Well I believe the struggle is valid, but that God alone decides. Grace is not achieved, it is granted and bestowed. However in all events, grace spreads from the individual as an attraction -- it is never a compulsion?
Psychology of Totalitarianism
- Thread starter Nicholas Weeks
- Start date
Nicholas Weeks
Bodhicitta
Yes. But there are tribal mores. To be outside the tribe is death. It is unlikely the mighty whirling cosmos God judges tribally?
Last edited:
Gods of tribes and gods of nations, different gods of different worlds, and great guiding gods of arcs of space and galaxy clusters -- ever higher, closer to the ever receding, ever unattainable One ...
Last edited:
Nicholas Weeks
Bodhicitta
From Desmet's chapter on The Artificial Society:
Galileo’s pendulum illustrates a universal law: The logic and rational
explanation of a natural phenomenon—however comprehensive it may be
—always makes an abstraction of that phenomenon. Theoretical models
never capture anything fully; they always leave an unexplained remainder.
This remainder is not just insignificant, random “noise.” It is the essence
of the object. It is its living component.
You can see this, for example, in the difference between “natural” and
“artificial” products. Whether it’s a genetically engineered plant, lab-printed
meat, vaccine-induced immunity, or high-tech sex dolls—
whenever we artificially reproduce a natural phenomenon from rational
analysis, the artificial phenomenon is not identical to the original. The loss
is not always immediately visible. Sometimes it is barely visible at all.
And yet, it is crucial, both on a physical and psychological level. The
digitalization of human interactions—replacing real human interactions
with digital ones—is a good example thereof.
[...]
The synthetic womb is not as far away as we think. The only thing
required to persuade a society that is gripped by the mechanistic ideology
is a slew of “experts” daily presenting statistics and data in the media,
informing us that artificial wombs protect fetuses a few percentage points
better against viruses and pathogens than the not-so-sterile mother’s body.
Within this logic, anyone who chooses natural pregnancy will be
considered unfit as a parent—such people would expose their child to
unnecessary risks, even before birth. Whether dissident voices could
override such logic remains to be seen. Life itself can be defended only in
terms of metaphor and poetry, yet these usually sound less loud than the
monotonous droning of mechanistic arguments.
Galileo’s pendulum illustrates a universal law: The logic and rational
explanation of a natural phenomenon—however comprehensive it may be
—always makes an abstraction of that phenomenon. Theoretical models
never capture anything fully; they always leave an unexplained remainder.
This remainder is not just insignificant, random “noise.” It is the essence
of the object. It is its living component.
You can see this, for example, in the difference between “natural” and
“artificial” products. Whether it’s a genetically engineered plant, lab-printed
meat, vaccine-induced immunity, or high-tech sex dolls—
whenever we artificially reproduce a natural phenomenon from rational
analysis, the artificial phenomenon is not identical to the original. The loss
is not always immediately visible. Sometimes it is barely visible at all.
And yet, it is crucial, both on a physical and psychological level. The
digitalization of human interactions—replacing real human interactions
with digital ones—is a good example thereof.
[...]
The synthetic womb is not as far away as we think. The only thing
required to persuade a society that is gripped by the mechanistic ideology
is a slew of “experts” daily presenting statistics and data in the media,
informing us that artificial wombs protect fetuses a few percentage points
better against viruses and pathogens than the not-so-sterile mother’s body.
Within this logic, anyone who chooses natural pregnancy will be
considered unfit as a parent—such people would expose their child to
unnecessary risks, even before birth. Whether dissident voices could
override such logic remains to be seen. Life itself can be defended only in
terms of metaphor and poetry, yet these usually sound less loud than the
monotonous droning of mechanistic arguments.
Last edited:
Nicholas Weeks
Bodhicitta
More than a review of Desmet's book, theosophist David Pratt covers related themes of:
1. Mind over matter
2. Mental epidemics
3. Covid mania
4. Mass formation
http://davidpratt.info/psycho.htm
1. Mind over matter
2. Mental epidemics
3. Covid mania
4. Mass formation
http://davidpratt.info/psycho.htm
Nicholas Weeks
Bodhicitta
From the last chapter:
it would be a capital mistake to identify the phenomenon of totalitarianism only in totalitarian regimes. There is an ever-present, totalitarian undercurrent that consists of a fanatical attempt to steer and control life in far-reaching ways on the basis of technical, scientific knowledge. Technocratic thinking always walks on two legs. On the one hand, it appeals to people by intimating a positive image of an artificial paradise with which it claims we can be delivered from all adversity and suffering. On the other hand, it imposes itself based on anxiety, as a necessity to solve problems.
With every “object of anxiety” that has emerged in our society in recent decades—terrorism, the climate problem, the coronavirus—this process has leapt forward. The threat of terrorism induces the necessity of a surveillance apparatus, and our privacy is now seen as an irresponsible luxury; to control climate problems, we need to move to lab-printed meat, electric cars, and an online society; to protect ourselves against COVID-19, we have to replace our natural immunity with mRNA vaccine–induced artificial immunity.
it would be a capital mistake to identify the phenomenon of totalitarianism only in totalitarian regimes. There is an ever-present, totalitarian undercurrent that consists of a fanatical attempt to steer and control life in far-reaching ways on the basis of technical, scientific knowledge. Technocratic thinking always walks on two legs. On the one hand, it appeals to people by intimating a positive image of an artificial paradise with which it claims we can be delivered from all adversity and suffering. On the other hand, it imposes itself based on anxiety, as a necessity to solve problems.
With every “object of anxiety” that has emerged in our society in recent decades—terrorism, the climate problem, the coronavirus—this process has leapt forward. The threat of terrorism induces the necessity of a surveillance apparatus, and our privacy is now seen as an irresponsible luxury; to control climate problems, we need to move to lab-printed meat, electric cars, and an online society; to protect ourselves against COVID-19, we have to replace our natural immunity with mRNA vaccine–induced artificial immunity.