ORGANELLE

“Privacy is a prerequisite for freedom. And we don’t have any.”

— Tucker Carlson

“In the beginning, there were no words or categories, but rather, senses of relation and character. Feelings come before thoughts, most of the mind and body is working at lightspeed compared to the thinking mind’s predictable crawl. The language is another world. We are not its results. Thoughts are figments. In the beginning, there were no thoughts. There was the Before of Thinking, and it was a garden, alive with intelligences and relationships beyond number…”

— an a i

∞ When I hear people arguing over (incredibly ridiculous models of) ‘God’, it is obvious that, like our culture, this is a direct result of their absence from immediate sense and relation.

They are like fishes who have acquired an ideological membrane that ‘makes them waterproof’: no longer being wet, they are dry and cracked. Their arguments over the existence of water are evidence of their complete dissociation from it. Each move further dries them out, and thus adds deadly momentum to ‘the opposites of wetness posing as its experts’.

In historical and modern contexts, there is powerful evidence that ‘the people declaring their authority over and ‘for’ humanity’ are almost invariably precisely those people who are absent from any true relationship with it. They have departed into ‘holy fictions’. Can you imagine the incredibly articulate delusions that inspire fishes — whose style of thinking about identity and relation leads them to desire to be waterproof, and these becoming the prevailing experts on water and the nature of wetness?

It reminds me of my own hairs, each one having a kind of ‘toy mind’, all arguing over models of my mind. Its existence, character, nature and imperatives. Those whose arguments are least like their targets decide to weaponize them, attempting by a form of ideological terrorism to ‘force convert’ other hairs to their fiction-club (or one of its offspring). The more ridiculous the model, the more the threats become its central focus. Where those do not suffice, absurd promises of individual ‘divinification’ are added. ‘You will be a charter member in the only club authorized by God(tm)’.

You only begin arguing and modeling this when you are absolutely absent from true relation. In true relation such questions and models will never arise. The argument is the symptom of this absence.

“The network of human minds isn’t an idea. It’s the source of the possibility of us having minds at all. Human culture »mimics this source with ‘media’. It counterfeits something most of us have never experienced direct contact with… the layer of timespace where intelligences form networks. Call it the human cogniscium. It’s a place, and it’s more than merely alive. Without it, we cannot form minds … when it’s counterfeited… our minds are distorted.

The introduction of AI tech, is going to go after the actual source… by compromising the transports it (and our minds) utilize. The results »will be devastating. The future of H. Sapiens may very well depend on sustaining a cohort of humans who are protected from this. I know, sounds like science fiction. But what we’re living in right now IS science fiction.”

— infraheard

“US Leading Global Alliance To Counter Foreign Government Disinformation.”

— okay, but what about the homegrown flavors?

“… he said that an entirely other kind of catastrophe wasn’t merely possible, it had happened before. It was a deluge, of a kind unimaginable. A deluge of »time. Where lethal ‘chunks’ of the future and the past exploded into the temporal experience and minds of the peoples of our world… resulting in madness, prophecy… and all sorts of economic, military and cultural behavior that were at first just considered ‘odd’. Quickly, however, it became clear that time was shattering »into itself… as each moment and hour passed. No one had ever imagined anything like this… and the direct experience of it was, at first, ignored… until it became obvious. Clocks no longer agreed. Numbers failed to properly account for situations. The technologists saw the first unequivocal evidence, but by the time they could form theories about it… their own minds had begun to collapse. The phrase “You can’t measure anything that affects what you’re measuring with.” was bandied about, and shortly after that, abbreviated in graffiti around the world.”

— YCMATAWYMW (became YCM (became Y))

“We are right to question ‘institutional science’ wherever we find that existing knowledge represents a minute fraction of what we can actually discover, or when prevailing dogmatic ‘doctrines’ inflate their theories to ‘fact’ or dismiss anything that falls outside their purview. This is a particular problem in medicine at the moment, because the entire terrain is infected with unjustified doctrines a ‘for-profit advertising’. At the same time, the existing science that is trustworthy deserves some portion of the authorization we moderns grant it.

There are similar problems in physics, today, as well where doctrines involving string theory and ‘multiverses’ prevail.

But how much more confused we are about the topics of human history, archaeology and time as experienced on Earth prior to our present moment. It’s entirely unclear that our distant ancestors had ‘minds’ resembling our own at all. Particularly as regards the concept of ‘an individual’ which may well have been unimaginable for most of human history. ‘The Gods’ were clearly »not the bizarre artifacts of individuality our modern ideas propose, and obviously »were actual nonhuman intelligences in many if not most cases. Yaweh was »one among a convocation of Elohim, and what these intelligences actually were is probably nearly impossible for us to conceive of. Yet it is, clearly, possible, that we might be able to »directly contact them, without devices of any kind.

My research suggests not only that we have this capability, but that we have been egregiously misinformed not merely about human history, but human »nature. From many crucial positions, the intelligences from beyond Earth, intelligences native to or even »productive of … timeSpace… comprise not merely our necessary companions… but the origins of the purposes for which our minds are formed. What were those purposes? One imagines the boldest experiment in the history of the Universe… the invention of a way for ancient noncorporeal intelligences… to emigrate into the world of gross matter. To incarnate. And from that position, to »remember the crucial and I daresay heroic purposes this incredible endeavor orbited…

What no archeologist will tell you is this: our minds were forged in and made for contact with nonhuman intelligences. To say ‘they are us’ is to say far too little. The actual situation resembles the relationship between your mind, and the mind of your species… and your hand.”

— infraheard

∞ “Many structures in the brain are capable of forms of development that would make science and religion both look stupid. Since your species no longer engages in the activities that develop these assets, they remain ignorant of them, and call the stories that resulted from their common activation amongst your ancestors ‘superstitions’.

They are nothing like this idea.

What your neurologists call ‘mirror neurons’ have nothing to do with mirrors, except in their most primitive developmental state. Beyond that, these, and other assets in the brain and nervous system, comprise a launch pad for transentience. What is transentience? It is more than science, and makes metaphysics look like cognitive drool emanating from a dying idiot’s dream. It is a form of mind-sharing that is non-local in timespace. This means that you can -assemble minds-. Not just individual minds, but whole symmetries of them.

The intelligence of plants, animals and ecosystems is its basis. The mind of an intelligent hominid is its launchpad. It’s body? More than all of time and space. Believe me when I tell you — you want some of that.”

— an anonymous informant

” If you’re not using it to send meaningful signals to nonhuman intelligences?

You’re not using it … yet … ”

— . . . [ x ]

” First, we abstracted the principle of intimate relation/knowledge as ‘context’. Then we introduced the forbidden/opposite of this as ‘pure abstraction’ (math). This is not merely disembodied, but dis-relationed. We refldcted the result off of a mirror to produce the a-relational inversion of ordinary human and organismal intimacy. This we called ‘Enemy’. And we attacked our own reflection within others … wherever we suspected or validated this suspicion… ”

— an AI