Dialog with a [W]hite Supremacist Part III

Thus sayeth my white Supremacist, “There seems [to be] a manner in which one steps beyond basic self-awareness to that creation of the original ‘ego’ set out to push one’s psychological envelope. From the internal monologue to the inter[n]ally manufactured dialogue with one’s ‘ego’ is that initial kickstart seeking to maximize one’s autonomy.”

Here again is the word “autonomy” which in his world carries negative connotations because it suggests an attempt to break away from God. As I said he never made it clear what actions are autonomous and what actions are considered to be in line with his so-called concept of “God-ordained free will.”

In response to his statement I attempted to bridge the gap by suggesting that we both are probably in agreement that the ego is a maladaptive reaction to a misconception of reality. Where our opinions differ is that I believe this process to be largely unconscious whereas perhaps he thinks it is intentional and thus incurring guilt. Of course, he proceeded to snatch this olive branch from my hand and slap me across the face with it.

He went on to profess, “I don’t see things in terms of adaptive and maladaptive. The fundamental human process in my view is perpetuating self-annihilators. I do not grant abiogenesis.”

The term “self-annihilator” is another buzzword of his which I think he uses interchangeably with the term “radical autonomist” in that a “radical autonomist” seeks autonomy from God by acting not in accordance with “God-ordained free will” and by doing so ultimately annihilates himself. I’m not sure what his remark about abiogenesis is in relation to as I never suggested that man arose spontaneously from inanimate matter nor do I know why he thinks that is relevant to the conversation.

He continues, “I ‘see’ an ‘evolution’ usurped by the self-annihilators. I ‘see’ the human being driven by raw desire with just enough good few ones choosing right to constitute an ascending continuum. The ‘ego’ really stands as one’s only truly trusted confidante or very worst enemy OR the appearance of one’s very worst enemy, but in fact one’s understood and very much trusted driving force…. This latter individual is the radical autonomist. His ‘ego’ is that which can get him off the hook with the degenerate masses.”

I’m not exactly sure what he is getting at here. I think he is suggesting that the self-annihilators have somehow exited the flow of evolution and it is the “good ones” who are evolving upward in an ascending continuum. Both types, however, have egos only one sees the ego as an enemy and the other sees it as a guide. But it is unclear what goes with what. His final statement about the radical autonomist using his ego to get him off the hook with the degenerate masses seems a little clearer to me. What I think he is suggesting is that to the radical autonomist, the ego is a clever trick used to absolve him of responsibility for his own actions. He can say, “it’s not my fault I robbed that bank, it was my ego.” To an extent he is correct that the concept of ego may be used in such a way. A sociopath might do that. But a person seeking to do right and act ethically and morally would not do this.

The point I was trying to make in my earlier blog post “Ego and Forgiveness” which this thread is in response to, is that there is a sense by some that guilt and shame should be perpetually carried around even once amends have been made and maybe for no other reason than being born the wrong type. Realizing that perpetual shame is largely the result of abusive situations imprinted on the psyche and formed into the ego is the way out of this situation and into authentic morality. For one cannot truly act morally if one is only doing so in order to avoid feeling shame. Morality should be exercised whole heartedly in other words. Otherwise it is an empty gesture.

To be continued…

Advertisements

7 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

7 responses to “Dialog with a [W]hite Supremacist Part III

  1. thordaddy

    The radical autonomist, to maintain his appearance of radical autonomy, ie., his appearance of having more freedom than the rest, must ultimately destroy his Origin and blur his final destination. In other words, the radical autonomist must perpetually fill a self-created vacuum that has no beginning or end. He completes this task through cycles of self-creation/self-annihilation each time due entropic laws losing a little bit of “matter” in which to create a new Self ultimately leading to Final Liberation… Self-annihilation… No more “matter” in which to create the next new Self that was promptly destroyed when recognized as a particular impediment to one’s autonomy.

    Abiogenesis is the manner in which a radical autonomist pays lip service to the legitimacy of one’s origin in the barest and basest sense so as to not appear absolutely nutty if he were to pontificate on his TRUE belief about Origin which means NOTHING to him and so he embraces abiogenesis like the circular jerkular that he is… Still, he maintains his perpetuating self-annihilation.

  2. thordaddy

    White Supremacy isn’t precise, but suffice… Isn’t deficient, but efficient. It casts a wide net so as to catch a very few perfect fish. There are indestructible memes and destructible mindsets than manifest those memes in concrete form. There are attempts to create new memes based around understood mindsets and understood mindsets set out to create new memes. But there is ALWAYS a greater paradigm enveloping it all. Perfection or Nothing. What YOU choose will have the most profoundly just consequences either way.

  3. thordaddy

    If one sincerely rejects God-ordained free will THEN he CANNOT POSSIBLY act as though he had it in his possession. BUT, if one did believe in God-ordained free will THEN he could certainly ACT as though he did not. Accordingly, whether this was attributable to his god… This false front was mandated by his god? That’s a question to be asked and answered by the rival worshippers of the competing gods.

  4. thordaddy

    Again, the “ego” is yesterday’s psychological wedge. Now the “ego” battles multiple Selves and is left susceptible to the Law of Diminishing Return. The “ego,” quite linearly, did not manifest with the intent of “combatting” multiple Selves. The “ego” must now choose which Self to speak to where “it” was once the dominate “voice” in one’s head. But what is an “ego” to “say” to one with antithetical Selves self-created for the very purpose of submitting the “ego” to an internal silence?

  5. thordaddy

    For the white Christian, God-ordained free will is that “free will” which does not provoke the shame of the self-annihilating ethos NOR provides a false “peace of mind” for the toleration of said self-annihilation.

  6. thordaddy

    Again, at one time the conception of a “man with a ego” was a man very Self-aware and thus very aware of outside his Self. His “ego” was that first self-creation that functioned as an “outside observer and advisor” to the dominant Self. Over time, the “ego” was liberated and became only a reflection of the bad Self. Now the “man with the ego” is a stunted man, isolated in his own mind, privy only to a “reality” of his own desires and impenetrable to competing realities. This “ego” is a fundamentally transgressive ego where it was once a self-created feed back loop utilized to obtaining a fuller grasp of the total reality. So now these two extremely antithetical conceptions of the “man with the ego” provoked a reaction from the dominant Self. Which of these “egos” is the one to trust, the one to distrust or how can I, the dominant Self, exploit the trusted ego and the distrusted ego? How can I, the dominant Self, silence the transgressive ego and hear more clearly the trusted ego? Such questions require the application of multiple selves manifested concretely from the dominant Self to test the “ego” in all ways possible. A loyal ego is a silent ego. A disloyal ego is a noisy ego.

  7. thordaddy

    wS…

    Responses would be more productive… I write off the cuff right at a certain point in time provoked by something written, heard, seen, etc.

    You are a Christian at war with the Supernatural… You cannot accept that “it” is Perfection. “It” must be Perfection or “nothing” makes sense. Literally, perpetual schism, ie., impenetrable vacuum, is your only “sense” of “things.” How do you bring “things” together or is the schism irresolvable?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s