Part I
The Open Letter
Chapter 5
What Is There That Is Not About Control?
When one is an individual who has a low-level character of control, they will either despise all notions of control, or be rather oblivious to them. These are the two reasons they have a low-level of character of control.
As we have seen in the last chapter, a character is defined as the sum of one's values. And again, value is defined as “that which one seeks to gain, to maintain, to cultivate, to sustain, and/or to defend”.
The 7 disciplines of mind and the different degrees of valuing
Let's now dig a little deeper into this. The character as the sum of one's values means that taking in their cluster of behaviors, one is composed of what they DO, not of what they say they do. The seek part as a part of the definition denotes that an action is taken. It is this action that is then categorized as either and/or more of that of gain, maintain, cultivate, and defend.
This then means, if I observe in others these actions of these types, then I am observing what they value. If I only have access to their words, then I do not know if in fact they value what they say they do. I will only have “knowledge” of their values upon having observed actions of this sort above, or the absence thereof.
This simplifies thinking, and gives it a pattern to follow that is reliable, and based on “first principles”. ALL will be observed taking actions of one of these sorts above. Few can be seen taking the last action, that of being able and willing to defend.
As a Warrior Sage of sorts, or that is, a Warrior Philosopher, I do not measure others based upon the “norms” of the society. I measure others based upon the standards that have been and will be revealed in this attempted-to-be-shorter treatise. If others then want to know what I think about them, they will not need to ask me, they can just read this piece.
First judgment, for example :
If you do not seek the ability and/or means to defend what you have, then you do not truly value that thing in high esteem. This means the criteria I have established sets up degrees of judgment, or degrees of potency in the value.
If one seeks to gain a thing, this is the first degree of valuing. One indeed values the thing, but only in the first order degree, and there is not much potency in this. When one has then gained the thing valued, the next degree of potency is then shown in Controlling and maintaining the thing having been gained―maintaining, however, in a healthy state through a set of actions. This is not the same thing as “seeking to possess”. Possessiveness in this way is seen as a product of fear and insecurity, and therefore, is not about valuing a thing, but is about pain pleasure mechanism and serves another “body” of the individual, other than their value hierarchy.
For now, it can be said that maintenance has two species.
First : Possession in Maintaining;
And Second : Advancing in Maintaining.
Maintenance can be either or, and is mostly carried out under possession, not advancement. However, this is not to be elaborated upon here, and in the now.
A great deal of maintaining, in appearance, is that of sustaining possession, and not maintaining in advancement at all. This possessive state can often be observed by the individual not taking proper care of the thing they are seeking to hold on to. Whereas advancing in maintenance is about proper care. It means the behavior here is not that they are trying to keep the value, but it is that they are trying to keep the value expressed in its excellence. The third potency of valuing is in the behavior of cultivating that thing, or that is, advancing it, making it stronger, better, and developed. This is driven by the pursuit of excellence “we” call Arete.
The order of the values are by degree and chronological. When spoken, then it could be said :
1st order by degree of value is gaining;
2nd order by degree of value is maintaining;
3rd order by degree of value is cultivating;
4th order by degree of value is defending/protecting.
In the first order of degree of evaluation there is NO need of a potency, though there may be potency, or that is, “very much wanting”, or eagerness. One can have a passive and lazy desire to gain something, and/or merely accept something as a given.
The second order by degree, maintaining, also does not have a given that it is potent, or by way of care, concern, skill, or even through an activeness. One can passively and carelessly “maintain” something, or actively and skillfully maintain something. However, the first and second order of degrees of evaluation are not a given, in level of potency. Because of this, most will have values of the first and second order, never getting past these degrees, and these are those individuals who can “afford” to believe that values are subjective. This is because with these two degrees, the way in which they are carried out will be relative to the potency of the “agent of action” doing the evaluation. There are rarely informed standards in these two, and they are two degrees often subject to base and primal motives, not deliberation.
In the third order of degree of evaluation, there must be, and can't be free of that of deliberation, that of skill, that of identification, and that of active. These are required ingredients in order to cultivate, in order to advance, in order to build in and upon a thing. One can not cultivate a thing if they do not know what that thing is, and the “path” or “way” that is needed to advance it. To cultivate is to advance, and all advancement requires a more objective, not subjective approach, because the object's identity requires identification, and the “Way” is based on that identification. Without identifying the nature, the essence of the thing to be advanced, to be cultivated, the thing will be treated delusionally, or neglectfully. Because of the arrogance and ignorance of those in the first and second degree, quite common, they will mistake maintaining a thing in how you imagine it is, and how you want it to be as “cultivating”, and evidence it was not cultivation but ignorant maintenance will be in the thing being harmed, negated, reduced, disrupted, subverted, stunted, and neglected. This is based on the order of understanding. For it to be cultivation, the agent of action needs to use the identity of the “target” as the determining factor for what is capable, and able to be advanced. When A is treated as B, it will not be used properly. Take the letter B, out of ball, you have all. They are not the same words. All need to be thrown into a hoop does not mean the ball needs to be thrown in the hoop. If you act like it does, and talk like it does, the receiver of your communiqué will not know what you are talking about. If you try to care for A like it's a B, and it is not... You will be seeking to maintain a delusion and ignorance, not cultivating at all. The proof that cultivation is not the value is that the thing does not become advanced. A farmer who destroys their crops in ignorance, arrogance, or malpractice did not cultivate their crops. They destroyed their crops. When they remain a farmer who destroys crops, they maintain the role of farmer; they do not cultivate the role, and the substance. When you are a parent, as a maintained role, and you do not cultivate the offspring through the three Duties of “Maintain, Cultivate, and Protect”, but you outsource these Duties, then you are maintaining an illusion and delusion, not being in ACTUALITY. You are not a parent; you are a “captor” keeping the offspring maintained, only so far as to be exploited by you and others.
For those who are of low value in character, there is gain, and maintain, and maintenance often means, only so far as to POSSESS, and have access. Standards and Virtue begin in the third degree, the most important degree, the degree of ADVANCING, or that of CULTIVATION. This is where skill and competence become a factor, and though they can be factors in the first and second degree of evaluation, they do not have to be. It's in the third degree of evaluation that one discovers ethics, not in the first and second. That is why those limited to the first and second degree can think morality is subjective, because it is relative. But one in the third does not think this is the case, because skillfully, they see all things have identity and the need to express, and there is a right and wrong way for being expressed, and/or repressed. What is relative is the capacity one has to be moral. Most lack the capacity of the third degree, and because of this, and proven by this... they can not have the fourth degree, which serves the third degree. They can not find in themselves the degree of value in what has been cultivated, so much that it demands to be protected and defended. When one outsources these values, such as having others claim to protect their things, and they are not willing and able themselves, then it means they are of low value. To be of high value, it would need to mean one has something worth protecting and defending, and that they are willing and able to is evidence for all Reasoning minds that they value something in high regards.
Because of this sense of ethics, in Viritus, it is held that no one can have high esteem and value for others, as well as things, but that of a Vir, because only a Vir is willing and able to defend and protect that which has been cultivated by them, and/or others. Therefore, only a dangerous Vir, which are all Vir, can be Virtuous, for all Virtue requires valuing to this highest of degrees, and on display― not in mere worded expression.
For every potency by degree of valuing, there is a counterpart by degree that can be placed in categories of values of Virtue, and values of vice. Then other categories can be introduced, such as transitive, intransitive, and so on.
I will avoid these categories for now, and return to them in the longer and more detailed version of this piece. The reader should be seeing that on this matter, I have a method, or system of evaluation that aims to account for most variables, especially those that can be seen as known variables, the only ones that can be accounted for.
One can be observed merely seeking to gain things, and then when they have the things, they do not cultivate them, but they keep them as they came. This is a low value system. It means they do not value the thing enough to cultivate it; only enough to possess it, for whatever the motive.
When one does not “advance in maintenance” of a thing towards its well-being, it does not ignite “true care”, nor responsibility to the thing. This level of advancement in maintenance is needed, long before it can be said, one has begun to cultivate.
When one has come to cultivate, too, the truth of advancement is only proven out in that they are willing to “sustain” and “protect” this “creation”.
Vice is a value, even though it is not a “good value” to have, because it does not advance in maintenance of one’s well-being, and it certainly does not enter the phase of cultivation, and therefore, does not afford protection. It's a value because one may still SEEK to GAIN it, but it is the kind of value that can never truly enter the other phases of evaluation.
Therefore, vice as value is often stunted at that of gaining, and possessing in maintenance.
It is trapped, and so is the character and the mind of the one under the vice.
The vice holds the individual captive, and all that is then valued from them, is valued often because, and for the vice.
A vice, for now, is defined as a habit that is contrary to the benefit of the thing holding the habit. Benefit is often taken to mean “a good”. Therefore, that which is not “a good” or benefit is seen as a “bad”. These terms are often seen as subjective, or relative, especially by the moral relativists.
I will avoid good and bad as simple terms. The terms I am calling on are “expressed and unexpressed”, “realized or unrealized”, “attained or unattained”, “liberty or oppression”, “locomotory or impeded”. Terms of this sort can be considered more deeply than the generic good or bad. They are specific traits needing context, but clear about the meaning in the context, so long as the writer is indeed set to be so. Also to note is that since having written this, a more accurate variable is this. Virtue is that which advances one’s Control and Command over their conditions and self. Vice is that which disadvantages, or impedes, or pacifies this advancement.
“Good habits” and “bad habits” can be taken in any direction. One can argue all day about this. Vice and Virtue, on the other hand, are not terms that belong to the common sphere of language and thought. They are terms that belong to a science, or a discipline of thought called ethics. When most hear this term, they do not have a system in mind that is being referenced. They think it is simply about “good and bad”.
Ethics, you ask, most is?
And they reply... “about what is good or bad”.
This is not only a simple way of expressing one's thoughts of ethics, it is the mark that one has simple thoughts about “ethics”, not having been exposed much perhaps to a disciplined approach.
Ethics is one of the seven disciplines that I speak to others, and write to others about, as essential for the mind to develop its Control and Command over conditions, and then self.
In order, these disciplines are so :
1. Metaphysics (identity)
2. Epistemology (knowledge)
3. Logic (Reasoning)
4. Ethics (values)
5. Aesthetics (expression)
6. Jurisprudence (justice)
7. Warfare (conflict)
These disciplines are called disciplines because they are deliberations. They have things to be deliberated on, and then they have “Ways” to be implemented, as, say, “practices”. A discipline is often seen as a “doctrine” and a discipline is one of the doctrines. However, in the use of discipline here, I do not mean a doctrine or a mere teaching. Instead, I am using the term under the reign of “science” as in a knowing that then leads to a doing, which is the “art of the science”. This is to say, for every art, there is a science at the base of it, informing it. Art then can be called “science in action”, or that is, perhaps, science applied.
Knowing is not of value, where there is no “doing” from it. But the doing can be mental as well, and does not have the limit of being a produced action in corporeal sense. A mind motion is a doing. One, when thinking, is doing thinking. You see? This is “dialectical integration”.
Ethics, then, has that which can be called a “science”, in that its aim is to discover the potent questions about values, and which ones should be held and sought by the agent of action.
These terms might begin to intimidate a reader who is not yet familiar with philosophical lexicons, or specific terminology, but it's not truly complicated. The agent is the doer, and the thing being done is an action. For now, it can be seen as this, simply. The term actor can be used as well. This is merely “one who must act, and therefore, does”.
Would you be considered an actor, based on this definition? Must you act, and therefore, do you?
The answer is yes. You MUST act, and the trait that you have that is innate to your identity is that of being a corporeal, or embodied kind of being that is an “animal”, or is animated, or with breath and motion, and you are then like all animals a heterotroph, which means you have to get your sustenance from an outside source, a “resource”. You must feed to continue sustaining, and/or maintaining your life. In order to feed, you must gain a resource for feeding.
The purpose of the resource of feeding is to maintain, is to cultivate, and is to defend your life.
This imperative is not subject to “belief” of the lower order, or some “opinion”.
One can say, ethics, or a sense of value and valuing should begin here, where in first principle, this is an undeniable state. Of course, one can deny that this is Reality or actuality. One can say that “we”, that is, animals, are not heterotrophs, and therefore, do not have the need of values; but that “human” or mental midget making such a declaration can not act as if what they are saying is true.
The fact of the “pattern” is that they will act as if they need to have, and therefore, do have values.
This act and/or set of actions will be necessary, because it is a fact they must gain, maintain, cultivate, and defend their lives. What is not a fact is how they will do it, and to what degree of potency they will be behind their actions.
This is why ethics, though a science, then has the art that one can call a “moral code”. Ethics, then, as the science of values, can also be seen as producing the “art of living” as its product. That living so-called is either in and for vice, or in and for Virtue... And no, it can not be both.
So ethics is about actors and their actions. Their actions are about what they are seeking to gain, maintain, cultivate, and/or defend. In the absence of these, we are not talking about the realm of ethics. The knowledge questions, meaning, how do we know what we know, and what ought to be known, are under epistemology. That too is a science, as well as producing an art.
Epistemology, that discipline concerned with knowledge versus belief, is at the foundation of the “filter” one will use for their “sense of values”. Values can be based on beliefs, or knowledge. Values can be based on Reason, or whim. To value is not to imply either or; however, the degree of valuing will.
This is to say, beliefs that guide values that are low in the realm of knowledge potency will often produce bad strategies and tactics of seeking to gain, and therefore, all the rest. This is to say, to cultivate a thing, one needs to identify the thing. To identify the thing, one needs knowledge about the thing, where knowledge is different from belief, based upon its degree of certainty. The degree of certainty of the “proposition” being so, it is not one of and dealing in “absolutes”.
It can sound as if it is, but it is not. Certainty is a more so than not type of thing, where the opposite, or an alternative thought about the matter is not needed. One is certain in that they have all their data points covered, and this that they believe to be true is, therefore, knowledge now, because they have come to the belief through sound Reasoning, demonstration, examination, investigation, and replication. The scientific method, based on the Baconian method, is a method that deals with experimentation and investigation to arrive at knowledge, which can be called belief elevated to a high degree of certainty.
When one is not sound, then in their acquired or indoctrinated epistemology, this will be a strong determining factor in their inability to engage strategies and tactics of values.
Knowledge itself is dependent upon that of identification of the attributes and traits proper to a thing. If one falsely identifies a thing, it can be said, they do not have knowledge of that thing, though they can still be said to have beliefs about that thing.
Because of this dependency that knowledge has on identity, we have the discipline or science of “metaphysics”, a term that has been abused a great deal, so I prefer to strip it to “ontology”, an element of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being. The nature of being should be read as “a being”, or “that being”, or “the being”, or “the thing”, or “the entity”. There is no being of its own. There are only beings. There is no existence as its own... but things that exist as things, and all of those things have an identity, that was called in the old times an “essence”. That which is essential to the thing is its identity, and metaphysics is supposed to be about identification of the traits and attributes of beings, and existence. This is to say, it's about the mechanics of Reality, but only so much as corporeality is the realm which deserves and requires one's thoughts―not that which is supernatural and superstitious.
When one talks about Reality outside of actuality, and instead has assigned to their narrative that which can not be demonstrated, investigated, experimented upon, and found represented, then that metaphysics is not a science, nor an art, and therefore, is not a metaphysics by the standard in which I am using that term.
Demonstration is either through physical representation, or dialectical means. Dialectical means can be seen as reasoning means, but such reasoning can either be by mere speculation or a Reasoning upon what is demonstrated in the material sphere of things. The mind, for example, does not represent itself in the physical realm, but what can be inferred about it relies on Reasoning based upon, in essence, how a mind is used.
In actuality, the mind does not exist in the material sphere in a way that can be subject to examination. Only the products of the mind exist in the material realm to where their play on other things can then become the subject of measurement.
Think about this. The mind is invisible. It's a whole, a machine with many parts, all working together in a specific mechanical way to produce thought, and to make a decision about how to navigate the material world. In this material realm are the results of the mind's actions. This is why an AI, or artificial machine having to decide and act can produce programmed actions as if it has a “mind”. This mind element is not something to be called observable. It is the results. This is what will come to be a point for many things later. That which acts, and is; therefore, the actor is not so easily definable as that which is the action and the things which are acted upon.
Ethics, therefore, is not concerned so much with the invisible mind, nor even the motives―though motives certainly matter. Ethics is about the actions taken towards values and the measurement of those values to be sought, and the way in which they are sought. The way and its potency towards Virtuous or vicious is determined by the agent of action, or that is, its identity. What is beneficial, so to say, to its nature, its essence, its identity may be poisonous or injurious to the nature, the essence, the identity of something else. Good for and bad for then is about the thing impacted, or rather the things impacted. Their identity having yet to be identified means that the sense of good and/or bad is a belief, and not founded on knowledge. What, of the traits of the identity of those impacted, are being advanced, or impeded? This is a question of use in ethics, so long as that discipline is being engaged by a mind that is even ready to ask the questions, and employ a method to discover possible answers, or outcomes.
The social value of collectivism : a default human ideology
I began this chapter with the question... What is and is not about control?
But yet, to a reader, they observed me seemingly deviate towards philosophical disciplines, perhaps wondering why.
Control is a factor in one's life, because they must make decisions that have to do with conditions. The conditions that are external have mechanics to them. The mechanics of one's conditions are traits or attributes of a condition, just as all things, all beings, all entities have a nature, an essence, an identity. So then in extension to these axioms, or evident principles having to be true for any sense of truth to be a factor, conditions too possess identity.
Ethics begins with the inner conditions of one's being. It's about the agent of action discovering and coming to know what, and how to value; then how to achieve these degrees of valuing in that of gaining, maintaining, cultivating, sustaining, and/or defending. It does not imply that others, or that is like beings needing to consider values are a part of that condition, though in high probability it is certain they will be.
However, though it be natural that so-called humans are born to social networks, it does not mean then that values begin as social values. More often than not, this is how most, in their collectivist society, see ethics.
Ethics becomes about how one treats another, and not so much seen as the way one treats themselves.
This notion of others with others is born out of a social value called collectivism.
Collectivism has far more to it, but I will simplify my notion of it, for the sake of this treatise. Collectivism is about the individual receiving their “Sense of Self” (SOS) and “Sense of Life” (SOL) from a group. This is to say, the individual's identity is not a standalone, but is defined based on its relationship to a group, which in actuality, like the mind, does not have evidence of existing. A group is a category that is shaped through thought, and then the agreements to the thought that others make with each other. It's an agreed upon notion or idea that is not represented in material form as being real. It's a thought form, but yet it is often more so than not treated as its own entity, or real thing.
Because of this, while groups are led and directed more so than not by their elites, the elites can hide behind the group narrative to explain their conduct, and the products of their decision making. Collectivism has by default the nature of some being projected onto the nature of the many, and the some projecting their nature are the ones most aggressive in their pursuit of control over others, and/or conditions.
An individual in a collectivist ideology, which is the default human ideology, does not have a sense of themselves that is void of the roles of a social structure.
One knows this to be true when they are a son, a daughter, a mother, a father, or relative of sorts to others, and then in extension one is a student, a barber, a metalsmith, a policeman, soldier, clerk, or politician. When one sees themselves, do they have a “self” that can be described as if it is on an island, unable to fulfill all these collective roles?
The answer, when one can not, is that they are not an individual with their own Sense of Self, but instead, they are the collective, and I call the collective SAM, or the Society Advanced by the Majority.
The direction of control, in collectivism, comes from the culture creators, or the thought movers. These ones direct the narrative of the collective, and the individual units of the collective then come to embody, to hold the memes, or the cultural units of the collective, replicate and reinforce them into continuation. SAM becomes a program for the collective that transforms to a mediocre level that all can conform to easily enough, to then replicate and further through cultural transmission. SAM becomes the controlling force, and SAM is no more than the mental notion of a group, a collective, and that of the same reality of the mind. SAM is not observable on its own, but its products are, as it becomes the “Mind of the Many” (MOM), and it becomes the conformed state that others are merely scripted to then act on, and produce behavior from.
Because the multitudes, the many, the majority are the collective, and therefore, SAM, it has the collective morality that is called altruism. The collectivist inclination and mindset came to humans in primal conditions as a survival necessity. This is to say, to survive, humans had to act as one, and in order to do this, the individual needed to conform to the will of the group, a will that was not a thing in fact existing on its own, but an agreement that was mentally agreed upon, under no required conditions of being factual, and actual.
With the all needing to act as one, collectivism, ethics, and morality became shaped around how one behaves with others, and the question of ethics for the individual is how the one conforms to the greater good of the many... for that of humans, who are default collectivists.
Born out of this collectivist sense of ethics comes the default ethical platform, if it can be called that, called altruism. The general form of altruism is that the interest of the individual needs to be sacrificed for the interest of another, of others of the group. It does not say exactly what then is a moral code, but instead, it makes the primary of the action the recipient of the action. If others receive the product of your action, it is good. If you are the sole receiver of the product of your conduct, then it is bad... because it is “selfish”.
Self-interest becomes an evil and bad character trait when collectivism and altruism are the default settings, as they are for humans. The direction of control remains the same. You are to be servile, and this is the only result for the individual in the default settings of collectivism and altruism. Altruism demands you serve others with your actions, and not yourself. It demands a sacrifice and constant state of compromising that of your own interest for the so-called good of the group, which can not exist, cause the group does not exist. It becomes about the good of SAM, that instant and automatic collective mind that runs programs on all its subjects, who think they are free agents, yet are not surprised they behave like all others.
The default direction, then, of control in which one must contend with is all about others, or groups, and their way of accessing the individual. This then ought to make sense of the recent title, Access Denied.
Access Denied is about the collective, the group, the altruists and the “slavers” being denied access to my own individuality and the products of my labor and innovations. I am not a slave, nor am I a servant to a collective or group.
However, as I said previously, there is no actual group, for this can not be real. A group is just a body of individuals coming together under joint agreement, implied, or explicit. It's composed of real forms, called individuals, but the minds of these individuals are dictated by the minds of few, or some form of oligarch.
For you, Americans reading this, it's your media, your schools, your policy enforcement, and policy makers. They control the themes of the shared collective, and in their parts, the themes of the minor collectives, who are then pitted against each other in a formula of “thesis versus antithesis begets a synthesis”, or that of controlled opposing forces. SAM is not with one identity. SAM is in essence bipolar, or schitzo if you will.
If your Sense of Self is not based on your own innate nature and traits outside of the presence of a collective, you are starting with SAM. I presume all I meet are starting with SAM, because ALL I meet received an education, and have been made to be servile to families, and in extension, the marketplace and/or the state.
Vir : a different kind of being, Commander of self
Control, then, as a factor, is certainly about one having control over their Sense of Self, and their condition. In this case, the condition will be more often than not “socially dependent”.
Access Denied then becomes about increasing this Control to a level of Command, and one beginning the process of happening upon life, instead of “el câlice happening” upon them.
Being a force in life is the objective of this science and its considerations, not being servile and a reaction to life, or rather the collective.
The human mind is a social machine. This was because of primal survival conditions. In those conditions it worked towards its aims well. Some so-called humans are from ancestors that discovered or mutated towards individualism. Because of this, they have the capacity to see their individual sense separate from that of a group. However, this is not to be seen as promoted, and universal. Few have an individualistic nature. The vast majority of humanity is by nature collectivist, and though they betray their altruism and it can not be authentic, they conform to it in such a potency that it's the greatest diseased thought among humans.
The one that is born with an innate drive towards their individual identity and nature will have experienced a great deal of pain and torment, being constantly pressured by groups to conform to something that does not speak to them. I am not able to assist those born to be individualistic in nature. This is because my nature was loud, and I stayed in obedience to it. Most of what needs to be resolved for others to do the same, I do not know much about. I have not been impeded.
So then with this treatise, it is not to be said that I understand or know the way for others. This is not the case. I know how I live and deal with the collective and its ways. I am a master of my Way, and my nature, essence, identity. This does not mean I am “your master”, which I am not and can not be. You have to become your master, of your ways. But if I show my mastery, it is possible that on your path, if sharing in any likeness, you find this expounding useful. It will not be for most. It will not apply. Humans are not ethical. As I have said before, humans, ALL HUMANS are slavers... And, I, reader, am not a human.
I am not a human, because I am not from the mud, or the dirt, as the term human etymologically means. Humus, of the Earth, the mud, the dirt, lowly, as opposed to the gods, which were seen as Solar. I have a Solar nature, not an Earthling nature.
Terms present different notions than the way commoners use their language. For most, one points at a thing and utters a word for it, but does not realize the essence being referenced by the term, or what is meant to be triggered.
One can call themselves a human and Man, without ever knowing the difference meant to be conjured up in the terms used. It's just a level of grunting, and not communicating at all.
Human and collectivism make sense. Vir and collectivism do not. Human and collectivism make sense, because the primal conditions had lowly humans feeling afraid and insecure. Fear and insecurity are the two base emotions that dictate most of human thought, and this is where collectivism comes from. The individual is willing to give up any sense of their individualism and their own “will” to the group, because they are afraid of being alone, and they are insecure without acceptance by others.
Being of the Earth, being lowly, in the “mud”, as opposed to being of the gods, has all this sense of being insecure and fearful.
The word Man, however, has “light” to it. On the surface, the term is etymologically born out of the Latin and Sanskrit word for hand, and this is why “manipulate”, and perhaps “manage” and so on are all connected to the term Man. The word was Manu, and I use this often in contrast with that of human. However, I will be leaving this term Manu for that of the more clear Vir. As of now, this is underway, and yet to be completed.
Though Manu meant hand, it is not the hand that was being referenced in the use of the term, but what some were doing with their hands―which is that of tool wielding, and more so, tool crafting. On the outside, looking in, the commons saw some crafting with their hands, and this became the mark of intelligence. This comes back to what I had said previously, that the mind, and therefore, its intelligence, can not be observed in and of itself. One must wait for the mind and its intelligence to be employed, and then see the results, the products of its use. One is only observing the mind and its intelligence in action, and not its actual essence and presence.
The hand is what the craftsmen worked with, building out and augmenting their conditions. And therefore, the term Manu became the name of the species of hominids that were seen as intelligent and above all others, in their Ways.
All Manu came from being human/hominid, but not all humans are Manu. There is something different in some that makes them about Control and Command over their own mind, and their condition.
Manu, as a species of hominid likened to their cousin humans, is a Commander kind of being, and not a lowly kind of being, like the human.
This is all correlated to the natural trend that would have occurred from hunter-gatherer to advanced hunter, to that of the domestication of wild animals and the relationship some hominids had with wolves, and then later the horse―both events causing some hominids to advance their mind's Sense of Self into a state where they were no longer merely reacting to the conditions they were in, but they were taking charge and coming to Command them.
Control is either attempted by the inept, and then has ill effects, or the adept, and leads to prosperity. Control is never in question, of whether or not it is the point.
Control is always present in the behavior of humans and Manu. The real question is : how is it being wielded or attempted?
So one does not begin confused about this. When one is confused about this, there is a simple fact before thee : thou art under the control of another, or others. Confusion is the product of inept control mechanics being carried out.
As we have seen in the last chapter, in the definition of war, there is the etymology that it meant to stir confusion, and to baffle. Then in the term seduction, there is the notion of to lead astray. When one is in these states, these mental states, then there is a good chance they were seduced, or rather indoctrinated, and surely the subjects of war, in which life is a constant state thereof. Those who live “vanquished” lives or defeated lives will deny all this. Because if they observe they are indeed confused and baffled in life, then they will need to admit they are also of the defeated and of the commons. Arrogance, that personality trait where one is in exaggeration of their Sense of Self or abilities, has one declaring it is all others who are in such states, and they surely are not... Though they go on living and behaving in the same manner as the masses.
When you can not be distinguished from the masses, and live as they do, it is because you are of the masses. Saying one is not, and merely thinking you may think differently does not make you different. How you live and behave is what can be observed, not the content and working of your mind. Behavior, and therefore, actions are the main point, not words and beliefs, though they have a connection to all this.
I have spun this specific narrative here to conclude my main point of this chapter.
IT IS ALL ABOUT CONTROL!
Those who say it is not will be doing so from error-ridden places of thought, from deception, or from a position of control, and seeking to sustain the control, on account of fear and insecurity.
Control is not an option. It is a requirement in living. As I mentioned previously and now, you, as an animal that is a heterotroph, must have values. Values are not an option; they are required in order for an action to be carried out, to sustain one's existence.
When one is entitled and lives a life of privilege, and most of all deference, then this sense will be massively reduced. There will be more arguments against this, than not. The reason why is that one does not need to act, or try hard to sustain their lives. One who gets food from a grocery store is not struggling to get their sustenance. However, they may struggle to pay their “bills” and to get through their “work”, to get those Federal Reserve notes they use in exchange for goods. But even then, in the United States of America―that SAM I live among, but am not a part of―sustaining one's life is quite easy. Even the poor live relatively well in the USA, as some well going folk of other countries do. Though this is changing rapidly as I write this.
In the context of this treatise, it is mostly the SAM of the USA that I will be addressing, because it will be most of those who come from this realm that I encounter. If they are a so-called foreigner, then it's a good chance that where they come from also has easier conditions for entertainment than most other places.
The point is that many are not struggling―at least, not yet―to meet their basic needs. This is because their parents and their society had done most of it before they came. Their society and their parents work for posterity. This is to say, those who came before you have this value system that is servile, where they believe they are working for the interest of offspring. That is the product of collectivism and altruism.
When a male works his whole life at a job to bring home resources for a female and her offspring, he is engaging in self-sacrifice. He is not the primary in his own life; her and her offspring are. When a female has secured this source of resource acquisition and then has offspring, she will often back out herself of the resource acquisition value, by ceasing to seek to gain. Some will remain, but the kind of work they will often do will be social related, and not demand much from them. Their work potency, as USA SAM females, is much lower than the work potency of their servile males. This can also be seen in the type of jobs chosen and pursued. SAM males make up most of the workers in risky and dangerous jobs, and often high risk high reward fields, seemingly making more money than females because of their job choices, not because of some bias towards the sexes.
You control what work you will seek out, but often do not consider how much you must work to keep sustaining your basics. This element of control is all about values. What are you exchanging your pay for, after you have worked for it?
What you exchange your pay for is what you value.
The obvious ones are water access, food, shelter, clothing, and continued access to the loop of sustaining all those things.
When the process is sustained and ease of access continues, then often one will not feel as if it is such a struggle, unless there are disruptive elements that come along, and make the process unreliable and without security.
A great deal of actions are taken for this very reason... securing access. This can be securing access to a region, to a profession, to a marketplace, and most of all, to the social network that is involved in all these parts.
The very basic emotional and mental need of humans is security. When these things do not seem or feel secure, the product in the human is insecurity. The level of security is not based on the rules of society, or rather domesticated settings. The level is based on primal feelings that were programmed from hundreds of thousands of years of primal conditions.
Humans, as far as written and documented record keeping goes, have only been domesticated and so-called civilized for about six thousand years.
But what defines being civilized and/or that of domesticated?
Control!
Prior to the advent or the arrival of cities or large urban population zones, humans were in small tribal and clan settings. The level of management of their conditions were low, and for the most part, they were simply reacting to whatever elements were established by and through their conditions.
Humans have always been social, as animals with in fact hypersociability being a trait that can be claimed to be innate to all humans, even those who do not do well with social settings and conditions. This is why “antisocial” is a “defect” or “disorder”. One is not born to be antisocial. Antisocial is a sign, to others, that the individual is “defected”.
The very nature of language, of symbols, of communication, that the human's mind is programmed to usher in with ease and familiarity, begets the clarity that humans need other humans, and humans are to be around other humans.
Human access to other humans is primary.
By primary, this can mean of significance in the first order of things. It is human nature to be hypersocial; however, this is not to be mistaken for “at any cost”.
Cost and value measurement and assessment are the things of control that need to be considered. When one knows―and it is knowledge, not belief―that human nature includes the attribute of hypersocial, then it means a science is needed that deals with this very matter of not if to be social, but in how one should socialize.
However, some additional elements to this need to be provided. It is not about how all humans, or even most humans should socialize, but in this case of this treatise, how a specific kind of ascending hominid should consider whom they seek to have access to, and whom they grant access to.
Who then, or what then is this specific kind of hominid believed to be, perhaps, seeking to ascend?
Chapter 6
The Driven Vs. The Undriven
There is a common expression in this Society Advanced by the Majority which I live near to. That common expression is “social economics”, and is a reference to one's status compared to others. In a conversation, this expression can occur, but often does not. For the commons―who are a “status”―tend to avoid seeing things this way. They tend to have been taught and conformed to a notion of egalitarianism, where all are to be seen as equal, and no one is of greater or lower status to another. However, nature and Reality, or that is, in actuality, things never work this way.
The term equality does not mean what most think. It does not mean same in quality, and/or quantity. Same is not its attribute, though it seems like it is, because the primary attribute of the term equality is that of a conformity. This is to say, equality is a conformed state. Because of this notion of conformity, there is the implied state, then, of sameness, for to conform would seem to be, to become the same, or in the same.
However, this violates the Laws of identity. Though a thing can be more alike to another thing than not, it still will not be the same. Even in things of the same stock, its proclivities, its inclinations, and even its physical ratios will still differ. They will be conformed in their identity, in that they are of a certain nature, or essence; their essentials being what makes them a type. But their quality and quantity will not be the same, nor can it become conformed.
If a lion was stronger than another and conformity was compelled, as it must be, then the stronger lion has to have its strength, its potency reduced. The weaker one, not having the same natural quality or quantity, can not simply gain such by wish and desire of the observer, or conforming force.
A weaker thing can not be simply advanced by the want. But a stronger thing can be reduced by the want. With this want to conform, weaker-by-nature entities must subvert and pull down that which is shining beyond their scope and ability. Conformity then requires that of a higher quality, and/or quantity to sacrifice, and this is why often, the demanding party of sacrifice is the weaker party, not the one having something that can be sacrificed.
When one is of the commons, they are often lower in the economic bracket. This economic status then often dictates one's social network. Those of the higher economic bracket will tend to hang out with others of the same or greater degree, and unless they have the need to feel superior, they do not associate with the lower economic bracket.
Because of this, a social status based on economics is often the common kind. The exception then becomes that of the “higher education”, and the degree of social evolution and sustainment is often then carried out through this social and economic strategy. However, at the time of writing this, a college degree does not carry the same level of social prestige it once had. In the eyes of the many, culturally, it is still marketed somewhat this way... and I do mean marketed.
This is the mind of the many being out of touch with the actual value of a thing, as it is seen on the marketplace separate from the cultural hype. Now, those who were once in the low economic bracket have acquired college degrees, likened to that of an extension to a high school diploma.
Many of the jobs being servile, or service jobs, it is common to find one with a four-year degree not of a specialized nature working a gig that has no need for such educated individuals.
The degree does not change the culture, these days, to where the individual comes to believe that having it has elevated them socially. They may have mingled with diverse social classes during their college years, but after, their social network will be the product of their professional direction. Cultural elements are where this differs. If one is religious, they can be around folk of diverse social and economic ranges, just as if one is engaged in hobbies, activities, and forms of meetups of some sort. In the absence of these extra activities in life, mostly demanding some outgoing personality elements, the individual is confined to the conditions of their work, and what category and status that work falls under.
Because high risk environments tend to require a more driven disposition, there is a difference between those who are undriven and those who are driven. Those differences will show in these high risk areas, seem to be the cause of them, but they are not. They are in those areas because they are driven. The driven often can not surround themselves with any but the driven. One who is aggressive and motivated knows more than any other how many distractions, and undermining personalities exist out there to take them from what they are driven towards. The driven then will grow away and out from those not so driven. This becomes a criteria for their social selection. Often, then, to get what they are looking for, they need to be driven in a profession or an activity that grows them out of their default social condition. So this grows them often economically, and this seems to be the corollary, that because they have a certain monetary standing, this then drives their choices in socializing. I do not believe this is mostly the case. Perhaps those born to a high economic standing may see resources as the primary, but if they were to be near the driven, I would presume, based on observation, they treat that individual differently than the undriven masses.
Drive, motivation, eagerness, these are the traits I am trying to highlight here, and to whom this treatise can apply to. In the absence of these personality traits being expressed, this manual is useless. One who is not characterized, or to be characterized this way has no point in denying others access to them. They will be of the common undriven nature, and therefore, they will be mediocre. The mediocre do not care to measure who they have access to, nor who has access to them. The mediocre masses, being collectivist, altruistic, and shamanistic, knowingly or not, hold the hidden and perhaps subconscious belief of entitlement, where all have access to all, and this is why the commons preach their “Virtue” of “thou shall not be judged”. This SAM proclamation of judgment reveals their mediocrity. They say, thou shall not be judged, or shall not judge, cause they are trying to evade, avoid, and/or escape judgment, only in that they feel if judged, they would be judged wanting.
The driven do not avoid judgment, do not fear it, and do not abandon it. They are driven by judgment being a key ingredient, either self-judgment, or the judgment of those who are worthy judges. Judgment is how ranks become known, how progress becomes identified, and the way of achieving the progress, its methods, strategies, and tactics revealed for application.
Those who would want, and rather demand acceptance blindly, and that of the absence of judgment, are those who will certainly not be driven. “I wish to be accepted as I am” is that of saying “I hope no one calls out my cowardice at living”. It is rarely if ever the utterance of someone who is driven. The driven will demand that their peers and their conditions push them further, with the decree that enough is never enough. Time to go further. When you arrive at that further, you then are told, “you have not even started”. This is the nature of the driven, and what fuels them. They do not turn to those in their world, and say, “I need only be better than so and so, and need only appear better, or attained”.
Their competition is with “yesterdayman”, and they are that Man in the Manu sense of the term, not male or female.
“I can do better”, and then “I will do better” are the two mental traits of the properly driven. However, when one is born with drive among the undriven, then the conditions one faces are often more than not impediments. These can be impediments that are mental, impediments that are physical, impediments that are social and economics based. Because the conditions are under the control of the mediocre masses, then the identity of the conditions will be designed to sustain and not trouble these traits common to the commons. However, though it may not impede them, for there is nothing in them by way of drive to impede, it will impede the driven.
The commoner turns to the driven and says, “it all seems fine and right to me”, and this should receive an “of course it does”. Why?
Because you the commoner lack any drive, and therefore, these mediocre conditions have nothing to be impeded. Had you had drive, the impediments would become apparent. The question then would be, how one deals with the impediments, not if they are present. One would realize, here there are impediments to my drive, and then they will either be defeated, or they will endure and move towards victory.
However, in the absence of realizing all this, one with drive could also never have discovered the drive, or at least, direct it into expression. So there may be, though this I do not know, many with drive that simply have been slumbering in life, under so many impediments. Therefore, I can never tell another they do, or do not have drive, but I can say whether I observe a reason to think they do, or do not. Such as to say, I do not observe a reason to think you are driven, and/or I see plenty of reasons to think you are not.
Driven... towards what?
The question then becomes, in the absence of the impediments, what does an expressed drive look like. Those who are, and would be driven are driven towards what?
That last question is much more complex to take too far. However, it's a question needing primacy to be asked and answered by those curious about the subject matter.
If one senses they have a drive of any sort, but they do not know towards what, then they should presume they have the foundation of a drive first, before presuming a drive. The foundation is first and foremost that of the trait eagerness.
Eagerness is defined by the joint traits of a “very much wanting”. It does not say what one very much wants; only that there is a want, and it's very much.
Reducing terms to their primaries makes for cleaner thought with one's own language. Eagerness is an impulse, or a proclivity. But this notion of drive can be said to begin with this. Drive implies towards, or a direction. However, eagerness does not. It does not imply a detectable, or relatable want to the desire. Aggression is the fundamental spark behind eagerness. You can not very much, passively want. Therefore, it should be obvious that the traits would follow as active, not passive; aggressive, not passive; and then eager, not indifferent. Indifference is the seemliness of not caring. However, in this seemliness, it would seem to be a passive state. However, I am not so convinced indifference is passive. I would contend that most indifference is an active negation, or active resistance to something mostly forward and demanding. However, for the sake of simplicity―if I can give a sake of this sort―indifference is neutral, and simply just not caring this way or that.
Those who are consistently indifferent in this world can not be called eager or possessing trait eagerness. These indifferent kinds then can not be said to care about who they have access to, and/or who has access to them. This trait indifference often means they do not come to care enough about increasing their own value, and appreciating the value in others.
I have no care for those who have no care. This treatise is not for those with the character habit of indifference. It is for those who have this aggressive and eager state as a minimum. These traits do not stand alone. No one stops as merely being eager, but instead, where one is habitually eager comes then the following logical trait of being curious. Curiosity is based on the trait of eagerness, with the added element of a direction. That direction is eagerness to know, or to learn.
There are many “norms” who think they are curious, but they think so more often than not because they do not know this trait of curiosity, of very much wanting, or that of eagerness. One can not say with sincerity that they very much want something they are not motivated to acquire. In that one does not attain in something attainable often means, as many will say, “they did not want it bad enough”, or that is, they did not very much want it. This is key to understand. When I observe others and they say they are about something, I check to see their level of eagerness about the thing. Are they more so indifferent, and/or simply flirting with things, or are they so to say that of being devoted and truly engaged? Devotion can be said to be that which goes further than eagerness. But that is not for here, nor right now.
Curiosity, then, being an aggressive trait often more so than not leads to boldness. One not being bold can hardly, in sincerity, be called curious. The two reveal each other. One who is not curious is not truly bold, and one who is not bold lacks curiosity.
Being able to consider that of the traits of an individual is key. We are not all the same is the main point, and if this be the case, then not all systems of thinking, and therefore living, should be presumed to be the same, and/or need to be. It should then be presumed that a system needs to match the way of thinking and being innate to the individual.
However, this is from the direction of what can be called individualism, and not that of what can be called collectivism. And because of this, then it can be said, in addition to eagerness, curiosity, and boldness, one whom this is meant for would be by nature one who sees their own individuality as coming before that of the nature and/or disposition of the supposed group. One may have gotten their identity in the character sense from the group, but should not be rested in this notion. They should, upon hearing the Call, if individualistic in nature, shift from this conditioned and collectivist personality to that of a deliberate one, built based on their individual nature.
This then is to say, the ones to take anything valuable from this piece need to identify as innately individualistic. Though this does not mean they are antisocial or lacking in a social nature. Instead, it means which way one naturally sees power and control flow. Is power determined by a group, or is it something about the individuals that are involved?
Chapter 7
The Lexicon Of Symbolical Senses
I have been active since the age of 12, in the realm of being turned to by others, for what sense of Wisdom they may have believed to be encountering.
Their SENSE of Wisdom is the key here. I will use this term sense often, and one is to read this as below belief and the mere narratives of symbolic nature one has developed, or does develop.
You see, as sense one knows is correlated to the senses, which are often numbered five, I mistakenly often add the 6th, which is not some “Extra Sensory Perception” (ESP), but is the mind as the ultimate sense organ, and integrative force of the data derived from the senses. The senses do not play on nothing; they play on something, and that something is the mind.
Sight is the dominant sense on hominids, which humans are a part of. Then follows orientation via sound, and then grasping with touch, and the slight detection of smell and taste.
1. Sight 2. Sound 3. Touch 4. Smell 5. Taste
All integrated into the mind. The senses gather what can be called “the perceived”, and that which is perceived are objects, or things, or entities that have resonance with the senses.
All sense is “reception”, and the data that is then considered “received” is called a “recept”. It can also be called a “phantasm”, because the sense data is not exact as a representation of what is being perceived, but is an imprint that will have different levels of potency of accurate recall, or impression. The perceived is called a “percept”. So you have a direction of sensing : sensing that which can be perceived (percept), and the percept being received (recept/phantasm), and the mind being that which has received.
When you, the thing thinking, think, you are not thinking on the perceptual level. You are instead integrating and managing, mostly automatically, phantasms or the recepts. Imprints, in their degree of potency, are the sources of triggering thought, actionary or reactionary. All thoughts that you have, and can have MUST BE composed of elements of what has been perceived and received through the SENSES. Therefore, all that you think of composes the mind level of a “sense of” this and that. Beliefs begin when a narrative of a symbolic nature is formed. This level is the third level, and thirds, or 3s seem to be something conceptually common in Reality, or actuality, if you will.
Beliefs begin at the end of the percept to recept, imprint integration. An automatic process occurs in hominid thought where abstraction occurs from the recepts, to form a general and symbolic understanding of attributes and traits of the received. The form or the entity is composed of traits, and the mind abstracts a notion or an idea of these traits, and then forms a symbol for them. This symbolic thought is called “abstract thought”, because abstraction is the cause of it. Abstraction is to draw away, or to pull from―and in this case, pull away or abstract a sense of the thing tagged for recall. This new creation is called a “concept”, and a concept is the idea of a thing, or the notion of a thing.
When this idea is formed, one now has the foundation for conscious considerations, or that is, mental material to reference. It is not the percept, nor the recept that is mentally being referenced with the so-called conscious mind, but it is the concept or notion of things that is being referenced and recalled. Hominid mental performance is based around recollect, or that is, the recalling of a sense of something. A recollect is, by degree of potency, a mere imprint, a mere phantasm, and based on the level of thinking of the individual, their recollect can be poor and vague, or precise, accurate, and excellent. Quality of thought is all based on this.
The format or the operation, then, of the mind, triggered by the senses that sense things, is thus :
Percept; Recept; Concept.
This is the format of the operating system of the hominid “mindscape”. This is not a format that is able to be discovered mechanically by the physical sciences. One must be reminded that the mind can not be observed. The mind is only able to have its products detected and observed, and from these productions are deduced its mechanics, its essence, and its nature.
In such deduction, it is this “character of the mind” that those who have Reasoned well have come to formulate. Most will not think well on this format, lacking the foundation necessary to comprehend it. However, realizing and integrating a sense of this format is absolutely necessary to begin the process of increasing one's Control and Command over self.
Self is not that complicated―surely not as complicated as others have made it. I will simplify it here with the sense that such a simplification leads to a utility, or that is, usable sense.
One should stop thinking of the self as an entity. It is not. Mind is not the self. The mind is an “operational body”, or being. The mind should be called the “operator”, and it should be seen as having a modus operandi, or a mode of operation, or an operational format. As an operator, it should be seen as divorced of personality and a symbolic sense, and instead be discovered and identified by traits, by attributes, and by those sets of characteristics that are innate to the specific body that houses the mind.
Your body is specific to you. It is an individual entity, mathematically, no matter what you believe. The chemical makeup of “your” body is not repeated in exactness in any other. It's a unique signature, and when treated as same and like others, this leads to delusion. One's chemical body plays a major role through the impulses on directing the mind. The intensity, or potency of this role is the determining factor of the quality of equanimity in the individual. The more potent the chemical body, the more absent equanimity is.
Equanimity is not a thing of its own. It is the liberated state of the mind, whereby it is no longer being “moved”, or that is, compelled towards an action by the emotions, the passions, the urges, and other phenomena. The very notion of Control and Command over one's self is the notion of arriving at the liberated mental state of EQUANIMITY. This is the aim.
As the mind is an operator, to have personality divorced then means : where personality is present, where a symbolic sense exists, this is a Sense of Self. The key term here is SENSE, and not self. When one says and thinks self as a thing, they have the seed of delusion upon them, and all other thoughts that proceed from this, establishing a narrative, will have been built on a faulty foundation.
One who strives towards the awakened state, strives towards equanimity. The awakened state, or that of Bodhi, in Buddhistic terms, is that of taking accurate accounts of Sense of Self, and then its relationship to other things, that is, identities that are bound to Reality or actuality. To awaken is to conform, mentally, to Reality, and Reality is that which IS in and of itself, and not that which you think or wish to think is.
SOS is the shortened expression for Sense of Self. One can say and think : one's SOS, or their SOS, and/or, for phonetic reasons, their sauce. This can be used as an aesthetic reference term in speech, but not in writing. One says, this one's sauce, and that one's sauce, and then explains their character. A charlatan can also be detected if they express “sauce” from having heard it, but do not know that it means Sense of Self.
Self then is not spoken of in the absence of being a sense. Like that of the 5 senses, and the added sense of mind, the mind then, as an operator, runs a sense that relates it to the other senses as an actor or agent doing the sensing. This sense of integration, because it has symbolized all the other sense data, symbolizes its “self”, and this “symbolic self” is the Sense of Self. A SOS, however, is that which naturally occurs before the constructed element of persona, of character, of the phersu.
When an “initiate” speaks so of the persona, or the personality, they use the ancient Etruscan term that is the etymology of person, that of phersu. This separates the language of the initiate, or the candidatus, or the Vespillo from that of the commons. Too, when this is used by a charlatan, they can then be exposed to be.
Phersu is not the Sense of Self. It is the personification of a self into a character that is symbolic and able to be captured and communicated through symbols. So that which is named is not a Sense of Self, but becomes the naming of a phersu, which covers the Sense of Self with a Symbolic Sense of Self, a character. The phersu then adds the S, in the format, making it SSOS. This is the code for the Symbolic Sense of Self, the phersu.
The SOS runs as a format in the realm often called “unconscious”, or the “subconscious”. However, these terms here used should not have the traditional psychological definitions, and extrapolations applied. For now, they need to remain simple. Instead, “accessible”, and “inaccessible” should be used. The sub-level is inaccessible to the active mind. It is a program that runs automatically and/or passively.
When you are thinking and you are aware of your thinking, you are not recalling and accessing your Sense of Self, or SOS. You are primarily dealing with your SSOS, or your Symbolic Sense of Self, the phersu, the person, the persona, the character that “you” think you are.
As a format of SSOS, one can see that the additional letter is an additional amount of mental material to have to wade through. The trick in this format is that it indicates what level the individual must begin with, when the pattern is about deduction, and/or that of working backwards, having already been fashioned and rather cultured in a certain way.
The primary source of your SSOS, if you are in the industrial worlds or realms, is that of education.
Education is that of “being raised, or reared, cultivated by an institution”. Your SSOS has been loosely instructed to confuse the term education with being synonymous with enlightenment, and enlightened. So the symbolic sense, though loose, that you may have about education is that it “raises the mind”, or “elevates the mind”. This, indeed, LEARNING can do, but this is not what is being raised through education.
Education is the primary form of indoctrination that is aimed at “behavioral modification”, and/or “behavioral programming”. The term education, born out of the term educare, was often used in the past, in the context of animal domestication. To be “educated” is equivalent to be called “domesticated”, and if one was educated, no matter the level of degree of completion, one has undergone “domestication”, “indoctrination”―and this is precisely, and admittedly what the education systems of nation-states were developed for, and it is stated in all the official sources that without education, the nation-states would not sustain their hold over their “subjects”.
The primary tool of education for that of behavioral modification is the CONTROL and the COMPULSION of symbolic instruction. This is to say, the schools do not bring you to experiences, and provide you with the mental tools to discern, and/or to analyze those experiences. The schools bring you symbolic frameworks and narratives, and demand that you conform to these symbolic narratives to become certified in their ways.
At present, everyone in which I will, and can encounter has been educated, and they are from familiars, or that is, families that too, before them, were the product of education. And therefore, they carry the symbolic narratives of the institutions, and rarely, if ever, liberate from these narratives to discover the opposite, which is their own nature, and the faculties, or the mental powers of excellence that are needed to be free, and for what they are to be free for, which is Virtue.
The objective of an increase in Control and Command over one's Sense of Self is towards this aim of equanimity. And for this mental state of equanimity, the objective is to serve in the freedom for that of Virtue. This is the foundation, not the end goal. It is the foundation necessary to become an AGENT of DELIBERATE ACTION, so that one can begin the game that can only be played by those who are endowed with Intellect, which is the better name for this notion of a soul.
For the initiate, the soul is likened to that of the Sense of Self, or SOS, only, it is rendered as Sense of Life. And like sauce is how you say SOS, then soul is how you say SOL, or Sense of Life. One's Sense of Life is the additional sense added to their, and/or from their SOS. So when SOL is rendered, it always has at its core a SOS. It, therefore, is both of them. One's soul then is one's SOS, combined with a SOL, and the SOL will be what others encounter.
This lexicon is my first recommendation for formatting one's “mentalscape”, but not fully. Instead, a hack needs to be created. One who is seeking to initiate into these degrees of learning, and/or conforming, and/or adopting, and then actualizing needs to create a phersu that is ready for war, arm it with armor and weapons of the mind, and wage that war knowingly, while pursuing what all wars need... a Symbolic Sense of Self that is a Commander, advised through sound principles of strategies and tactics, aimed at increasing their Control and Command over their SOL, or their soul, liberated into a state of Virtue, or excellence. This is the definition of the aim to whom this all applies, hereto called the Vir, a new edition to my works.
An “initiate”, in this context, is not one that has joined an organization or order, therefore, initiating into some institute. When one uses it this way, in relation to these subjects, they will reveal they are insincere, or they lack the mental abilities potent enough to track these “patterns”. It would show they are a charlatan that is altering a sense of the pattern, and that in their lack of sincerity, yet, their engagement, they are a mere subversive, and others should call them out. Initiation, here, is in degrees of knowledge, and what makes them degrees is that they can be called “taxonomic”.
One goes from general ideas to specific ideas. This is genus and species. One also forms hierarchies of knowledge, where each belief is advanced into greater certainty to be called knowledge, in that a strong foundation is developed, and one correlates or logically sequences previous notions that complex notions stand in relation to.
A degree of knowledge can be exemplified like this :
There is no self that can be isolated and thought of beyond a mere SENSE of the presence, or identity of a self. Therefore, the limit of thought on this pattern is that of a Sense of Self, and not some access to an actual self, as an entity, a being, a substance. A substantial self is not present for demonstration and further analysis.
Analyses begin with a Sense of a Self. This is a degree of knowledge that is at the foundation of a hierarchy of knowledge, that then becomes initiated further. In Viritus, the term “investigation” is often used, more than “initiation”. However, an investigation does not mean an integration of what is discovered. An initiation does. Therefore, one who is initiating must be likewise investigating, with, however, the addition of integrating. Vespillo is the term for an investigator into the Viritus Ways. The term for one who has initiated, in the knowledge schema, is not a term the profane, or the profanus can access. It will be a term only those competent, and developed in their knowledge hierarchies will come to discover, and certainly, never use outside the “journey” that can be cooperatively engaged. Too, then, if this term is uttered around the uninitiated, them who utter it are a charlatan, and now one knows the character before them.
The term profane, and profanus mean “outside the temple”, and often meant the “uninitiated”. In this context, it is being defined as “one who has yet to initiate into a hierarchy of knowledge and values established and based upon their nature, or therefrom”. Too then when one gets this term wrong, they are exposed. Lexicons have the power of clarifying who one is before. Them who alter, who change, who reduce, and subvert the meaning should be called out, and should be avoided.
Where Control and Command begin
It then goes to Reason, with a capital R, that when one has laid the fundamental notion that a self is not the thing that exists, in which can be assessed, but instead, one is dealing with a Sense of Self, they can then create the “operator's sense” of a clean slate, a tabula rasa to be used to initiate a hierarchy of knowledge and values.
Hierarchy, in this context, is meant to be read like a tree, with a foundation, or rooted ideas that then form a trunk, which then begets the rest of the tree form―a tree form, however, of ideas that are symbolic and able to be referenced, examined, built out, and explored. When one believes something, they do not have a tree. They have a cloud that metaphorically floats about, based on the winds, which are the metaphorical whims of the conditions, or the passions. A tree, in this metaphorical sense, requires knowledge, and therefore, it is called the tree of knowledge. However, stripped of the metaphor, it is actually a mind map, or a cognitive map. Remember, though metaphor can be engaged at the start as a bridge, one needs to leave it and get to the accurate, the precise, the well-defined. Where one does not do this, they are careless and insincere, and they too shall be challenged and revealed. One who can not explain a metaphor's bridging nature is stuck in the metaphor, and they shall be seen as inadequate to speak on these patterns.
In these modern technological times, there are free computing software where one could build out mind maps to reference. This should be engaged. This can also be used in the skill set of profiling, that is a part of the Control and Command elements that are social in consideration. One does not only profile themselves, or the Sense of Self, but one also profiles the SSOS of others, and this is what is required for the initiated to say they know so and so. This, as opposed to the profane notion of knowing others merely being bonded through familiarity.
The awakened do not “bond”. This is something that occurs ALWAYS from insecurity and fear. The primal objective of bonding is based on group survival against conditions, and is not a factor of the mind, liberated, and that of its social collaboration based on Virtue. Virtue is not born from insecurities, and fear. It can not be. It is born out of self standing, a standing that is potent, informed by knowledge, and carried out through Wisdom.
One integrates the notion that they are not seeking to “find themselves”, but instead, they are seeking to unravel their Symbolic Sense of Self, with then control being developed, first and foremost over the realm of symbols. One does not seek to go towards the Sense of Self, which is more “raw”, but first the Symbolic Sense of Self. This is why, in Access Denied, I tackled the notion of the name or the tag that is attached to the character of an individual, and/or a group or body of individuals. A name is a symbol, and the name of an individual can not be of their SOS. A SOS can not be symbolized. It can not be rendered in a symbol, because the symbol is for the general form, or character, and the SOS is often operating in parts, or through traits expressed individually, and not as a whole.
When one expresses their being, they are expressing traits and attributes also called properties. For now, what degree of knowledge being bestowed here, to enter the “pattern” of another, is that one, the individual can never express all traits at the same time, though they are almost always expressing many traits simultaneously.
Traits can be symbolized and must, and seen in their individuality. This too is why individualism is the product of heightened Reasoning, and collectivism is the default, primal, based on insecurity and fear status of hominids. In Reasoned observation, all of what is, is only seen as a whole symbolically, when in actuality, what is ALWAYS demonstrated are individual traits, able to be identified, operating on the material and mental realms. And in this, the Law of non-contradiction can be observed. A thing is not both hot and cold, simultaneously. A thing is not both present and absent, simultaneously, though your academic mental midgets have created these narratives of possibility in their priestly craft of “quantum physics”. Their description and symbolization of observable phenomena on the quantum level is corrupt.
Traits are what is always expressed. Though there certainly is a whole or a sum of all the traits, the mind does not address or take cognition of the whole. The “Whole” is considered by those who Reason as unfathomable, and this is due to the mental realm being dictated by the mechanics of discernment.
Discernment is an involuntary act of the mind that can not be muted.
Control, as well as Command, is only a factor made possible because of discernment. If discernment was not a faculty, an innate mental power and trait, and there was nothing to discern or no reason to, there would too be no need or possibility of Control and Command. This, because there would be no choices to be made, no alternatives that would matter or have significance.
Likened to the animals that do not use abstract thought, the hominid, in the absence of such thinking, would be faced with the natural demand or nature's prime directive to just follow the urges, or the chemical body.
This is what I mean, when I say the chemical body. It is the material form that is the animal of being hominid. The mind does not have its place in prominence, when the animal form is superior and the chemicals are dictatorial. This is key to realize. To say mind is to give this “thing” that is not discoverable a place of prominence as the source of driving the individual.
However, I do not often observe that individuals, and certainly groups, are ever being driven by “Pattern Over Material”. In actuality, my observations have been of hominids who call themselves humans being more animal, form, and chemical in their habits than guided by mind and its faculties that are fixed enough to identify this notion of “Mind Over Matter”. The most potent condition is “Matter Over Mind”, a bunch of “MOMs” all over the place.
Mind, when referenced in this way, is better to be called Intellect, and not mind, as one's mind, or the mind, is so easily treated as the “thinking thing”, even when the thinking is enslaved to the bestial element of one's being―this being of being hominid, mostly animal, with perhaps only some endowed with Intellect. It is this very Intellect that can become a Commander, but this Intellect must be present.
One can do far greater strategizing and discerning if they change “Matter Over Mind”, getting rid of the MOM in their head, and instead, see it is to be “Pattern Over Material”, and better yet, COM, or Command Over Material, which is carried out with that of having patterns bestowed and patterns integrated.
So then one's options are easy : MOM or COM.
I keep this lexicon tight to realizations that most should have about their condition. This lexicon is not for me. I was born already with COM, or Command Over Material, as innate to my being. I have been massively driven towards this aim. These instructions were written in my being, without the need of guidance from the condition. My book of learning is, and was internal, helping me then read the “marks” of those captured by Material Over Mind.
Do you think my word usage is by accident, or whim?
Have you captured the notion yet that symbols being called very important are being played with here, outside of your sense of them? Do you think I also put quotations around random words and terms, or have you realized yet that such a device exists to illuminate that these particular terms require further expounding?
You were born in the absence of Control and Command. That absence is called “dependence”, and not that which is a “freedom from dependency”, or that which is called “independent”. Independence is not the default state. This is why it does not have a term other than perhaps “free”, that seems unrelated to first a state of dependence. For one to say even free it has to imply the opposite, captured or “bound”. And is “bonding” not the nature of “binding” and being “bound”? Is not the human hominid way to bond with familiars and to seek bonds? Is not the prisoner and the slave one who is bound, and in chains of binding?
What then is the “bondage” of “dependency”?
You were born to familiars that you call family, and “parents”, and your SSOS, or Symbolic Sense of Self, based on nature, was that of a “child”; a “daughter (female)” or a “son (male)” to a “mother (female)” or a “father (male)”. And these terms are relational to the uninitiated, the profane, but they are instructional to the awakened.
How did you go your whole life calling someone your “mother” and your “father” without ever going beyond the mere bondage of the relational and the familiar?
This is the absence of the Intellect being expressed. The Intellect does not accept “clouds” of disconnected associations, but requires “trees of knowledge”. A part, if I continue with the metaphor, of the trees of knowledge is that of the “trees of terms”, where each term and word is designed to capture traits and attributes meant to be triggered when the term, the symbol is used in self communication or discourse with others.
However, those not initiated into the power of language are taught to use examples, not definitions, for their Sense of Symbols. Discover this lexicon, and how I am carrying on with deliberation. Sense of Symbols too is SOS. Read this code, integrate this code.
Like I have said earlier on, the term mother and Father are symbols that have a meaning. They do not mean that “male” and that “female” that your animal came about, because of. When they simply mean this, you are simply then an animal, with a ma and a pa, too, merely animal. This is the start of bondage to your animal, and the absence of igniting the Intellect. So then when named, too, you just have a symbol for your animal, so that in bestial interactions, other animals can relate, familiarize with, and bond with your beast, and only such because a mind, or the Intellect has not been instigated.
This is evidence that there is no knowledge and Wisdom of sincerity in your culture. Those “parental units”, in their own ignorance and bound animal states, never “elevated” your Sense of Symbols, your SOS, because they do not have an elevated SOS. Because you then operate with symbols by example, as simple tags of mental navigation with bodies or the material, then you “feel” your way around... not navigate with discernment, and its methodical application called Reason. You operate by whim, by chance, and as an animal reacting to “Bonds Under Familiarity”, a code I call “BUF” loon, or buffoon, and an animal of its own here and there. Many will laugh when I slip this clue, saying “a buffoon is not an animal, you mean a baboon”.
I save this clue, and rather internal humorous joke for those individuals later, because too, it shows they were triggered. They script a response that is a reaction to a sense of error they believe I have shown.
What have you been meaning to say, throughout your life, when you say mother and father, or MOM and DAD? What, other than “that male and female that brought me about”, “my familiars”, have you meant?
The answer, for the most part, is you never meant more, and therefore, could not be instigated to mean more. But those who “deliberated” upon your symbols, the ones you use poorly, did not deliberate poorly upon them. Language is not “organic”, in the sense that it does not get developed from the ground up. Language is “bestowed”. Language, which hominid humans, Hommes, are dependent upon for mental and physical navigation of the “world” and the “Earth”, is transmitted from preceding Hommes to those who follow, or posterity, those who come after.
Over poor use, over continued conditions of low thought, words, that of terms and that of signs begin to lose levels of meaning and exactness, and become reduced to mere “grunting”.
Most Hommes are not in a condition where they have had a culture bestowed upon them that can be called Rational. Even in the so-called “Rational West”, they are anything but Rational, and should be called the anti-Reason Western shamans of academia. For academics, other than in the material sciences that increase their control and command over conditions and others (but not self), Reason is the enemy of their camp and its binding forces. Reason is the enemy that would destroy its bonds, and there is not a single culture among a single people on this planet that can be called a “culture of Reason”.
There are these splinters in past conditions, called the “Age of Reason”, or the “Enlightenment”, and/or the “Renaissance”, or “Golden Age(s)”, and these being taught to the schooled masses are taught to them as if it is their history or their past―but it is not and was not. These characterized conditions were only bestowed upon, and relevant to a few. It was never the conditions of a people, a nation, a populace, a folk, and that of the multitudes. It is an arrogant delusion of “modern” Hommes, who take advantage of the products of Reason, while in their day-to-day thought, betray the principles of Reasoning, as well as any sense of higher morality, which the majority has absolutely NEVER embodied.
In most “primitive” cultures, the language has the speakers and “thinkers” more “honest”, or rather less deceptive than those who live on lands ruled by those claiming sophistication in their ways, while motivated and conducting their affairs as mere costumed beasts.
Those primitive folk have less words, and therefore, less meaning for contemplation. Their words are very perceptual, and tend to not be signs of complex composition. It's mostly a short distance from grunting, mere reporting of “this and that” over “here and there”, for “this and that”.
And when sophisticated liars of the industrial world will call me a bigot for my characterization of “simpler” primitive folk, it is because they too are this, even when wrapped in sophisticated costumes of arrogance.
I am saying the multitudes of those hominids who call themselves “humans” do not use language in a more meaningful way than those of a primitive culture. They have more language they can use, but in their mentalscape being more bestial, more animal than intellectual, they have no use for more terms, because they have little to no use for much thinking.
So-called humans, no matter where they live and under what culture, as multitudes, are grunting with their terms, not communicating meaning that can be defined and deliberated upon. This grunting level is a Sense of Symbols. One's sense is either perceptual by degree, and by example, or it is conceptual by degree, and with definition. What is defined are the traits and attributes of the “sign”, which is what a single term or word is. It's a tag that is meant to instigate thought, but what level of thinking will not be determined by the trigger word. What will be triggered in the receiver of the term will be their Sense of Symbols, which is filtered through their Symbolic Sense of Self, and Life. The SSOS becomes SSOSS : one's Symbolic Sense of Self and Symbols. One's “sauce” includes all that, and none of it can be conquered in thought with a missing piece.
It can be said, etymology, or the study of the history of a term and its original essence, is something one becomes acquainted with on the side, in the absence of the instigation of the schools and in the sporting realm of spelling bees, where the youth engaged do not do much thinking with their Sense of Symbols, when the structure of the term and not the meaning is the point. Spelling bees are about recollecting and conformity, not intelligence.
Most metaphors are simply a degree further from grunting, the step towards getting further from the grunt, but reliant on examples and likeness that is not always there and accurate. It too is inferior, though perhaps as a bridge necessary.
It is true that most symbols have a metaphorical root. Wherein they say “likened to this”, but then when they are given a definition that can be referred to by traits, it is no longer acceptable to call the symbol metaphorical, even if one's SSOSS is limited to only conceiving of it in that manner.
When one can only see the metaphorical, that is their limit of thought, and not the limit of the symbol, or the sign, if it has been deliberated upon and advanced into a level of definition, and therefore, subject to logic and that of Reason. When defined, a term becomes a logical entity. A metaphor is not a logical entity, though its components can be certainly called so. It can be a teaching device.
