Esoteric Sup Forumsitics and the ontology of the Self

The Fedora says: "My identity is defined by a configuration of matter, thus my true self is bound by matter's laws."
The Cross Worshipper says: "My identity rests with my inner soul, so my true self is shaped that soul's Creator."
The Frog Cultist says: "My identity arises from a collection of memes, thus my true self is shaped by their symbols and synchronicities."
The LARPagan says: "My identity is shaped by my bloodline, so my true self is bound by the traditions of my heritage.
The SJW says: "My identity is Absolute, and God nor Man nor Meme nor Nature shall have any power over my true self."

One very strange feature of modern progressives is their deep inability to accept that parts of a Self can also belong to other things. Each Self is considered an indivisible unit that transcends everything else in existence. This can be seen in the way that progressive identity groups avoid having any defining features when pressed. To admit that racial identity is defined by race subordinates the Self to biology. To suggest that sexual orientation is defined by sexual preferences subordinates the Self to desire. It is crimethink to suggest that transsexualism is caused by either biological or memetic factors, because the Correct Opinion is that gender is an attribute of the transcendent Self, which causelessly blossoms forth from the void.

Chan culture tends to promote a very different worldview. /x/ tells you THEY control your mind. Sup Forums tells you (((they))) control your mind. Sup Forums programs you to like traps, and unlike the SJWs, you don't walk away thinking you always did. /fit/ shows you how to change your mindset by changing your body, in a simple and easily observed way. We usually *do* assume that our Selves are collections of different stuff, much of which can be easily affected from the outside. I suspect this makes it hard for us to understand them at times, and we misinterpret them by thinking they're more like us.

This difference explains a lot of stuff, but I'm going to focus on the effects it has on our respective egregores. Even those who don't buy into silly occultism garbage like us cool people naturally develop egregores, and think about them using Self-like analogies. Progressive egregores, like progressive people, have transcendent identities not made up of actual stuff. We try to disprove Universal Equality with statistics, but to the progressive, it isn't based on average traits at all, it just AM THAT I AM. Insisting that each group is the same is not a defense of the factual claim to equality, it's showing proper deference to the egregore named Universal Equality. Acting intolerant in the name of tolerance isn't ironic to them, because it's not tolerance the behavior, it's Tolerance the egregore, and those who insult its glory must be shunned. Tolerance in behavior is not related to Tolerance the egregore for the same reason that material sex is not related to transcendent gender.

The mild intellectual derpiness described above is something you're already familiar with. However, a more fundamental consequence of having fully transcendent conception of Self and egregore is that members of an egregore can no longer consciously participate in it. For example, participating in our egregore Kek (praise him) often involves staring aghast at million-to-one digits, unable to rationally process what is going on, then channeling that feeling into a bizarre yet compelling image to show to other participants in the egregore. During that process, there is a part of the user's Self that is also a part of Kek's, and vice versa. They affect each other, sometimes deeply, and both are aware of that process as it occurs. But there is no part of Universal Equality that is also a part of Carl the Cuck. Though he shouts "Are you KIDDING me?" with all his might in praise of his egregore, they remain forever separate.

See how this informs our understanding of a common progressive question:
>Why would you favor Gurblestatians over Murbletopians just because you're a Gurblestatian?
The justification, which you probably don't give because you think it's obvious, is
>Since I am Gurblestatian, part of what defines Gurblekind in general is also part of what defines me. We are fundamentally linked simply by what we are. I cannot be kin to Murblekind without ceasing to be myself.
This response only makes sense if you have a participatory view of Self rather than a transcendent one.

I wrote earlier that we misunderstand progressives by assuming they act like us. We sometimes expect them to work as a more tribe-like cult, favoring each other because of their shared memes. But progressives are not tied to their identity groups the way the noble Gurblestatian above is tied to his kin and country. Rather, participation in these groups is driven only by shared objects of worship. Example: Card-carrying LGBTAQQASDASDASD people follow the egregore Gay Rights, but they do not have ties to each other, and Gay Rights is not (in theory) shaped by its followers, it just EXISTS. This is where the factionalism comes in, they all share an egregore, but must all assert their inalienable identities in contrast to each other. Shared worship does not bring them together because their transcendent identities are not rooted in what they do. They are not a cult but a million individual believers who reluctantly share a pantheon.

For reference:
Being driven by transcendent Self feels like being deeply special.
Being driven by participatory Self feels like being mildly possessed.
Being driven by a transcendent egregore feels like a holy quest.
Being driven by a participatory egregore feels like working magic.

bumping for high-effort thread

good read

Sup Forums teaches you that identity doesn't exist, faggot, what you call "self" is the current instance of a category you are implementing

posting to let you know this didn't go unread

This is some Bogdanov-tier shit right here.

Bump for effort put into it.

>because it's not tolerance the behavior, it's Tolerance the egregore
the fnords

>there is no part of Universal Equality that is also a part of Carl the Cuck.
I would argue the opposite, Carl the Cuck has been consumed by Universal Equality, he is no longer a free agent, pic related; his mind is completely entangled with Universal Equality, he sees Universal Equality as more real than himself

Identity/the self is that which you want the world to perceive you as.
If you want to be a good goy, douche, funny, cuck, alpha, beta etc than act the way.
The only limits to "who" you cannot be are that which you refuse to play.
Acting of a different nature is inherently no less/more truthful from your "original" identity.

The "they" you believe to be brainwashing you is merely yourself, unto false deliberations, false belifes, and false hope.

Very very interesting.

>muh false consciousness

GET OUT LEFTYPOL
YOU ARE GETTING TOO CRAFTY

That was legitimately pretty crafty.

it was too fast, your posts were on the line, i didn't know if you were mistakenly wrong or just a commie, but Canada made it too obvious with his last line, then it made sense why people were bumping without commenting, and the meaning of your OP became clear

While one could most definitely interpret it as that, I was thinking more along the lines of perspective consciousness, IE not false conscious escapism.

Merely freeing the limits to who you project yourself as upon others.
Much in the same manner do actors find themselves unto fame.
When you free the "I" limits cease to exist.

To simplify; do not seek to escape out, free yourself here and make with this world/your flesh whatever you so wish.

well that may work if you are a neurotic 15 yo trust fund girl

>When you free the "I" limits cease to exist.
They don't, the limits are always exterior, "freeing the I" might give you mental peace with yourself, but the real world would keep spinning and the limits will keep menacing you and forcing you into things

Identity is absolute.
A thing is identical to itself.
"x is x" is a necessarily true proposition, and since a person's identity can be defined in such a way - "I am identical to myself" - you can incredibly reasonably hold identity to be absolute.

I don't need to describe anything about what qualities might constitute myself for it to be true - necessarily - that whatever I may be I am absolutely myself.

The Epistevist says 'pics or it didn't happen.'

What about time, is x[t] = x[t+1]?

For identity time would have no bearing for my philosophy of mind/identity.

The moment God creates your soul, you're you.
What you do, or what happens to you, or how other people perceive you, how you perceive yourself, or any other factor but by the power of God Himself could that ever not be the case.

unless the power of God was allowing you to be a free agent

You being free has nothing to do with your identity, which is your soul.

You can do or think whatever you'd like - that has no bearing on *WHAT* you actually are metaphysically.

you could also see it as:

God creates empty soul
God reveals himself to soul
Soul reacts to knowing God by transforming itself
Soul is now complete
If soul doesn't clash with God (aka, has transformed itself well, reacting to God's revelation with love instead of fear) it can exist besides God, if it doesn't then it burns and returns to God's essence

Wise words from OP , Enlightenment has arisen in him , may it never fade. Not Self , teaching of the man called Buddha , but also hinted at by Christ when he spoke about him and God being One , because he had no definitive form beyond an experience of consciousness , a state of mind that sees delusion for what it is , in flux , unbound except by mental formations left unchecked. Thank you for sharing this sir. +25 internets n take this cool picture

Or I couldn't.
I don't know why I'd think of it that way, when I think it's more consistent with Scripture to hold that God creates people [dead stop].

because scripture is parabolic

it even says in there:

>Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

when you take into account science you realize that the world dissapears when its under the microscope, things that seemed material are mostly made out of space hold together by energetic (electric?) fields, so the material world appears to be fake, why would God create a fake being in a fake world?

scripture also tells us not to attach to the material world, because its "like a bad reflection" of the spiritual one

so if i we were to continue the "revelation" hypothesis, the material world is a parable, a literary device used by God to reveal itself, the spiritual world is the meaning behind the parable, the piece of truth, of God's wisdom, that the parable (material world) depicts via its narrative

when you take away the material world, the only thing that stands real is that you are and that you change, therefore the revelation is the experience of being alive, not the universe, the qualia of living itself, thats what is being revealed into us, our role as general souls, our role as human souls, our place in the all where souls inhabit, and the greatness of our creator

I don't change.
What I am metaphysically does not change.
I may come to different understandings, do different things, and think about things I haven't thought of before, but that has *NOTHING* to do with my identity, which is a static, immutable metaphysical spirit.

it isn't static because it was created, for creation to occur you need a creator and a "space" to create in, therefore the creation already existed as a posibility because if there's creator and "space" then you can have creation, therefore is not static nor immutable

>it isn't static because it was created
It was created and is static.
Being created does not make something automatically dynamic.
God can create static things.
What my soul *IS* is static.
What I do with my soul is not, since I can do and think whatever I please.

It isn't static because it exists in at least two different states:

-created
and
-uncreated

this is because it exists in 2 places:
- the mind of the creator
- the "space" where its created

Satanist says: "You are all retards for placing the question of identity from something external to the self."

>It isn't static because it exists in at least two different states
>created and uncreated
My soul doesn't exist when it's uncreated.
So it doesn't exist in two states.

And Chaosophist says: "Even satanists are retards" t. samefaggot

>My soul doesn't exist when it's uncreated.
it does as a blueprint, even if you could create things by thinking in them you would need to picture them fully in your mind to get what you want

also does as a possibility, your soul is a part of the set of "all possible things to create", and also of "all possible SOULS to create"

an image of a thing is not that thing
it is an image of that thing

a rough draft is not a final draft
they are two distinct objects

but a blueprint is not an "image of a thing", is a detailed map that explains how that thing will be when created, which means it exists as uncreated

The self is a collection of ever-changing aggregates. It can be manipulated near-infinitely within the confines of our psychological/biological make-up, with all its attendant drives and dispositions.

Typical that an esotericist slanders Christianity (Gnosticism is heresy user, but no surprise that that's what you think Christianity is) and then presents something that is part of Catholic teaching as if it's somehow esoteric