On Cowardice, Atheists vs. believer

Some say a coward someone who lacks courage. In recent times, a coward is someone who runs away from responsibility. In times of war, many militaries deal with AWOL (Absent without leave) soldiers differently. Militaries punishes dissenters by serving prison time and a few centuries ago, they killed them in public to deter others from going AWOL. Justifiably so because 1) dissenters weaken the morale of troops, and 2) encourage others to run away in times when they are needed most. A warrior or soldier, trained for fighting and defending, when in the hour of need decide to betray friends, family, and country, is a coward for fleeing for his or her life. By the end of this essay, we’ll discuss how the skeptic’s loving always always fails to attain life-force from the altruistic believer.

The Bully

Another definition of a coward is someone who takes advantage of someone else who can’t defend himself. Say, a bully in the school yard that has physical strength to pick on the little guy. Schools are places where one can observe the nature of humans undomesticated. As children who are born innocent begin to learn how to operate in society, boys in particular learn that strength is not cowardliness. In schools, it’s not just strength that capacitates bullies with intimidation, but attitude. Schools in lower income are treated like a prison. They fa├žade resembles like prison when built in the middle of the slums. They have to make the stronger kid the coward. The child who is hubris, who learns to have fun, disobeys authority, shares genuine experiences, breaks windows, invites friends over, and live as children are supposed to live, can also be the bully. Then there’s the accountant child who begins to adapt by obeying. They learn about the world too quickly and close themselves up. They carry the poison of weakness in the playground. Despite obeying grownups and wanting to be like them, they don’t want to grow up. The bully picks on the little guy because he can. The accountant child becomes a recluse.

How to suck the life out of someone

The laws of nature obeys because of the Will-to-power. The Will-to-Power answers the “why” in causation. As established in Will-to-power and the quest for symbolic immortality, physics is the study of forces. All phenomena, ideas, and bodies carry both reactive and reactive forces within. The tension between the conflicting forces vitalizes in a way where active forces “take” identity away from the reactive forces. But active forces are not in conflict with reactive forces. Only reactive forces react to everything the active forces affirm. Reactive forces react because reactive forces are fully capacitated by the Will-to-Power to do so. However, all forces exists in the context of all external forces acting on it. Technically, there is not an active force and a reactive force separately competing. They are just one force in sense that they share a genealogy stretching all the way back to an inception. Bullying is just a transaction just like any other transaction be it altruistic or loving transactions. There’s always a loser and a winner of identity. Adults learn to mitigate the Will-to-Power with growth. Growth is a reactive attitude towards death in that adults want to “live their childhoods properly” before they die. This is the attitude of that of the accountant who don’t want to experience losses or gains of life-force at every point of juncture, articulation, or joint in society. His soul is the weak space rock bouncing and crashing by bigger space rocks. They loss life-force because they don’t have a choice. They prefer to save and accumulate life-force to protect the little they have.

The Virgin Skeptic vs the Chad Christian

Humans can not live sanely in a world that is way too big, mysterious, dangerous, complicated, and intimidating. So they partialize it. Humans pick it up, analyze, and assault it the world as if they were the bullies. They push, pull, tumble, tinker, and carbon-14 date it to observe and annotate what happens. Then they store it in a file and label it truth. They live in the Earth but don’t want to be apart of it because accepting the earth for what it is means that they are also animals. Human being with animal determinism is a disparity too hard to bear. As we participate in the giving and taking of life-force, the daily push-pull transactions to make the world go round, life-force occurs cowardly. For those who can hear it, the Will-to-Power works simply and beautifully. It takes, steal, suck, acquire, and bend life-force indifferent of any morality or feelings prevalent in culture. Every sale is an intimidation. Every advertisement a bully. Every purchase is a revenge. But only the accountant sees it as “living in the world” because they don’t want to be part “of the world” because they are cowards. Every transfer of life-force is done cowardly. I argue for a soft determinism, but I don’t affirm compatibilism. Transitions are experienced painfully, as every point of juncture falls into its components built for by accountants. Shame, embarrassment, and uncomfortable feelings come out as an opportunity for the strong person to self-feel. This is the most authentic way to live in a capitalist economy. It helps us turn more hubristic and less accountant. If hubrists are cowards, its because it is a virtue. Just like hypocrisy. But the accountant wants to “live livie in the world but not of it”. He wants a world glossed over for him. Yes there are jobs to do, positions to apply for, raises to ask for, deals to negotiate, girls to ask out, death to happen, but these “articulations” should happen smoothly. That if one is afraid to accept responsibility for entering into marriage or asking a crush out on a date that that decision alone should carry momentum to the next step. To the accountant, the world is a giant bully

Just like a boy learns to avoid certain hallways at school, learns to run, escape, and react to everything. With religion, beliefs are attacked because it is the soul’s life line. Think of the atheist, he wants for someone faithful their entire life to abandon their belief system at the end of life. The atheist wants to tell him that his religion is fake and take credit for pain he assumes will take part. He wants to self-feel in a loving way. The most inauthentic way to self-feel is through loving because the taker is assuming that he won life-force while in fact, he is leaving the life-force on the table. The Will-to-Power doesn’t happen in someone’s mind. It happens in the objective world according to accountants. An atheist might admit he takes life-force by ‘respecting one’s beliefs’, but he has to confirm that fact. Did a transaction happen? Was life-force confirmed? The the loving skeptic self-feel? The giver (the believer) did not in fact give the life-force because there was not argument done through loving. Does the skeptic spew out facts to watch the believer life drain away from his eyes as he falls into an eternal sleep? If he does, he’s a coward. “If only he knew the facts,” the atheist murmurs to himself.


Capitalistic altruism

Is the person who is calm and delivers a concise, well thought out argument, winner of this life-force I’ve talked about. Of which I mean the symbolic affirmation of the inner-self to prove oneself worthy of life? In the meaning-making process of capitalism, the gold standard of souls is where one can measure oneself against another for an objective assessment of worthiness. It’s a healthy reminder that souls materializes when archaic forms of violence (of which meant prehistoric survival) are transformed into modern forms of ‘violence’ (of which means symbolic immortality). For the dialecticians, the transfer of life-force happens through the labor of the negative i.e. conflict, arguments, insults, and submissions. All organisms that survive in open nature outperforms its rivals when physical brute force ends the threat. In modern society, the soul has taken up the responsibilities of measuring life worth, so, how is worth measured to the soul? Schopenhauer’s will-to-life concludes that there’s an underlying force that motivates everything from the very small (atoms), to the very large, (galaxies) to expand indefinitely. So we, with an evolved brain capable of comprehending what it will go through at the end of life, disregards the body as something temporal, a piece of carbon within a space rock flung thousands of miles around the sun, This view lead Schopenhauer, as well as dialecticians, to conclude the will-to-life striving is inherently meaningless and dangerous. So these archaic forces must be sublimated into utilitarian forces. The sense of most people that we are prisoners to our instincts only to be occasionally relieved by catharsis, oedipal forces, or reactive forces, is contributing to the reactive forces of capitalism making meaning for our souls.

I’ve talked about the two forces, active and reactive. Reading Deleuze’s take on Nietzsche in his masterpiece interpretation book Nietzsche and Philosophy, there’s a sense of accomplishment after understanding the active and reactive forces. It’s the kind of feeling one gets after acing a test by getting the right answer. Nietzsche reads forces much more simple and practical than dividing the world up into two. Further reading can frustrate the reader because Deleuze moves away from the clear-cut definition of these forces into an anti-ideological openness. This is where Nietzsche stands out as one of the most powerful yet humbling philosophers of all time. Nietzsche offers an active solution, instead of the the will-to-life, he offers the will-to-power. The will-to-power’s interpretation of capitalism is that active action can be done out of love or out of altruism. An action done out of altruism is when the active and reactive forces are confused as to the transfer of life-force of growing adults. An altruistic action is when reactive forces are participatory in the transfer of life-force but sentiments of loss are mitigated into a moralistic or ideological level. Capitalists want to forgive the debts their populations have, and give them opportunity, but remaining life-force is transferred. Capitalistic altruism is an example of an active force purposefully confusing this transfer where the betterment of society is itself a fair trade-off to the old, archaic states of humanity. The capitalists are also confused as to what they are actually understand as receiving. The betterment of society is itself its own reward. This keeps them blind to the life-force transfer. They are utilitarians and pragmatists which would explain why most capitalists are resort to moral structure in religion and the spiritual. They don’t know what to do with so much life that they’ve accumulated. But the-will-to-power is the genealogical force. Like i said, any phenomena contains within itself its own active force, capitalism as a force, contains within itself it’s own active and reactive forces. This tension is what gives phenomena it’s ‘realness.’ Similarly, capitalism sprung into existence out of this confusion. Returning to our hypothetical confrontation between two people, who wins the life-force? an altruist? As established in the last post, the winner is the one who conducts a successful inception, that is leaving your opponent ‘feeling some type of way’ where you relish in the fact that he is left feeling resentful of losing. This would make you the dominant force in the confrontation. The life-force is confirmed with an accurate modus operandi, as adults grow into understanding the world as objectively as possible… dialectically. Growing adults can checkmate an opponent into ‘playing himself’, meaning proving his own arguments working against him. Think of the inception as the apparatus where the indebted slave must suffer torture for the creditor to self-feel, that is to use his slave’s pain as payment for the unpaid debt. Again, this is set in Nietzsche’s hypothetical slave-master society. In today’s post-materialized soul, you can relish taking life-force as you win an argument and you can play your sweet victory over and over again in your mind or later, or forever for that matter. If your opponent has sentiments of bitterness but doesn’t understand the modus operandi behind it, this is altruism, because the loser accepts the dogma of growth. The same altruism that capitalism works under to confuse both parties as to what the life-force is. But if you want to leave your opponent having ‘learned a lesson,’ say with a fist to his or her face, or an uncalled for insult, then you leave your opponent better than when you found them. This the soul can not accept a mere ego trip, it wants revent, the fuel souls work on, the baggage of bad consciousness. This is active love, the love of a parent, the love of your boss, the love of your society, the love of god. You might intend to teach your opponent a lesson but this is disingenuous because it betrays the will-to-power. It doesn’t confuse which means it never enphenominates to anything. It just leads to banter and wanting to out-teach each other a lesson. Or worse, it becomes a battle of who gives a fuck the least. For the soul, the perpetual inception works in the ideological level. That is why if you attack someone’s beleif, not only will that person react as as if its a threat on his life, but his life is in constant torture, all live in the head of your opponent.

A component of a modus operandi is put your opponent into a position where he or she is required replaying his losing of life-force over and over again. Again, this works beautifully in the ideological or political level. And the name of the game is recognition. It is only if you recognize yourself inside the mind of your opponent’s fuled with ressentiment even after the confrontation is over. Deleuze want people to be anti-ideological, anti-reactive. To do so, he points out that there are active forces that become-reactive. and reactive forces that become-active. Love is an example of an active force becoming-reactive only because the reactive force takes away his ability to self-feel. That is he learns to become in the world.

Is an active force the dominant for because he hold the will-to-power? No. You can also ask this question: can a reactive force overcome an active force by using will-to-power? Again no. Nietzsche isn’t difficult to understand. Everything, body, or phenomena contain within itself active and reactive forces but with their genealogies. Meaning that there’s really only one force but with direction to it. That’s it. The question to ask is: is and active force becoming-reactive or is a reactive force becoming-active. Will-to-power is present within both active and reactive forces. Only reactive force can make an active force become-reactive by inhibiting what it can do.

The Modus Operandi

An encounter has occurred. Someone used a backhanded compliment or someone shouted a little too loud or a little too close at someone’s face. Moments later, the confrontation erupts out of control like an over-heated pressure cooker. One can picture a bar fight. The setting, a crowded bar in midtown on a regular afternoon, where one goes to drown away their day’s worries. And one has to imagine if they will have to go through this situation one day. “Is it inevitable? Does uncomfortable, bad, or embarrassing situations happen without any of my control?”

The last post we talked a bit about genealogy of debts. We remain worthy of life by sucking life away from others. If we run out of life, that currency made out of blood and soul, we start to borrow it. We learned how we needed to confirm that the transaction of life-force symbolically happened. Symbols are not living entities, neither are souls, so transactions are symbolically fought in the meaning-making environment. The black marker of the “underground battleground” of the soul. Capitalist drives are made with this need to pay off debts similar to how they borrow money to create money through credit. By creating credit out of thin air perpetually, capitalist are able to produce new desires perpetually, constantly, and criminally. By accommodating individual’s basic needs, then further, basic wants, capitalist can claim meaning by responsibility. Thus, love is observing people go from, free but dangerously exposed to the elements to symbolically enslaved but safe. The byproduct of this is interpreted in what social standing your are in. The capitalist interpret this responsibility as love because the trade-off reveals the standard of living they give outweighs the freedom people are giving up. While the adult interpret this as socially draining. This awful attitude of complaining seen from the capitalists and insignificance seen from the adults at each other is devastating.

Ask a small child what comes to mind when he hears the word “business.” He’ll say buildings, skyscrapers, offices, desks, factories, computers and all the materialistic aspects of a business. Start with the physical brick-and-mortar structures that encapsulates people and their labour inputs inside. Beginning with the most central and crucial priority, a CEO begins with capital and determines how that capital will flow to extraneous operations. These extraneous operations are called externalities because for every output fulfilled, several externalities are created in the process. These externalities receive less and less funding from their respective distance to the C-Suite.

At every level, impulses to fill these externalities are taken by onlookers. They create their own labour in order to capitalize their inputs. Departments created inside the main branch are still relevant to the inputs which means that without being directly related to the product, externalities are still necessary. Not all externalities are created equal however. Necessary divisions include sales, accounting, legal, billing, training, R&D, HR, partners. Less vital operations begin to blur the line. These tend to be pushed outwardly from the main facility or place of business. So it begins with custodians, window washers, landscapers, electricians, and security. Then further out are landscapers, drivers, technicians, and plumbers until the most outer externality reaches another business which does business with them. One can see the connectedness of business and public access start to enclose one another.

That’s why traffic is the least pleasant part of the day for many commuters. Every inch of space is owned property that is managed. The path leading up the the door of the building is part of the business. The sidewalk that connects that path to the parking lot is owned. The sidewalk that connects the parking lot to the main road is not owned necessarily but still assigned a purpose. That main road, which connects to the street, which connects to the block, which connects to the strip mall, which connects to the highway, with every level out, people regain a little bit of their spaces. A sense of soft-competition rise out from people in these free spaces as if a want to expand and claim this territory as their own. To critique this view of spaces, a consequences of the bottom-up reductionist view of instincts, discombobulates their drives rather than focus it on expanding their territory. This is the reality of most people and It’s devastating to know of people whose moods and emotions are regulated this way. They are valves that their overseers and control and release. “Release some pressure, take a vacation, and come back refreshed and ready to work.”

What happens when an insult occurs. Do insults, embarrassments, and assaults escalates into confrontations because of loss of dignity? pride? Or were they exposed to the world differently? Was a debt left unpaid somewhere? Who initiates the fight? When the other is reacts. This moment marks the start of an encounter and momentum carries it over to bickering. The insulter is looking for a way to get the insultee to react. A flinch, a twitch in the eye, an intonation of the voice, redness in the face, an involuntary response that occured out of his control. Something has to get the opponent to “lose face.” Any response will do, even a verbal assault or a threat in return. What happens next is the insulter turns insultee, each other trying out-live each other until the winner is left standing with the life-force. It’s difficult to just leave it alone or “bit the bullet” as they say. The loser is left standing exposed in a world that he thought was one way, but in fact, was another. The world was more to the liking of the winner as he imposes reality of the situation onto him. If it’s a verbal argument, the words used to argue, mixed with emotions, expressions, and statements are the weapons used to battle for the life force. Just like a creditor tortures indebted slaves to “self-feel,” meaning that he enjoys the pain he inflicts on his debtor, the creditor does not get the actual payment in return but rather a chemical high. The insulter confirms the “self-feel” by himself when the insultee “plays himself.”

In debate class, we learn that a debate is never won or lost but suspended in arguments. In other words, the objective is to get the other person to “trip up on his words.” If the insultee can be “the bigger man,” and leave the encounter unscathed (not-give-a-fuck), he can pretend no transaction had occurred while reacting to the logical fallacies within. He can laugh it off or remain stoic. But the insulter can not know the inner state of “the bigger man,” the one who shrugs it off, unless he pins his arguments down loud and clear in his psyche. The insulter wants him to suffer cognitive dissonance, distress, and shame even after the confrontation has ended. He wants him to catch him in a moment of reaction, exposing his loss, and shame him for it long enough to leave him feeling some type of way. The insulter can create an inception, meaning that he can picture his opponent and losing over and over again in his own mind. What happens now is a meta-battle where the insulter can suck “life-force” perpetually from a mental image of his opponent losing the encounter. If the debtor (insultee) loses face, he agrees to becomes part of the creditor’s (insulter’s) inner world. The loser would have to give up life-force over to him for him to “self-feel” as well as perpetually in his mind! This implies the loser picturing the insulter picturing him losing life-force within the mental realm! This is the modus operandi of growing adults as they develop a kind of telepathic torturing device. A creditor in the modern age can torture his opponent at will giving him virtually unlimited “life-force” from one encounter where the debtor’s soul transfers from “losing face” because he affirms it. This underground battleground is largely depended on understanding this symbolic game, collecting accurate data from the world, and leaving as many people clueless about it. With this knowledge, he can build a modus operandi that works and can command life at will unto the social world with his mind. A successful modus operandi begins with people assimilating into already winning ideologies and powerful forces in order to branch out and create his own pain-inducing machine.

Here’s the problem of this view, if the insulter (or insultee turned insulter) want the insultee to “learn a lesson,” isn’t this person left in a better place than when he found him? If to conduct an inception is by having an accurate modus operandi, then would that mean that the loser would be better off. He’s learned something about the world even it he were shamed for it. Which is what the creditor need not happen. To give his debtor objective data mean he can conduct an inception just as well. Here, both parties turn into reactive-defensive which means that each are trying to win by losing. Or “he learned superficially but he didn’t really learn anything”. This is the “humber than thou” of Christianity. It is a cowardly stance because each are afraid to “give up the ghost”. And a clumsily inception, if any, occurs. This is why we hurt those closest to us. We know how to push their buttons. Defensiveness or coyness frustrates the flow of life-force and it gets stuck leaving everyone worse off. Love, means letting this flow through you. We teach those we love a lesson because “it for his own good.” In this corporate structure we build for ourselves, we can feel the “love” as growing adults climbing that corporate ladder. In school acclimbatize to the teacher-student dynamic. We are thought to be humble, to not let these insults hurt us, this leads to confusion as to what love it. Love is generated by confusion. Meanwhile our insulters take life-force from us, it is not that we don’t notice it, because if we don’t notice it, our opponents can not genuinely “self-feel.” But rather we redirect those insults as if we said it to ourselves, torturing ourselves because we are lowly animals that need to be tamed. But not idiots enough because we must be worthy opponents. An easy win is no win to corporate love.

While the insulter can leave and self-feel at that instant, to conduct a successful inception will depend on the personality of the person. The one who displays neurotic emotions are easier to get them to feel bad about themselves. This one will feel genuine depression. This is what the soul fight on. No remorse, not mercy unless confusion turns this to love.

We return to being stuck in traffic. It is common to want to look over at the faces those idiots who cut us off in traffic. We want them suffer at with our mere gaze. “Look how mad I am at you!” As we look in their eyes, we fantasize about how we can torture this complete stranger. Or how they crash their car by their own driving stupidity. We feel the need to operate an inception at every turn, in order to confirm that our modus operandi works. We need to be perpetually thinking of them thinking of us thinking of him in return torturing themself for a mistake we caught them doing. This is the dogmatic image of growing adults. This view states that souls starting out in the corporate-desire system means we accumulate more spiritual points as we develop a modus operandi. At every level up the corporate ladder, physical space gets invaded until our mental space is open ground for any inception by onlookers. This is why driving is the only activity left that can be done in a space uninvaded until someone conducts an inception form their side windows. This dogma of pretentious and condescending game is so cumbersome that many can not handle it. This all started because a CEO borrowed money to put into his business

Capitalism and the Materialist Soul

Everybody knows that money isn’t the thing it is. “Money is just a piece of paper,” we say. The common belief of the history of money is that before paper or coin money, the standered currency was gold and other precious metals. Before that, we had, more-or-less, a barter economy – an apple would pay for two oranges for example. Once society gets overly complex, basic receprocity falls apart because everyone’s wants diffent things at different times. Therefore a common currency was established to acount for time and aninimony (a medium of exchange).

The soul of each individual works in a similar way. Just as the amount of money determines how much of a product, service, or standard of living we can obtain, the soul must obtain “life” to even be worthy to remain alive… symbolically. What else can the soul do without physical boundaries? How did the soul came to be? And how will it’s quest to become immortal affect actual life, biological or otherwise? In this blog, I will attempt to use contemporary thought to describe new possibilities of living in this exhaustive world of currency. I will use the influences of radical French theorists like Gillis Deleuze and Felix Guatarri as well as structuralist, post structuralism, and existential philosophies. I’ll use my training I received in the modern educational system of the United States, life experience, and solo-prenureship ventures to talk about physics, history, psychology, business, technology. I don’t want this blog to be “a book about a book” or “a book about other books” (which is what textbook actually are if you think about it), but rather, create a new physics, new society, and new psychology of possibility.