#operationmindfix

:::

#fnordmaze Dataplex

:::

On Tumblr – On Twitter – On Facebook (Group)

:::

Forum

:::

“Ultimately, the idea isn’t to go from identification with form to identification with formlessness. It’s not about going from a somebody to a nobody. You can’t define the truth as something, or as nothing. You can’t ultimately define it as spirit or as matter. You can’t define it as ego or other than ego. Our ultimate nature can’t be described in dualistic terms at all. To our minds, it will always remain a mystery, because the process of thought that we use to apprehend things can only think in dualistic terms. So our minds can never really know reality directly.”

:::

This giant cognitive bias codex will transform your understanding of yourself

:::

Robert Anton Wilson & Guerrilla Ontology

:::

.

Left and Right: A Non-Euclidean Perspective

.

:::

:::

“Why don’t we take all the good ideas from the left & the right & just put them together? We can do it if we believe!”

:::

Some words on Operation Mindfix

:::

:::

Interstellar MuLtiPliCity in the `Pataphysical Non-Linearity

:::

:::

“Ideologies are collective forms of hubris that claims to know how the world works and what needs to be changed. In a sense they are like ontological packages that makes you intellectually lazy. It’s not merely a reality tunnel, it’s a reality tunnel that knows it avoids certain issues. So you don’t hear of communists discussing the possible existence of God or capitalists who are critical towards growth.

The left will romanticize some sort of future where equality is abundant, (but have no real good examples of how this is to be achieved.. )
The right will romanticize the past saying that people were more decent back in the good old days. Dig deep enough and the “conservatives” won’t agree on what they want to conserve, and the progressive won’t agree on what they want to change or to what extent. And when it comes to all this ethnic idenitity moaning, no one knows what a true scotsman is either. This “feeling” of being something is an aneristic illusion.
When it comes to social issues, more time is spent competing between the ideologies then actually analyzing the problems at hand. It’s sort of like religion blaming Satan/Scheitan, but in this case the devil is the political other’s ideology. Well, Monotheism didn’t save the world from evil since I got drunk with Devil yesterday, and the political fluff ain’t gonna solve it either. This is why academic discussion (esp economists vs sociologists) is so pathetically stagnant. The real thing that pushes reality forward is the chaotic clash that lurks between the bullshit of ideologies.”

— Disha Klakk

:::

:::

The Internet is One Big Grey Pill

“Half a generation ago, The Matrix (a movie that seems campy today) updated one of the oldest philosophical allegories for the digital age. The Garden of Eden and Plato’s Cave gave way to the red pill/blue pill metaphor for a consciousness-awakening moment. In the real world though, there are no blue pills. We do not possess an un-knowing technology that allows us to return to a lost state of innocence. There is, however, something much better we can call a grey pill. While both the meatspace world and online world can provoke red pill moments, only the Internet can reliably supply grey pills. Here’s a quick introduction to grey pills in general, and the Internet as one big grey pill (or more precisely, a self-medication pharmacy of grey pills of all sizes).”

:::

33 MYTHS OF THE SYSTEM | Darren Allen

:::

Mermeticism and the Post-Truth Mystic

:::

Zen Games, Zenarchy Counter-Games

:::

Discordian Katos

:::

Hakim Bey’s Ontological Post-Anarchism Inspirations

“Discordianism laid the groundwork for Chaos Magick, and Ontological Anarchism in particular. It did this by shifting the ontological foundations of anarchism to an esoteric reading of Chaos, whereupon liberation could no longer be con-ceived of in terms of material gains won from the oppressor class, but in the freedom to (re)create reality.”

:::

Meaningness | Better ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—around problems of meaning: self, society, ethics, purpose, and value

“Nebulosity” means “cloud-like-ness.” Meaningness is cloud-like. It is real, but impossible to completely pin down.

Nebulosity is the key to understanding confusions about meaningness.

“Nebulosity” refers to the intangible, transient, amorphous, non-separable, ambiguous nature of meaningness.1

  • From a distance, clouds can look solid; close-up they are mere fog, which can even be so thin it becomes invisible when you enter it.
  • If you watch a cloud for a few minutes, it may change shape and size, or evaporate into nothing. But it is impossible to find an exact moment at which it ceases to exist.
  • Clouds often have vague boundaries and no particular shape.
  • It can be impossible to say where one cloud ends and another begins; whether two bits of cloud are connected or not; or to count the number of clouds in a section of the sky.
  • It can be impossible to say even whether there is a cloud in a particular place, or not.

Meanings behave in these ways, too.

:::

“Belief looks for its cause in perception, identity, and reality, but in doing so it dictates and distorts them. Imagination emancipates belief from itself, and then liberates perception, identity, and reality to do the same.

We no longer separate and distinguish between our wishes and efforts to know, express, distort, confuse, or illuminate. We can do all or none of these things as we wish because belief-free is FREE.”

– Serena Coburn

:::

Modern Psychology

by Valerie D’Orazio

1. We are in the middle of one of one of the biggest ideological “wars” in modern history. It is not a war fought mostly on the battlefields, but on the computer screens and smart phones of the average citizen.

2. Humans are, in general, not as evolved as they would like to think they are. The all-compelling power of DNA–specifically, the instructions to replicate one’s DNA into the next generations (including such topics as reproduction and survival)–holds sway for a good part of the population.

3. The ability to comprehend and tolerate nuance and ambiguity is a higher-evolved trait that only a fraction of the population possesses. Ambiguity often goes against primal-animal DNA objectives such as quick and easy identification of enemies, mating partners, and more.

4. The current war of ideologies is a “smoke screen” for the bigger and more covert war…that of dogma versus critical thinking. Which is another way of saying: a war between people of varying degrees of evolvement.

5. Dogma benefits the primal DNA imperative.

6. Critical thinking = “ambiguity” = a higher evolved way of comprehending the world = a threat to the primal DNA imperative.

7. Sometimes the biggest danger is not the “Neanderthal” but the Neanderthal who is under the impression that they are a bastion of tolerance, intelligence, and critical thinking. Because at least with the former, you know what you’re dealing with.

8. You will be pressured to “pick a side” in this current ideological war. It might almost be beneficial to just outwardly (per social media, the only form of communication that “matters”) and unambiguously support one “side” or the other. I will not blame you if you take this course of action as a strategy of survival. (Another method, of course, is to simply choose to not engage in such online conversation/expression at all; though, per the current society, that might seem “suspect” by default).

9. If you do not publicly pick a “side,” a “side” might be designated to you by the keepers of the Sides as a means of punishment for your ambiguity. There have even been cases where an ambiguous person has had contradictory “sides” imposed on them by both sides. This is because, as previously stated, the Bigger War is not between different sides, but between dogma and critical thinking.

10. You must understand that the person who hews to this unwavering dogma is often much “happier” than the thinking individual. This is because the dogma “flips the switch” in the primal brain; giving one a sense of security and survival. Now: it doesn’t matter if the dogma being followed is ultimately self-annihilating; we are talking about basic, primal triggers and reactions here.

11. If you are a more “ambiguous” sort who engages in a lot of critical thinking, you might want to “relieve” this constant sense of alienation and hopelessness you feel living in the current society by getting a lobotomy.

12. As a more hopeful alternative to lobotomy, I might suggest instead you take upon yourself the public role of the “Fool.” The key here is to not seem like a “threat” to the two prevailing Sides of the ideological war by instead consciously portraying the Buffoon and Absurdist.

13. Please understand that if you do–by dint of some miracle or even (yes) your hard work/talent–you manage to become a popular and influential member of the ambiguous tribe of critical thinkers, there will be many attempts to co-opt you to one Side or the other. If you repeatedly turn down these offers of being co-opted, do not be surprised if a Side is unceremoniously imposed upon you as “punishment” (see point #9). Also do not be surprised if you are “ruined” in some way.

14. I suppose the question at this point is: who will ultimately prevail: Side 1, Side 2, or the Critical Thinker? Well, Side 1 and Side 2 ultimately “feed” into each other, creating a sort of Ouroboros. The pendulum swings one way, the pendulum swings the other. Meanwhile, crucial aspects leading to the survival of the species are not addressed. Perhaps, if these two Sides could collaborate on a middle-ground in order to establish a society based on the best ideas of multiple ideologies, humans as a whole could have a “shot”…but to do so would require a level of development that the majority simply do not have. At the same time, that small pack of the more evolved are continually run into the ground and out of town. So who “wins?”

15. Redefine “winning.”

16. I had a dream once in which a “wise man”/”Holy Guardian Angel”/pooka of a type instructed me: “Don’t anger the locals.” And the “locals”…are most of humanity.

17. I’m just kidding, of course. I’m really a part of your Side. I’ve been such all along. I know you could tell, because you thought I had a few good ideas…and they could only be “good” ideas if they were really a part of your Side. We aren’t like that other Side, you and me. That other side…they’re the Barbarians (or godless Satanists, or evil Troglodytes, or what have you).

18. And aren’t the “Critical Thinkers” a Side as well? The “ambiguous”…that’s a choice, right? That’s damn near an actual political stance! If we are to “abolish” Sides then shouldn’t such a group be abolished as well? Ya gotta have meaning, right? Ya gotta have standards. Ya gotta have a code of conduct. And who will determine that code? Well: your Side, of course! Because your Side is obviously the correct one. Because we have to have “standards.”

19. (Grabs a handful of shelled walnuts) anyway, here is what’s going to happen. Ready? K. So what’s going to happen is that the two Sides are going to continue to have this long, drawn-out ugly battle for supremacy. The pendulum swings one way, the pendulum swings the other. As each Side takes turns (*takes turns*) in leadership, more and more “corrective” measures are taken to “ensure” that the “tyranny” of the other Side does not return. But what *actually happens* is that more and more things are put in place to curb critical thinking and steer the public back to a dogmatic/primal state of fealty to the Leader, a monolithic code of living, and so on. Unfortunately, this type of mentality will not steer humanity through the essential quantum weirdness and danger they will face in the decades to come.

20. So what can “you” do? Stay out of the way.

21. Stay out of the way, try to take concrete measured to alleviate suffering in others (if that is your true motivation), do things that make you happy (if that is your true motivation), simply exist.

22. Also, consider the possibility that humans were never meant to exist within such large social structures. Ask yourself: what is your ideal social structure? Who are your friends? What are your values? How have these values evolved? How might these values evolve in the future? Are you willing to let them evolve? Are you willing to let yourself evolve?

23. But what do I know? I am Nobody.

:::