Point-i | Blog / 20210422

.01

Any question how or why (agency) propping up the poppycock I am, beyond I am something (word), is the mythology existence.

...the world of imagination is boundless

J-J Rousseau

Any ontological world, whatever it is, imagination, language or reality as agency, i.e., existence, is the self-contradictory dualism that binds. It is cancer. So-called enlightenment (or wokeness) is metastasis.

Yes, the mythological archetype is that it is holy. Its ecstasy is complete. It is the abyss. It is more real than anything.

By the way, the psyche is the newfangled soul, and its Existence is the new God. Whether the story for developmental cognitive dissonance is the psychological empathy, transference and countertransference (emotional entanglement in the intersubjective field) between one's self and the master or the universal ground "larger than oneself," "together," koan-style humor is one of roughly 38 main self-deceptions of judging and being judged.

Conversation is all about oneself existing in relation to the other together in transcendent subversion of meaning (word). "Non-dual conversations" are holy paradox.

.02

Conversation is all about oneself existing in relation to the other together in transcendent subversion of meaning (word). "Non-dual conversations" are holy paradox.

.03

Does the next self-deception concern my dismissal from your reality? If so, is such dismissal not the basic element of the invariably precipitously swampy crap that we exist? Is the problem not far less Trump's deployment of the same, but that it is what seventy years of politically correct social justice is based on, chronically, now going next-tier? Are you not being threatened with cancellation if you do not agree with existence as woke, together?

Is the social revolution terrorism or not?

Holonism (that things consist of each other or are agentive integrals in terms of each other) is a lie to incrementally lay down existence deep state, or boiling meaning to nothing as if everything is some kind of holy infinitesimal or nothingness, like slowly boiling a frog.

Everything is meaning

Letting go of meaning is meaning as the ultimate bullshit point of the rabbit hole bullshit existence, with no meaning as its enlightenment. It is the ultimate abyss.

.04

And so, for the above 01, 02 and 03 (except the paragraph on Trump which I did not place as too much for the sensitivities of the group)

I've been summarily cancelled from the Facebook group Non-dual Conversations.

But the text is not lost.

And then just as suddenly, reinstated — after about 10 minutes — no apologies.

.05

Question from member of Non-dual Conversations, today.

Pierre on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 means "Not at all" and 10 means "Very much so" how important is to you that other members of the group understand your comments?

I don't want to be reduced to a functionary, but here goes.

Like God, Existence is an item of Faith.

This effort at an answer is partly in terms of my supposed agency and existence, (with extreme respect for our mutual existential struggle, I thank you for the question). Insofar it is in those terms, the answer is sincere and open. * 100%. Other than that, those qualifications do not apply — no one is whatsoever subject or object to their opposite.

Any amount of trying to understand what I'm saying (or not) is amazing to me, but very quietly and not engaged in the dichotomy that the words or speaker is some combination of the plethora of normal words rendered, between awesome and awful. Whether I am there or not (to be or not to be) is the nonsense, and the question of the content of my character in terms of incompleteness is the next-tier nonsense, like, "social justice" or "woke together."

That other members of the group understand my comments is all-important and not at all, in reflection of the open ambivalence of for instance the paradox, "non-dual conversations," that in conversation the infinite opportunism that at any one time, anything can be coined as either language or what language points to or any combination of those holy paradoxical extremes.

In terms of the chronically tautological semantics, normal language conversationalists are a headpiece-gathering of ontologists, namely practitioners of a super-fundamentalism, facilitated with every 1) self-deception, 2) fallacy and 3) mental disorder (koan or farce), and as the language "existing" itself, from everything to nothing, their faith is in Existence. It's even more deeply problematic to said congregation that I am there questioning their subliminal Faith than it would be accepting me in their church of God because it is clear to some of the nicer ones (even as the sacred ontologic, "existence") that it is as one of them that I am trying as gently as possible to point out that it is a story that Existence — like God — is more real than anything to them (therefore reality, whether imaginary, language or real) and that Existence is not more or other than meaning, but is faith-based meaning.

So I say it as gently as barely possible (and by virtue of this very point, it's probably going to be dismissed as some esoteric #40, that it is something like word salad or as some psychobabble hodgepodge of 1, 2 and 3), the question being answered here is an example of Existence (like God) as the very definition of problem and mayhem in general that everything is always somehow couched in it being about the why and how about what someone thinks as the content of their character (the character of their psyche — like the innate qualities of their soul).

* Or the formal cybernetics, the psychologistic ontological scapegoating mechanism: (high-functioning) autism spectrum syndrome, formerly asperger's syndrome.