Artificial Spirits and Collector’s Mind: A Giant Trap
Introducing a concept, sending away the talking points
This story is an attempt to explain with some precision why talking points—all talking points—are a poisonous cage for a free soul. I will also try to show how they are used as a weapon, to confuse and enslave.
I am writing this essay strictly from the inside, which means that what I am saying is going to safely and decisively bypass all familiar talking points!. There is no titillation or reinforcement of preexisting talking points that is going to happen in this post. :)
The focus of the story is the mysterious interplay between our senses and the invisible “language wrappers.” In earnest, this dance can only be “felt,” i.e. grasped and understood in a sensory way. Linear explanations of this interplay are very limited due to its very nature, so I will try to do my best with words and be as visual as possible, hopefully at least some of it translates.
Let us try a metaphor. Imagine “lipid nanoparticles” used in “mRNA vaccines” (I know, I know). Lipid nanoparticles—the carrier, the vehicle that wraps and delivers the “payload” (mRNA)—are toxic in their own right. The “payload” loaded onto the “truck” of the lipid nanoparticles could theoretically be neutral or toxic (for example, no load vs. the mRNA soup) but the “vehicle” is still toxic in its own right.
The invisible entity that I am talking about here, the “language wrapper” used in abstract thinking (the way abstract thinking is cultivated today), is just like that. It’s a vehicle that greatly obfuscates our understanding of realty and acts as an energy poison on its own, even if it is wrapped around beautiful things.
Definitions
To avoid confusion, let us get our definitions out of the way. Some of the terms I am using here, I created—and I will explain what I mean by them as we go.
As for the phrase “abstract thinking,” various philosophers, psychologists, childhood development experts and so on use this term in various ways. Some psychologists classify things like creativity and empathy under “abstract thinking.” I am not here to argue about definitions, we all have our internal definitions of philosophical concepts anyway, so let me just clarify how I use this term here. I am talking about the intellectual processes that our minds undertake in the realm of “ideas,” in the scholastic mode, in the mode in which “ideas” take up a life of their own.
Without a solid sensory grounding in the spiritual realm, that kind of abstract thinking—as a method of dealing with life, as an energy mode—almost inevitably leads our senses astray. In an ideal world, perhaps, it doesn’t have to do that, maybe, maybe—but in the real world, it just does. And the people with vampiring intentions who want to lead the senses astray know that and use that.
(By the way, here is an important historical and spiritual caveat. Proclaiming loyalty to any theological dogma doesn’t equal sensory connection to the divine. In fact, oftentimes, it’s a classic “possession” by talking points.)
Let us look at the anatomy of this thing now. For the ease of it, let us start with looking at what we, human beings, are.
We are composite beings
Physically and spiritually, we are composite beings. We consist of many parts in the visible world and many parts in the invisible world. We are symphonies. We are “composite clouds” of energy, And so are different things in the world. When we think thoughts, they are bits of energy, too. It is all far more complex but on a very simple level, we can start with that.
As composite beings, we process reality through certain sensory filters, that are also energy. There is more to our sensory filters than just our cultural biases and contexts. I am talking about bits of energy that facilitate--or obscure--our understanding of the world as it is.
Talking points, the temporarily pleasant but poisonous cage
From the cradle, we are taught to believe that Abstract Thinking, the ability to “abstract” ourselves from the world of the concrete in a schematic, somewhat algorithmic mode is a sign of superiority of the modern man. However, in reality, it is more like chains on the modern man’s legs, or even a cage.
This energy wrapper “digitizes” our perception of life (and of ourselves, too). It replaces reality with symbols. It turns potentially grounded people into wobblyfolk. It transforms people into symbolic creatures like the ones they draw on bathroom doors—pawn-like figurines with open spaces between their bodies and their heads.
We are trained to use sensory “interfaces” that obfuscate our relationship with reality A LOT. We are metaphorically beaten on the head from the day we are born in a way that trains us to do that. We are taught to process reality—and ourselves—exclusively through a sensory filter that behaves like a metaphorical vampire. It’s a killer, a castrator, a rigidifier, it is not live energy but the opposite of that.
For that construct, I made a term “artificial spirit” or “artificial ghost.” This is a very specific energy, call it whatever you want but it’s not conductive to life. And unless you step outside of it, you don’t see it. It’s invisible unless you peel it off yourself. You just think it’s normal to feel this way, and to process reality this way. Everything-everything, you process everything this way and think it’s normal. And it is not. Once you step outside of it, you just want to scream about how cheated you have been all your life.
In today’s society, we are taught intellectually and set up spiritually to process absolutely everything through that filter: our identity, our love, our religion, our business, our politics, our friendships, etc. That filter turns everything live into “constructs,” sets of talking points, something that in our head we think we own.
In my observations, that structure only starts receding in modern westerners in earnest if a person goes through a series of major crises that take the person completely apart before he or she finds a way to put oneself back together in a more spiritually natural way. The grasp is pretty strong otherwise, and many people live their entire lives without ever even realizing that they live in a cage.
That linguistic / sensory wrapper is a very ugly cage. You might be trying to process something sincere and beautiful—but if it has to pass through that thing, it will be at least in part deflated, flattened, castrated, and provided a ticket to go on a journey of becoming emotional property, a collectible item for the collector, a rigid / dead-ish thing.
Before we go any further, here is the most important part of this article
As you read this, here is what I think matters in practical terms. Please use my metaphors, imperfect as they are, as art, as poetry, while resisting the intellectual temptation to turn this explanation of things into a yet another talking point. It is possible that you already know exactly what I am talking about. If not, what I would recommend as one loving traveler on this Earth to another is trying to notice that energy structure in your own everyday life. If you really focus and do it for a long time (not as a task that you “have to do to be a good person” but as an interesting thing to do) you can possibly “catch” the sensation, separate it from who you are on the inside, and start observing. It may come in very handy in sending away the thoughts that are not yours, which would be very good for you and for this entire beautiful world.
Language swapping, etc.
This particular energy entity is being exploited very generously because when people process reality through this filter—as opposed to directly, through their internal senses—they are much easier to manipulate.
The manipulation could be done through “language swapping.” When I say “language swapping,” I mean dragging the person’s mind into the kingdom of the abstract (to visualize, think of it as a place) and attaching his or her preexisting emotions to a symbol of the manipulator’s choice. The abstraction, i.e. the distance that exists between things in the physical world and their symbolic intellectual representations, makes it easier to manipulate the relationship between the two.
For example, we all have feelings about “people who do bad things,” which is something that exists in the real world. To prevent too many people from looking in their direction, the aspiring masters, i.e. the people who today are responsible for most massively painful things in the world, “redirect” the emotion and attach it to some other “semantic handle” (for example, an abstract representation of a demographic group like antivaxxers or pagans or trumpers or migrants or any other symbol that is likely to get a rise out of a targeted group).
Addiction to information
The vast prevalence of this energy filter explains why so many people would rather “collect information” and “be right” than engage in unglamorous internal work. Being owners of “correct information” makes people feel empowered and superior. It provides them with a delusion of having control. Doing internal work, on the other hand, comes with discomforts and takes one to the land of the unknown, the land where there are no familiar talking point to latch on to.
Like I said, in my observation, in our modern world, this filter is so default that it stays invisible—and in most cases, it starts receding only after a person goes through something challenging enough to get the person dissembled into pieces and reassembled anew with the help of loving spiritual powers (the Creator, the loving spirits, the universe, however one thinks about those things).
An important side note: accurate information about the world is obviously a very good thing (better than inaccurate information about the world, lol). Correct information is most useful when the person is ready and willing to use it for his highest good. That said, even accurate information may merely clog one’s mind and even mess with one’s head if the timing is not right. A complex dance!
Fake opposition creating artificial ghosts and controlled opposition promoting them
Let us say, the people with not-so-good intentions want to subvert a movement that has the potential to undermine the machine. They would make up a number of attractive ‘’artificial spirits” (“magnet” ideas that are addictive and catchy because they latch onto existing strong emotions like pain—but that are none the less dead ends). The sincere people, the actual dissidents, would mostly waste their energy on those ideas, they would walk in circles and spend time and effort without actually undermine the machine. (But because life is kind, good and useful relationships could be formed in the process anyway.)
To assist in the initial “launch” of those ideas, the people with not-so-good intentions would likely employ impostors, use rumors, and “leaks”—but in parallel, they would try to trick the actual dissidents and allow or even help them get elevated and famous for promoting the ideas that don’t lead to real solutions, for feeding the “artificial spirits” that are dead ends. And, the movement would then become a dance of dead but very attractive talking points!
Marketing: an interlude
Marketing is all about language swapping and tapping into artificial ghosts. In fact, marketing and movement subversion work on the same principle, just for different goals.
If one wants to promote one’s brand, if one wants to be popular at any cost as opposed to only on spiritually valid terms, one would exploit artificial spirits to the max, playing people’s emotions, pretending to understand the targets’ pain, creating pain, promoting pain, pretending to “solve” pain, etc.
No shame, no shame.
Scapegoating
Now let’s talk about scapegoating. When the suffering people decide whom to blame for their pain, they usually already have a sensory image of something evil or something that makes them scared. The energy pattern that they “recall” in their minds when they think about the “devil of the day” (the pagans, the antivaxxers, MAGA, etc.) is a reference to real suffering and pain. Their pain is real, indeed—and while the actual source of their pain might be the aspiring masters upstairs, the suffering people would look the other way and blame the “devil of the day.” As they do that, they feed the artificial ghost, and the artificial ghost grows fatter and fatter, greedier and greedier—and attempts to get more people to give it the energy of pain.
A few examples. When Americans feared “the Russians” during the Cold War, was it the actual Russians they feared?
When sincere mainstream-minded folks express contempt for the “antivaxxers,” is it the actual pharma realists that they despise, or an artificial ghost?
Or, here is my pet peeve. When sincere people in the “resistance” attribute the great reset to this fantastical beast, the so called “darkness of paganism,” is it the actual pagans that they are thinking about—or the artificial ghost created by the globalist great resetters from a couple thousand years ago? (When good people figure that psyop out, poof goes the great reset!)
Let us talk institutional theology now.
Spirituality vs. scholastic religion
First and foremost, let me say that I have the uttermost loving respect for how other people express their intimate and sacred relationship with the Creator (the universe, the spiritual world, however one thinks about those things).
We are all unique. I believe that whether people call God by the name of “God,” or “Jesus,” or “Bog” (the Russian word for “God”), or Allah (the Arabic word for “God”), or any other loving name, they are calling for the same God, and the Creator is intelligent enough to feel our hearts.
To my senses, anyone who wants to own other people’s relationship with the sacred is either possessed or straight-out wicked, and that is the real litmus test of “good vs. evil”—the respect for free will and other people’s souls.
I believe that at the time when institutional world religions were enforced (oh, the original mandate), the “dead energy” filter was installed onto people’s minds. That was done by the people with not-so-good intentions who committed the blasphemy of putting their own enslaving desires into the mouth of God, and that’s a separate issue from how individual people express their love of God.
And so today, the sincere people who manage to find their way to love and their godly respect for other people’s free will through an institutional faith, have to climb through a giant sensory jungle, often with little help, and I want to congratulate those do that without picking up an institutional missionary streak. It’s a difficult feat!
As a top-down thing, religious dogma is a straight-out psyop, in my opinion, and my opinion on that is lovingly strong. Exclusivity clauses handed to different groups are all psyops, too. As a bottom-up thing, religious dogma is a sign of possession, a sign that the person is in a sensory cage. Without that cage, without that filter installed, meddling in other people’s most intimate relationship with the sacred is an absurd idea, it contradicts the very foundation of what this world is about!
Additional reading
Okay, this article is already very long, so here is some additional reading.
This is going to be the topic of tomorrow’s Philosophy Club call for paid subscribers. I think I found a way to share links to our calls without limiting the comments to paid subscribers, which was something that Substack made me do if I wanted to post the link behind the paywall. I hope the solution works! Here it is. I posted the link to tomorrow’s call (Friday April 5 at 2pm EST) in this Substack paid subscriber chat. Please let me know if you can see it. (You have be to a paid or comped sub in order to see the chat, I think.)
A note to readers: If you are in the position to do so, I very much encourage you to become a paid subscriber or donate. I love you in any case, but it helps A LOT, and I am in a dire need to get more donations and paid subscribers while keeping my posts free. Thank you from my heart for your support!
I always have wondered what if language/words never occurred in our evolution as humans? When we speak about 'sensing' we say sight/taste/hearing/touch/smell.....but we do not 'say' or 'speak' to the 'voice' or language/words as being sensory. But truly our voice is the vibration of emotionality coming forth from or corporal body form. Words and language can vibrate in a most loving way or utilized as a 'weapon'. Her words were like daggers to my very Soul. Her words graced my Heart with such feelings of Beauty and Joy I could barely contain my Soul from dancing! I LOVED this share so much as it speaks to the part of me that knows and recognizes Truth. Thank you!!
Very interesting article. I think my favourite part was scapegoating. Perhaps because it was the easiest for me to understand. Also the last section, Spirituality vs. scholastic religion. I think dogmatic religion might be a better term, basically religions where one is discouraged from questioning anything about the religion. That got me to thinking right now, if religion is just a person's set of beliefs, we would all have one. And I think it goes without saying that we tend to not question what we believe. I think you may have brought this up in your essay when you said: "Doing internal work, on the other hand, comes with discomforts and takes one to the land of the unknown, the land where there are no familiar talking point to latch on to."
All of this makes me think of a passage from one of Frank Herbert's Dune books: ""Beware of the truth, gentle Sister. Although much sought after, truth can be dangerous to the seeker. Myths and reassuring lies are much easier to find and believe. If you find a truth, even a temporary one, it can demand that you make painful changes." It makes me think of the definitions of words, another concept you brought up and how in the end, the best path forward with words whose definitions are contentious are to simply do one's best to define how we ourselves define these words and leave it at that. Frank Herbert ends his passage on truth with this: "The only past which endures lies wordlessly within you.” I love words, but I think in the end, they're like writing on water. They create ripples that can have great effects but we tend to forget how things started. Which I think is fine. This all makes me think of a line from Inception: "Well, dreams, they feel real while we’re in them, right? It’s only when we wake up that we realise something was actually strange." To the strangeness of life :-)