Tag: philosophy

A simplified definition of “quantum physics” – because numbers are hard!

Britton William FrostLeave a comment

Guess what’s trending on @threads right now… Quantum physics!
In light of numbers being hard, let me simplify it for you in a way that is absorbable and applicable to everyday life…

Absorbably… the word ‘quantum’ refers to the minimum amount of physical matter involved in a conceptual phenomenon for the potential of observing that phenomenon to manifest (e.g. a “photon/light particle” in relation to the concept of light). This implies that there is always more to physical interactions and phenomena than just physical matter, most of which is rarely if ever measurable. ‘Physics’, of course, is the study of the fundamental principles of the physical universe. Therefore, ‘quantum physics’ is just an alternative, scientific term for ‘metaphysics’, the study of what is beyond (meta) physics (what can be quantified).

Historically… “Quantum physics” is a modern attempt to numerically represent applied metaphysics and consciousness research, which have already been under study by mystics long before the ruler was invented. Since the beginning of rational thought, a small minority of thinkers have known that concepts like light, heat, Truth, Goodness, are not physical in essence, and that their power increases exponentially with each instance, or “quantum”, that is applied.

Applicably… The chart above is perhaps the most practical representation of quantum levels ever composed. For reference, everyone and everything, every idea and event ever conceived, contains its own consciousness field that can be mapped onto this chart. About 80% of the human population exists under the 200 level, and only about 5% is above 500, but the power and influence of the values above 200 (courage, acceptance, reason), and especially 500 (love, joy, peace) are so great that they offset being outnumbered by the lower consciousness field of the majority, keeping humanity itself afloat.

Look at this chart everyday. Treat it as a meditation. Whatever leaps out to you is what you should attend to, and the level just above that is where you should aim your intentions. Otherwise, avoid anything under 200.

There ya go. “Quantum physics”.
God bless Dr. Hawkins!

A Morning Meditation

Britton William FrostLeave a comment

“I really only love God as much as the person I love the least.”

-Dorothy Day

Your love for God, your understanding of the world, your connection to nature and the universe, your pursuit of Truth — however you view the metaphysical source and governing body of all things — exists in all, and in it are all contained. Every part is necessary for the functioning and flourishing of everything else in it, and therefore, your willful coherence with all else is necessary for your functioning and flourishing as well.

Of course, people can act in a way that you will perceive to be out of line, but that should be just fine as far as you are concerned. This raises the distinction between acceptance and tolerance, for an individual possesses the capacity — which each also has a duty toward themselves and others to cultivate — to accept everything and tolerate nothing. That is to intuit, without interference from emotion or sense, what is true and good for one and for all and not to tolerate, to the extent that one can be locally effective, anything that is not.

This process is not about you. You may need to focus on yourself for some time — to build a boundary between yourself and others for some time — to get to know certain aspects of yourself to the point where intuitive reflection is at all possible. But, that is not the goal. You are not the goal. Total coherence is the goal, and you have a vital duty to play your role. The separation you create between yourself and others is merely so that you may discover what that role is. However, others will play a role in determining how it is that you will provide value to all (of which they are a part), so your engagement with them is ultimately necessary. It may not be what you expect or desire, but that is why one must tame the ego fire.

To cohere with all does not mean you must work with just anyone, but rather that you must accept them for where they are and what role from which they are capable of serving, depending on where they are on their path of spiritual development, whether that be to feed the poor and heal the sick or to delve into self-destructive hedonism before hitting rock bottom to merely realize they exist. Regardless, they are in need of your love, from near or far, and that implies full acceptance. Without that, there is incoherence, and thus, incompleteness. Your love for God, nature, truth, others, and yourself is only as good as your love for the one who you love the least, for they too play a role that is necessary for you.

Though, again, that is not the goal…

American Impressionism: Representing the Western Ideal

Britton William FrostLeave a comment

On the 10th of July, 2017, I had the pleasure of attending a talk on American Impressionism at the American Museum of Western Art in Denver, Colorado, and to view their impressive (pun intended) Anschutz Collection of works. The experience gave me much to think about, including but not limited to the differences between American and French Impressionism, both in terms of style and purpose, and how impressionism uniquely fulfills the purpose of art more generally. As a philosophizer with an interest in aesthetics, rather than as an artist, I naturally am more inclined to discuss purpose than I am style and technique, though those things are not mutually exclusive.

fffe1e42c2bf6c51c589541cca7f1303

On the Critique of Art

It is an interesting thing that philosophers do in discussing meaning and purpose of art. One symptom of this activity is that we often take for granted the technical skill of the artist in favor of a work’s meaning or lack thereof. We take for granted that the artist is satisfied with the degree to which he has shown what he intended to. We take art as a top-down process, while for the artist, it is a bottom-up process. For this reason, we hold art to a very high standard, and that puts pressure on the artist to show us something true, assuming, often falsely, that they are trying to show anything at all. Perhaps we should show more gratitude to the artist in this regard, for the technique is the necessary tool, usually cultivated over many a year, through which the artist expresses what is dear to us or, at the very least, to them. That is the disclaimer I would like to preface with before I go on philosophizing. I am not a visual artist myself, and I do admire those who are proficient in that medium, even if they do so with no or poor intention.

Anyway, and on that note, whether the artist says what he attempts to sufficiently is its own matter, so we should approach our critique gingerly, as to see through any such shortcomings. We simply want to understand the message that lies beneath. It is the same in music, where if one really listens, the technical quality of the recording doesn’t matter. The content’s form is what matters, for it inspires the function, and intentional functions merely serve the form, as Roger Scruton shows in his BBC documentary. Very often the artist is not able to communicate his ideas in any way other than through his brush or instrument. Clearly, though, he somehow understands what he is doing. He is like a scientist of meaning in this regard, as science is a bottom-up process for the scientist who hopes (naively) that truth will emerge from the compilation of facts, but it is also a top-down object of criticism for the philosopher.

Is this not fair, however? Does the purpose not precede the style of the work? I think any informed critic should agree that it does. To agree, one must understand what art does, generally speaking. That is to reveal something true about reality or human nature which is normally hidden, suppressed, or taken for granted. It shows us something that we as individuals or as a society need to pay more attention to. Even if that message is to show that beauty can exist in isolation and complexity, I think this point still stands.

There is also the purpose of much contemporary work which is to “be the best it can be for the sake of itself”. This purpose may, though not always, neglect the objective standard by which we might judge art (insofar as we might consider symbolic truths about reality and human nature to be objective), and it rather qualifies art according to the power of human creativity, even if the product of that creativity lacks an organized structure toward a higher purpose.

This approach to judging art is a postmodern one: here are no universal standards for anything, quality is merely relative, and meaning may be interpreted in an unlimited number of different, subjective ways with no one way being more accurate than any other. We take the human creation to be larger than the reality that gave birth to it and that permanently contains it. This is a mistake of the ego-mind. Postmodern pseudo-intellectuals (e.g. most French philosophers of the 20th century, the scientismists of today, such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris) make with human rationality. They worship rationality as their God and fall in love with its creations no matter how disorganized they may be, all at the expense of what the work might be trying to tell us. What postmodern art, literature, philosophy, and even science are trying to tell us, in the rare occasion that they are trying to tell us anything at all, is in fact false. Even when it does land on something true, it is by coincidence because truth was never the intention to begin with.

Does Impressionism Fulfill the Purpose of Art?

What I like about impressionism, whether French, American, or otherwise, is how subjectively true it is. One could say, in other words, that it is authentic. A good impressionist painter is skilled enough to get their message across, and it is one which only that particular artist can convey. Nevertheless, it tends to be digestible to anyone while maintaining its individuality.

Is this not the dream of the west? In its high form, western ideals, particularly in America, allow one to be one’s own authority for what is good. This can, of course, be taken too far — as to put the search for “my truth” ahead of what is the truth, but this is not the overall intention of genuine liberty. It is more a matter of not letting the how deter one from the what one decides will fulfill one — and more deeply, that the what is founded on a why that we all agree is for the good in a just society. We all have different stylistic expressions of doing what we do, but there is an underlying law of reason that maintains that our individual efforts have some universal truth and benefit.

Contemporary, abstract art has no distinct subject matter, and it therefore leaves us to question whether the overall viewpoint which represents it is valid. It is, rather, an abstract perspective on an equally or more abstract subject. If the picture which the art represents is not real, then what is the representation (the art itself) worth? This probably-not-real-and-definitely-not-meaningful style of art is the perfect accompaniment to the aforementioned political and cultural climate in the west, which opposes the ideals of free expression of ancient truth on which the United States Constitution is founded, for example (supporters of this type of art, unsurprisingly, claim that beauty is subjective and are actively trying to destroy traditional values in education and politics). It values “my truth” over the truth, and in convincing the collective ego that “my truth” is a worthwhile pursuit, it tears people further away from meaning, leaving them as weak, powerless, and confused as an otherwise perfectly rational person observing Duchamp’s “Fountain” (it’s just a urinal) would be. Contemporary art is a movement representing the fear of and disregard for beauty, ancient wisdom, and one’s own individual authority. Both nature per se and

1-fountain-feature

life-sustaining expressions of sexuality, as countless specific examples would show in the style’s erotic manifestations, are portrayed as unimportant or nonexistent. In this movement, nothing is sacred.

Impressionism, more gracefully, is the style of visual art, painting in particular, which contains infinitely variable impressions of things which we all know are of value beyond our selfish ends. The subject matter — nature and our relationship to it, from landscapes to lovers — maintains its sacredness and is

mtn

conveyed in a style that is especially unique. It is an abstract perspective on a concrete picture of reality, we could say. American impressionism, overall, is an easily-perceived yet highly creative expression of the many great, natural wonders of the American countryside and ways of life — i.e. the foundation on which freedom of expression itself is held as the paramount liberty, and where “trust in God (or truth itself)” is the default principle. In my travels outside of the United States, for example I have been complimented on my strong sense of self and belief that things will unfold as they should, which those people have attributed to my “American-ness”, rightly or wrongly.

Lovers

Conclusion: Is American Impressionism Superior?

…to other contemporary styles of art? It seems so. By a classical measure, American Impressionism is good because of its return to classical subjects such as nature and love, and its attempt to convey awe for their beauty, rather than to bastardize it. It holds weight by creative measures as well for its uniquely subjective approach in doing so. However, if you enjoy chaos for its own sake, you are well within your rights to prefer contemporary abstract and absurdist art forms (I’m not talking down on Eric Andre — comedy is a unique case. See my MA thesis). The difference between preference and goodness is another issue. In general, it is permitted in the west that we can have disagreements about these kinds of topics and still function, yet that the cream will still rise to the surface, and that in extreme cases, it is worth fighting for. I wouldn’t consider one impressionist seeing a landscape one way and another seeing it another way as a pressing disagreement, but rather that some people can accept what is true and good for one and for all in their own way, and others are free to reject it at their own peril, also in their own way (have fun with that).

All art movements represent something about the values of the culture from which they emerge, and it does seem that there are at least two art movements going on right now, corresponding to the two general views on life. There is the ilk of culture that glorifies what opposes traditional conceptions of beauty and, therefore, sustainable ways of life — both through art and by flaunting their mutilated bodies in the street — and these are the “progressive” folk who align their aesthetic preferences with the shock and hedonism of contemporary abstractism. Then there are those who see that we have indeed inherited some values and structures that are worth holding onto, and that true power of both individual and collective thriving requires that we agree on some foundation of abstract-yet-observable conceptions of what is true, good, and beautiful. American Impressionism, insofar as I can tell, is making a real effort to acknowledge this foundation while leaving more than enough room for individual expression. American Impressionism: universal good, subjectively understood — just like the us.

Debunking the “Free Will Illusion” Part 2: Three Levels of Self-Governance

Britton William Frost1 Comment

To continue from my previous post, self-governance is not as common as we’d like to think, but I intend to hold that it is still possible for everyone in certain cases and following a degree of conscious effort to understand the self. That said, it seems plausible that it is not a function of most of us, most of the time.

Although there are many, I want to focus on three sources of self-governance from which we can draw principles for living, as I mentioned at the end of the last section. They can be from morality (truth), from self-enforced boundaries (the self), or from external authority (others).

Appealing to external authority for the formulation of principles, regardless of how true they are or how good the results they produce, is a logical fallacy — i.e. an error in reasoning. Whether they are copy and pasted from your father, mentor, religion, or boss, nothing is true or good because of the person’s position of authority, and you give up your own inner authority by blindly following that of another. People have varying degrees of just authority, and such a degree may represent their ability to guide someone toward the truth if it is indeed the truth for which they live — this means that they have good intentions. Good intention is unconditional and does not seek money or control, and it is only from those with good intention that we can truly learn anything. Still, lead us they need not. Their wisdom should merely help us to guide ourselves. It could, on the other hand, be that the authority is merely self-serving (as is the case for leaders for whom pride is the driving force of their reign), and one’s ability or inability to distinguish between others’ true or ill intentions means that one is vulnerable to selling their soul’s autonomy to the ones who seek it. External authority is never the answer for principle-setting.

Self-enforced boundaries come merely from the self. They are often overcorrective, flight response limits to external stimuli and events. So, although one is the sole, conscious arbiter of these rules, they are at the willing hand of the world, and so boundaries are not set with clear consciousness. They draw a line in the sand and say “I will do that and not do this”, regardless of the circumstances, thereby, paradoxically, letting circumstances control their rigid minds. They shortcut the work one must do in order to adapt to external circumstances as to “do right” under any conditions, which requires cultivating a filter for what one will allow oneself to be influenced by. Boundaries, rather, build a wall against facing circumstances as they are. They mistake defensiveness for genuine protection, and they only delay the cultivation of character.

The human mind, much like the body, is anti-fragile. The more one is exposed to and observant of something, the more one understands its patterns, and the less one fears it. Boundaries do not seek to understand things in themselves, but rather, avoid those things from fear. However, this type of self-governance is a step in the right direction for someone who was previously guided more directly by external authority.

Genuine moral principles, in contrast, constantly, voluntarily take on the challenge of being tested. It is as if one’s belief system is in a constant state of exposure therapy. With every test, a principle gets stronger because it is both being exposed to its foe and making use of the wisdom gained from facing all of the tests from the past. Expose yourself to nothing, and you will go weak. Principle must come from self-awareness, but not arrogance, and understand that the external world is not within one’s control. Therefore, minor improvements occur in one’s principles over time. A principle-forming person knows that the only thing he can control is his responses to externals, based on his patterned understanding of those externals and how he is both a keen observer and a dutiful participant in all of reality. This type of person is a spiritual person who has gratitude for life and all of its struggles and joys, and they relish the duties of observation and self-improvement. This path implies a belief in some universal conception of truth and goodness, and self-improvement equates to the process of sharpening one’s perception as to orient them closer to that universal state with every thought, word, and action.

Self-governance from the cultivation of moral principles is a path rooted in unconditional acceptance — unlike boundaries which are seen as good under the condition that they don’t cause one pain, or external authority which has no intrinsic right to speak on others’ behalves to begin with — and they are the only governance pattern whose origin really is in truth and goodness for one and for all. “Truth and goodness for one and for all” is perhaps the core value from which any sustainable principles originate, for it is universal and non-polar in nature, which relinquishes the ego’s need to believe and prove things…

As it turns out, the ego rules most, and those people would rather take the easy path of outsourcing their own moral authority anyway.

Tolerance vs. Acceptance

Britton William FrostLeave a comment

The difference between tolerance and acceptance is essentially a difference between being morally negligent and spiritually connected.

Tolerance, as promoted by progressive political circles and cultural movements such as body positivity and pride, masks its negligence for what is true, good, and beautiful as false compassion, seeking to covertly destroy all standards and traditions, cultural and governmental, built and conserved in the name of God since the beginning of civilized culture. This does not result in the utopian clean slate that they dream of, not that they have the wisdom or manpower to build something better in its place anyway, but delves us back to the tribal, Arian hell that was the only form of conflict resolution between humans thousands of years ago.

What one tolerates, therefore, is directly rooted in ones own view of oneself. Tolerate falsehood of the misinterpretation of information, you devalue your own intellect. Tolerate incompetence by supporting diversity quotas, and you devalue the well-being of the structures enforcing them. Tolerate anything evil, including the proposition that morality per se is relative and therefore that there is not intrinsic order or goodness to the universe, and you devalue your own soul by replacing it with your ego and outsourcing your true inner authority, making it impossible to improve and live a fulfilling life.

Acceptance, on the other hand, shows that you can detach and at least desire to understand that things are as they are, and that you don’t have control over those externals, but only over how you respond to them. Acceptance is the first step for living a true life because it exemplifies mastery over the things that one doesn’t allow to possess them. Whereas tolerance is born out of guilt, shame, anger, or pride, acceptance is a prerequisite, though merely a prerequisite, of truth, goodness, and love.

Debunking the “Free Will Illusion”

Britton William Frost1 Comment

The other day, I read this PsyBlog article that attempts to explain a psychological study which, according to the author, seems to imply that humans are mechanical robots merely controlled by neuronal impulses in our brains, and that free will is an illusory conception that humans have constructed to cope with death. There have been numerous studies, including the one described in that article, which show that neurons in the brain begin to fire before the person can report being conscious of their decision to pick up a pencil or before they can predict exactly which one of five circles on a computer screen changes color, for examples (the latter example is the experiment referred to in the article). The article also mentions the term ‘unconscious’ several times, and the usages imply that ‘unconscious’ should be defined merely as ‘the mechanical workings of the brain’. My aims in this post are to explain why that is an oversimplified and unsophisticated definition of ‘unconscious’, and also to suggest, partly on that basis, why these studies not only do not imply that free will is an illusion, but that they have virtually no bearing on what constitutes free will to begin with.

A Less Trivial Definition of ‘Unconscious’

There is one thing that the article (and anyone who would agree with it) gets right: we are not in total control of what we see, understand, and believe. However, this truth cannot be maintained to every degree of analysis imaginable (the highest degree being the ontology of free will and morals, arguably). This raises a semantic problem. Everyone has their own definition of what constitutes “unconscious” and even “free will”. The level of analysis that the article attempts to operate on is one of moral ontology, but it fails. Instead, it maintains the assumption that all that exists in us are mechanistic processes, and those processes are “unconscious”. We are our brains, and our brains are computer processors that take in data and organize that data for output, and when we are faced with stimuli relevant to our experiences, we merely react in accordance with our pre-organized data. Eh, well, partially correct! We are more nature than nurture after all. But, how does this imply that we don’t have free will? Let’s step back first. What can we infer from this article’s usage of ‘unconscious’?

“Neural activity is unconscious”, materialists will hold. Yes, we know that to the same extent that we know that digestion in the intestines is unconscious, and it need not be overstated. It is merely a biological process per se. However, biological processes tell us very little about our conscious world — the reality that we actually experience. They presuppose that the origins of our behaviors and decisions are pre-programmed inside our brains, and the neuronal activity is the first step in activating those programs (which we call decisions). This is an assumption, albeit a rather interesting one. Those who believe that this process is the causal origin of our behavior commit the most basic fallacy in science: correlation without causation. Why do they assume that the brain is the beginning when the brain requires the world to gather information to begin with, and why would anyone assume that we are disconnected from objective reality to the extent that we are separate and not intimately connected to it in a way that our actions most likely have ancient origins. What is left over when we commit to this materialist view of perception?

A lot, I would say. In fact, one can control some aspects of even these biological processes. If I am lactose-intolerant, I can consciously avoid dairy so my digestion maintains a regular track. In the same way, I can somewhat control what my brain “processes”. If I am at a music festival, for example, and I have to decide whether I want to attend the concert of a band I have already seen or that of a new band I haven’t yet seen, my decision will affect what my brain processes. If I choose the familiar option, I will go into the show having certain expectations based on what I have already processed from previous shows of theirs. If I choose the unfamiliar band, (which is statistically less likely), then I am choosing a new path. My experience will not be dictated by any biases, and, in a way, the show will present a challenge — a challenge to what I already know and expect in music generally. It is not only those biological processes that are necessarily unconscious, but so are some of the decisions we make which come prior to those processes. We can, however, take control of those decisions if we think about learning and decision-making in the right way. So, let’s think about it like this: perhaps the origins of our behavior and decisions are in the world, but not in the minute-by-minute, stimuli-centric world that neuro-materialists would like to believe. If it were that way, then we would not even be able to inquire about how our minds work as we’re doing now (which requires temporarily stepping outside of them), much less to overcome social pressure to leave our friend group at a music festival to see the band we want to see, alone.

What I am dancing around now is the more nuanced meaning of ‘unconscious’ that we find in fringe psychology and spiritual circles.

“To know oneself is to make the unconscious conscious.” — C.G. Jung

We can observe, in my field of birth chart astrology, that people live out their charts until they seek knowledge about them. The birth chart represents one’s innate set of perceptions and predispositions for responding to different aspects of reality. Someone is likely even living out their transits when they come to me for consultation — i.e. there is something external compelling them to learn about themselves at a particular time — but free will is clearly expressed in how they make use of the information I give them. The better one knows oneself, the more opportunities they will have to express their free will. There is still no guarantee, however, that they will. As I always say, I don’t tell people what to do; I help them own what they choose to do.

There is a strong case that it is not when someone is acting from their proclivities, but rather only when someone acts against what is normal and comfortable for them, that they are expressing free will. This “opposition to the self” kind of behavior must be founded on moral principles, boundaries, or in the very least, external rules. These represent three different degrees of self-governance and the spectrum of our human relationship to that concept, and only one fully shows that free will can be expressed in any case. In the next post, I will describe these three levels and show the connection from free will to that one of them, perhaps revealing something about the origins of autonomous decision-making that evaded us in the beginning of this article.

The False Dichotomy of Sex & Go-karts

Britton William FrostLeave a comment

I recently conducted a poll which turned out to be the largest in Instagram history with 26 million participants. The results, astonishingly, were split in dead-ass half at 13 million a piece!

The question? Only the deepest and longest-standing debate among the most serious philosophers since the beginning of speculative thought…

“Which is the funnest activity of human beings: sex or go-karts?”

They are, indeed, two sides of the same coin, for “pole position” is crucial in both activities. However, they serve reverse roles of what convention would have us believe. They also represent two different and crucial ways of thinking about how we connect to our vulnerable, inner-child selves. Before I get into that, however, I need to define these terms.

By ‘go-kart’, I don’t mean your two-seat, 10mph, Celebration Station woo-woo garbage karts. I mean real race karts at a real race track – the kind that make you shit the seat when you lose control. I mean the kind with no seat belts because if you get in an accident, it’s actually safer to be ejected. I mean the kind that, if you get it wrong, you’re fucking dead.

By ‘sex’, I don’t mean your mindless, drunken, incompetent college hookup that has you ending the night in the ER because a condom got stuck in the wrong hole. I mean the kind in which vulnerability is required and desired. I mean an intimate connection between two conscious and spiritual, sober adults who know what they want and know what they’re doing. I mean the kind where you can hold eye contact, feel things, and actually like it. I mean the kind that, if you get it wrong, you’re fucking dead.

Now, I’ll ask you again. What’s the funnest thing ever? Sex or go-karts?

No, not sex IN a go-kart. That doesn’t work. I’ve actually tried it.

I’m not favoring one over the other here (although go-karts is usually better), but they’re both crucial to our development as social individuals. Allow me to explain.

On one hand, there is go-karting. This is a child’s game, one might think, but it requires an adult’s disposition to do right. Any childish idiot can go out and play bumper cars, but the most successful professional racing drivers all got their start in karting and still do it for fun and conditioning throughout their career. It pushes the limits of the connection between their mind and machine more and more with every lap, even more so than their race cars do. Go-karting represents the solitary nature of man at his best, “running his own race” without concern for how others are running theirs, improving by milliseconds at a time, corner by corner, so that it adds up to victory in the end.

Go-karting reminds us that healthy competition is not overt – it is not the goal in itself, but rather the consequence of doing one’s best and achieving individual potential over time. Improvement happens incrementally such as in braking a bit later and accelerating a bit earlier through each corner over the course of a session. A good kart racer sees the others on track not as competitors, but as obstacles.

One’s ability to maintain control of a go-kart indicates good masculine qualities like patience, precision, and consistency. A man who steps into a go-kart and proceeds to play bumper cars and cause carnage is – make no mistake – a toxic human being. The connection between man and go-kart represents the masculine in us to focus on one thing while maintaining awareness of everything else, and to make that craft an art form which we express with our own unique style.

Go-karting is the ultimate test of solitary focus, spatial awareness, and consistency of mind-body connection. It is no wonder that Finland, one of the most introverted and happy countries in the world, has produced the most world champions per capita in all top-tier autosport categories. Their culture centers around a unique concept called “Sisu”. Sisu has no direct translation in English, but it has to do with stoic determination, cool-headedness, courage, and resilience. This concept is present in their personal mindsets and enhances individual and collective performance in any task. The Finns are hot because they’re so cool. They have those traits that make and keep panties soaking wet.

On the other hand, appropriately, there is sex. This is an adult’s game, but it requires a child’s disposition. It calls us to leave behind all responsibility just as children effortlessly do when they’re at play. Like go-karting, it does require some degree of technical skill, but it takes (at least) two, and improvement, also incremental, happens more deeply through connecting with your partner over time. To do sex well, one must let go of the ego and expectation that often traps us in a masturbatory frame of mind. Letting go of control during sex, regardless of the role, marks more feminine qualities like submission, sensuality, and presence.

Sex is supposed to be fun – and funny! A woman who is in her head during sex has a lot of baggage to work through, and that’s no fun. When she has worked through all of that, develops confidence, and gets sex right, she brings an abundance of supportive love and curious energy to a connection with another. This also requires the right man. When a man is tuned in with his partner, knows how to touch her, is technically competent, and has a soy-free diet, he can allow his dominant sexual energy to flow in a natural way that is sure to please because he has put in the work to earn her submission.

Sexual chemistry means that the participants are accommodating of and enthusiastic about satisfying each other’s needs. An abundance of trauma that prevented one from experiencing their childhood in a free and open way will affect one in mature years and prevent them from being as curious and emotionally vulnerable as one must be in order to properly enjoy sex. It will also affect one’s ability to communicate respectfully and effectively, which is the only responsibility that we should carry into the bedroom. Having worked on themselves individually while staying open to more collectively is essential.

A child can look you in the eyes without fear, ask genuine questions, and connect. When it comes to sex, we adults are terrible at this. In seeking another we are often overcompensating for abandoning our own needs, desires, and potential. The thought of improving this is terrifying, but it is equally crucial for our social and psychological development. Sex calls us to communicate in ways that a 5-year-old would understand – e.g. “I like this/don’t like that!” This is a strength. Talk more outside of the bedroom about what you like and want, and more inside it to spice it up!

Whether you prefer sex or go-karting, that may tell you something about what you need to work on or are consciously working on, depending on where you are in your journey of self-discovery. A large part of that journey involves integrating one’s optimal masculine and feminine potential. Likewise, our attitude toward children in general can reveal our attitudes about ourselves. The progressive, feminist social philosophy fashionable today lacks value for childbearing and/or for nurturing children in a healthy way that integrates the masculine and draws firm boundaries around the feminine (drawing boundaries is a masculine activity, by the way). This delusion is based on, and intended to spread, mass fear surrounding the deep spiritual value of raising children. Without facing that fear, a parent is certain to inflict their own damage onto their child, especially if single.

Remember, it is our inner-child that is triggered when we mirror each other. We are mostly turned off by others who mirror our own weaknesses and insecurities. This is exaggerated when we are mirrored by children, for they question our deepest assumptions with the utmost innocence. That simple word ‘why’ is not to be shrugged off, but should rather be taken as an opportunity to look inward as much as to inform. Regardless of what you have to work on, sex and go-karts are clearly the two funnest activities known to man when done right, so why not enjoy both? They are also deeply meditative and therapeutic, for they reveal some of our deepest weaknesses in real time.

It’s not about what you want, but about what you need. Are you slow on track? Get out there, work on your focus and discipline, and improve your craft little by little. Do you suck in bed (in a bad way)? Work on tuning in and connecting with people better, and deal with those things that their presence triggers in you. Mastering sex and go-karting is beautifully impossible, but together, they afford us unlimited opportunity for balance between our masculine and feminine and to improve giving our full attention to what is truly important, namely sex and go-karts.

Writegenstein #7: Disagreement as Misunderstanding

Britton William FrostLeave a comment

“611. Where two principles really do meet which cannot be reconciled with one another, then each man declares the other a fool and heretic.”

-Ludwig Wittgenstein (On Certainty)

Disagreements don’t exist — only misunderstandings do — if we take truth to exist. For a relativist, there is no difference between the two.

Furthermore for the relativist, definitions don’t exist at all.

Nor does anything exist for the relativist. To follow relativism through to its conclusion, one must be nihilistic and solipsistic, which are also unsustainable because it would follow that identity itself is impossible.

For one who accepts truth (in conscious thought, that is — for we all do in action), however, understanding is a prerequisite to opinion. An opinion is a sort of judgement. To understand is to have thought critically, and to think critically is to have observed impartially. Few who practice this method would consider their views to be mere opinions, worth just as much consideration as that of one who has no conscious basis.

Have well-reasoned perspectives, not opinions. Some “opinions” have a basis, and some do not, so we should not consider them to be of the same category. When they do, it is by coincidence. What serves as the intentional value determines which is which.

An opinion is never put forth with the intention of being true. It is either a nonsensical impulse or an attempt to be right. It will be fought for by way of rhetoric rather than reasoning. Any tools of reasoning that it employs will be inverted. For example, one might commit the appeal-to-pity fallacy in order to win the argument rather than avoid it as to not be fallacious in one’s reasoning. All well-reasoned perspectives have, at the very least, the intention of truth. Otherwise, the end is chosen at random by man, all means are justified, and logic is inverted to serve that end if it is used at all.

In summary: rhetoric is the art of debate — i.e. inverting logic to persuade someone to your side, for your ends.

Rhetoric, indeed, has a solipsistic aura to it. It is not motivated by what is good for one and for all, but rather for oneself alone. The gain can be of finances, power, status, or the appearance of virtue, all of which are superficial and, in the end, not good for oneself either. It leaves one alone, imprisoned, on one’s own island.

To reason well, by contrast, one’s only concern should be that which is true is revealed. One must be indifferent to the specifics of the outcome. To be virtuous in one’s faith is to believe that what is true is also good — to not allow one’s own motivations to intervene with that inquiry. To be naive in one’s faith is to put one’s trust in the motivations of man.

One should not even trust one’s own motivations if one cannot first observe them.

To be made in the image and likeness of God means that we have all the power we need within us — to discern deception and to speak and act in favor of what is good for good’s sake. To have the power of God within us is to have the power of Truth within us.

God, goodness, and Truth are the same concepts, dressed differently.

Logic itself is not good or true. It is a tool that we have been given with which we can choose good or evil, true or false. The human will is the only entity that possesses the power of good and evil. We have the conscious ability to use our tools for either at any point. To lack this ability is to be imprisoned.

It should be regarded as good that logic does allow us to follow a perspective or opinion through to its conclusion. In a disagreement between two people, no more than one participant is doing this. Disagreement happens when one person has a more tightly knitted sifter for information than the other, so he can see what is relevant and irrelevant more clearly, thus formulating a more solid basis for a perspective. The one who has not tightened the knitting of his filter jumps to conclusions, perhaps not from sifting at all, but from constructing a viewpoint on the basis of his data. This is the composition fallacy.

As we know, a philosophical argument has three parts: assumption, evidence, conclusion. For a reasonable discussion to occur, it treats the assumption(s) as a foundation for the evidence, and so all participants agree on that foundation. If this is not the case, then the discussion should be about that basis itself before moving forward with evidence. Otherwise, the participants will have different ideas about what constitutes evidence to begin with. This will leave the discussion at a stalemate.

It is that which is not being questioned in the argument that should first be understood.

A spiritual being is a truth-centered being. To be spiritual is to value truth and goodness above all and to have intended it even if one falls short of it in action.

To mull over a disagreement is to expect that the other understands what you understand. This is a mistake.

Even if you have put forth your position in clear, logical terms, it may not be the case that your message has been received as you intended. Do not expect anyone to understand. Speak simply and authentically, as if to allow your message to flow through you.

If your message is true, then it is not yours to begin with. You are merely the vessel for truth, so take no offense to how it is received. Anticipate that it will be met with great resistance. Surprise about this will cause you much unnecessary anguish, as will anything that you seek to control but cannot.

Understanding human perception more broadly will afford you forgiveness in particular cases.

Understanding that what is true is good will afford you the willingness to investigate assumptions before the evidence.

It is not your job to convert someone’s assumptive basis, for that might entail a deeper spiritual journey that they are yet to embark upon. One can only pursue that journey from their own will. They may have to experience hell before they enter into that darkness.

To disagree with someone may spark a volatile response. He will, as Wittgenstein implies in the quotation above, commit argumentum ad hominem. This is proof enough that there is something deeper that they misunderstand. They are frustrated neither with you nor your argument, but with themselves. If you engage them, you are showing the same incompetency in your own way, whether it be regarding your assumptions, evidence, or the reasons for their disagreeing and an inability to forgive them for that.

To show indifference toward what they say but concern for why they say it is to love them.

Similarly, to lack the ability to release yourself of their struggle reveals a struggle of your own that you must address. To simply present what you have concluded as true, and step away, is to love yourself.

The paths to both heaven and hell are dark. The latter is guided by one’s own senses, which is to say that one abandons oneself and others in an attempt to serve oneself. The former is guided by intuition — i.e. faith that the light at the end is already self-contained, is also something greater of which one is a part, and is therefore also best for all others involved.

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.

Writegenstein #2: Philosophy of Psychology 205 (Seeing-As)

Britton William FrostLeave a comment

‘How does one play the game: “It could also be this”?

[…] “I see (a) as (b)” might still mean very different things.

Here is a game played by children: they say of a chest, for example, that it is now a house; and thereupon it is interpreted as a house in every detail. A piece of fancy is woven around it.‘

— aphorism 205 of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s “Philosophy of Psychology” from Philosophical Investigations

It could be this and I see (a) as (b) point to different ways in which one could interpret a material object. That object alone has limited value, if any at all. In a sense, the material aspects of the object are arbitrary compared to the conceptualization of the object on the whole. What is conceptualized of it, i.e. how it is understood, depends on its place in its environment – what use it is to its environment. When children are playing house, they are playing a game. They see a chest as something to use in a game which mimics the game the child sees its parents playing daily and of which they are a part. They do not see it as something with material, mechanical parts as the builder might see it (that is what it would mean simply to see, though the builder may see the bigger picture as well.) They ask “What can we do with this?” and understand the chest to be a house, having already established, and taken for granted, the rules for what constitutes a house.

It does not end there. Playing the game of house is itself a very sophisticated perceptual process. Our ability to formulate and make use of abstraction is perhaps what separates human perception from the perception of other animals – not in terms of form, importantly, but in terms of degree. A cat, for example, will definitely see the chest as something other than a bundle of wood and nails assembled in a particular way. It will almost certainly see it as a scratching post or a place on which or in which to sit or sleep (depending on whether the chest is open or closed and on how tired the cat is), but the cat lacks the ability to conceptualize the chest as anything more than that with which it is afforded these very basic “cativities”, if you will. The reason for this, from an evolutionary standpoint, is that these cativities are all the cat needs to achieve its potential. So, the cat’s abstraction is of the same sort but of a much lower degree than that of the child. The cat’s abstraction is more like that of an infant’s than the young child’s, for an infant, like the cat, only seeks in objects the fulfillment of very basic needs. The only difference between the cat and the infant is the potential of growth and development.

One still might ask “what objective or quantifiable relation is there between a chest and a house?” One should see now, unless one is blinded by a materialist view of reality, that this question now becomes arbitrary because one cannot speak of perception in this example without qualifying the individual subjects’ understanding of it. Perception as we experience it does not seem to be a mere material process. One does not need to understand anything about brain matter to understand something. In fact, it is that understanding that is indeed the goal. One could say that in the cat’s mind there is very little understanding taking place at all, while in the child’s mind there is no limit, especially since the child’s capability for abstract thought will continue to develop. The child understands much more than the cat does. To understand an object, I should say, is to make an abstraction of it – an abstraction that has utility in the greater context of its environment – to allow one to be successful at a game. To see-as, then, is to understand, and vise versa.