Raven Gnosis said:

You’ve still provided nothing of substance and grossly misrepresented what I've said in classic straw man fallacy fashion, think Tripsten, if what you're saying is a gross misrepresentation of what I'm saying and you either lack the capacity to or refuse to acknowledge your fallacy, that's it, it's done.
If I was interested in discussing what else you said, I would have refuted it; its inconsequential to what I've addressed and you can delude yourself into some self congratulation by fallaciously connecting the unrelated, but it makes no difference.

---

You even went as far as insisting I said Jewstress was ignorant.

Tripsten said:

"You did claim her belief to be ignorant
It was implied with the first line of your last stanza"

---

Once again, a marked lack of reading comprehension skills on your behalf.

There was no stanza, it isn't even a poem.
Even if I waxed poetic in my attempt to transliterate what I was trying to describe, it doesn't make it a poem.

Not only can you, the reader or listener not dictate what a speaker or writer meant by what they said or wrote, there is a difference between implying something and claiming something. To which I did neither and you've failed to prove and simply cannot, it's just literally not there, you can only continue to engage in your numerous straw man fallacies, and fallacies in general.

I've repeatedly pointed these out to you, and you continue to deflect and project and overall fail to understand and see.

Tripsten said:

And wdym if I can’t ha duke having my thigns called out on here lol

---

Quote:

Blindness to the mechanisms and forces that dictate our shape, blindness to the things that precede our every word, our every thought and every emotion that lay unilluminated, sleeping in a perpetual night before dawn, not much unlike our persistent incognizance of our instinct and numb familiarity to pulling air into our lungs, blindness to the eons old monolithic frameworks that precede our every word, action, thought and feeling, do not make us free or void of them.

Ignorance of and denial to that which precedes us, will never make us wiser, or help us forge the symbolic tools and understanding to truly individuate from it, and perhaps if we are wise and powerful enough, breathe new life into it.

---

I genuinely appreciate your asking, Sudly.


Though waxing poetic, what I am referring to is quite literal and well documented and researched. It's mildly abstruse conceptually though, so the language surrounding it requires almost poetic language.

But ultimately the finer points I was alluding to belong to what most simply and for the sake of ease here, and is called in the psychoanalytic disciplines:  The Unconscious Mind.

Quote:

"The unconscious mind comprises mental processes that are inaccessible to consciousness but that influence judgements, feelings, or behavior (Wilson, 2002). According to Freud (1915), the unconscious mind is the primary source of human behavior. Like an iceberg, the most important part of the mind is the part you cannot see.

Our feelings, motives and decisions are actually powerfully influenced by our past experiences, and stored in the unconscious."

---

Quote:

"From this perspective, it is concluded that in both phylogeny and ontogeny, actions of an unconscious mind precede the arrival of a conscious mind—that action precedes reflection."

---

What I meant by the ignorance and denial to that which precedes us is either or both ignorance to, or lying to and deluding oneself in regards to the reality "that action precedes reflection."
To many people, I've found they feel like this implies they are in essence automatons with no self control, but that's not the case at all. The reality of our circumstances just are not as simple and superficial as they may seem to ourselves.

One of the things I find most stark about and illuminates precisely what I'm talking about, is its role in PTSD.

A great deal of veterans with PTSD do not have it because of what they saw or what happened to them, but because of what they did.

To keep it simple, it's intensely traumatic because they did not know or think that they were capable of some of the horrifying things they did, and struggle to accept and integrate that as themselves, because its not a reflection of who they are or what they thought themselves capable of, it having originated in the unconscious makes this all the more difficult, confusing and traumatic.

In certain cases, this causes these veterans to feel themselves as fake, false, unreal and/or only wearing a mask in which hides this monster who they never knew they were, causing a struggle of duality of sorts that some never come to terms with and consequentially manifests in horrific ways like with this Vietnam veteran who executed a police officer on a highway in Georgia.
(Warning: this is a very graphic video)



On a side note to that, I ask anyone who happens to be reading this, that if they find themselves talking to a veteran and they have the urge or thought to ask them if they have killed someone, remember having read this, please.

There are a couple fantastic books which thoroughly demonstrate what I mean with veterans in this capacity that are just fantastic and insightful reads in general.
The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma

On killing: The psychological costs of learning to kill in war and society.

Something we can all relate to in this respect is getting angry, and most of us have gotten so angry at some point in which we said or did something impulsive and deeply regretted it afterward, having been out of control.

This old New York times article was written by Richard Alan Friedman, a professor of Clinical Psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College.
BEHAVIOR; Beyond Anger: Studying the Subconscious Nature of Rage

Hopefully that clarifies it for you, let me know if you got any other questions!

Edit: Forgot a preposition in a sentence and wanted to add a thought.

Tripsten said:

If all is one
Which I believe
Then their are , in a sense , “two selves”
There is the ego self which is the character one is playing out in their life, the “John Smith”
And the true self which is every literal thing period

Knowing this mask doesn’t really refer to anything
It is a philisophical paradox and does not exist in my opinion
The fact that society, and ones cultural upbringing and environment deeply correlated to who a person is is irrelevant because those things are apart of the true self and therefore everyone’s ego / character / persona is then formed by the true self
That being said mask is a useless term that truly means nothing and is just a more conveluted and murky way of explaining just that
To say ones true self can never come through is just philosophy porn
Fun to think of and discuss
But holds no factual basis in the real world which is not words or ideas
For ones true self comes through all the time whether they like it or not
For the true self is everything
And our personas ( also apart of the true self ) are shaped by this so the true self comes out through these as well

What many people in this forum meant by they don’t wear masks
Is that they are not different people for different social groups and that their hey maintain the same general persona save for organic life changes which are inevitable but do not intentionally alter their behaviors and mannerisms for different occasions or groups

What is your reply

---

Raven Gnosis said:

Something we can all relate to in this respect is getting angry, and most of us have gotten so angry at some point in which we said or did something impulsive and deeply regretted it afterward, having been out of control.

---