not involve overwhelming feelings of jealousy or possessiveness. It must be devoid of ego, fear, and expectation that the other will change to serve you. It must be peaceful. It must be vulnerable and open. It must allow for as much solitude as is needed. It must be intentional, however, and unconditional if true. It should be virtually effortless. If all of these things are in place, only then, maybe, shared goals could be seen as worth it and at all possible. Maybe then could self-bonding and pair-bonding coexist. If that is not to be, then love is not for me. That is fine. The right people will come and go.

To conclude, and maybe this is a bit Saturnian of me to say, but self-bonding should be a prerequisite for pair-bonding in every case so that the relationship will entail principles that will originate from and nourish the individual. Done right, one might find that he or she is not monogamous at all and that a pair isn’t necessarily the best structure for their romantic and sexual fulfillment. Regardless, I think that only a person who can truly be alone can also truly love another, given the deeper albeit more idealistic definition of ‘love’ that I have proposed. Only the loner can truly accept and enjoy another with intention and without expectation. Otherwise, there is a great probability that the love is simply ego-serving, validation-seeking, or the like. So, if you have never lived alone, I highly suggest that you do for a while before you go out and completely ruin someone’s life, because that clock is probably ticking. Seriously. Stare at your wall, and let your repressed dark thoughts pass. If you don’t, you may not get what you want from love, and you definitely won’t get what you need for yourself, for your conception of love will be conditional on some greater force unconsciously ruling you.

“Inactivist” Grocery-Getting During “Plandemic 2020”

Britton William Frost1 Comment

I just received a notification on my phone saying that Dana has finished assembling my shopping list and is preparing it for delivery. This is the first time I’ve ever tucked it back, straightened my tiara, and phone-ordered a pampering service for myself. I personally have no problem with this particular one, though, as I have not once in my life looked forward to going to the grocery store.

This works out great for me for a few other reasons as well. I don’t make shopping lists and don’t need to because I typically get the same boring items anyway.  In the rare occasion that I have the idea to add something new to my cart, I think of that item while I am in the middle of some other task, and by the time I get to the store I always forget and end up making do with what I’m used to. Cereal, mostly. Single dude life FTW. In this case I can add the item to my cart in the moment and order once I’m ready. Brilliant.

There is also the feeling that while I am in the grocery store, it is more important for me to get the hell out of there than it is for me to stand in the middle of an isle spending even a second thinking about what else I might want in addition to those few items that I absolutely need. It is like when I was in college, it was more important that I got my degree and left that four-year extension of high school than to hang around scoping campus for extracurricular fun. It’s a waste of time.

Food is a waste of time. The ritual of cooking and having a meal means nothing to me. If I placed any value on that at all, then I wouldn’t live alone, a thousand miles from my mother’s kitchen. Or, I’d be looking for a wife. OR, I’d become a culinary artist of some sort myself. But I’m not. Just give me the nutrition and substance I need in a bottle and my semi-weekly pan-seared filet-mignon, so I can quickly ingest it and get on with more important things such as writing this article about how I don’t consider shopping for food to be one of those important things. How meta.

So, I don’t mind this grocery delivery service. However, another reason I am using this service, as well as why I am getting two cases of Soylent delivered to my door semi-monthly, is because in the midst of this “plandemic” as it should be called, I cannot enter the store without wearing a mask covering my nose and mouth. I won’t give my full array of reasons for refusing to wear a mask here, but just know that it is almost as absurd as why people bring their own bags to the grocery store. It’s something like “if everyone did it, then we could make a difference.” I’m not opposed to that way of thinking, by the way.

But, whereas it would take literally everyone’s using their own grocery bags to actually halt production of disposable bags (which is the point, right?), the non-compliance of the mask-wearing law in the elitist butt-sucking state of Pennsylvania could make a genuine difference on the local level, inspire other localities to do the same, and catch on like a virus to reverse the very fear-virus that serves as the basis for this pre-communist malarkey that is keeping you from blacking out with your buddies this weekend.

To be clear, this isn’t activism. I loathe activism. Simply refusing to follow stupid rules — such as wearing a mask to prevent the spreading of a virus for which there is no evidence whatsoever of its being even as deadly as a typical seasonal flu strain — isn’t activism. Perhaps we could call it “inactivism”. Whereas activism, virtually by definition, involves adopting a shallow political belief on the basis of emotions and “raising awareness” of that unquestioned belief by whatever means necessary (often childish tantrums and belligerent violence), inactivism simply says “I don’t see any reason for this, so I am not going to change my behavior because of it.” No harm done, just peaceful civil disobedience for the greater good of individual liberty.

What’s more, inactivism has sophisticated philosophical origins unlike its tyrannical opposition. It’s real. It’s chill. It’s principle-based. It’s Kantian, even. It has pure intention behind it. It says “Don’t fix something that isn’t broken.” That unbroken thing being individual expression in society as it is, e.g. sharing a smile with the cute barista across the counter, even if there is a useless piece of plexiglass hanging from the ceiling between the two of you that someone can easily rub their “contaminated” mask on if they wish to show that none of this is in the name of safety.

I mentioned that inactivism is Kantian. In the unlikely case that your ears perked up, I’ll explain.

In Kant’s Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals his “universal law”, if I remember it correctly, states “Act only in accordance to that maxim which you can will as a universal law.” What this means in short (and in a very watered-down way) is to act not to produce a consequence, but only on the principle of good-for-good’s-sake and to accept the consequences that follow. Like a man. This forms the basis of inactivism because an inactivist uses his moral, unconditional intuition and doesn’t blindly follow behavior-altering rules set by anonymous “experts” who would lose their jobs if they didn’t manipulate data in order to conform it to a greater political agenda under which their entire institution is funded and operates. Activism, on the other hand, does exactly that, and more, by use of the appeal to pity fallacy, preying on the emotionally and intellectually meek to create a herd of castrated sheep that will blindly follow their agenda. This is a consequentialist endeavor — it is action to produce a particular, unquestioned consequence. In other words, the end justifies the means regardless of how malicious the means are and how meaningless the end is, such as in children getting banged just so a shitty Hollywood film, about how one chick’s beating up ten guys is sexy, can be produced.

Funnily enough, activism, consequentialism, communism, atheism, scientism, libtardism, Hollywoodism, feminism, etc. all go hand-in-hand without knowing it. They don’t know it because if logical consistency of views mattered to them at all, then they wouldn’t believe what they believe to begin with. They are all essentially relativist, anthropocentric sub-systems which ironically hold the human intellect as their God — and that explains in part why they reject God. The problem with this is that we humans by definition are NOT actually God. Did you know that?

No, we’re just dumb, actually.

If you’d like to be slightly less dumb than the average human, however, then be an individualist-inactivist. It is the only kind of “-ist” worth being because it is the only kind that means by definition “against ideology” while all other “-isms” are ideologies that overtly suppress the value of individual critical thought. Let me tell you, those ideologies, man… they’re like super ghey. Critical thinking is totally counter-culture and badass!

Anyway, my groceries just arrived on the front porch where I am writing this. The delivery operation takes two people, and apparently that is one too many just as the tale about two celibate and sexually frustrated monks fetching a pale of water goes — that it takes them twice as long because they always stop and take a jerk break on the journey or whatever.

But yeah, my entire order was wrong. That’s my luck being my first time using this service. I had ordered the usual: sandwich stuff, pasta stuff, apples, bananas, eggs, cereal, STEAK, and a few little things like butter and soy sauce which I had just run out of.  Instead, they showed up with four bags full of vegetables.

Vegetables! Useless!

Really, vegetables? What the fuck?

Luckily they hadn’t picked my order wrong. My stuff was still in the car, so it was a quick and easy fix as it would have been for the monks who have only water to fetch at the well. For my troubles I was awarded $35 off my next order. It’s one of those things that’s better off happening to me than to someone else, I suppose, since I don’t get angry. I don’t get angry because I get it. It’s a plandemic. People are confused. They’re just adapting to their new system just as I am to mine of not having to go to the grocery store. Life is hard.

Writing As A Service — But For Whom?

Britton William FrostLeave a comment

In my previous post, I gave a rather technical description of some of the basic parts of astrology, but it isn’t quite what I wanted to write. I often feel that I cannot write what I want to, not because I am unable to write it, but because in order for anyone to understand it, they must have the background knowledge that I do about the topic.

What I really wanted to write about was the quincunx aspect in astrology, but I assume that most who will read it are not already interested in astrology, much less do they know what the hell a quincunx is. This is one of the most fundamental problems of writing non-fiction, at least for me: For whom am I writing?

Does this question even matter? I will only partially explore whether it matters here. For now, I will follow a line of reasoning that assumes that it does under the premise that the purpose of writing is to provide a valuable idea-based service to people.

I am constantly feeling the need to explain as much background as possible before writing what I want to write, and this requires dry, boring, technical bullshit that no one gives a fuck about. The only people who would be interested in my thoughts on the quincunx are those who either are specialists and already have the background knowledge (and although they could offer valuable insight, I have no inclination to reach out to them because that would mean joining a ghey-ass “community”; I prefer to be alone in my endeavors), or those who have potential to find interest in astrology but have not found it yet and therefore need that background. But, the problem with the latter case is that astrology is a personal journey. It just comes to you, and I cannot force someone to take interest in my technical descriptions if they have not discovered an interest in astrology more broadly on their own, so this further deems my dilemma seemingly useless.

Any time I find a new interest, I dive in deep very quickly. I surpass the basic level knowledge and immediately find myself in the no-man’s land between “somewhat knowledgeable hobbyist” and “nerdy technical professional”. One problem is that I prefer to stay at that level with pretty much everything I am interested in. I want to understand things in a holistic way and connect dots between new interests and the rest of what I know and deem important (often at the expense of the technical details), but I feel an incredible sense of guilt about the idea of marketing myself to make money from my skills and knowledge (not to mention I lack sales skills to begin with; I see that as someone else’s job). I cannot bring myself to care about or overtly pursue money. It seems deeply inauthentic. I end up doing jobs that offer me just enough money to survive and require no creative or intellectual engagement at all because their monotony affords my mind freedom to wander and “plan my escape.” At every job I have ever had, I have had wisdom and foresight that could have brought those businesses to incredible heights, but I have steered clear of correcting what was wrong with them because it “wasn’t my responsibility” to do so, it would involve career advancement that I simply do not desire, and it would involve endless meetings that would go nowhere because of the deaf ears who were in power to implement those changes. I need absolute freedom of thought, creativity, and responsibility, and I am very careful about where I apply my energy. This crippling guilt is about more than personality quirks, however. There is a general moral aspect about it.

I don’t ultimately care about the industries I have worked in (motorsports, film, coffee, etc). I chose them because they would be expendable in favor of more meaningful work down the road. More deeply, I don’t think that they provided value to human well-being, and therefore I felt guilt also about the idea of making those businesses better. Why make a business better if that industry in general does not make the world better? Working in any industry for long enough, I inevitably come to see it as a superficial luxury of life and not worthy of my time or effort at all because I have no place in my value structure for that product. Or, in the case that something I am working on does matter as with a particular film, then the end does not justify the means given the unforgivable social and political corruption that haunts the film production process.

Anyway, I start out doing this simple work for personal reasons, as something to occupy my time while I build toward other things on the side, but I eventually cannot help but to notice the whole that I am contributing to and that it is not for the good, the guilt sets in, and then I have to leave for the next bullshit job.

Writing faces me with the challenge of taking something that I deem to be deeply interesting and important and trying to navigate through communicating it in a way that is not only accessible to the general public but also service-providing. I do believe that good writing is a service because good writing is about ideas, and the idea is the level to which everything ultimately reduces.

Despite all of the good that comes from learning good academic writing — structure, clarity, technical precision, etc. — it has a tendency to reinforce my natural proclivity to “cover everything” that needs to be covered in order for “the point” to be absolutely clear. In academia, I wrote for specialists, but there is a reason that academic writing has no readership. Writing that is truly valuable is more general as well as personal, two things which are typically forbidden in academia, and for good reason. Too much generality and it will seem to lack substance. Too much personality and it will seem to lack applicability to others. And for this reason I will never write fiction… ever — well, not that I have the talent for it anyway.

As things stand, my ideal career scenario would be that someone would simply pay me a steady source of income to write and make silly videos about my thoughts. They’d say “Here’s enough money for you to live. Now go be you and put your ideas out there. I’ll take care of sales and distribution.” I could live wherever and however I want, wake up whenever I want, produce whenever I am inspired, and no one would tell me what to do. And unlike most people who would wither away in this type of open scenario, I am absolutely certain that for me it would be the best context for maximum productivity. That is the dream.

Monetary problems aside, how do I write in order to provide a service? It may be my meal-ticket, but I cannot be sure. Roger Scruton, perhaps not so oddly, was the only professor I have had who recognized and emphasized my personal need to “write now and organize later”. For the greatest philosopher of the last generation to tell me things like “you’ve got quite a good brain”, he was extremely encouraging of my talent. I suppose that with his advice always in the back of my mind I am learning to let it flow a bit better now. It is still quite a painful process. It is a vulnerable process. People seem to like it, but my worry is that because it is less straightforwardly objective, that it will be less true and less marketable. What do people actually value and why?

Personal shit, I suppose. If I am not to write fiction, then perhaps a memoir style will suffice. In paying close attention to the progression of my life’s journey, the interests I take on bring me babysteps closer to Truth; I always consider the relevant connections between all branches of my personal knowledge, old and new. Of course there is the personality and philosophy stuff that I have and continue to burn through, but most recently, for example, in my dabbling in kink life, exploring more sexually, and coming to terms with the fact that I am not monogamous (which is something quite unconventional yet relatable to many in itself), I have come to see how intimately tied to every aspect of one’s being one’s sexuality is. I think that what I am most interested in and purposefully intended toward can be summarized as “Truth”, so this new discovery and topic of research has become a necessary part of my journey of fulfilling that purpose to the world. I am tying sexuality in with what I already know about philosophy, personality, and all else in coherent and meaningful ways.

Of course everything profoundly meaningful connects dots, shatters boundaries between disciplines. This is why academic work is not for me. The philosophers and psychologists for example generally do not collaborate, as if they are not relevant to one another, and that obviously severely limits the truth-seeking process (not to mention applicability for the common person) in both fields. It’s so insanely shortsighted, but alas there is no correlation between intelligence and wisdom. You have to be intelligent to be a professor, but you must be wise to see Truth.

I have never had a problem connecting dots, seeing Truth, communicating with people one-on-one. The problem is in how to apply that knowledge to the world so that it provides me livelihood, because the more meaningless work I do, the more I wither. Money and personal biases aside, the ONLY things that I can see have intrinsic value are art and ideas. They are the only things I care about because they are the only things in which Truth need not be censored. How to make those things work so that I do not end up a complete vagrant still remains a mystery to me, but for now I suppose I will just keep writing as Roger suggested, without the worry of “for whom” which seems to be the main thing overemphasizing structure and thereby limiting substance.