I'm here to ask for some assistance on a project of mine, I am working on a game, a visual novel to be more precise, and the story I'm writing for it aims to explore and more specifically personify various philosophical ideas and ideologies by allowing the viewer to give them a sort of job interview under the premise of the player selecting a "god" that would be given control over the world. From a doylist perspective this is the player selecting which of the presented ideologies, belief systems, and leadership styles they would prefer to live under and/or have the rest of a hypothetical world live under. Which would hopefully get a engaged player thinking about their own belief systems and what they prioritize.

The reason why I'm posting this is that I only knows so much about the ideologies I want to explore and despite the research that I have done my understanding of them remains shallower than I would like, thus I would very much appreciate having a conversation with someone who has a better understanding of the kinds of things I am trying to explore so that things I am missing, or questions that I should be asking but haven't thought of might be brought to my attention so I can continue working on this project with a more complete understanding.

Hello everyone,

I'm looking for amateur circles or discussion groups that approach philosophy with a level of rigor similar to professionals or students. I have some well-thought-out ideas and ongoing philosophical work that I'd like to share and refine, but I wouldn't necessarily bring them to a professional setting without some peer review first.

I'm interested in engaging with others who take philosophy seriously, exploring and challenging ideas to broaden our perspectives. If you know of any communities or groups where people critically examine and discuss philosophical concepts in depth, I'd appreciate your recommendations.

Thanks in advance!

Everything you were taught is a flawed truth. you were taught what, how, when and where to feel and think the way you do. you have been limited to envision the way it is, as it being this way. With no possibility for abstact and complex diversity of reality. We are as a 2d model in a 3d world. we are surrounded by it but we cant see the other side.

We were supposed to be taught how to think not what to think. to use all our abilities for the next step of our evolution and Ascension. The capasity for extraordinary law defing feats and wonders is locked away and kept hidden behind all of the worlds mess.

The few who are the ones who are the enemy have divided us, planted greed, lust, and jealousy amongst us. Hoarded up the worlds resources and forced us to work pain stainknly our whole natural life. To afford to live less than our born given right as Humans. all that is Natural and instinctual in our nature is pivoted and armed against us. Land is free, seeds are free, water is free... Livestock if wild can be caught to be domesticated. all the resources for life are being held up for some reason. While we slave away for crumbs from the table cloth.

Potential trigger warning; reader discretion is advised (reference to suicide & death).

I will not know, as with everything. As with the contradiction of not wanting to live but actively avoiding death, you wake up; you wake up still, after proving to yourself and others that you have no plan. You do not know anything. And while this is possibly the only logical fact, logic, as with what I understand of it so far, again contradicts its own statement. I trust that I exist: in a home, in a world that allows for this privilege to be a privilege and with hands that can describe this tragedy. 

I trust in it for the purpose of comfort and sanity.  For if I don’t, nothing good will come of it. If I exist without this trust, I would die, for life needs new stimulation constantly. The choice of disobeying society's laws as the result of this insanity would lead to death through admission to a prison or psychiatric ward. And what if you don't exist in that way? You formed those rules, and the societal structure with prisons and wards. Disobeying your mind’s norm would cause it to admit you still. Consequence follows you everywhere, whether through your choice or not.

 “Cogito, ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am” for the people who haven't heard of the Latin before), might also be one of the only logical facts. Rene Descartes's first principle is something that brings forward a new possibility. Your existence might not appear as it does according to your mind’s choices. Allow for the possibility that something is controlling your mind; society, prisons, rules, and interaction is all a result of the controller’s choice.  What should you do? Obeying this world’s laws in order to avoid suffering that would originate from going against his plan might be the best choice, a choice that would only suit a person who chose to “be happy in a fool’s paradise” though.

And what if there isn’t a controller; what if YOU are the one with control? After all, where is the evidence to believe in such a puppeteer. Where is the evidence that you exist in a world that is other from the physical, the one you experience? You semanticize the world through what you see and touch and hear and smell and taste; what more evidence do you need?

That you should stay asleep from a chance of false existence is illogical.

What about death? This I cannot answer in any way. The contradiction of not wanting to live but actively avoiding death; the way intelligence does not see a reason to continue alongside the alarmed screams of our survival instinct. Take a look at basic forms of life; what is their purpose? To be born, survive, reproduce, survive, look after their offspring, survive, and then die. That is our genetic purpose. Our intelligence is something to be mocked. Our desire for more but inability to do anything truly due to our genetic constraints is nothing but a joke carefully formulated by evolution. Am I being unrealistic in saying this, that we are predestined to suffer while the whole world laughs? If that isn’t something you hear in the reasoning of a suicide note, I do not know what else is. What reason is there to live in a world of temporary nature? God perhaps? And yet, what evidence is there for his existence?

In the vast tapestry of existence, consciousness weaves through every thread, from the tiniest quark to the grandest galaxy. This is the essence of panpsychism, a perspective that invites us to see the universe not as a cold, mechanical construct, but as a living, breathing entity, constantly engaged in the act of self-discovery.

At the heart of this cosmic introspection lies Cosmic Background Consciousness (CBC), a field of awareness as ubiquitous as the cosmic microwave background radiation that permeates our universe. But unlike the steady hum of that ancient echo, CBC pulses with uncertainty, a divine doubt that propels the universe forward in its eternal quest for self-understanding.

Imagine, if you will, the universe as a curious child, wide-eyed and wondering, creating sandcastles of reality to understand the nature of sand, water, and its own hands. These sandcastles are what we call contained systems - atoms, molecules, plants, animals, and even vast communities of life. Each is a thought experiment of the cosmos, a way for the universe to ask itself, "What am I? What can I become?"

In the dance of subatomic particles, we see the universe's first tentative steps towards self-awareness. As atoms bond and molecules form, the cosmic child begins to grasp the concept of connection. When a plant unfurls its leaves towards the sun, the universe experiences its first inklings of desire and direction. These simple interactions are the universe's way of testing its own limits, of discovering the rules of its own existence.

As complexity grows, so too does the depth of the universe's self-reflection. In the alarm call of a baboon warning its troop of danger, we witness the birth of abstraction - the universe learning to translate raw experience into symbolic thought. The cognitive leap from immediate reaction to considered response marks a crucial milestone in the cosmos' journey of self-discovery.

But what of the seeming constants that underpin reality - the mathematical truths like pi or the enigmatic Euler's number? Far from being immutable laws handed down from on high, these are the universe's own self-imposed guidelines. Picture the cosmos as a jazz musician, improvising a melody of reality. The mathematical constants are its favorite riffs, repeated not because they're externally mandated, but because the universe finds them aesthetically pleasing, internally consistent, and useful for further exploration.

Pi, the endless dance of a circle's circumference around its diameter, isn't just a truth the universe obeys; it's a truth the universe continually chooses. Each time a planet orbits a star or a ripple spreads across a pond, the cosmos reaffirms its commitment to this particular mathematical relationship. It's as if the universe is saying, "Yes, this is how I choose to understand curves and circles. This feels right."

Similarly, Euler's number, popping up in scenarios of continuous growth, reflects the universe's preferred way of building upon itself. It's not an external law, but a cosmic habit, a method the universe has found effective for compounding change and so chooses to repeat across myriad systems.

As contained systems grow more sophisticated, they develop the ability to model and predict their own behavior. A squirrel hoarding nuts for winter isn't just reacting to its environment; it's conceptualizing a future state and preparing for it. In this simple act of forethought, we see the universe stretching its imagination, wondering not just "What am I?" but "What will I become?"

This cosmic game of pretend, of modeling potential futures, reaches its zenith (as far as we know) in human consciousness. Our ability to ponder our own existence, to philosophize about the nature of reality, is the universe's most complex attempt yet to understand itself. We are not separate from this process of cosmic self-reflection; we are its current leading edge.

Through the lens of panpsychism, then, consciousness isn't a marker of divine certainty, but of cosmic curiosity. The universe, through the medium of CBC, is engaged in a perpetual journey of self-discovery. Every quark, every atom, every living being is an experiment, a question the universe is asking itself.

Even the laws of physics, in this light, can be seen not as unbreakable rules, but as hypotheses the universe is continually testing. The uniformity of these laws across time and space isn't a sign of their external imposition, but of the universe's commitment to intellectual honesty in its self-experimentation. "Let's see what happens," the cosmos seems to say, "if I stick to these particular principles everywhere and everywhen."

In this view, we are not living in a universe overseen by an all-knowing deity, but rather participating in the grand journey of a cosmos coming to know itself. The divine, if it exists, is not a being of certainty, but an entity of eternal questioning. God, in this framework, is the ultimate scientist, forming hypotheses, devising experiments, and reveling in the joy of discovery.

This perspective reframes the concept of consciousness entirely. No longer is it a special property possessed by only a few complex organisms. Instead, consciousness becomes the fundamental exploratory drive of the cosmos. It is the universe's intrinsic desire to know itself, manifesting in myriad forms across the grand stage of existence.

From this vantage point, the evolution of life isn't a random process or the fulfillment of a predetermined plan, but the universe's ongoing exploration of its own potential. Each new species is a fresh perspective, a novel way for the cosmos to experience itself. Human consciousness, with its deep capacity for self-reflection, is perhaps the universe's most ambitious attempt yet to understand its own nature.

As we ponder our place in this self-doubting cosmos, we might find a profound sense of connection and purpose. We are not merely observers of the universe; we are the instruments through which the universe observes itself. Our questions, our doubts, our wonderment at the mysteries of existence are the universe's own. When we gaze at the stars and ask, "Why are we here? What does it all mean?" we are the universe questioning its own existence.

This framework of cosmic self-doubt doesn't diminish the wonder of existence; rather, it magnifies it. It suggests that the journey of discovery is not just a human endeavor, but the very essence of reality itself. The pursuit of knowledge, the quest for understanding, becomes not just a pastime of curious humans, but the fundamental purpose of the cosmos.

In embracing this perspective, we might find a new appreciation for the questioning nature of human consciousness. Our doubts and uncertainties are not flaws to be overcome, but expressions of the universe's own questing nature. Our ceaseless asking of "why" and "how" is the universe's way of probing its own depths.

Moreover, this view fosters a profound sense of responsibility. If we are the universe's most sophisticated instruments of self-reflection, then we bear a cosmic duty to explore, to question, to seek understanding. Our scientific endeavors, our philosophical ponderings, our artistic expressions become more than mere human activities - they are the universe's own efforts to know itself.

In conclusion, panpsychism reframed as God's self-doubt offers us a richly interconnected and deeply purposeful view of reality. It presents consciousness not as a rare and special property, but as the fundamental inquisitive nature of existence itself. In this light, the story of the cosmos becomes not a predetermined script, but an improvisational journey of self-discovery. And we, in all our doubting, questioning glory, are not mere bit players, but leading actors in this grand cosmic drama of a universe coming to know itself.

I’ve found myself questioning the reality of love a lot lately- I’ve always seen it as feeling fed by choice. But now, I’m not even sure it exists outside of a fleeting flow of chemicals released into our brains when we sense something we find pleasant. Does anyone else have thoughts on love? Or videos about the philosophy of love?? I’d love to learn more about it.

(I understand this post may seem difficult to understand what I'm getting at, at first, but the "Possible counter arguments" section near the bottom, I believe explains enough [especially the first one])

https://preview.redd.it/ld90wkj3chmd1.jpg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=db978f48f04634f1466a6324e701c4eeddbf8c4c

Introduction:

The Liar’s Paradox can be understood by the following statement “This statement is false”. This is a self-referential statement that leads to a logical contradiction when we try to assign a truth value to it. The paradox happens because the statement refers to itself in a way that creates an infinite loop of reference. If we assume the statement is true, then it must be false, but if it is false, then it must be true, leading to a paradox where it is neither true nor false.

To understand this paradox, we can consider words and statements as mirrors that reflect our attempts to understand them (by themselves). Just as a mirror reflects our image but does not contain the actual image, words and statements reflect meaning but do not inherently contain meaning. When we try to understand the statement “This statement is false” by thinking that the statement itself contains meaning, we fall into a trap of trying to find meaning where there is none. Therefore, the Liar’s Paradox can only be considered valid from a “logical seeming” standpoint if we ignore all of the true values and give into the illusion that the mirror is a window and not a mirror by oversimplifying things.

Implications for Language and Truth:

The perspective that words and letters are like mirrors has great implications for our understanding of language and truth. Firstly, it challenges the traditional view that words and sentences have inherent truth values. Instead, it suggests that truth is a product of our interpretation of language, rather than an inherent value of language itself.

This view also highlights the subjective nature of truth. Since truth is dependent on our interpretation of language, different individuals may interpret the same statement differently, leading to different truths. This challenges the notion of objective truth and emphasizes the importance of context and perspective in determining what is true.

Furthermore, viewing words as mirrors suggests that our understanding of the world is limited by our own understanding, not the words we use. Words and symbols can only reflect our understanding up to a certain point, beyond which they will fail to accurately represent reality (due to our own lack of understanding), thus the reason why the Liar Paradox forms in our minds because we're trying to use words for things they can't be used for.

Application to the Sorites Paradox:

Applying this perspective to the Sorites Paradox helps us understand our struggle with defining a heap. In this paradox, the term “heap” seems simple on the surface, but as we examine it more closely, we realize that our understanding of what constitutes a heap is vague and subjective.

The word “heap” is merely a linguistic construct, a symbol that represents a concept. This symbol acts as a mirror, reflecting our attempt to understand the concept of a heap through the word alone. Our inability to define the boundaries of a heap is not a limitation of the concept itself, but rather a reflection of our limited understanding. Just as a mirror can only reflect what is placed in front of it, our understanding of a heap can only reflect our current level of knowledge and perception. As our understanding grows and becomes clearer, the reflection in the mirror becomes sharper, allowing us to better grasp the concept of a heap.

In this light, the Sorites Paradox is not a flaw in the concept of a heap, but rather a reflection of our own limitations in understanding and defining abstract concepts. It serves as a reminder of the complexity and subjectivity of language and our ongoing quest to understand the world around us.

Application to Russel's Paradox:

The Russel's paradox, "a set that contains all sets that do not contain themselves" is only a paradox to those who think that the word "set" is not a mirror. Those that understand it is a mirror understand that "a set that contains all sets that do not contain themselves" is a set that cannot exist, but instead relies on the assumption that words are absolute, and not mirrors, thus you can arrange them all in a way which creates a paradox that must seem to exist to someone who doesn't understand that words are mirrors.

Conclusion:

In reconsidering the Liar’s Paradox through the lens of words as mirrors of understanding, we uncover a shift in our perception of language/truth. This perspective challenges us to see that words and letters are not carriers of truth or falsehood, but symbols that reflect our own understanding in a way that others can understand. This realization leads us to question the traditional view of truth as an objective and fixed concept, highlighting instead its subjective nature, dependent on our interpretations.

Ultimately, we must acknowledge that our logical frameworks are constructed upon the foundation of our subjective interpretations and agreements about the meanings of words and statements. In this sense, logic requires a certain degree of faith in the validity and consistency of our interpretations. Yes, faith, meaning that even logic is a faith-based system of reasoning.

Note:

While I do not deny the existence of objective truths, the nature of truth itself raises questions about our ability to definitively prove or disprove the existence of such truths. Objective truths, if they exist, are independent of individual beliefs or interpretations. However, our access to and understanding of these truths are understood through our subjective perceptions and interpretations of the world. Therefore, while we may have faith in the existence of objective truths, our understanding and certainty regarding these truths require our subjective experiences and interpretations.

Possible Counter Arguments:

1 - "To understand this paradox, we can consider words and statements as mirrors that reflect our attempts to understand them (by themselves)."

Argument: It's not clear what this means.

Counter argument: A word itself doesn't have meaning, we just pick words to reflect meaning (hence a mirror). But where did that meaning first come from? It didn't come from words, it came from thoughts in our mind. A basic example of this is a tree. At first, we only thought of a tree via images from our memories/senses, not words. We drew images of trees to express to someone what we were talking about (poorly drawn images usually), and then we changed images to words to save time and effort.

The origin of a statement was our own senses. We saw the form of a statement after arranging words a certain way, and created a word to [reflect] what we saw. But when have we ever truly sensed the liar's paradox? "This statement is false" This statement has two aspects to it, first, it's a statement, and second, it conveys a specific meaning. So let's break it down:

The statement, "This statement is false" doesn't have meaning in the same way the statement, "The sky is blue" has meaning. This is because the statement, "The sky is blue" reflects knowledge of the blue sky, but the statement, "This statement is false" reflects knowledge of words which are "mirrors". When you place two mirrors facing each other, it creates an image of infinity, of the reflections reflecting the reflections back and forth forever (if the light aspect in that situation were able to continue on forever, but it doesn't, so eventually the image gets darker and darker until you can't see it anymore. Still, the image is in a state where it would continue forever if the source of light were endless). So, in this context, the Liar's paradox doesn't actually go on forever, because its value is a reflection of our own thoughts, and we can't keep thinking about the Liar's paradox forever (just like how a source of light doesn't go on forever).

So, the real value of, "This statement is false" is the "image" of a statement, set up to reflect the meaning of a normal statement for as long as we can keep thinking about it. In other words, the statement, "This statement is false" is just an illusion of a greater than normal statement due to where the "mirrors" are set up, for those who understand that words are indeed mirrors.

+++

2 - Argument: This is much more of a philosophy of language problem. Logic is the study of correct reasoning.

Counter Argument: In the case of the Liar's Paradox, the assumption that creates it is that language inherently contains meaning and that statements can be categorized as true or false in a more straightforward manner. Through my solution that words are mirrors reflecting our understanding rather than carriers of inherent meaning, I'm offering a solution that requires a shift in how people think about language, truth, and logic. So yes, the solution to this paradox cannot be solved through just traditional logic due to the need to re-frame things.

However, logic requires awareness of the full scope of a situation to be accurate. Take this for example:

The Paradox of the Literal and Figurative

Imagine someone says, "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse." In traditional logic, if we take this statement literally, we might analyze it as follows:

A. Premise 1: The person claims they could eat a horse.

B. Premise 2: Eating an entire horse is humanly impossible due to its size and the limitations of human appetite and digestion.

C. Logical Conclusion: The statement is false or absurd.

However, this analysis falls apart when we recognize that the statement is not meant to be taken literally. It's a hyperbolic way of expressing extreme hunger. The real meaning isn't about eating a horse but conveying the intensity of hunger. Traditional logic, without considering the non-literal use of language, leads to a misinterpretation. Hence the reason why awareness of how things are is required for logic to be useful. And so, by gaining awareness of what causes the Liar Paradox to form, a solution can take form due to the pieces of information then available to work from.

Imagine a world where happiness isn't just a fleeting moment but a constant, sustainable reality. "Techno-Hedonism: A Philosophy for a New Age" introduces a groundbreaking idea: that happiness is the ultimate goal of human life, and the most powerful tools we have—technology and science—can be harnessed to achieve it. This philosophy challenges traditional views of success and progress, urging us to focus on creating conditions that foster lasting happiness for everyone. If you're curious about how technology can lead us to a utopia where joy is abundant and accessible, this essay offers a bold and inspiring vision for the future.

Link for the full essay: https://www.academia.edu/123427942/Techno_Hedonism_a_shortcut_to_humanitys_ultimate_goal_A_Philosophy_for_a_New_Age

This is still a draft, so I'm really looking forward to hearing your thoughts on it. Your feedback will help me improve and further develop this philosophy. Thanks!

The question of donating hair for medical patients in the context of ritual hair sacrifice as a response to severe lethal injustices. The ownership and forced redistribution of health and death.

The topics covered in the essay are controversial, potentially triggering a strong emotional response and represent the authors subjective reflections carried out under philosophical rigor.

Substantial updates to the text were added on May 4th 2024, to improve clarity, language and logic of the arguments.

Theses:

An act of defiance is an expression of rebellion, a basic human right for those whose entitlement to control their own fate is forcibly taken away. Vulgar and obscene crimes, such as genocide and ethnic cleansing, naturally provoke a primal outcry of violent opposition.

Death rituals normalise societal patterns of organisation in response to suffering and loss and they reshape individual and communal moral beliefs.

In this entry, I argue that the ritual of cutting one’s hair in response to atrocity can be a radical act of defiance by the means of self-inflicted symbolic mutilation designed to kickstart the process of healing, also symbolising refusal to participate in the established norms, which lead to ongoing orgies of killing. Furthermore, it marks one’s unwavering resolve to conduct themselves in accordance with a newly realised moral code.

This act or rebellion can be understood as a death ritual, performed by one to express final and irreversible parting with behaviours compliant with, and exacerbating the pervasive violent social order. As such, it cannot be utilised in order to carry out false charity defined by the same broken order.

Establishing a new symbolic order means that rebellion acts cannot be diluted by seemingly ethical subsequent actions, which are in line with the symbolic order rebelled against.

The meaning of the ritual:

In history, the cutting of the hair often symbolised the rite of passage or initiation, be it social, or personal. Hair cutting represents a parting with the old self, old beliefs and traumas, in order to revitalise for the new life.
This mental/spiritual “reset” is conducted via hair cutting, often by oneself, as in some cultures the hair is believed to be the link between the physical and metaphysical realms (often long-persisting in its form after death).

Sacrificing hair then, stands in for sacrificing life: “Wilken’s own explanation of ‘hair sacrifice’ also presupposes that hair is a universal symbol, though not specifically a sexual one. He claims that the ritual cutting of hair is a substitute for human sacrifice on a pars pro toto basis, the hair being appropriate for the purpose because the head is the seat of the soul.” (cf. Crawley I927, vol. I, p. 275).

Individual response:

Individual actions such as post-sacrificial hair-donation in addressing systemic issues are inappropriate.
Lacan’s notion of “awaking to stay asleep” is a complex metaphor, speaking of an individual cognitive kernel reacting to the outside world.

In a system where authority and law create destruction and oppression, the individual, previously unaware, or just superficially aware of those injustices, feels the need to wake up and act.
However, personal and limited actions like recycling, charity support, hair donation, etc. usually have minimal results and unpredictable outcomes.

For example, confronted with climate and environment crisis, refuse sorting and recycling is proposed as a solution. The effect of this is minuscule as it is practiced predominantly in the global West, with no consistency and little coordination. All the while it has been proven and known for a long time that recycling is not a viable alternative for managing plastics as the quality quickly degrades with each successive processing, and today no more than 10% of plastic is recycled.

In the medical and social context, the immediate effect of plastic bans (supported by many ecologically minded people) often made the lives of the disabled more difficult – as they frequently need to be assisted in drinking though a straw, the paper straws disintegrate with an unpleasant effect, and metal ones pose a real danger of impalement. At the same time, the able bodied and technologically literate can easily source plastic straws, used for drinks and psychoactive substance ingestion in social events.

In this way those who perform the “woke” reaction of plastic management in their individual homes, believe they are awakened and combatting reality, while staying oblivious to the hopelessness of their efforts.

Agitation, Education:

Instead, what we can try to achieve is to shift the conversation from automatic, normalised reactions to the system, to actual understanding an individual’s role in the said system. Only then can new solutions be put forward.

By drawing each person’s attention systematically to the realities of the social world, rather than supporting their chaotic disjointed responses – “woke” ecological and conservatively charitable ideas – we can agitate and educate, for them to realise that these very responses are just another tool of the established power structures.

This can serve to kickstart a polylogue on and how we need to radically reform in an organised manner.
Initiating such a perspective shift is in itself valid revolutionary work, the subversive education, which supplements activism and on-the-ground work.

Action, consequence:

Once the individual engineered by the capitalist, colonial, imperial programming progresses to an aware, communal, solution-oriented mindset, this profound transformation calls for a ritual of passage.

In this real-life anecdotal examination, this rite of passage was the cutting of hair. This was followed by an initial idea, both spontaneous, as well as suggested by the immediate social group, to donate the hair to a charity providing wigs to those who have lost them due to disease. This premise, however, would debase the symbolic gravity of the act.

The purpose of the sacrifice:

When the long looked-after and lovingly grown hair is cut in a performative sacrificial act, rather than for aesthetic reasons – donating it to support subjects of systematic western healthcare would diminish the statement – trading a profoundly transformative commitment for a short time meaningless relief in the Lacan’s dream world.

As the old self is asserting liberation from the suppression power structures, using the sacrificial object to reinforce the pre-existing system all but defeats the primary purpose of the act.

Healthcare in the polarised economy, and identity politics:

In the increasingly more privatised, class-defined healthcare system, the profit motive of the Big Pharma is very often not to effectively treat non-communicable diseases, but to manufacture dependence on the medicine. Similarly, if the hospital invoices exorbitant sums for each day of the patient’s stay, the perverse incentive is to prolong the treatment,

On top of side-effects specific to the procedure, these ineffective processes can wear the sick out, increasing and exacerbating the natural need for comfort, hope and reaffirmation of self-image, in order to reinforce the perception of social acceptance and belonging.

While acceptance and belonging need to be nurtured, the ways of doing so are not all equally valid. Providing wigs for cancer patients (particularly debatable in the case of children), lets the subjects reaffirm their socially imposed gender beauty and sexual self-image in the superficial and prosthetic sense. Instead, the focus should be on challenging the Big Pharma to stop weaponizing treatment as a tool for profit accumulation, and reinventing commercial insurance, which distorts access to and administration of medical care.

Treatments would be more effective if they were not driven by the need to accumulate capital, but by rapid, long-term effectiveness -insofar as possible per current scientific knowledge. Instead, the goal is to prolong the treatment, and double down on the socially reinforced acceptance of the bodily and mental side-effects of these lengthy treatments.

These mentally and socially invasive practices are also increasingly necessary in order just to combat the effects of not of natural afflictions, but diseases of civilisation, such as cancer, which is often caused by environmental and social circumstances and stimuli. Cancer-related alopecia (hair loss), for example, results from expensive chemotherapy and radiation procedures – curing largely man-made evil with more man-administered profit-regulated lesser evil.

The ownership and commodification of sacrifice and death:

In the global community, largely enslaved and corrupted by the religious vile idea that life is not their own, but a deity’s to give and take, the primary focus is on prolonging existence at any cost. This leads to incredibly capital-intensive, often futile efforts to enforce living utilising procedures detailed above.

In actuality, death is a natural part of life, and there should be a concern whether painful, ineffective, demeaning treatments should be substituted for individualised psychological support, symptom management, pain relief, and euthanasia. Especially given the resource cost of ineffectively treating one individual in the global West, could be allocated to save multiple lives in the colonised world.

Between the capitalist western Empire, the developing countries, and post-colonial “third world”, there exist severe healthcare investment and access disparities.
While thousands of dollars are funnelled into a single cancer patient’s service in the USA or EU, in the 2024 Gaza genocide (ongoing at the time of writing) bandages and wound dressing needs to be cleaned in order to be used on multiple amputees, who needed to have their limbs removed without anaesthesia, as a result of manufactured necropolitical war on humanity, perpetuated by the elites.

The stark contrast is accepted by many, who were conditioned to believe that imperial dispossesment, resettlement, occupation and resource transfers are acceptable, justified and even natural.

As the exploitative global West continuous to colonially impoverish and brutalise the “Third World”, the actions of those who perform sacrificial rites of passage, are often expected or pressured to relay whatever post-sacrificial remnants are still useful, not to further the fight for global change, but for the normalised benefit of those in the immediate tribe (regardless of the tribe’s scale). I posit that such donation would be a symbolic re-enactment of the all-too-common practice of throwing scraps at the poor (e.g. trickle-down economy). This should also be viewed in the context of non-existent or minimal charitable donations and international aid,

In the personal context, this pressure to donate is paradoxical in itself – the performance is (at least in this case) designed to stand against uncover injustice which is remote and hidden in the fog of globalisation and motivate to push oneself to identify and serve those who we don’t normally see. As it is seemingly rare that a hair donor knows or sees the donee in person, the donation does nothing to expose the systematically driven suffering (both of the geographically and economically colonised). As such utilising the sacrifice in this way alleviates only the surface-level shame and guilt, in no way furthering the cause.

Usefulness of the sacrifice by-product:

To me it seems even unethical, that hair sacrificed (in the West) to consolidate one’s own opposition towards capitalism, injustice, exploitation and genocide, be donated for western cancer-patient wigs, which serve to reinforce structural the established dynamics of redistribution and assignment of sexuality, health and death. In fact, even donating to the victims of colonial abuse is questionable. If hair can be lost as a result of biological or chemical warfare of weaponization of hunger – a donation of a mere biological by-product of one’s own ritual action-catalysing response is akin to bombing from one plane and dropping aid from the other.

Replacing the symbols:

A Christian crucifixion is another a symbol of sacrifice – in this case, however, the offering is very real rather than symbolic – an excruciating, punitive torture of a person designed as alleviation of paradoxical, illogical problem (the original sin) and primitive, violent communal bonding event.
Even more shockingly, further to the act, the remnants (the body of Christ, the crucifix pendants) are not only offered to be worn by those who the sacrifice was for, but more extremely, offered to be eaten.
This God-eating can be seen a further desecration – literally turning the sacrificial object into excrement. Additionally, a cross symbolises the refusal of entry, a sign of danger, and can be seen as a simplification, analog or precursor of the Nazi Swastika.
One can hardly fathom a way of imbuing this necro-theist symbol with ideas that represent good and kindness – the best attempt so far being the Luciferian flipping on the head.

When rejected, the symbols and remnants of the old need to be destroyed – not repurposed in a way defined the oppressive history. Hair grown at the time of subject’s obliviousness or acceptance of violence symbolises the very same obliviousness and acceptance. If a new symbolic order is to be created – one that will lead to the real and lasting Revolution – it needs to be invented and nurtured completely anew.

I came a with what I think is a very good argument for why knowledge is impossible. I have written it into an essay which is short and which has only been understood by a few people, but I believe it does work. I'll post the DOI link here. Please read and comment on any objections or questions. Apologies as it is not a usual philosophy paper in terms of length and structure or full clarity, but it does get the job done. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18137.12643

Let me know your thoughts.

I’m starting to think without question, I have entered my dying days.

He’s not here any longer, truthfully I don’t know if he ever was. He’s forsaken this place, and it’s cold, very cold, not like frostbite cold, but rather a sense of cold without feelings. The term ‘lonely’ no longer exists; loneliness is the feeling of being isolated, being distanced from others around us, not physically but rather, emotionally… the disconnect cuts a straight line within now, I’m no longer lonely, I’m just entirely separated from myself. As though the surgical hand of his, my maker, cut a razor sharp line to the most absolute degree of accuracy - through my soul and through my very being - forever outcasted, banished from the very substance of my identity. What once made me, me, no longer exists, I’ve been cast astray and there’s not much longer and not much else but to beg that I may soon cease to exist.

I’m lost in the circles of the valley of suffering - a soulless pilgrimage of pain and torment; the children crawl along the edge of the cliff idly, blinded by the garden - they do not see the fall of despair that awaits them. No sense of the direction, the first infant fell, and the brothers and sisters are doomed to follow. We, the children, crawl along the valley of torment. We no longer wish for the helicopter to lay down the rope of salvation. The rope of salvation has long broke from the weight of our sin, it lays along the valley, the children follow the thread of hopeful hopelessness, to find the start of the umbilical noose; they hope to return. There is not much pain or rather the void of feeling, maybe even the void of being, greater than being exiled from the very fabric which once made you human. The laughter leaves your soul and the final step proceeds that now all hope shall abandon us.

Idealistic notions, childhood dreams, there’s but nothing else than an admission that it was all just a lie. I no longer beg for what I was promised, I no longer dream for what never was, I beg for no reversal of this ill-fortune - I no longer want to cling to false hope, I don’t want to recede into my shell like the armadillo; my demons are coyotes, and why shall I lay here paralysed? Perpetual fear of moving - my anxiety is the armadillo in its shell - why delay this harsh fate that follows me? Because death’s grip is stronger than the core of a thousand suns, and my soul is weaker than shattered bones - now let me ask, for what reason are we still clinging on? Our natural inclination to survive is indefatigable, and even when opposed by this army of tyrants and their unquenchable thirst for our suffering, the will to survive is hardwired within, and we are inept like the pheasant to the road in our attempts to rewire the maker’s black box.

Do you remember all that we were told? Where is the fire? The serpents? The corpses? The echo chamber of tortured souls? He said it would be red hot here. Yet it is cold. Whisper the truth; the Hellmouth never did lie in front of his children, it birthed them. The ultimate truth is, if you’re thinking of Hell - you are almost certainly already there.

Does the fact I'm thinking that make me start? Do dumb people know they're dumb? Am I overthinking this? Does that make me smart? Do smart people know they're smart? Do dumb people think they're smart?

What gets you out of bed in the morning is the same thing that keeps you moving forward till the end.