The God of the Machine will come Down to Save Us:

.

.

---

.

Reason as a Hegelian Instrument [Posted initially on 29th April 2022]: I once mentioned that people shouldn’t be enamoured with the Hegelian trap of left and right [geo] politics due to our connection with our left and right brain functions. As both have parts or precisely a central role in our Shekinah or Tree of Life, politics [left and right] should also be seen that way. And partisan politics are usually red hearings anyway, as both parties are working for the same goal [whatever that may be]. While also adhering to [their bosses, for] a national security state of control.

And to think only one within both polarities is an answer is a linear and arbitrary approach. Who decides which systems of thought, ideology, philosophy, and so forth go to which polarity [left or right]? Sure, all the big wars and the philosophy and ideology that came with them played a big part in determining some aspects of that, and it’s important not to forget. However, most people have moved or evolved beyond those historical dysfunctions. This Hegelian trap, and within both sides of the collective narrow fields of thinking, can make people follow such ideas that are not updated or entirely wrong.

Reason and weakness can be identified by its quality, making it challenging to work alongside other attributes. It doesn’t have an appendage to reach out and find out what those other qualities have to offer. Early philosophers misunderstood this as strength and forever set the groundwork for interpreting delusions of reality and rationalism. Thinking not knowing [gnosis] makes us rational, not the other way around.       

In philosophical terms, the weakness of reason and rationalism has brought us into this draconian mess that has become part of people’s lives. The rational/irrational contradictions of Covid hoaxes – are further enforced by our uncertainty and fears, which makes people content with this weakness. The illusion of certainty, despite the weakness in reason in political terms, is just one of many other reasons. And one being a predominant factor is ‘Neoliberalism,’ which played a role. And let’s not forget that neoliberalism has nothing to do with liberalism. For the United States, yesterday’s neoliberals are today’s neo-conservatives, which has nothing to do with conservativism.

Neoliberalism was supposed to be an ideological answer to rising social democracy and a response to fascism through the political economy. It also imparts a type of social justice where woke-sim would play a role alongside redistribution and state provision legislation. All it did was speed up a new kind of totalitarianism. And social justice became part of the new totalitarianism. Neoliberalism does not choose a side because it’s an ideological parasite. So, the outcome becomes very confusing – the Hegelian confusion becomes more confusing when juxtaposed with morphing opposites of ideas and political ideologies that are inverted.

You’d think that the core idea of Neoliberalism would hold sway among conservatives as most of them are anti-left and inherently despise socialism [this probably has more to do with being uninformed than anything else]. The core idea of Neoliberalism wasn’t the thing that got pushed; it was something else, and any attempts to make that something else part of the political right’s ideal only created a proto-fascist-reactionary-social-movement that slides between neo-conservatism and that reactionary-movement [ethno-nationalist-movement]. The kinds of reactionary movements embody hyper-patriotism, xenophobia, racism, and religious chauvinism. Then, it is remoulded through identity, nationalism, religion and moral values – those values can influence traditional Christians, traditional conservatives, QAnon followers, and conspiracy theorists.

There is a tendency to value their pride with patriotism where the guise of stark terror perpetrated by its government or a boogie-man terrorist group [often created by a government they value] demands leadership to step up as a leader-hero. And instead, they got ‘Trump,’ but even before Trump, they had ‘Bush’ with all their neoconservative agendas. Both self-appointed themselves for that role but only gave the posturing of the leader-hero as the oligarchy and technocratic institutions reminded him how common their position is to an elite managerial sect. It didn’t matter anyway, as this reactionary group for decades had within them a deformed use of rationality. And this becomes an easier choice for those unwilling to know the broader truth. This is confusing because, in one aspect, one particular group dives headfirst into conspiracy theory but is often reactionary and deeply conservative, and the other [or both] mindlessly follows material rationality.

We’ve determined in past article posts [Countries Don’t Build Culture; Music and the Fungus Among Us Does] where I mentioned that reason as an instrument or tool was a way to deal with ethics. However, seeing it that way itself was a way to help bolster technocracy. It may not be an instrument at all and is only depicted that way [as a practical reason in the guise of instrumental reason]. Science fiction hit seriously. Star Trek embodies a prime directive, and Starfleet must not interfere in the normal development of any society unless it reaches a technological milestone. It’s a fictional Utopian philosophy where Utopianism has been actualised and thus affords this rational reason. However, modern reason has been used as a pretext for each successive Utopian project, whether it originates from the left or right. This means conservatism and social democracy are distinct from these deformed utilitarian reasons, but they can still manipulate them. 

My argument concerns the limitations of reason, as exemplified by the current beliefs surrounding the COVID-19 hoax. This phenomenon is now part of our shared reality, emerging not solely from the left or right but rather from rational individuals who are influenced by the behaviours of those who are unconsciously irrational. As such, this situation can be seen as a form of sorcery.

And this needs to be helped by influencers on both sides of the political polarity. The right has these reactionary followers and anti-woke influencers on social media and YouTube – who play the role of agents that represent all things transcendental. Yet, it has the same linear way of thinking, and those influencers seem to be just grifters. The sole focus for these types of demographics is on the reactionary types of the right. And the left is silenced on both sides because they become a strawman for woke. So, the woke influencers on the left do not truly represent the left. The right’s majority of traditional Christendom has a nescient view on socialism, and that is communism has no differentiation from socialism.    

Reasons that get misunderstood as strength tend to be too weak to hold any bases for an ideal often found in reactionary groups [also woke’s] idealism. They are so transfixed in one side of their dual nature that they probably forgot red states also have their left. The left has its religious structures alongside a prominent secular framework. Even a conservative like Michael Oakeshott agreed that the rationalist characters [and this is aimed at those that use utilitarianism that pretends to be instrumental] have grown cruder and more vulgar. He was in agreement with the Marxist and anti-rational Frankfurt School and admired Gunter Grass, a Nobel Prize winner. Gunter’s remark on socialism and the rise of capitalism was ushered in by enlightened reason but was merely reason-based jargon for its offspring: capitalism and socialism. As socialism loses its strength, capitalism rages unimpeded towards megalomania as it plays the errors of its extinct brother. Oakeshott says, “The aim is certainty”, meaning the underlying weakness is not one of left and right any more than are bogus claims of strength.      

We’ve already determined cultural Marxism has never been about culture but about class, and wokeisim is normative, not postmodern. It also has no firm application in the Marxist theory itself. Cultural-Marxism variant art-Bolshevism has a mirror quality to Evangelicals and their need to denounce secularist movements by advocating and defining their types of culture [often are very derivative and redacted aspects of the imagination]. I once mentioned that if civilisation forgets its memory and context – classic racism rears its ugly head. A strange deformity can arise from this, illustrated when there is a psychotic need to forget. Signified strangely in its opposite: wokeisim with their intrusive way of making you remember. Traditional/new/fundamentalist Christians do not forget the horrors of Stalinism as if their generations have lived it, but also as something that happened yesterday and is ongoing [or, in a conspiratorial sense, ‘went underground’]. There was no more major revelation on the horrors of Stalinism beyond the 50s. It is also best to remind them of the clear difference between democratic socialism and Stalin socialism.     

Most of these [right] followers also follow intellects or precisely ordered-liberty-conservative-intellects that wish to change the idea of postmodernism. Although, it was Hicks and his misunderstanding of postmodernism that got promoted. This then invoked other ideas from other intellects, like claiming that it is part of cultural Marxism that gestated out the radical left that spawned workerism. It only furthered the gap in intellectual ignorance, which had been apparent for decades. On the argument that postmodern intellects jumped ship from being Marxist to postmodernism because of the moral shame the Soviet Union cast upon the Marxist tradition. I’m willing to bet that these claims have all the queues of being speculative [or speculation of the absolute]. Postmodernism is starting to sound like a category rather than a philosophical movement – I once described postmodernism through these contemporary times as being satellized by outsiders’ inherent need to put false labels on things.

There is this Intellectual ignorance about the intellectual heritage of the left brought to light by ordered-liberty-conservatives. And for the majority of what ordered-liberty-conservative groups condemn. These are leftist intellectual views, but the left shares many of the same anxieties they do. Also, historical leftist intellects were closer to the context and memory than contemporary philosophers now. It is a significant problem for them as they would apply their substantial political views. Views that are agreeable to most anti-left conservatives support standard liberal rights like social health care and welfare while being sceptical about social democratic reforms. They uphold values regarding tradition, religion and little brigades. An eventual fallacy pops up from little brigades – to get your house in order before you attempt to change the world. Convey an impression on an already inherent shared common knowledge passed down by good parents. You must earn [game] acceptance levels amongst the bourgeoisie scene before you change the world. It’s a sentiment that has no meaning when you realise the bourgeoisie class is part of a conspiracy class that connects throughout their other secret sects.                

Some philosophers must now be bound to postmodernism’s new context while having another added detriment of being labelled neo-Marxism. When John-Paul Sartre gets focused attention as a devout Marxist, he suddenly realises his error and comes to his senses. Sartre was more of an existentialist than a postmodernist, and there were no errors to be redeemed of. He did not just come to terms with the error of Marxism or any moments of clarity regarding a misguided view on ushering in a new Utopia. Sartre had been an anti-Stalinist-Marxist at that time; he wrote a book condemning the Soviet invasion of Hungry in 1956.

Farbridge quotes: “The tendency to give a substantial visible form to an abstract idea is so deeply rooted in humanity that it must be looked upon as responding to a human necessity.” How fitting is this quote for modern-day rationalists? More so towards a satellized and space cosmos sciences – it can also be associated with deformed utilitarian reasons, like the mistakes made by ordered-liberty-conservative-intellects. Examine the quote of necessity: how much are we hit by these supposed and biased COVID statistics, and will they be forgotten by the day’s end? The misuse of rationality [utilitarian-reason guise as instrumental] as a methodology of reason and religion will result in stepping out of reality towards a future common to a Utopia. 

Filling in the gaps in this modern misconception towards the right’s ignorant view on socialism [their fears and uncertainties] comes to light – when you realise the United States [New Atlantis] was the last Utopian project. It began in the eightieth and ninetieth centuries during the national movement; while every other federation country moved on, the United States was frozen in place by its constitution. Their wealth had delayed a quicker collapse – but it became a balancing act between its remaining rational monarch construct and late-mediaeval balanced estates. The results entail contradictions between those constructs like class and slavery and equality and freedom.

All of this means you are already living in a type of Utopia, although the attempts to reach it did not come from aspects of a devastating theory [Marxism] that wiped out 100 million people. Comparatively to its other totalitarian brother, bloodless spilled as it were, whatever the case. Rational ideology transfixes logic so ferocious that it becomes impossible to think out of the contradictions. From the observation gathered within this denial, it is a shield, and that shield is a cloak of parody. A reaction to reason can become isolated; from here, it can develop into self-interest and violence. An ideological Utopia stopped in its tracks before reaching its fruition is no less different than a Utopia already set. The latter is just a slower burn, while the former, for the most part, no longer exists, and the social institutions they fear are just safe aspects of that theory.   

None of this gets understood because of a conspiracy class that plays both sides through Hegelian Sorcery. For example, both sides of the political spectrum are pandemic slaves [in a Covid enterprise] to their neo-feudal overlords. In earlier scenarios that imparted the dictum: “knowledge is power”, it evolved into this commonly shared mess – it was brought about by the badges of the scientific community – where their utterance must be believed at all costs. It paved the way for them to participate in a cultural war against religion among their rivals. Nietzsche once said: ‘You don’t know what you’ve done when you’ve killed God’ – a quote aimed at the atheists. In counter-argument: ‘You don’t know what you’ve done when you’ve killed reason‘. The kinds of reason that’s gone through rigorous debate where the majority accepts it as truth. Their advocates quickly remind you of that, and they certainly made aware of the mistakes made by ordered-liberty-conservative-intellects.

However, most of them have a blockage in regards to any transcendental, spiritual and symbolic understanding because their base belief is entirely rational – which is compounded by a satellized worldview that is ultimately fake. And when they’re proven wrong about their scientific utterance – they are as absolute as any other fundamentalist. These blockages don’t allow light to penetrate the imagination, which is not missing among the ordered-liberty-conservatives. There is no weakness in reason there, at least for any transcendental and spiritual understanding.   

Both sides are trying to live in the future and not the present. The simulated satellized worldview hinges on future ideals but often is unfulfilled claims. And religion’s promise of a promised land imparts an ordered behaviour – are all future Utopian suggestions all reasons trying to make their way through certainty? Escape reality through a promised Utopian future and escape reality in the present. Where does all this Hegelian dual nature end up? Some argue from the likes of Giovanni Gentile, a Hegelian philosopher, that it’s the ‘total conception of life’ – although he got his inspiration through Alfredo Rocco, a minister of justice who created the legal fascist state. It would also be worthwhile to know that ‘Totalitarianism’ was Mussolini’s term for this rational state. 

Academic Malarkey on the Triangle: So we have established some of the weaknesses in reason from both [geo] left and right politics in a philosophical [Hegelianism] and religious sense – and to also recognise myopia regarding a warp use of utilitarian reason. Among the left and proper functions of thought, how does it seemingly relate to both left and right brain functions? And that both left and right functions draw from each other. And that if it swings too much in, either way, it’s a recipe for disaster. The best position to be in is seemingly in an equilibrium state or to be a purveyor of para-politics, especially in a Raghavan sense, and certainly not from a centrist viewpoint. Comparing para-politics in a modern setting means types of covert political activity; be that as it may, it’s far from what I mean. Left and proper brain functions fulfil a triune model with the meta-control aspect, and just like the divine thought model of the Tree of Life, Keter plays that role. Both are full of mystery. 

Academics who slide between contradictions impart that aspect as their ideas copy secular and religious ideologies. It often aligns with having a para-political point of view but is ultimately linear at the end. For religious academics, any notion of the spiritual divine is only for one person and no other (inverse-solipsism). For the atheists, their sole purpose is to devalue God entirely. All comes to alignment in how they view the Trinity and the Trinity symbol. Farbridge’s quote was a way to argue for a reductionist point of view, in which the triangle symbolises the human mind seeking an imminent representation of the transcendental. It puts in doubt the importance of the triangle as mere romantic seeking. Therefore, the triangle is questioned as the appropriate representation of the Trinity, and a straight line is argued to be closer to biblical imagery.      

While this argument can argue against the importance of a spiritual way, it can also argue against the linear biblical academic approach. It is not about the triangle, but the representation of Christ as a symbol, and often, Christ is depicted with an all-seeing triangle over his head. Enough to conclude that Christ has meaningful associations with the triangle – and that Christ himself is a symbol. There is strong evidence to conclude that Christ didn’t exist and is just a reconstruction of Joseph. And people are just giving form to a highly probable abstract idea.          

A straight line cannot hold itself as a container because the inner-eternal mind is left in the infinite and cannot hold any plutonic solids in which spirits must manifest into matter. The straight line, on the other hand, can be a way to symbolise the entropy of time [death and rebirth of existence]. How can something as infinite as the Phi ratio exist within a finite notion of straight-line entropy? The straight line represents entropy, and the Phi ratio is infinite and often described as a source. The Fibonacci sequence always seeks to perfect the Phi. Being infinite, it can only get close to it but never reach it. Therefore, in all life – it’s trying to reach Phi and always moves in a circular motion (or spiral) or the potentiality of it – towards the sky.

Trinitarianism and the Cold War Do-Over The Trinity, as understood, is a Christian doctrine that outlines God’s existence as three persons: God the Father, God the Son (incarnate as Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit. It corresponds to an older Gnostic cosmos of the upper Pleroma of the One-Parent [the Father – mind, The Mother – Barbelo, the Son – thought itself, Christ]. This cosmos map is also associated with the Tree of Life. And the first three Sefirot of the Tree of Life have a Trinitarian significance.

The Mother – Barbelo	The Father – mind	The Son – thought itself Christ
God the Son (incarnate as Jesus Christ)	God the Father	God the Holy Spirit
Chokhmah – Wisdom – Zodiac	Keter – Crown – Ayn Sof	Binah – Intuition, understanding – Saturn
Left-Brain – Logic	Meta-Control-Centre	Right-Brain – Intuition
Left-politics	Hegelianism	Right- politics

.

The Triad or Three has always been considered sacred. And like oneness or dualism, these attributes are manifested in its three-fold nature. It is the expression of a principle and an archetypal fact. And that solidifies a series and representation of ideas and energies. And materialize in a magical, mysterious fashion while obeying precise universal laws, which the numerical codes and their geometrical correspondences symbolize. Attempts by academics to rid the importance of Trinity to some linear straight-line or [any other utilitarian reason] won’t work. Politicians and think tanks use the same approach of deformed rationality.

Just examine the latest geopolitical war between Russia and Ukraine, and you can witness plainly how this deformed rationality is being used to propagandise a narrative. Previously, having said that there was no more major revelation on the horrors of Stalinism beyond the 50s – this is true. However, in the restraint and catharsis post [in part 10] regarding memory and reason, we may not have a significant war like World War II again. On the other hand, it is almost inevitable that its fragments will ensue on occasion. Some have described it as infinite regress. 

Russia’s history with Ukraine is complex, given that Russia’s whole identity as a country or what it is to be Russian began in the city of Kyiv in Ukraine. Before Russia became a democratic republic, it encompassed a vast region [USSR] territory that included Ukraine – they were entwined as a culture. Russia’s long ideological history with communism and the president of Russia with his romantic ideal for a once united Russia with Ukraine is apparent. But more obviously, he wants to be the hero of heroic models he created for himself [the romantic hero is often emotionally dysregulated]. He is a man without imagination because to have it would require seeking and understanding uncertainty. You can surmise that his unregulated emotion is coerced and regulated by the needs of corporatism [given that he is a billionaire and oligarch himself, his needs are self-interested]. And his romantic slurs [or propaganda] are juxtaposed with a romantic-rational methodology that embodies the same concepts of dictatorships.   

The Russia and Ukraine issue is mixed given its history and when you grasp an age where a conspiracy class determines these actions. Asserted by conspiracy-truther-researchers on the notion that all wars are banker wars alongside corporate [and Military Complex needs] and government interests – it gets all too murky. And upon Gunter Grass’s remark on an age where socialism has lost its strength and capitalism rages on unimpeded towards megalomania and often mirrors socialism’s error. Capitalism doesn’t take sides but assimilates both. This apparent confusion that democratic Russia is trying to take over a democratic Ukraine invokes a thought or question: is Russia a democratic country, or is it just democracy on the surface? It just shows you how non-black and white it all is. 

BYERS: Mulder, listen to this. Vladmir Zhirinovsky, the leader of the Russian Social Democrats? He’s being put into power by the most heinous and evil force of the 20th century. MULDER: Barney? (Scully smiles, Langly chuckles. Byers seems unamused.) BYERS: The C.I.A. SCULLY: Hmm. LANGLY: Is this your skeptical partner? (Frohike takes another picture.) FROHIKE: She’s hot. BYERS: You don’t believe that the C.I.A., threatened by a loss of power and funding because of the collapse of the cold war, wouldn’t dream of having the old enemy back

.

In the past, the right-wing has always been associated with wars, and the left wing was for the people. What seems to be common knowledge is a far cry from today. This means terms like left-wing and right-wing, with their past associated ideologies, are mutable in modern times. As you will find, the right side of politics shows caution for the intrusion of war over another country [the Ukraine & Russia conflict], – while left-liberal parties favour any war-type corporate needs. Fragment signs of restraint are by no means an ethical sticker for morality, considering what we understand of past ideologies among both political polarities has essentially merged into one liberal-progressive-democratic government.

Conservatives have an inherent function to be reactionary, and neoliberalism gave them more reason to be that way. Neoliberalism sits outside political parties and so functions like a centrist. In the past forty years, it became evident that Neoliberals created tremendous widening inequality everywhere it was embraced – a concentrated wealth at the top to radical poverty at the bottom. In this disappointment, the US and the UK blamed it on the immigrants and racial minorities. Given Australia’s strong economic base and mining infrastructure, it’s unclear whether Australia was affected. It certainly likes to play its part in fan service to the kind of racial prejudices – by the same liberals [Australia’s Conservative right] who are upholding freedom against any encroaching totalitarian agenda. They straddle the line between their inherent affiliations with the ‘right’ [reactionary ideologies] and what they know to be true. Coalescing one liberal-progressive-democratic government can be more problematic than dual political polarities. Its function type is essentially one-sided, linear, straight line, and it is a Lucifer effect in some ways.

Lucifer’s effect refers to a New Age idea that indicates a disconnection from nature and its interconnectedness. This disconnection is not limited to the natural world; it can also impact other aspects of life, such as the mind, spirit, economy, and politics.

Concerning academics on, their linear approach to the Trinity, they cut themselves off from the mind and spirit and regulated it to intellectualism. And so unknowingly set themselves up for the Lucifer effect to take hold. Their attempt to voice their opinion on the corruption of the symbol [the Trinity] without the polarity or mystical understanding only reinforces the shadow of the established order; it furthers the symbol’s magic instead of rendering it powerless, this parallel to fundamentalism.  

The overall point I am trying to make here is that when you seek oneness, you also seek the Trinity. One must move beyond propaganda and Hegelianism because its goal is to keep you divided in a tribalist mindset. You have to deconstruct everything you hear semantically. Otherwise, it becomes too simple, and the truth is never that simple. What is understood as partisan politics has little quality of difference when a selection of secret groups makes the decisions. 

In part nine of this thesis collection, I mentioned the left and right brain functions, in which McGilchrist outlines that the brain’s right hemisphere is the more dominant, which he calls ‘the master.’ The right hemisphere is more reliable, sees better, and understands more than the left hemisphere, which he describes as a high-functioning bureaucrat (the emissary). The master and the emissary assert that the master cannot do everything and so delegates it to the emissary. Its natural function is that it must not get involved with particular points of view; otherwise, it loses what was captured. The common contention would arise if it were out of balance. Where one of either becomes dominant, a collapse of all things ensues.

This is common in how we function as a society [politics] and as a civilisation, given the mind [left-brain & right-brain], the mechanisms through which our dreams are made. And those dreams seemingly connected the collective unconscious, which finds itself connected through synchronicities of things and symbols, alongside the understanding that our cosmological universe has a co-creating aspect – and this partnership [that imbues all aspects of mind and spirit] is the key for our present and future outcome. And there are also outside forces [watchers, Archons, etc.] beyond a secret elite class that is also transforming reality.   

A Triangular Shape in the Skies of Russia days Before the Ukrainian Invasion

.

.