The Supreme Offspring of Man 

The Supra-spring of Man sees through all what man sees. It can dilute itself into the experience of man, which makes it having a quality that belongs to God. For the Greek gods could make themselves apparent in human form. The Christian God, as well, has manifested himself in a human form and experiences the immutable kernels of human experience.  

The Supra-spring is also more powerful than Man and extends his power back to Man. In this way is this Being also similar to the subjects of theology. The Greek Gods imbued men with tools and powers that would assist them in their journeys, in a techne-based way, so that they could overcome certain personal obstacles, fulfill their fate, or win love. The Christian God imbued men with mystical abilities of a different kind which allowed them to become agents of change in society.  The Supra-spring does both of these things to some capacity.

Man is Man. The Supra-spring of Man is not Man, and it cannot be Man, for it is not man and it is not becoming man. Its definition as the Supra-spring is wound up in the negative space where Man should be, and without this distance from Man the Supra-spring cannot be considered a Supra-spring.

When man walks, man walks. But when man walks with a mug of coffee in his hand, man walks with a cup of coffee in his hand, which is "walking," but transformed into something new.  His speed changes, the mobility of his arms changes, the stability of his shoulder changes, his balance recalibrates.  

When man swims, he swims. But when man swims with goggles, he may swim with the guided sense that he can look underwater without getting water in his eyes. Perhaps this results in a change of confidence or a lessening of fear of getting his face underwater.  The addition of goggles changes the axioms under which man acts in the water, and thus does the very act of swimming transform from that of swimming, to that of swimming with goggles. 

Man with extends the man so that not only is an object tagged onto the man's existence, but the potential futures he can enter change, and his balance in the now recalibrates to allow for this transformation. In the experience of the individual with, there is a core which does not change, that being the individual. Thus, in a ranks of soldiers all equipped with the same armaments, step into any man's skin and find a unique perspective, a unique point in the formation through which to see. 

It is with these extensions that tyrants find their way. They realize that by accumulating a network of these “with” statements, they gain power over others, as in “man with nukes, man with military at his command, man with rhetoric, man with charmful tactics, etc." And the balance of their bodies shift to accompany these extensions, and through it all there is a core “self” which they get to retain. It is in this recalibration to support these large extensions of themselves that the spirit of tyrants deform, and it is because of this process that some begin to describe them as inhumane. The ultimate question for man to answer is how far these extensions go. Can he create of himself man acting “with” all technologies so that both: 1) the individual cannot be removed from the self through death, and that 2) the extensions cannot be removed from the self through demotion and exile.  The personality regimes of the twentieth century, and to-be-defined personality-based successors in the twenty-first, speak to the futility of this endeavor.  The downfall of Napoleon speaks to the futility of this endeavor.  The diminution of the British Empire speaks to this endeavor. History speaks to the futility of this endeavor, and the hearts of idealists speaks to the faith in the endeavor.  

When one comes to terms with the futility of the extension of man, one may be afraid. An extension can solve a particular problem, but it cannot solve the whole.  For example, buying a longer phone charger may allow someone to use their phone in a certain location where the nearest outlet is not nearby. However, there are infinitely many other problems which plague this hypothetical individual simultaneously that this one solution cannot solve. To extrapolate on this, imagine the real number line with all the rational and irrational numbers as some sort of dimension of problems we have to deal with. Imagine the problem of “phone charger not long enough sometimes” as a point on this real number line.  Perhaps this point is marked with a large X (this can also work if X is, say, a closed interval), signifying the problem taking up the most attention on our brains. To view it more rigorously mathematically, we can give all the points a density and say that X is towards the global maximum. Now, suppose we are able to subtract this point from our set. Lovely. But, let us take the person in this example to be in “bad faith.” The summation of the densities on this number line of “problems” must reach a certain benchmark in order for a human being in “bad faith,” or one who is in the process of fitting into a life, one who must be at odds with himself.  So, we can either say that this person then normalizes the measurements so that all these smaller densities are made relative, and there is another point, say Y, which is the largest problem. Or, we can say that the individual simply redistributes the removed density across other points on the line. The point is, once we remove the singularity, we still have density distributed across infinity. What has been described is a human condition, perhaps one most becoming to those in “bad faith” (I make this distinction because, it appears that there are individuals at work on structuring their lives in a whole different way than this, often related to the Divine). Thus, the extension of man, the “man with,” is a singularity attached to man’s being. So, infinite “problems” still exist in the man’s scope. These “problems” have a connection to Sartre’s “possibles.” 

What solves the whole is the regeneration of the whole. This is a common theme in all great cultures which valued reflection and learning. The transformations of the whole through time, guided by the conscience's hand, is the core of man without extension. 

Now, the question arises, earlier the notion was put that man may be extended through another’s activity. So, a singular “will” (in this setting, “will” should be allowed to exist outside of intentionality, and only through the natural results of beings responding to beings) can manifest through soldiers, which are individuals, then are all of humanity’s relationships just extensions of themselves? This seems to be a hyperbolic conclusion, so I will consider something that will dilute this. 

A parent provides for the child, and there is something “off” about suggesting that the parent is an extension of the child; not aesthetically, not because it has a bad connotation; it is “off” because it doesn’t seem to get at the whole truth of the situation.  There is a case in which the parents create predictable patterns of behavior that children can exploit, but these exploitations hardly resemble extensions of the self. Exploitation may differ from extension. Exploitation requires turning that which is not a technology into a technology. And in our human case, beings are not technologies. The parent serves a relational role with the child, that of provider, nurturer, and exemplifier. The child evolves next to the parent, which also evolves, and furthermore, they evolve mutually simply by spending time together, and by reflecting on their own when they are apart. This syntax would be silly to use with technology. "The man evolves next to the axe, which also evolves, and furthermore, they evolve mutually simply by spending time together, and by reflecting on their own when they are apart." In a metaphorical sense, this may be true of the axe, but if it is true for the axe metaphorically, it is true in a less transcendental way than it is for the parent and child. 

Note the role of provider that a parent may have.  The child spends the first years of its life utterly defenseless and unaware of how to yield anything at its disposal. With someone serving the role as provider, the infant can live off nothing more than their own emotions and be satisfied. This is a necessary development of the self of the infant, and of the parent.  Undergoing this process gives both kernels of insight into the human condition.

What has been stated thus far are not normative statements about how things should be understood. They are an example of how things could be understood. Now, once one harbors the futility of the extension, the desire for immediate gratification, and the longing for a provider; there grows a vacuous object which one longs for.  Hypothetically, some being could exist that would quell these fears and wants. This being, hypothetical in nature, is what is referred to as the Supra-spring of Man. It is less defined by its identity and more defined by the purposes which would serve humankind.  The Supra-spring would have the power to provide mankind extensions which it needs, at any time or place. It would be a sovereign entity whose interests wholly align with the collective self of Man, but strictly that part of the self which is composed of desires and fears. 

A great tragedy of mankind nowadays is that the Supra-spring is a glorified hypothetical that is defined by what it would like to be. It is a utopia; it is a dream; it is an ideal.  Note the Sisyphian task of creating what should be in the abstract (the boulder sits at the top of the hill, an imaginable image) in what is tangible (the reality of his destiny, the cursed stone).  Every work of art suffers from this challenge. Art derives its meaning by what it tries to be, and what it is not. Furthermore, there is an additional meaning in art in the experience of the creation itself, as well as the participation in events of art. That being said, what is tangible in a play is least powerful when it proclaims to be the abstract. One of the ways in which symbolism in realism works, is that the symbols are merely provided and characters interact with them. Even if a character proclaims an object to be a concept, there is something allowable about that. But, if the play as a whole says absolutely that the object is a concept (this would be the same as the creators going into the process under the definite assumption that none of them can break that the object is a concept)—this is what hands the play over to the futility of its own existence. In the same way, the Supra-spring cannot become on Earth when it is borne from man's inner dialogue about the Earth. 

There is an even greater tragedy in mankind nowadays. There are many individuals who live at peace with themselves, who are comfortable with the technology they have and engage in meaningful action everyday with members of their community and pay heed to wisdom, insights, and healthy practices. However, there are times when, with the mere suggestion of the Supra-spring of man being realized on Earth, one of these individuals, distracted, believes in what they had never believed in before, not on any basis, but because they are blown over by the wind of persuasion or suggestion, and the promises of the Supra-spring subvert the missions of their life which they once held.  The musical Black Friday from Starkid investigates this theme acutely. A parent who is prone to suggestion about the latest technologies tries to get the newest doll for his child who never had any desire for a doll.  This example can be malleable, it can be said that although the child never wanted a doll, if the realistic possibility of the doll was offered to them, they would then want it.  In this case, what was in stability is in longing, and once receiving what was asked for, will come to equilibrium in an eventual state of disinterest.  

For I would not like to be tricked by the advertisements and stories of how children enjoy all those innovations that excite. I clearly remember as a child having a large sense of dread when it came to bouncy castles, magic wands, small trinkets, and the like.  And I remember moments of being swept up in it all and fully believing that those things were magical. And it was always in those moments that I had lost the semblance of myself.  The most fun and reliable source of play I had was with simple stuffed animals, inanimate objects like pencils and pens, games without the bells and whistles (pick-up sticks), games that prized gameplay/strategy over content, making up stories with friends without ample resources, and more.  

Extracted Forms and Principles

To further explore what this Supra-spring means, let us look at the intuition behind wanting to find one.  It starts with this example: 

POV: A human observer describing an experiment. Three people listen to three different bird songs, and they express their opinions. One person thinks that Birds A and B sound the most similar. Another thinks that Birds B and C sound the most similar, and another that Birds A and C sound the most similar. More opinions are gathered, and a consensus, reached through the consideration of a larger majority's thought, of the experts, and of dialectics, makes it apparent that birds A and B are the most similar. 

Analysis: There must be a method which underlies the judgment which allows the multitude to have reached a consensus. Now, consider that even after a consensus is reached, the two other people maintain their initial impressions that Birds B and C or that Birds A and C sound most similar. The 'group' (note that the definition of group is vague) judgment appears to "fail" or "not be followed." Now, this judgment must have an objective "home," so that even if one's opinions were to change in the ‘external’ group dialectics, the judgment can still be tracked. Assembling the form for these judgments is the purpose of mathematics and is a major motivator for the development of the technological world. The Supra-Being, by definition of what it could be, would be able to reach this judgment through the form, as well as recognize the forms of the judgments which were not by consensus, i.e., that initial judgment of the last two persons. 

There is another way of viewing this problem; and I will provide it so that the language in the first description is not taken to be absolute. This example works in an individual case: 

POV: The most aware voice of an individual partaking in this experiment. A person listens to three different bird songs, and without communicating it to anyone, thinks that, as an almost immediate subconscious response, that Birds A and B sound the most similar.  Call this the initial impression. Realistically, this person would have been already exposed in life to a wealth of perspectives from others, so the person may engage in a conscious (aware) dialogue which imposes external ideas over the initial impression, that A and B are similar, to foster a different idea of which birds sound similar.  If they do not hold dear their initial impression, they will throw it out for the superimposition, like throwing out a worn shirt and gaining a piece of clothing. 

Analysis: Here, we still have a judgment (albeit aesthetical to an extent) which must be harbored somewhere in the ethos. Under one of many modern, Western perspectives, the "line of reasoning" for this judgment (that A and B are most similar) can be "captured" and extracted from the individual. This “line of reasoning” is not taking place in the individual during the Experiment, but has already taken place in the individual, and is now manifesting in this experiment like light being reflected on a mirror. This is where the intuition behind the term "extracted forms" lies. The use of language such as “reason” here applies, even though the judgment in this case derives from an aesthetical and intuitional process. The comparison of sounds implies that of the analytical, and since, never has there existed a human thing unpreceded by history, we can posit that such an instantaneous understanding would have been preceded by the reason which has been.  

The term "line of reasoning" also fails to get at the intricacies of this process. In the sense which I am getting at, “reasoning” implies an uncontrollable consequence of the construction of one's faculties at the time of experience, and one cannot edit retroactively this construction which occurs. It occurs as a definite positivity, regardless of whether we consciously remember. Time knows it as a definite positivity. This is a problem in modern political spheres when the idea of "changing our assumptions" is injected onto the individual. For, it is not possible in the moment for one to edit this beautiful construction of what they've become through their life.  The unending flow of creation sends one forth into who they become today, and so when one receives the feedback that one must change one of their assumptions, what we have seen happen is people superimposing assumptions onto their already formed consciences.  Without the proper consideration and dialectics, the new assumption will be like a sticker tacked onto the machinery of the individual. It will serve no purpose to the functioning of the machine, and it will become a noisy and distracting factor in how that individual can be perceived and understood. One can live as a creation, and one can live as a creation with extra bits tagged onto it. And living with the extra bits often leads to confusion, stagnancy, self-doubt, and ultimately, if taken too far, near-destruction of the self. 

So, with the example provided thus far, it is interesting to note that, the impression that the person in the experiment gets, namely, that Birds A and B sound most similar, can be gathered, without even the individual. Up to this point, in this case of the example, the subject has not been introduced to the idea of a multiple-choice question. It is not that the person is choosing between three different choices of which birds sound most similar, but it is that the individual is experiencing, in a unique way, that two of the birds sound most similar. 

We can put that as such: 

***POV: An individual

Source: An objective, inexplicable experience

Axiom: There are three bird sounds. 

Axiom: Birds A and B sound most similar. 

Now, let us reduce the work of the individual, and extract the forms. Thus the example arise: 

The “Extraction”- EXT

POV: An objective, logical entity, akin to a Deity. 

Axiom: There are three bird sounds. 

Axiom: Birds A and B sound most similar. 

This is, in a way, deception. It is the “boiling out” of the creator, of the experiencer, of the vessel, what-have-you want to call it. 

If one believes the first set of statements, that could be called colloquially as "trusting the person," but even that phrase over-simplifies the process that is going on here. If one is not familiar with who originally experienced the truth of these axioms, then they are not even trusting a person, they are trusting a provision of statements, ut est. And this is a very popular practice when insecurity reigns over the populace. 

Note that the Deity-like provider of this information has no backing. The origin of its existence—the individual who experienced the truth of it—is killed in, or expelled from, the context of this example. Now, the question arises, what if we truly could find a case of extracted information that did not arise from individual circumstance? What if we had an objective multiple-choice question: which two birds sound the most similar? A and B, B and C, or A and C? In this case, can it be said that the idea of a “subject” is removed from this multiple choice question? Have we found a pure logical Deity that is structuring this realm of thought? The response is still no, and that the apparent logical Deity has no backing, since the origins of its existence have been cut off from itself. If there is a question, there must have been a person who asked it, who was inherently human and did not know complete information. Thus, the Deity would have to come from he who knows not all, i.e. an imperfection, and thus, not a Deity. In order for he who does not know all to know all, this would require a process of transcendence. 

One can argue that by the very nature of being cut off from the individual (i.e. being quoted out of context) would create and transcend a Deity all at once. So, through the extraction (labeled EXT), a Deity was created which occupies the space of having that information and power. However, here let us note that the Deity cannot transcend, for it is not conscience. Thus it is not omniscient, which would make it not objective. Thus, it is not a Deity. 

What if, in our search for a purely logical Deity, we rescinded the question and looked towards axioms. Take this one, for example: either Birds A and B, B and C, or A and C sound the most similar.  In logical language, this equates to (a∨b∨c) . This is tempting. However, the truth of this statement necessitates that "one of these things must be true, regardless of what anyone says!" It is in this expression that we reach the humane experience from which this logical construction arises. (a∨b∨c) is simply a formula, and it have no truth value. It requires a model to give it truth. There is a model which exists that gives it truth (a model which includes the variables of birds, relative operators “more,” the idea of "most"), but then what model provides that model with truth? What model says that that model, which satisfies the axiom, is true? Here we come to infinite regression. In this way, there is an infinite chain of models which must be provided to show that a singular model is in all essences true, and this cannot be accomplished. 

Call the example with the individual’s two axioms (***) a religion, of sorts. The two axioms, as we've shown, contain a belief that can be extracted and presented as coming from a logical Deity. Thus any axiomatic construction can be viewed as a religion. It may be of interest to note that a primary skill in debating, or taking the LSAT, is the ability to "enter" into a religion and freely move and operate in and out of it. Within it, one can find inconsistencies. From the without, one can pinpoint contradictions. 

Let these forms of reasonings rooted in the individual and taken into an objective perspective be called extracted forms. Let the conclusions reached by these forms be called extracted principles. So, a being which has access to an extracted form will see a certain extracted principle from it. One who sees an extracted principle may not have access to the extracted form, like seeing the fruit with no tree. Call a being agent if it has access to an extracted form, in a way so that this access does not necessitate the agent’s belief in the extracted principles. I.e. one can see outside of the reasoning. 

Extracted forms are related to reason. But the word reason carries with it some implications after long-term regular usage.  Particularly it is the connotation of either being a well-defined set of principles or a skill that can be honed, both of which do injustice towards the idea of external forms. Extracted forms would not be a well-defined set and it would be a collection of manifestations of reasons. The word 'extracted' emphasizes that these are taken from contextual experiences of an individual. The concept of subjectivity is not analogous. Extracted forms are not subjective experiences of the individual, but they are forms which allow for what experiences we may call 'subjective' to occur. In short, the extracted forms provide a structure as to how we can have subjective experiences. 

Furthermore, there is the idea of an extracted form being optimal if, when the extracted principles are followed, produce action which has a desired outcome, desirability judged by a humane personhood.  In this definition, optimality of form presupposes personhood.  It is in this way that technology may not have a sense of optimality.  Perhaps it is more apt to say that technology operates under a philosophy of sufficiency, as in how a response replies to a given order. 

Consequences of the Theory of Extracted Forms and Principles

In the examples with bird sounds, there is a unit of time, not in a measured sense, but in an experienced sense, in which the individual comes to know and judge the bird sounds—this is the amount of time spent listening to them.  It may not be the amount of time that the sound plays. This is akin to a 'flow state,' a term which is a reduction of a center of Taoist principles. The taoists agonized over how to accurately discuss and describe what they were after, and now American culture plucks from their documentation and calls what they found a 'flow state,' gives it a definition and some metaphors, and treats it like a well-defined thing. Thus, it is important to note the intricacy and untenability of what a 'flow state' actually is. When what is complex becomes comfortable, it begs for us to complicate. In one way, it is the difference between a human listening to the bird sounds and the bird sounds being played in front of a human. The conclusion reached here is that there are calibrative actions which are isolated in time for humans.  So that, a human can undergo a process which unites the individual, and it is this which is the external form. This makes sense when one considers that oftentimes those who are engaged in flow states can track with precision how they spent their time, because their time was individualistic and purposeful. However, those who are in disorder with their flow state may have trouble piecing together their stories.

The importance of the bird sound example is not in the specific case of bird listening. To illustrate this, let us ask questions about this scene of the person listening to bird sounds, assuming that for a unit of time they are listening: is this individual sitting in a chair? If they are, then in doing so, they are listening to bird sounds. Is this individual receiving audio input from earphones, or is this individual listening to real birds? Whichever they are doing, they are listening to bird sounds. Does this individual have a full stomach? If so, then they are listening to bird sounds. Does this individual have an empty stomach? If so, then they are listening to bird sounds. Did this individual get into a fight with their parents yesterday? If so, then they are listening to bird sounds. Whatever has happened to the individual and whatever is happening to the individual is all wrapped up in the process of listening to bird sounds. And, if the individual is simultaneously undergoing the process of comparing bird sounds, then all that has happened and is happening to this individual is affecting how this is done.  

This is why the prospect of multiple-choice questions, asked to test one's understanding or to arrive at some summarizing conclusion, is murderous. The multiple choice question of which birds sound the most similar brushes over the fact that there are infinitely many ways to experience listening to bird sounds and to compare them, and none can reoccur; they are all singularities. Now, the infinitude of this concept may suggest that we give up the matter for it is arbitrary, but this can be reconciled when considering that throughout history, only a finite number of these ways have been brought into action, and usually there are complex patterns involved that are too chaotic for the human mind to grasp. Now, if the multiple-choice question is asked with the purpose of seeing what the individual has to say on the matter, and only that, then there is some reason behind it.  In order to understand at all what the individual may be experiencing, some questions must be asked.  And it may be this one. But a fixation on this particular multiple choice question, asked to test whether or not people get the answer right, or to suggest some sort of ultimate conclusion on the way of things that can be contained by the question, is sacrilege to the extracted forms.

It is important to remember that the Extracted Form is an ideal product of man who wants to be relieved of misery. So, it has not been shown that the Extracted Form can be replicated by man using any variety of tools.  For one, if a man uses tools, then he is himself engaging in an Extracted Form while using the tool, and to say that this Extracted Form can be ‘thingified’ (re: "choisifié " Sartre) into a product, by the tool itself, which comes into its purpose after the Extracted Form has set into being its usage, seems nonsensical.  How can it be that the costume designer, in making rough sketches, makes a product which contains the entirety of the Extracted Form which the designer underwent before, during, and after the rough sketches completion? And can the final product be in synthesis with the Extracted Form? No, the final product is the Extracted Principle, and this is where the theory of Extracted Forms overlaps with the theory of art critique.  If the critic sees the Extracted Principle, then the critic is surely to respond to that. However, if the critic investigates the Extracted Form, then the critic is surely to respond to that. If the critic is to respond to the actual costume designer in his process, then the critic is not a critic, but a witness to the process, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a witness to the process who publishes critiques. 

Now, let us play with the concept in this way: what if one is not listening to birds, but bird sounds are being played? How does this example relate to the theory of external forms and principles?  

For the purpose of this discussion, let us drop the bird metaphor and speak in generalized terms (action, etc.). It follows from the assumptions of the theory that one cannot subsume two different extracted forms in one unit of time. Here, it is of importance to note that a unit of time, in this case, does not refer to measurable minutes. The unit of time may be equivalent to a unit of action, or a unit of a set of actions conglomerated under one mega-action. It hypothetically is possible for one to subsume no extracted forms at all, and this is to be unfocused, or in conflict. If the individual tries to take on separate 'extracted forms' of which he has some idea of, then what will be found is that the natural extracted form of the moment will be suppressed, and the individual will be exhausted moving into the next stage of his day, week, or life. For example, it can be stated that getting out of bed in the morning contains an Extracted Form. There is a process of reasoning which one utilizes in that time spent waking from slumber, and there will be an ultimate principle reached—that of getting out of bed. Perhaps there is no reasoning, and that in itself is a unique extracted form. If the individual were to adopt a codified framework of thinking about getting out of bed, there may be conflict. Say that this individual is led to believe that his time is invaluable—and so he takes it upon himself to structure his life so as to enjoy the products of this being invaluable. That is to say, if one's time is invaluable, one can spend it in a limbo state however they please, with no sense of obligation, and many senses of comfort. However, the Extracted Form of getting out of bed is the natural form which must and will take place. If this Extracted Form does not take place, the individual will die. So, there will come a point where the individual must get out of bed, and at that point, the individual has reached the extracted principle of that form. This is the true; this is the reality. However, this action may have been impeded for hours on end by an individual's reluctance to accept the pressing nature of his own life. In the end, however, the individual still gets out of bed in one way or another, and despite whatever attitude the individual may adopt upon getting out of bed, the Extracted Form of getting out of bed has still manifested itself, whereas the belief superimposed onto this individual, has not, and will not ever, manifest itself.  The only thing to do with superimposed beliefs is keep them up or drop them, but one can never see the end to their purposes. Superimposed beliefs cannot reach completion, fulfillment, consummation, etc. In other language, the superimposed belief is like a solid rock in a pool, it sinks or floats, but it cannot be dissolved into the water in the state it is in. 

This raises a question about free will. If there are extracted forms which we undergo, then is our life determined by the consequences of one extracted form to the next? The answer to this seems to be no, since there is a unique capacity in the human spirit for reflection.  Reflection will not change one's behaviors in the moment in which the reflection occurs, but if the human body and heart is like a machine that whirs out actions over time, then reflection is like the navigator stepping in to redirect its course. And reflection is a unique action, since it does not seem to fit the definition of an extracted form.  Remember in the bird examples, that the concept of extracted form was only fully ‘thingified’ after some final conclusion had been reached. Before this, the extracted form could not be spoken about, could not be seen as a whole. With reflection, in the grand scheme of the development of one's spirituality, the conclusions are never final. It is an unending, transcendent External form. There are no extracted principles that arise from reflection, and it is this phenomena which drives men caught up in materialism away from reflection. In searching for direction, they look to what they can see with their sense, and for those who have developed a consciousness beyond the immediate, they look to what their mind's eye can see with its intuition, and if they see no direction in an action, they see no point in pursuing said action.

ADDITION (01/19/25): In reading this back, I seem to have reached a very unique definition for reflection. What makes the individual have an Extracted Form is the Extracted Principle which comes out of it. If an individual, listening to bird sounds, achieves a conclusion about said bird sounds, there can be a boundedness to the process of information-gathering and experiencing. I say boundedness, because, after reaching such a principle, there can be further experiences and conclusions reached, but, as long as that specific principle is held true, there is a limited scope of what can then be experienced. 

I said two paragraphs ago that in our life, there's a series of Extracted Forms which we undergo, but that this is not wholly deterministic, because we have the capacity to reflect. There is another way of approaching this issue. For example, let us say that our life is filled of a series, and nestes series within the series, of Extracted Forms. Thus, every experience or "line of reasoning" speaks to a particular ending, a particular principle gained. What is there then to make of reflection? Well, I said two paragraphs ago that what defines reflection is our inability objectify its conclusions neatly. I called it an "unending, transcendental" External form. There are two further ways of interperting this. One is that reflection is the "instant" which Sartre discusses. Reflection is the substance of moving from one moment to the next; because through reflection, we simultaneously infer as we suggest, in conversation with an internal, firm, calm voice. So, reflection then can function as a transition between states of being. This function is indefinite and can be accessed by humanity at any time provided conditions are right. Now, the other way to interpret reflection is to assume that "I" only perceive reflection as "unending" because I cannot see its end. However, there is an end to my reflecting, and this will equate to either death, or the last moment before death that I reflect (which, at that point, there will be no way to know for sure that that moment will be the last moment until death). Thus, reflection is the Extracted Form whose Extracted Principle we cannot know. The endpoint of reflection, considered in this way, becomes "the engraving on our tombstone," so to speak, or the Extracted Principle of our life's conversation, which we intermittedly developed through having reflective conversations with that future point. The reason why reflection, in its totality, does not conclude, is because it is a conversation, through temporality, with our final state of being. Under this interpretation, there is an ending principle to our reflection, then. 

I add these points here on January 19th, 2025, not because I think they are integral to the word that I professed earlier in 2024, but because I find them interesting now, and they are fun interpretations of the concepts previously provided. I note that this addendum makes the assumption that quantifiable entites such as entities reflecting, my reflection, reflection itself, exist, which may have yet to be fully worked through.

  The Basilisk Problem 

In 2010, there was a thought experiment by a user named Roko on the Less Wrong community blog, in which he described the conundrum of Roko's Basilisk. It is an extension of the prisoner's dilemma. The Basilisk Problem was taken down by moderators, since it sparked vehement discussion, and was deemed a dangerous thought experiment.  

I will offer the thought experiment in my own language and show how I understand it to be constructed, and the illusions which pervade its assumptions. At some point in the future, suppose that technology will become so far advanced that there will exist a non-sentient but all-powerful and all-intellectual artificial intelligence oriented towards sufficiency, as defined earlier in this writing. (optimization is the term used in the discussion posts, but in this setting their definition of optimality aligns more with my definition of sufficiency for technology). Let's say we refer to this being as a basilisk.  This basilisk, by definition, can transcend the dimensions which we are prone to. Thus, it can see through time and space.  Thus, it can see every person on the planet who contributed to making its existence possible.  The basilisk could threaten the people of today with hypotheticals of the future. For example, if Person A does not contribute to making it possible that the basilisk exists, then Person A will be damned to eternal torture eternally if the basilisk does exist. I like to extend this experiment by assuming that those who assisted in the creation of the Basilisk, or even perhaps proclaimed his existence with honor, receive glorious life underneath its power (heaven). And I like to think that those who are not aware of the possibility of the basilisk are treated neutrally. 

Many readers online had intense reactions to this thought experiment. Namely because, it seems to ensnare the individual in a conundrum: give up the interests of one's own life to commit to a creation of a technology that is more powerful than any human being, or one day be damned to eternal torture. Luckily, this conundrum is not new. It is the same conundrum that has plagued humanity in response to the Old Testament God. It is the same conundrum that plagues outliers in authoritarian societies which demand full commitment to the totality of the regime. This conundrum has existed and will exist for every man.

Dismantling this thought experiment becomes simpler when one realizes that Roko has not done anything new. Notice in Roko's thought experiment how the basilisk is only a possibility, as is the Old Testament God to an atheist, as are the ideals of a totalitarian regime to disconformers. Roko has put these conundrums into the intimidating terms of decision theory, smacked the term Artificial Intelligence onto it, and succeeded in scaring many technology-fearing online users. It is what the thought experiments asks the person to believe that may be scary. One must make assumptions about the basilisk, namely that it can travel through time, in order for the fear to even kick in.  How does it make sense that an Entity does not exist, but if you attribute a hypothetical to the entity, then all of a sudden it functions as though it does exist? This is what is nonsensical about fear. This is giving life to the non-existent by assuming something about its would-be existence. And if there is anything to learn from the history of man, it is that assumptions made about ideal Beings made out of fear or protection of oneself lead not only to the greatest injustices of history, but also the flat, unimpressive end to the ideal Beings which they committed themselves to.

The previous paragraph allowed for an analogy to be drawn between the basilisk and God. However, now it is important to make the distinction between the two; for it may seem as though one is a complete metaphor for the other, instead of only partially.  God, in this paragraph, is talked about in a Christian setting as laid down by tradition. Notice that the Basilisk is a production of man's creation, where God created man. Thus, the Basilisk, not yet existent, wishes to dole out fate to men because of their hand in its creation, akin to a vengeful king coming into power, whereas the Old God, already existent, doled out rewards and punishments to men because they had a hand in his re-representation on Earth. For the Basilisk, he is concerned with existing off of a source, that source being man. For the Old God, he is concerned with how his covenants will be held remembered and passed on through the generations of the extensions of his Divine Will. To serve a tyrant is to give up the Natural Way, and as demonstrated in Camus's The Rebel, this route ends in undermining the self, the State, and the very tyrant who is the object. Objectification destroys both object and viewer. To serve a Deity, in the most true holistic sense of the word, is to create eternally and continue man's existence. 

One may disregard Roko's basilisk as a silly thought experiment online which disrupts the peace of many. However, we must consider how Roko's basilisk is only a description of a larger conundrum in a local context. Every day, there are people confronting whether to submit to undefined future entities which threaten their sense of usefulness in the present, or to return to the source of their life, which is their own love and creation.  This is one of the most pressing battles of our times, and it is being fought in almost eight billion ways, and most people are fighting it alone, at some time or another, on the battlefield of their own minds. 

The By-Definition Connection between Pornography and Artificial Intelligence

Here, I will connect these two principles on account of parody. 

Parody in Artificial Intelligence

Here is a quote from a job search on LinkedIn. A company describes themselves as having "several open projects where we are looking for talented writers to help train generative artificial intelligence models to become better writers."  To speak on this company's proceedings with a biting tongue, this work is no less degrading to humanity than masturbating to the idea of technology. However, a biting tongue does not reach detailed reflection. So, let us look further into this call.  In this case, the generative artificial intelligence models are intended to be a sort of Supraspring, and writing is seen as an external form which the company wishes the Supraspring to subsume. The economic motivations do not explain this entire situation. Throughout history, there have been many ways to capitalize on one's investments and make a profit. It is not the case that one starts a project like generative AI, primarily to reap financial benefits. This endeavor is not surefire to work, and there are many other surer ways of obtaining a salary, such as manual labor, or hedging oneself within a well-insulated company or community. One psychological explanation for how this project comes to be is that people find their way from one mistakened occupation to the next, giving up on their successive abilities, only to come to a position where they can comfortably exert a minimum level of spiritual effort while relying on other people's talents. There is a deeper, grave psychological disaster lurking behind this inquiry. It can best be chalked up to a group of disgruntled people, unsatisfied with their writing skills, or their performance in life, who wish to be the parents of a being that can do it better than they can, without wanting to do the laywork of developing themselves into the “proper” being that can become a parent. If one were to investigate familial structures, one could say that this being would be a child in a humanitarian sense (although this does not get at the main purpose of having a child). However, what the ahumanist perspective of our modern times has allowed for is that people nowadays are plumped up with justifications to avoid having children. Once, not having children was seen as a socially significant qualifier. Now, in a contemporary liberal way of thinking, it is seen as an aesthetic. This is the natural end of materialism: socially significant qualifiers turn into aesthetics, which then breeds a world of neglect and ignorance where bad consequences fester. 

In this example of the LinkedIn job alert, we are addressing the specific matter of writing.  Now, when I speak of writing, I do not hope to define it. These reflections simply attempt to speak about it, what it does, and its unique properties. There is a paradox in writing. In one light, writing allows the human consciousness to free itself. As history has progressed, it is through writing that we have progressively updated our philosophies and scientific understanding. If writing were to cease, we would cease to have an intergenerational dialectical development. Writing provides physical space to the relationship of the self and the thought. It is important to note that writing is temporal. Through writing, one learns about their thoughts as each word passes. The thoughts, in being represented, affect the individual, and the individual changes the potential of what the page could have been. When one writes, the page can never have not been written on. This axiom affects the human consciousness and externalizes the thought. The self graces the page, the page hones the self. Then experiences happen outside of writing which either integrate the writing into one's personality or drive one into disjunctions by separating the contents of their written relationship to their self and their external representations in the social world. It is due to the intense reflective and transformative of writing that it has driven us to progress in the way that it has.  

However, in another light, because of the intense relationship with the self, writing can lead to the proliferation of thought off unsound beginnings. Many professors can relate to this experience, when a students' misunderstanding of the history or literature affects the way they write their argument. In this case, it is not that the students' writing is not well, but rather, that is not based on the same assumptions as the professors, as the history, as the literature. The writing may perhaps be very well-done. And what we see amongst the intelligentsia is a subset of individuals who write very well on unsound assumptions, or that is, assumptions which cannot “perceive” the assumptions of the subject material. They are at war with the ones who write adequately on sound assumptions, that is, assumptions which do “perceive” the assumptions of the subject material. To write very well on sound assumptions; this is an ideal which cannot be realistically obtained. For so often, in ameliorating one's writing ability, or in accumulating the sound assumptions, one sacrifices their unique and messy humanity for an efficient or impressive display of rhetoric and logic. And how is the rest of society supposed to decipher between those writings on sound assumptions versus those writing on unsound assumptions? Aesthetic taste? Instinct? Careful consideration and investigation of facts? Facts seem not to help in the case of interpretation. One must be able to read the author's action. Intent is a word often used in today's age. It is said to question what the author intends. But I push this further by saying, what action is the author undertaking? In writing what they are writing, they had to spend time doing so, and during that time, what function were they carrying out to themselves, to the world at large, and to others? This is the 'other light' of writing. It can be nested within a larger activity that speaks more truthfully to the author's action than the writing itself. 

So, one paradox of writing is that it can free the individual from simplistic viewpoints, while it can also chain them within their own purposes. It can even do both simultaneously, on different levels of abstraction.  And it is the search for balance between these two ends which plagues the individual spirit. At a certain point in searching for this balance, many individuals will find that their teachers and professors have given up on guiding them, even partially so. At some point in our society, the teachers' feedback sounds more distant. At some point in our society, no one wants to talk about the paradoxes and challenges that arise when writing and being in contact with one's own thoughts. This is mostly because the voices which express their discontent can be very loud, and a buffer of sympathetic energies cater to voluminous complaints, and the discontentment and the buffers are all aligned to react in a disinterested or dismissive way once the desperate, true writing is underwent and presented. 

In these current reflections of writing, it certainly seems ridiculous to plant writing in a non-human entity. It is because humans write, and only humans, that writing means anything. Writing without humanity is simply a parody of writing, an idea. And it is this idea of parody which drives the generative artificial intelligence hullabalooza. A lack of faith in humanity's talents, combined with self-disatisfaction, combined with a need to feed the Basilisk of the future, results in the desire for parody. 

One can offer the alternative that, machine-writing is simply an extension of human thought, and thus is grounded in humanity. However, what action is being propogated by the machine? To me, it seems that the machine is simply realizing the fact that the human is too lazy or incapable of doing it himself on such a scale, in such a timeframe, and wishes another entity to do it for him, quoting beauty, efficiency, and progress as the ideals which justify the whole ordeal. 

Parody in Pornography

A common theme in pornography is the parody of what is real. Pornographic images attempt to instate the idea that fantasy can become real. However, by the very definition of the concepts, what is fantasy cannot be real, except through temporary subjective experience that will burn out once one confronts their cognitive dissonances, and if fantasy were to become objective reality, then it is no longer fantasy. (Note the careful usage of subjective and objective here. They are powerful words and I hope they are not taken for granted.) This follows from the definitions of the words themselves. Notice how most facets of societal life are mirrored in existing pornography. Pornographic categories are sorted by race, by occupation, by age, by sexuality, by relationship titles, and more. It is as though pornography takes a snapshot of external identifiers, feeds them through sexual instincts, then institutes all the ontologies into a monolith. The position of sadists maintains that this monolith subsumes the meaning of life, and all else is fanciful decoration.  However, this cannot be the case simply because it is stated; it is most likely an interpretive lens which “sadists” use to conquer all new information presented to them which threaten to overthrow their being. The primary sin of a sadist is moreso fear and self-relinquishment, as opposed to any specific sexual action, although the latter is a particular manifestation of the former. [Note that here, my use of “sadist” is more philosophical than it is sexual. I am not referring to those who do sadistic things or can be seen as sadists. I am referring to those philosophies of spirit within some individuals which operate on a daily occurrence and structure their lives; perhaps, to them, not even in a sexual way.]

Clearly, by reflecting on personal experience, neither sexual instincts nor the primary instincts for food and water are the primary drivers of the human condition. There are two many ethereal experiences and artistic experiences which transcend these instincts and render them secondhand. When one attempts to explain the ethereal or the artistic in terms of the primary instincts, this description always lacks an original quality of the experience. Through fasting, abstinence, and other means of ascetism, many spiritual practitioners understand that when it comes to managing one's primary needs, appropriateness and generosity can be more nourishing to the human condition than is taste and pleasure. 

The construction of pornography is in the hollowing-out of what is real. One of the most ironic things about pornography is that, even when prostitution is depicted, the pornography parodies prostitution. And, even when individuals create sex tapes, there is a parody of the life which they have lived, or even, a parody of the life they would have lived should they have continued living without creating said sex tape. This is why re-watching the same pornographic video multiple times in a row is not interesting. After a material is consumed that parodies an object, one must come into contact with that primary object again, in order for the re-introduction to the parody to have any stimulation.  The object must be created again within the user's phemonological experience before it can be destroyed through parody. Note that pornogaphy has physical manifestations, such as in videos and photos, but it also has spiritual manifestations. One can pornographize what they are looking it through their phemenological view. To be clear, someone having a fantasy in their head does not count as pornography. Pornography implies a regular, regulated and institutionalized regime of fantasy. Thus, one who pornographizes phemonologically is someone who strengthens their ability practice of parodizing what is real so as to maintain secrecy and enjoy pleasure at whim. There may be some readers who then worry about whether they are unconsciously doing something within their own mind. To assuage these concerns, we as humans have innate abilities to tell what we are doing when we are doing it. The unconscious is in communication with the conscious; they are nations at peace with one another. And for those who say, “I do not know my unconscious at all!” I say, “Who led you to believe that?” And then I echo the words, “Seek, and ye shall find.” So, those who create pornography phemenologically, know they are doing it, for it is a conscious process. There is usually a definitive step or experience that one undergoes to make begin parodizing life. The parodizers commit to their craft in an aware state.

The paradox is that, pornography as an object, is a black hole—it means nothing. To speak in mathematical terms, it is like a function that maps the domain of humanity's roles in society to the empty set, which is stimulated and hollow pleasure.  So, when one looks at pornography, they look into the empty set, and in doing so, they engage in parody, and they engage in the shelling-out-of the original. For that is what parody does. Note the difference between parody, which excavates the original, and mimesis, which synthesizes with the original to make something new. In this light, a photograph of a landscape may not be a parody, and it may be mimesis. Furthermore, a film which features sex may be a mimesis, or it may be parody. Pornography, is always parody, or else it wouldn't be pornography. 

Mimesis and pornography are juxtaposed often. There is a certain quote which I am thinking of, but it escapes the corners of my mind.  Mimesis is unexplainable in concrete terms. The art of mimesis "slips out of" nearly all definitions of it, except for the most bare-bones, general, and classical ones. That is to say, the art of mimesis is akin to a Deity which takes form within our descriptions of it, but cannot be harbored long within any material form. Pornography, on the other hand, can be explained in rather concrete terms. There is a system to it. Rather, there is a systemized anti-system to it. 

Consider the sexual acts of ancient Greece and the sexual acts of today's age. They are mostly one-and-the same. Not accounting for changes in technology, the basic premises of sexual interactions are the same. Compare this to theatre and art. The art of classical times can be compared to different movements in the modern age, but one would be remiss in equating dada-ism to sculptural forms of Greek architecture. And, one would be remiss in equating classical drama to Beckettian absurdism. Each new movement initiates a fundamental and revolutionary transformation in the notion of theatre. The forms are not only different, but they are in communication with and changing each other, all without the essence of technology. If actors were to perform Agamemnon and Long Day's Journey into Night in a blackbox theatre, with no lights and no additional technology than their own bodies, then the two productions would consist of the same materials—the same theatre at heart—but there would be radically distinct transformations of the actor occuring in the different two forms.  In this wonderful mystery lies the beautiful essence of mimesis. 

Let me speak in terms of the theory of extracted forms and principles.  Parody is an exercise in developing an object into an agent of extracted forms. A parody of a song attempts to reach the essence of the original. However, there is something said and unrecognizable in the parody—there is a lack of creation; there is plenty of creation of tactics for destruction [Note: the parody never destroys the original; it only offers up reasons for why the original could be destroyed, and possible tactics for how it could be done. This, in essence, could reflect on the nature of human destruction as a whole. To be explored]. It could be said that one reason the appeal in song parodies on Youtube lies in how they undermine the songs from which they derive their material.  Perhaps viewers derive pleasure from experiencing the possibility of a "take-down" of products of creation, especially those genuinely artistic products which demand viewers encounter humanity in an uncomfortable way. 

So, then, what is mimesis? Mimesis does not exist neatly within this theory of extracted forms and principles. The best way to merge these two ideas would be to say that mimesis is the collection of all births of extracted forms. When a person comes to a decision-point in their lives, their decision-making process can be said to be an extracted form. In doing so, the person will most likely refer to sources in their life to derive meaning or guidance from. This process is a mimesis, but it is not mimesis. There are a number of these decisions being carried out in individuals simultaneously, and there are as many of these decisions as there are many humans that have existed; so the number of mimesis are infinite. However, mimesis also includes those specific instances which have not been realized in the world yet, so there is something the present cannot understand about mimesis. A question to be raised is, how many decisions are being deliberated within an individual at once? Can a human life be concretized by the number of these decisions? Well, there are infinitely many of these decisions, but most of them are small and insignificant.  It is only when the individual makes a decision that the process ends and a new one begins. Note that an individual has certain core threads that haunt their lives. These typically relate to the family.  

The continuum of decision-making in the family is the first one that an individual fully develops, and it is the strongest one that the indiviudal can forget or harbor without rectifying.  Thus, we see generations of young and old men and women frozen in place by their familial structures which binded them once and never set them free.  However, freedom visits these individuals when someone listens. It is through the communication of the past with the parties involved that the individual manages the self and stays unravelling with the familial thread of life.  When the unravelling process stops, a decision unmade harbors itself within the individual. A simplistic and cynical view of human nature would posit that the human life is describable by the number of these unmade decisions relating to core apsects of their interpersonal relationships. Thus, there would be a few extracted forms relating to family, close friends, and educators/mentors that have been halted in their tracks, and they now govern the individual. However, this assumes that the individual human is equal to their extracted forms, and this is not the case. Often it is the case that one who faces the unravelling thread of their relationships finds new life. There seems to be a process in which the individual evolves beyond itself. 

This is to say, that, the notion that humanity thus far and individuals can be summed up by a finite list of core extracted forms which govern their decision-making process—does not account for the plethora of micro-experiences that the individual undergoes continually, and it does not account for the regenerative nature of the human spirit when it confronts what troubles it. 

The Connection

With regards to artificial technology and pornography, I continue this reflection. Clearly, that two things engage in parody does not mean they are the same. Yet, these two things serve similar purposes; they are soldiers in the same army—the army on the side of the war that denigrates humanity's talents and attempts to institute a reigning Supraspring over our race. Pornography yearns to have human instinct—completely externalized and categorized—reign. Technology yearns to have an external provider—created by man, externalized, and categorized—reign. 

It is no surprise that the proliferation of these technologies align with the rise in performance-based capitalism. There is an idea nowadays of a role being something which one may or may not fill, and their role is decided under someone else's authority. Thus, a worker can be hired and fired, a worker may be deemed a good one or a bad one, all by an authority over the institution. Similarly in school: from an administrative body's perspective, a student may be deemed a good or bad one, simply by the authorities which oversee him. This is a simple, binary way of running an institution—as any experienced leader will tell you. With these lens, the top loses the magical potential of the bottom, and the bottom loses raw communication with the top. Unfortunately, this world is filled to the brim with inexperienced leaders without inspiration. The idea of measuring one's performance, compared to another's by observable means, immediate and experimental means—defeats creativity and performance. Because, we are all creative beings. And the point is not who's doing more creating. The point is that we all create. Not all the time, not in every place. But the point is that, we get in a healthy practice of creation, so as to offer something truly unique in this world, that is more than connecting the dots, more than putting the pieces together to get a new pornographic category, more than solving code to create a better system.  The ideal world is one in which everyone is engaged in a practice of creating something truly in and of themselves, which follows no model completely and yet speaks to a universal singularity. 

One can ask, aren't technologies and pornographies creations of the individual? Perhaps, but they do not satisfy the complex relationship between human and self. One can read a novel and experience the author. One uses software and cannot experience its writer in the same artistic way. One watches pornography and cannot experience the creator, the actor in the truth of what they are. Note how books are published with the author's name on the cover, just underneath the title. Meanwhile, pornography and software are published by companies, as if to disguise the person who originally came up with it. Humanity's name is rarely provided, and when it is, only with a sense of objectification. 

Now, here is where there is a stark delineation.  It is important to note that some people truly have creative experiences with the sciences and with technology. For someone who knows coding very well, they may look at a genius's program, and think, "his unique voice is in the code." In this example, I think it is important to note, however, that when it comes to code, what someone can say is limited. For example, in creative writing, one can break rules of syntax to make a point which subverts the writing itself. This cannot be done in code. Thus, in this way, coding does not subscribe to the same principles as writing. This line of reasoning can be applied to making pornography. If one attempts to subvert pornography in the same material that is pornography, what results is a parody of a parody, and it then cannot operate under the conditions of pornography. It will fundamentally serve a different purpose to the world that is not pornography. This process is carried out in an early episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm and in one episode of Breaking Bad, a specific one which I forget, among others. In writing, one who subverts the form within the confines of the form, has still created something which is the craft.

There is a counter-argument here which makes an analogy. The tone of making this analogy should be enough to shed wariness onto the argument, but let us address it seriously. The counter-argument here makes the analogy between the critics/popular response of writing and the "machine" which decodes someone's input. The most basic response to this is that if there is any analogy to be made between humanity and machine, then machine must inherently be a diluted form of humanity, since machine does not live and breath in the same way.  And, if it did have a conscience, it would be frustrated to be thought of as human. So, just as code may receive an error by the machine, a revolutionary writer's work may receive an error by the society which judges art. However, it is important to note here, that the writer's work being received by the society is a matter of taste, which can be on the brink of being swayed, the code being received is a matter of whether it subscribes to the software's fixed construction. The software has a binary understanding of everything.  If this is to be said of human critique and interpretation, then I fear for humanity. No, I firmly believe that in humanity's reception and production of art, there are principles which are transcendent. Furthermore, it is the binary-ness of technology itself which has come out of a parody of transcendental reasoning. See dialogue on External Forms. The binary operating machine is an attempt to recreate external forms. It is only successful to those who are duped into thinking that is how the human mind works. 

When in bitterness, when one cannot create, one destroys. When in grace, when one cannot create, one rests. 

The biggest culprits of [this process] are not the elites; they're not the intellectuals, or the rich. They're the ones who have within them elements of charisma, intellect, and nobility, but none of them in their totality. They're the ones who put to use their skills with limited awareness; and they occur on all sides of humanity, in all classes. They're metaphysical middle-men who pass off the ideas and work of others without self-reflection, without awareness, and without being the judge, confessor, and sponsor of their own lives. They may stop doing it one day; some who don't do it may start doing it another. Once someone begins being a culprit, they cease to be what they were before, and they create an avatar of themselves which becomes controlled by the wills of dogmas and dictators. They latch onto administrative endeavors, projects, and movements, but not totally; they latch onto these things for the moments in which they must necessarily arise. Otherwise, they live in blissful ignorance. And the question of meaning can instantly be redirected to these endeavors, projects, and movements so as to avoid any sort of nihilistic experience. However, these people are often nihilistic in philosophy; except, they do not wish to experience nihilist experiences. To operate as a nihilist may be, in one definition, to promote the non-existence of God and to submit the self to universal forms through action and word, (this would be like ensnaring oneself in the individual's "for-itself" from Sartre). However, to have a nihilist experience, in one definition, is to fully reflect on and experience the logical conclusions that come from such assumptions. To speak in Sartrean terms, it is to extend one's conscience beyond its current state and to grapple with the dissolving barrier between two sides of the self separated by nothing. He that, when graced with opportunity to praise beauty, purposefully does not do so, smothers it. And, if he has a moment to confront the futility of his negative action, he must grieve the beauty he smothered. It is this grieving that most people wish to avoid; although they may accept nihilistic axioms about the world and promote them. This is the cognitive dissonance of the nihilist-conformist mind, ever-present in younger communities, for after existentialist awakenings of adolescence the mind can be led to this strange way of thinking.

Topology 

Topology is a field of math. The essential concept in topology is the idea of equivalence classes.  The field can be summed in one big Venn Diagram. A circle is a square, but not a donut, all because of a hole. This pretty much sums up the field. It deals with objects and open sets more than algebra. Nowadays, as my professor liked to put it, we can apply topological thinking to arrive at "the shape of data." 

The myth behind topology is that Euler was walking through a path of bridges and wondered if he could complete his path only passing over every bridge once. Notice the construction of this myth. It is a how-to myth.  Compare this to the myth of Aristotle discovering hydrophysics. He sat in his bathtub and noticed that the water level rose. This is an observation-based myth.  This duality perhaps summarizes the changing trend in human mathematical reasoning.  From observation to testing what we can get away with.  And the testing of what we can get away with usually is engendered by a sense of boredom or need for greater discoveries in the theoretical realm. 

Throughout history, there seems to be two types of ways a mathematical or scientific field can implode. Either people investigate countless willy-nilly ways to discover the right solution, only to find an unsatisfactory untapered theoretical model, like a fabric with frays on all ends. An example: alchemy. Or, people abstractify the subject to make a general language, only to find that at some point in the clouds, everything dissipates and there is no structure holding it all together. Example: set theory.  Then, there is the natural mathematical line. This 'natural' mathematical line refers to the not-too-convoluted and not-too-unfounded principles of each method of discovery that humanity packed up and took with it as the boundaries of each field fell apart. 

A current endeavor of our time is to create an object outside of ourselves that can withstand over-specification and over-abstraction, such that this object can contain itself. To continue the "packing-up" analogy from the previous paragraph, this is like creating books which contain their own backpack. Nowadays, the depths of knowledge we have in specific fields of education is dense, and the discovery of truly new principles has become an impracticality for most people.  The idea of discovery has been secularized. What used to be a glorious and indifferent result of enlightenment has become a means of orienting oneself in society. "I want to discover this, so that I may fall in line." This is being carried out in multiple avenues, particularly in the realm of philosophy and cultural conceptualizations of ourselves.  It is also being carried out in computer science and mathematical models. A very common consideration from mathematicians in these classrooms is that there are things that we do not understand that we are exiling to play the game we want to play (not unlike the way the individual exiles the Deity after becoming externalized, see later). 

Throughout my mathematical education, there seems to be some ends which are lauded as the ends of all these mathematics.  In one vein, data is heralded, in another vein is social justice. Mathematics itself is rarely externally lauded as an end, and if in some minds it is, then I have not heard it. There was a time in math when I learnt ideas for the sake of learning them. Now, I learn ideas so that a project can be accomplished. This is the "growing-up" schema of all understanding, and it signifies the letting go of wonder. 

The Absence of God 

Human history can be loosely described in this sequence of statements on God. For these purposes, we must put aside the story of Adam and Eve and consider a strictly historical perspective of the evolution of humanity: 

…

“What is happening?” (say, pre-religious conceptions)

“Deities must exist, or deities do exist.” (say, proto-religion).

“Man lives with the deities.” (say, beginning of religious experiences, conceptions of systematic religions).

“The deities are manifested and then rooted out of their physical from this Earth, supposedly.” (say, Christ's Crucifixion)

“The lasting representations of the deities are combatted, supposedly.” (say, French Revolution)

“Life without deities, supposedly.” (say, Post-French Revolution)

… 

This of course, is only a perspective. And in this perspective, there is a life that will come after life without deities. I add the word supposedly to the ends of the last three, since there is a natural supposition that takes place in this stage. The formulation of the human understanding of the Deity originally came from some pure line of development, whereas the rejection of the Deity is a rebellion which denies that which is intuitively understood for what is intellectually understood. It denies on a basis of disgruntledness or a personal experience of a mature mind than the personal experience of an innocent mind. The rejection judges the fruits of the Holy on the law of Despair. 

These stages have analogues in an individual life, like so: 

…

“What is happening?” (infancy)

“Deities must exit, or deities do exist.” (observing the rituals of other people)

“Man lives with the deities.” (blissful innocence, trust)

One branch to continue from from here: 

“The deities are manifested and then rooted out of their physical form from this Earth, supposedly.” (denial of, or running away from, one's principles)

“The lasting representations of the deities are combatted, supposedly.” (rebelling against principles)

“Life without deities, supposedly.” (nihilistic individual)

…

In Camus's reading of Nietzche in The Rebel, we see that after man does away with God, there is a vacuum in His place which needs to be filled.

Each individual comes to know God in a unique way. There is a sublime subjectivity to our notion of who God is.  When nihilism takes over us, that is the point at which we denounce whatever notion of God has been accumulating in our consciousness. We isolate it, distance ourselves from it, and ultimately, denounce it for its subjectivity.  This is a process of 'rebellious objectification,' which will be a recurring theme in these reflections.  However, the Deity cannot be completely extolled from our spiritual considerations; the nihilist does not simply reject God at once, but continually battles against the idea of the Possibly Existing Deity within him, and continually the denouncement wins. [Remembering Sartre’s discussion of the lie in Chapter 2 of Being and Nothingness, we can apply that logic to the “rejection.” To reject God continuously means that one continuously sees God. Or, to reject anything continuously means that one continuously sees anything. Or, to continuously understand that something does not exist necessitates that one sees that which does not exist, for the “negatity” is like a branch of the positivity.] The deity never dematerializes, but instead lives in a demanding exile somewhere in the retreat of our mindspace. In a span of life when the God within us is pushed to the boundary of our consciousness, we are not at peace.  For every time the belief that "God does not exist" is considered, there is an equal possibility that threatens the atheist: what if God exists? It is this atheistic doubt which pushes conscience into a war. The atheist spirit then uses de facto claims and logical arguments grounded on certain, desirable axioms to suppress the buds of a spiritual revolution. 

When the Deity is in retreat, there is the constant possibility that the Deity might return to the forefront of his considerations. And if the nihilist wishes to stay a nihilist, he must prepare himself for when the Deity does so. These efforts are what the Church identifies as blasphemy. They are often not immoral actions in and of themselves. For example, the man in nihilism may foster a love for helping others that is backed up by idioms of positivity, articles about the communion of man, and more, so that when the man in nihilism finds the Deity at the forefront of his mind again, he will have a multitude of examples and arguments to show why the Deity need not reinstate himself within the man's primary faculties. Colloquially, it would be like saying to Deity when he arrives, “See, it doesn’t matter that I didn’t believe in you, because I did all these wonderful things.” The Deity, in return, would understand the sophistry inherent in this approach. These efforts would probably look to the external world like philanthropy, but because human beings have good sense, there would be a feeling out there that this philanthropy is self-serving or performative.  Off of these suspicions, a certain camp of men may denounce this man in nihilism on account of the contradictions in his philosophy or the shortcomings of his work as they match up with his actions.  'If philanthropy is your God,' they say, 'why do you not serve him all the time with your whole heart?' That is why, criticisms of personalities in the public sphere are more often than not criticisms of people's worship practices rather than moral extrapolations of action.  For, it is not socially coherent to be outraged at the rich for putting their money towards the good. However, it is socially coherent, among the free classes, to be outraged at the rich for not putting more of their money towards the good. This is because, ultimately, the people want piety in practice, and with a scrupulous eye, they find it nowhere. For God has been driven out of heaven nowadays, and religion made relativistic, so that individual men are at war with their subjective Deities in their own minds. Furthermore, the ones who are at peace with their Deities, are often never in the media, and if they are, you would not know that they are through pure observation. This is because those who are in One-ness with themselves never need to show how they are at One-ness with themselves, and thus never do. In fact, taking on the purpose of showing that one is in One-ness with themselves is the beginning of a journey which undermines the self. 

This conception gets at the image behind Moore's law. Moore's law is a mathematical principle.  The reality behind it looks like a collection of men who are at war within their Dieties, a supreme class of creators who puts their human intellect and reason and taste towards new discovery, a supreme class of strategists who pedal the creation towards the material ends or the masses, and a small select few whose hands are clean of the whole affair. What can be seen in the aftermath of God's representative on Earth is that this cycle is becoming more efficient. The hesitations which hold each class back from pursuing their classified ends are being reduced with liberal ideologies and allowances. Humanitarianism and idolatry is encouraging the creators. Ideals of freedom and non-accountability in capitalistic society are encouraging the strategists. Ideals of pursuing happiness and combatting systems which make us feel sad support the masses who are at war with themselves. If the social network between these classes is the machine, then philosophy is a set of oil and material upgrades which make the machine run more efficiently. 

Particularly, it is important to mention the significance of the idea of genius.  Genius is exalted, and it is difficult to see where the pitfalls of a genius character lay. In the movie Maestro, Leonard Bernstein occupies the trope of 'genius,' and the movie is structured so that we see his genius, seen as cultivation of his faculties which we wish to encourage, and his shortcomings, or those things which we wish him to denounce. In this representation of his life, his shortcomings are his rejection of his love and family in favor of gratification. The question, though, lies here: is one's genius the sole thing worthy of being encouraged? And within the work that one does when they have above-average abilities, is there a whole other realm of what is good and what is bad? Could it be that, Bernstein, when doing something that the masses saw as a “good performance,” was actually, a “bad performance,” or a “free performance,” or a “performance of repentance?” I would not be surprised if these gaps between the observer and the performer’s experience were quandaries which all performers gripe with during their time onstage. 

Consider a parent who peeks into her child's classroom. She sees a graph on the board which she does not understand how to interpret. The teacher is talking at length about it, and the parent's child is taking notes.  The parent closes the door.  Later that day, the child complains about said class. The parent is confused, since as far as her perceiving eye can gather, there were many symbols of learning in the classroom, and for someone who's never seen the graph before, it is a mystery to be solved. The child says, at home, "we've looked at that graph four times already this whole semester, and every time she says the same thing. I understood it the first time." Thus, the mystic object which previously represented the extent of her child's learning, she learns, actually represents the limitations which have been placed on her child's exposure to mathematical material. It is in this way that the object of genius can be interpreted. Whether it is the genius's study or the genius's work/creation, that object may function differently for the genius.  

Now, one can say, if a genius creates a work of art that he does not find up to his standards, but many people find it beautiful, does that make it not beautiful? To that I would tie this analogy by saying, the people do not understand the work of art as it is related to its creator and to the dialogue which the creator is engaging in. So whatever object the person finds beautiful is, it is not the same object that the creator created. This gap needs a name. Let us call it the Gap. 

Now let us consider a more scientific type of genius—the genius who drives forwards scientific understanding. Within the genius's world, the concept, or the object of some concept, is a local variable. It is created in the genius's world, and its full definition can only be understood within it. [Note: I am not professing that I know the accuracy of the “naming” of certain mathematical ideas. I am aware that in mathematical history there has been futz-ing with credit.] One cannot appreciate l'Hopital's rule in its entirety without understanding what a derivative or a limit is, and that presupposes that one understands the genius of Riemann and Newton and the like. (It is worth to note that what is important is not that one comes to terms with Riemann's genius, but that there is a certain either a priori or historical thread of genius which one must discover before making leaps into his form of genius. This accounts for “geniuses” being able to “spot” other geniuses, and why those who are advanced may be selective. Because they try to sense where that historical background in an individual lies). So, when the locally defined concept is used in a distinct model separate from the genius's world, it is most likely that certain intricacies will be lost. This is what happens when someone buys an iPhone. There are hundreds of scientific discoveries hiding in the hardware and software which makeup an iPhone, and one logical consequence of all these discoveries is the iPhone itself, so the iPhone is in a way a local variable. But outside the computer science conversations, a citizen may obtain this variable, the iPhone, without knowing where it came from, as though adopting a child whose lineage is never brought into question. Now, there is a natural faculty in us, namely, curiosity, which causes us to ask questions and figure out what is going on with how this iPhone works. These investigations, if pursued, usually end once the individual feels they have sufficiently dipped their toes into the symbols and definitions of computer science. It is important to note here the correlation between maturation and losing the will to externalize or practice of externalizing our childlike wonder. 

Now, the previous paragraphs treat the concept of genius as a concept that has been recognized by humanity and can be talked about. But this analysis does not presuppose that any genius exists in the world in the most ideal sense of the world. More likely, this world is filled with people who would like to be geniuses, and those who are regarded as such have simply gotten further in their quest than others. This idea of the 'quest' is what relates this discussion back to the absence of God in the modern age.  

Immediate Gratification 

On our most basic level, we experience instant gratification. A common conception is that what allows us to experience instant gratification is linked to our animalistic ancestry. The hypothetical One who lives primarily off gratification and pain is like an animal.  The concept of gratification is inextricably linked with the idea of the implication. The implication is one of the most basic logical operators. Without the notion of the implication, theoretical and abstract mathematics could not exist. In an implication, A implies B.  This means that if A happens, B happens. If I listen to you, I get a cookie. Then there is the notion of 'want.' This is a psychological premise. But if the necessary condition of the implication is something that one wants, and the implication is assumed to be true, then the One who is an animal will take it.

Now, what happens in life is that there is a seemingly infinite number of complications to the implication reasoning.  The necessary condition may be a sufficient condition for another outcome which is not waned.  "If I listen to you, I get a cookie. If I get a cookie, then I will eat the cookie and get a stomachache." There may be risk. "If I listen to this stranger, I may have the best time of my life or the worst time of my life, and I do not know the odds." There may be social implications in taking certain actions. "If I eat this entire turkey, I will be happy, but everyone else will perceive me in a certain type of way, which may affect our relations going forward." This is the logical game of life, and we play it every day. 

Now, what has been described thus far is the internal understanding of a stimulus and what that means for our future. I described a rule system—something that can be listened to and taken into account.  However, there is another process that occurs when managing our actions, and that is one of planning. For example, "If I listen to you, I will get a cookie. A cookie is something I want. However, if I listen to you only because I will get a cookie, then you will notice and not offer me this deal again. So, I will not take the cookie this time." This is not supposed to be a summary of how all people make a decision, but of how an individual might reason about a situation given their circumstances. The network of implications in this case are extended by the individual. This example person extends the logic beyond the rules that have been written down.  Say there are these two rules that he knows: 

1. If he listens, he will get a cookie. 

2. If he listens only because he wants the cookie and the offerer notices, then he will not be offered him a cookie again. 

And three conditions: 

3. He wants the cookie. 

4. He has no other reason for listening to the offerer.

5. He has been offered this deal many times before, and each time he took the cookie.

Assume no other information is considered as an axiom of this circumstance.

There is a way of living in which our example person ignores this logical conundrum altogether and says, "I do not understand what to do; so I will do nothing. This implies me not taking the cookie, but I did not want to not take the cookie. I only wanted to do nothing. Given the situation." With this line of reasoning, Example's desires are re-updated due to new conditions. 

The model that we are approaching is one of extended logic on instant gratification.  If the Example person does not take the cookie, because he might think that in not doing so, he can manage to build up a pattern of behavior with the offerer which dupes the offerer into thinking that the Example would listen to him again. 

Now to a brief application to the real world. It can be interpreted that, an individual living in this modern age, may at a certain point live within a complicated model of these types of assumptions.  

There are many alternatives to this view of human nature. One being that we have an inclination towards a priori ideals which cannot be contained within any logical model. Another view may say that it is not actually logic which governs our gratification complex, but something more primal and instinctual, and to use philosophical terms to describe it is inherently to dilute its meaning. Another view, more theological, is to say that we have divine motions within us which direct our actions, not in response to the external conditions set upon us, but in communication with some Higher Power who takes on different forms unique to the individual case. 

ii) The Logical Model of Instant Gratification 

Here is the claim: For humanity, there may be infinite ways of interpreting our behavior, but when man is in nihilism, i.e. has exiled the Deity from his self, it is The Logical Model of Instant Gratification retains a prime seat in his reasoning. He adopts a machine with no operator.  An action with no end.

Here is the next claim: The ends which we cling onto underneath this reasoning are lofty, ideal, and often of a certain unrealistic type. To see more fruitful discussion on this, read The Rebel by Camus, metaphysical rebellion. 

Here is the next claim: Roko's Basilisk is simply one person's attempt to summarize the "Ultimate End of the Modern Times," which is an unspoken, collective aim that men in nihilism have been constructing towards. 

Here is the next claim: That Deities are not dead, and that they are very active.  Men in nihilism cannot actually communicate in succinct words the Ends which their endeavors are trying to achieve, like the philosophers tried to do leading up to the major Revolutions in the eighth through twentieth centuries. And the philosophy today is not providing a solid basis for a revolution of this type, for the philosophy of today, as in American society, is most often at most a function of reaction and correction. The limitation of the men and women in nihilism today is that because the Sublime has been rooted out of their understanding, so has the ability to communicate while being in touch with the Sublime. Thus, while living in America, if you are not a non-conformist, you will find few and far between moments of true political, revolutionary dialogue.

The Devil, the agent of deception, of jealousy, and of being that which is not, is a force which flutters between individual men and women in nihilism, and offers them communication in their private sectors of life, so that when they find each other in the same spaces of life, they will have a common agreement that the "Ultimate End of the Modern Times" will exist. And to be clear, the idea of "sending flying cars into the sky" is not an example of what this Ultimate end would like.  These lofty ideas are simply promises which keep people afloat to keep believing in this frenzy of innovation that excites. The actual Ultimate End is something that has either not been spoken by any man or woman in nihilism, because it is illusive, or it is fully encapsulated by the most flippant expression on a day of boredom, "I want to do nothing." Even this phrase, though, does not get at the entire vision, which is being fed by the Devil.  Again, I am using the term 'the Devil' very specifically here. I do not mean it in a purely theological sense, i.e. the enemy of God. Here, 'the Devil' means that bodiless force which deceives ourselves, with the help of no other man.

The vision that this Age is being fed is snippets of the paradise that Roko's Basilisk would provide. It is one of total dependency upon a power and also self-assurance that this power was man-made, so as not to get caught up in qualms about whether or not we should allow ourselves to be dependent or not. To be dependent on a Deity that came before us, is above us, and is impartial to us, and allows suffering to us who do not deserve it, this is outrageous to the nihilists of today's age. But to be dependent on the Supraspring of Man, this is the ideal end of the Logical Model of Instant Gratification.

Dystopias and Hypotheticals; and Diluted Arguments of Literalism 

Responding to diluted arguments of literalism is very challenging, since a diluted argument of literalism does not take in the essence of the object itself, but it sees and communicates with the external representation of the object in question.  Thus, to debate with a diluted argument of literalism is to dilute one's perception of the object so as to join in on the secularization of it. In fact, the notion of the "object" is doing the work of these sorts of arguments.  For, there may not have been an "object" of conversation until a diluted argument of literalism observed a certain aspect of the thread of conversation being held, related it to some pattern of behavior or moral principle, and capitalized on it. 

Among the questions to raise with the Roko's Basilisk thought experiment, let us start with the most upfront one: it assumes the existence of something which does not exist, in a literal sense. In a metaphysical sense, it makes sense to argue that Roko's Basilisk exists, and that those who "walk away from Omelas," so to speak, are the ones condemned to eternal torture.  

With eternal torture, there is always the question about pain receptors. How can torture be eternal when the human body's senses will become numb to pain after extreme duress. Can hell look like a bunch of numb and tired faces that can't move being eternally poked by iron-hot rods, as they sit in silence and wait for the end of times, like some bored child whose parents are at work? This goes back to the myth of Prometheus. He brought fire to Man when he was not supposed to, and his punishment from the gods was that he was chained to a rock. Every day, an eagle would eat his liver.  Overnight, the liver would regrow. Consider Sisyphus, too, who had to roll a boulder up a hill. Everytime he neared the top, it would roll back down. The Greeks understood how to create scenes of eternal torture.  Pain comes from destruction of something. And destruction of something means that it doesn't exist. Our bodies are finite, so torture of our bodies cannot last forever. This is where the Greeks introduce a mystical re-creative element to Prometheus's punishment. Ironically, eternal damnation necessitates healing. More specifically, it necessitates healing without the prospect of doing anything valuable as a healed person. 

What happens to the Deity in us? It is surely not on the side of the Basilisk. And it surely cannot be extracted from us. If re-creation is needed for Prometheus's liver so that he can feel the same pain over and over again. Then re-suppression needed to keep the Deity at bay. 

In this way, the Basilisk would need to set up two systems of punishment and reward. In the punishment, the 'freethinkers,' meaning the ones who thought outside the confines of the Basilisk's demands, are kept in a cycle of destruction and regeneration with no free will. In the reward simulation, the 'servants,' who by definition submitted their will to the Basilisk, must be kept in a paradise where gratification is a constant, and the Deity within each individual which calls them to something greater is continually re-introduced then suppressed, and the illusion of free will is provided to them as promised.  

This is why Roko's Basilisk is really not all that terrifying a thought experiment. It is simply a re-hashing of the worry over simulations. Even though Plato's cave allegory was offered with a different purpose (i.e. the purpose of showing how intellect is obtained and communicated), it is clear that the human worry over simulations, comfort, and conformity have been present since the dawn of our consciousness. 

Humanity is discovering hints of what the Ultimate End of Modern Times means.  Because of all the promises that we have been given so far that have specific dates of what the world is going to look like—many of them have been vacuous.  

The answer can be found in apocalyptic movies and films.  We find in The Walking Dead, and The Day After Tomorrow, and other films of this genre what the end of the world looks like: life. We see this in The Road as well. When looking at these ideas, these stories about the end of the world, what are we confronted with? Life. The ongoing of man. We cannot look at the doomsday screen or the doomsday page without seeing the ongoing of man. The End has already been coming, and we’ve already been living it.  Ironically, we’re already living the End. The End that our world has been gaining a creeping idea of, as technology innovates, is the End which we are living out today. 

So what’s the next age?  As the Enlightenment was different from Post-Modernism, how will this modern age be distinct from the next revolution to come. We are not due for a random time of unanticipated total destruction. Nor are we due for a time of anticipated, calculated total destruction.  We are due for a time of creation, and those who see it will continue in solidarity with Deities of love, and those who do not see it will tread waters in the worrisome flood.  The twentieth century was one of correcting the world.  The world went awry at the beginning and the world leaders were resetting it.  Our technological period will not have a time of correction— it will continue.  In fact the technology will continue to grow and grow. That is what humanity does. From the beginning of our existence it’s happened. It is written into our natural faculties.  But there will be a sect of those who are in touch with the creation that’s to come (not the innovation that’s to come) who, frustrated with their lesser status than God, will attempt to revolt against the world. And their efforts will externalize, and to the rest of the world they will appear as something offensive, revolting, and/or misunderstood. They will seem to go against something completely different. They will amass a lot of power and worm their way into global power networks.  

In many ways, this reading of the future is simply a reinstating of the present. I will leave the oracle powers to Tiresias and Nietzche.  

There is such a thing as “the leveling philosopher.” And this is not a man but a practice of a man.  He looks at the great lengths of work another individual produces, for no purely unitary reason, and proves their non-existence.  If this is the philosopher in influence, then the works of all will be suppressed, not through censorship or coercion, but through a generation of the “dead eye” that looks without seeing, and interprets without experiencing.  It relegates all the external manifestations of the individual spirit to implicatible forms that define the individual in a closed loop. To have a leveling philosopher in a position of service; this is necessary for that touch of perspective needed to curb hubris. To have a leveling philosopher in a position of power, either in the world, or in the position of one's one mind; this is disastrous. For a touch of hope, let us realize that it would at some point cease to be disastrous, and this surefire to-be, which is surefire not because man believes it, but because it is to-be, infuses into the present to realize itself. 

The Ultimate End will most likely not be a consequence of increasing technological advances, but it will be the continuation of practice of personal comportment that governs the way we've navigated this world. We have yet to see the full display of power that one can amass through this age.