Rationality inevitably leads to this model. In practice, in the mystic-state peak, this may be unacceptable, leading to some kind of effective loss of control. We then need to lie and hold the disproven egoic self-control model as true though we know that reason concludes it must be false. We must transcend reason and reason must forgive itself for rejecting reason for practical reasons.
The mind learns that it may permit itself to be illogical -- the irony is that this knowing embrace and acceptance of the illogical assumption of egoic freewill and practical self-control can only happen when the mind has become perfectly logical. Our practical constitution as control agents is killed and made unstable and untenable when the mind discovers how to become perfectly logical.
Perfected Reason thus must include a transcendent escape hatch to permit practical life. Perfectly logical thinking is in some way incompatible with practical self-control, so the moment Reason comes to fulfilment, it must do so by including immediately, an escape hatch, a kind of release from "the law" of perfect rationality.
The mind is first immature and irrational, and after some work, discovers how to be perfectly mature in rationality, but a problem of practical loss of control immediately arises -- at first this causes a recoil and running away back into "reincarnation", down into egoic thinking again. Eventually, the mind is determined to face the truth -- then, reason kills viable self-control again, but this time, reason understands the way in which reason must be surpassed for practical reasons.
Reason learns that it is practically reasonable to go beyond reason, here is the true arising of high religion, and one sacrifices strict adherence to perfect rationality, to form a rationality that is perfect in the sense of being transcendent and beyond just being perfectly rational.
To complete rationality, there are two senses -- an early kind of completeness, and a later, truly perfected and truly completed rationality that knows that for *practical* reasons the mind must continue to make the false and illogical egoic assumptions, now known to be a practically required *convention*. Man cannot practically live by rationality alone.
Can a god outside the fated space-time system be metaphysically or transcendently free?
>>First it strikes the mind that this model of time, will, self, and world are stunningly coherent, then that system slams you to the ground in powerlessness.
>>Then you seek a way of standing up again on your own cybernetic, egoic feet as a seemingly self-authoring, self-originating agent again. You seek a way to become like a free sovereign agent again.
>>This 2- or 3-phase view of the revelation experience explains various paradoxes. The mysteries reveal metaphysical unfreedom, revealing us as prisoners in the cage of spacetime, which creates our thoughts and forces them upon us via one's now alienated will. Yet the mysteries also claim to provide transcendent freedom by uniting with and becoming a higher god that is even higher than the Fates and astrological cosmic determinism.
Erik Davis wrote:
>How do you characterize this last phase in contemporary cybernetic non mystery-religion terms? Philosophically speaking, what constitutes this higher I/God outside the system? What is the nature of its freedom?
In the depths of the ego-death experience, an uncaring block universe appears to have complete control of the person. This is an unstable and untenable state, when one is dancing on the strings of a blind and dispassionate and non-personal mechanism, the block universe. The person in this state is not only abandoned into full existential isolation, but is forcefully being moved here and there by a machine, and the accustomed personal restrictions and ruts of thinking are gone.
The mind becomes released into a completely unrestrained freedom, while all conventional power of self-control, restraint, and stability is suspended. It's freedom in the radical sense of arbitrary chaos, lacking any guidance, lacking any system of values or regulations to steer by -- with moment-to-moment cybernetic arbitrariness. This is the very definition of mental and cybernetic instability, which is not the best state of mind for stable, mundane, viable existence.
The feedback problem also arises -- the mind is perfectly prone to building up a sense of sureness with any arbitrary notion that enters the mind, and these seed ideas are perceived as being put into the mind by a mysteriously and ominously hidden force outside that mind -- the alien, hidden controller who hands you your thoughts and delivers your will to you, already established in its content.
Metaphorical language is almost mandatory to give sensible shape to these abstract thoughts, experiences, and insights. The will can be said to be free, except that such a will is forced upon you. Instead of seeing the eagle of Zeus as *devouring* or removing Prometheus' will, imagine the eagle as forcing Prometheus' will into him. Imagine God sending the Roman soldier to inject Jesus' will into him like a spear entering into Jesus' side.
So does the mystic state produce the sense of the Ground of Being forcefully injecting the will into the mind, amounting to a betrayal of the sovereignty of one's personal government right from within the innermost circle. How can I assume I am the sovereign agent of my actions, while I am perceiving some way in which my innermost will is not authored by me, but is authored by the Ground and inserted into all points along the time axis, without my permission or my own personal initiative?
My initiative of will is not even my own, not something I made, but is something the Ground made and forced into me. This experience and perception forces a deep rewriting or re-indexing of all elements of the world-model regarding time, personal control, self-authorship, will, and responsibility.
But as soon as the mind latches onto such a deep rewriting of its world-model, and conceptually grasps the ramifications, this is deeply destabilizing and brings about the problem of compassion or goodness of the force that forges one's will.
If the Ground is conceived of or experienced as a dumb, uncaring space-time block that controls and authors my every action, the problem of the goodness of such an empty machine-like puppeteer arises. That is why one might postulate a compassionate controller of the block, or a Mithras-type rescuer who defies the tyranny of Fate and Destiny and rescues this spiritually killed person out from the block-universe prison.
The entire reason to postulate a god outside the frozen and fated block universe, or space-time cosmos, is to hope and look for some compassionate controlling force that can operate on the un-free cosmic block. I don't think anyone has a theory of how such a god or one's higher self can coherently possess metaphysical free will or what we might call "transcendently free will".
Yet the mind *can* conceive generally, or vaguely, of such an idea: while maintaining that the universe in which we live is a block-universe that has no room for metaphysical freedom, no room for the naive concept of the free will, we can nevertheless conceive of the abstract notion of some superior type of freedom that we can call "transcendent freedom".
How can we justify and explain the postulation of a transcendent freedom while acknowledging the good reasoning behind the idea of metaphysical unfreedom? We can only wave our mental arms and say that we are justified in postulating a mysterious "transcendent freedom above metaphysical unfreedom." I think some of the Gnostics make such a move -- while acknowledging and conceding the idea of the frozen future, they nevertheless claim some sort of ill-defined transcendent type of freedom, with one's identity shifting away from the cosmos-bound or Ground-bound will, to some ill-defined "higher will" of a "higher self" that is one's "higher identity".
Is such a postulation "coherent"? Or fair, reasonable, or justified? Here, we escape into the realm of transcendent ideas, perhaps my equivalent to Wilber's "paradoxical" ultimate state of consciousness. How can we walk with confidence and stability while in the Dionysian state of cognitive instability? We can't; it's impossible, and yet it is as though we can. That's the closest I come to paradox, or perhaps, mystery.
How do I become identified with a god who transcends the spacetime block with an ominously closed and pre-existent future? That's a mystery that may escape justification, and is justified more in terms of practical needs during the mystic experiential state. Here I escape more and more frequently into the dogma that the theory of ego death and ego transcendence is not primarily a matter of proof, reason, or logic, so much as a simple, palpable, graspable systematization of the mystic experiences and thoughts and insights.
A quest for perfect truth or persuasiveness, or perfect coherence is forever an uncertain project. It used to be easy to claim perfect coherence, but theories are now known to be only imperfectly provable. I do promise a more intense, more satisfying model than has been created, a far clearer systematization and about the clearest systematization possible of ego death and the reasoning involved in it.
The depths of ego death can be an emergency situation calling for emergency moves, which amount to transcendent postulations of "somehow" stepping outside the system and escaping the trap that awaits us at the center of the Minotaur's maze. The child discovers the problem, and dies in the maze; we solve the problem not through supernaturalist belief but through transcendent rational postulation. What doctrines and dogmas result? I believe: ___.
I believe that there is, in practice, some way to transcend the problem of retaining practical self-command during the ego death experience, and that the sacrifice of the ego is sufficient sacrifice to gain full justification of one's moral world-model despite the morality-killing vision of the block universe and metaphysical unfreedom. I believe that the reasoning mind is justified in postulating a higher, transcendent identity that escapes and is immune to the perfectly severe and ego-killing reasoning that is revealed during the discovery of the ego death experience.
We could call these transcendent justification problems Phase 2 of ego-death -- that is, the problem of our justified resurrection or cybernetic re-stabilization. When the mental machinery applies reason to the problem of self-control and self-government, it short-circuits -- the system kills itself in a cybernetic governmental power-seizure; the self-control governmental system experiences a coup d'etat from within.
How then, after that self-cancellation of the old, egoic power system, can the mind possibly move on ahead into a new, viable life with a new operating system that does not crash every five minutes upon remembering the thought that kills? How can the rational computer that affirms metaphysical unfreedom (due to the static relationship of the time axis and acts of personal will) devise a valid new rational operating system that is immune to ego-death crashing?
Here is where the android in the myth of The Body Electric (http://www.egodeath.com/rushlyrics.htm#xtocid22998) prays to the Mother Of All Machines -- only a transcendent robot-god paradigm is sufficient. If we hold ourselves to be deterministic robots, we fall to the ground when thinking upon our own self-government mechanisms.
How then can we avoid sheer destruction and the total breakdown into cybernetic chaos, the mad vortex of control-beyond-control, the transcendent insanity of grasping the control singularity? We are forced to invent, against *or above* all reason, the square root of -1; we are forced to jump out of the system: it is the only path that reason permits: not an "abandonment" of reason so much as transcending reason.
The enlightened robot is commanded by reason to transcend reason and postulate stability and higher, transcendent self-identity that is "somehow" higher than the deterministic Fated cosmos. This is the cybernetic meaning of faith, which one can only claim to have authored if one is identified with the transcendently postulated "higher, transcendent self", the Mithraic transcendent robot who is somehow held to be able to operate upon the Fated cosmos, grab the cosmic axis, and shift the orbits of the stars, even -- in some sense -- changing the future, though of course such is impossible.
If you have been given Faith by the postulated *higher* Ground of Being or the postulated *higher* self, you can simultaneously maintain that the future is eternally frozen and yet maintain that we have transcendent freedom. This may mean transcendently postulating a transcendent cosmos higher than the Fated cosmos. Such a move does not deny determinism/Fatedness or the fixed future; it forcefully affirms the block-universe model and all its problematic ramifications.
Yet this move knowingly, boldly dares to postulate that there is a rationally as well as morally justified way in which we are forced by reason, so to speak, to move beyond what reason can achieve. This may very well be the true heart of Gnostic thinking. If the Ground of Being is experienced as leading only to death, insanity, and the termination of viable control upon which further existence depends, the kind of Reason that delivered that awesome achievement dictates preserving yet transcending such a type of Reason.
Such logic leads to the death of itself as a viable logic, and leads to some sort of higher-logic which we only need to define as "some perfect and justified transcendent logic which, in particular, is immune to the self-cancellation of ordinary logic." That right there is the complete explanation, justification, and religious principle of transcendent logic, which is the door and key to heaven. It is transcendent, life-enabling compassion.
Without that key, without that bit of transcendent logic, we would all be condemned to destruction -- jail, insanity, harm, madness. Abraham's angel saw his gesture of transcendence of his will, and transcendence of reason, and transcendence of moral agency, and gave him a religion: the religion of the sufficient and justified mental-only sacrifice.
Part of letting go of delusion, letting go of the deluded mental-model of self, time, control, and freedom, is letting go of strict adherence to remaining within a system of logic that is only able to cancel itself out, as personal control of the will cancels itself out during the mystic state. The loose-cognitive computer calculates a logical result that says "you must exceed logic: you must either postulate a higher logic that permits viable self-government, or this machine will hit a divide-by-zero error and enter the anti-control, control-beyond-control, or 'run amok' mode."
Call out for direction [my guidance systems are all suspended]
and there's no one there to steer [there's no one in me to give birth to will]
Shout out for salvation [kneel and pray to god-of-Fate to save me from freedom]
but there's no one there to hear [no god appears]
The higher god outside the system, who one might pray to in need of a rescuer from control breakdown or the self-cancellation of personal control, ultimately can't be relevant if it's some weakly wished-for, remote God who controls the spacetime block. We need a much more down-to-earth transcendent god that the mind can somehow take responsibility for postulating and conceiving. Such is the transcendent higher mystery god that one identifies with and becomes.
How can I become a transcendent god? By forming such an idea, including the necessary principles of stability, order, passion, justification, and transcendence. This includes a rejection of an automatic identification with a self that is authored by the spacetime block. To be transcendent, the mind must think two ways at once: the mind cannot originate an idea; all ideas are forced into the mind by the Ground of Being. But we can call that the lower mind.
The mysterious, postulated higher, transcendent mind, the higher self and transcendent I, *can* take responsibility for creating its self-concept that serves to rescue stability and self-government -- but only if this higher self is emphatically differentiated from the lower self that is by definition a helpless puppet created by the Ground of Being. Any more details about the higher self are impossible to formulate; all that direction has to offer is speculation and conjecture.
The only thing that matters about this postulated higher, transcendent Self is that it is justified by pure logic and reason and compassion, and it is particularly *not* the lower self which is necessarily an illusion (and also previously a delusion). Such a system of ego death and rebirth, or cybernetic self-cancellation and transcendent reset with a deeply revised operating system, is concerned with the negative -- understanding the breakdown ideas, and with the positive: creating a rational and viable way of transcending the problems *without denying* the problems.
How can we definitely and strongly accept and affirm the solid reasoning that brings about ego death and the concomitant destabilization of control, while also transcending such a deeply problematic and unstable foundation, such a crash-prone operating system? We have to move into the realm of the transcendent, as Abraham's story tells of transcending physical sacrifice and adopting a life-enabling conceptual-only system of transcending one's will and one's faulty egoic self-government system. The angel was satisfied with this gesture, and so Abraham had a future, in addition to being justified in the light of higher reasoning about moral self-control agency.
As an aside, I did find a couple references to a piercing shaft involved in Prometheus' binding:
Hesiod, Theogony, 521-25: "And devious Prometheus [Zeus] bound with inescapable chains, and drove a shaft through his middle, and set on him a long-winged eagle, which used to eat his immortal liver [ = organ of will & intention]; but by night the liver grew as much again as the long-winged bird devoured in the whole day."
First, rationality is imperfect, being a mixture of foggy practical notions of personal self-control power and moving through time. Then, in the mystic altered state, rationality reaches one kind of perfection: realization of the merit of postulating no-free-will, and frozen-time, and a few other key points. This then raises a huge practical problem of self-control; at this point one wrestles with an angel, and looks for a way to safely permanently cast out the habitual demon of egoic imperfect thinking.
There is no egoic-type action that one can do as an egoic-type controller to rescue and regain personal self-control stability. Only some transcendent leap outside the system can return the mind to stability, but that leap isn't some egoic-type action that's possible by an egoic-type controller-agent. The mind experiences itself as being totally dependent on whatever it is that timelessly injects thoughts into the mind, or sets thoughts in place in the spacetime block.
What can one do to regain practical control and mental stability, when one is seen to be frozen in an iron spacetime block? Ordinary perfect rationality inexorably concludes that no such "move" is possible. At this point, ordinary perfect rationality gives way to transcendent perfect rationality.
Mundane, muddled, normal-state egoic thinking isn't ordinary perfect rationality. The sequence is:
Egoic thinking (partial rationality, like child/animal)
Ordinary perfect rationality (only at the last moment of egoic life)
Transcendent perfect rationality (follows in 30 seconds, with sense of rescue)
Permanent transcendent mental worldmodel (transcendent thinking)
All one's egoic reasoning finally adds up to a revision that brings about ordinary perfect rationality, but that poses a huge problem, which is immediately solved by leaping up to transcendent perfect rationality, which may include, for example, a practical postulate of being controlled by a compassionate, not just an impersonal, ground of being, or a compassionate hidden controller that resides outside the ground of being and controls it from outside.
Also, in a sense, the ego delusion is transcendently postulated, but now is postulated in full light of the illusory, conventional nature of ego and the sense of egoic free will and personal control-power. The mind builds up to a perfect and problematic realization that it is a helpless puppet/slave rather than a sovereign, and next solves that practical problem by learning to falsely or transcendently postulate its sovereignty again.
Ordinary perfect rationality is only reached after developing egoic rationality to the point of seeing how illogical it is, then revising it for a more logical system -- but at that point, a cybernetic control-stability crisis immediately arises. At first, the mind flees for its egoic life, falling back into "incarnation" and "rebirth". But eventually the egoic mind is strong enough to will its sacrifice, and is strong enough to be available yet disengaged, or both affirmed and denied.
Finally the mind learns to say "I believe in the lie of ego, for practical reasons of convention only." I believe I am sovereign, though I know that I'm not really sovereign; I am *virtually* a sovereign freewilliing agent. The mind finally learns to think "I believe in my virtual-only ego, who commands his own virtual-only individual free will."
If it becomes practically necessary to postulate possibly meaningless things such as a compassionate controller of the ground of being who is immune to Fate and the power of frozen time, or to deliberately postulate ego and free will only 30 seconds after having seen them to be essentially illusory, is that perfectly rational, or less than rational?
It is a kind of coherent rationality that is more than perfect; it is transcendent; it is rationality that includes the practical ability to fudge to save your life as a practical, virtual self-controller agent who wields the power of will even though the world is a frozen spacetime block.
The inevitable "mystery" that Reformed theology always leads to is a muddled, inferior equivalent of this "paradox" of having to intentionally postulate what you have just before managed to logically disprove: personal power, the illusion of individual free will, the hoax of voyaging through flowing time into an essentially open future.
To know the truth about your cybernetic self-control nature, fully commit to rationality during self-control investigation; resort to prayer and supernatural or religious thinking only if it is the only possible alternative in an emergency situation that is certainly inexorably leading to harmful loss of self-control.
If you begin by disliking rationality, you won't be able to know truth. Only those who love rationality more than anything else can prove the cybernetic truth about their nature. You have to loathe all religious thinking, or you won't be able to know truth. Prayer is only acceptable as the very last resort if a cold steel blade of a choice is presented to you as controller-agent, a choice between harmful radically indeterminate loss of self-control, versus prayer.
I am not saying that rationality is bound to lead to that situation -- maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I don't know -- but I would like to know what better rational minds than mine have to say about their investigations. You who want to secure rational self-control should consider me only a weak early explorer and scholar of what a few other explorers have claimed. I, like them, felt that I was forced to plead for mercy and forced to drop my exclusive commitment to a rational self-control model.
The only conversion I can accept is conversion at sword point: believe in some kind of higher power of some sort that transcends the rational self-control worldmodel, or destructively lose self-control, the choice is yours.
I Don't Know:
Nobody ever told me, I found out for myself
You gotta believe in foolish miracles
It's not how you play the game
It's if you win or lose
You can choose
Win or lose
It's up to you
All this is from the point of view of the self as personal control-agent, rather than the Ground of Being that authors all thoughts and movements of the will.
Psychonauts should be absolutely committed to Extropian values, Enlightenment scientific rationality, and individual autonomy based on Reason. Shun at all costs any of the following:
o Religious thinking
o Supernaturalist thinking
o Prayer soliciting personal help
o Meditative prayer
o Jumping up a level, out of the system
Fully commit to rational autonomous control that is pure of all "spiritual" type of thinking. Avoid spooky Copenhagenist interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, and adopt the fully determinate Bohm/Einstein/Shrodinger view, which holds that particles have a definite position and velocity at all points in spacetime but we simply can't know what those are. I advise adopting a fully deterministic view, though I suppose you can be agnostic about that.
The point is, take autonomous rational self-control to full development; attempt to use it as a foundation upon which to build your life and well-being. Whether you adopt a freewillist or deterministic spacetime/control model, I hope that you try everything possible to avoid any kind of religious, spiritual, or spooky thinking.
I admit that consciousness itself is baffling, but still, I want more than anything to come up with a way of thinking about self-control that is purely rational and that is *also* reliable even during loose cognition in the peak window of the altered state of cognition. Any solution that depends on a god descending on the stage to miraculously meddle with your self-control is to be shunned as poison to Reason and personal autonomy.
Loathe religion as regression and mental suicide, and seek instead to construct an atheistic humanistic rational, scientific, logically clear and consistent mental model of self-control. Test the viability of that model in practice, and use loose cognition to study and work on this system. We must do everything possible to avoid any kind of spiritual thinking, and try with full vigor, commitment, and sincerity to engineer a model of personal self-control that works.
Like other psychonauts, I feel I was forced to accept an unacceptable solution, of rolling a transcendent personal god onto the stage in order to restabilize personal self-control. You may think I condone such supernaturalist thinking and am saying that enlightenment transcends rationality -- I don't!
I absolutely reject and hate and loathe any kind of supernaturalist thinking, prayer, gods, saviors, and that whole way of thinking and dealing with crises. I absolutely recoil from and reject the idea that rationality is somehow less than completely adequate for bringing about enlightenment about time, control, and self. Prayer marks a deep failure of the entire self-control enlightenment project.
I would never willingly accept any prayer type of solution to any self-control problem unless my only other alternative was destructive loss of control or any other harmful kind of destruction such as insanity or any kind of demonstrative destruction. Such a situation is what I mean by being forced -- effectively, forced at sword point to pray for transcendent religious assistance and rescuing.
When researching self-control dynamics, only if a choice is forced upon the control agent, forced to choose between harm and prayer, can prayer be considered acceptable -- and even then, prayer is only to be very reluctantly accepted. This way, prayer becomes a prayer for mercy. The only prayer such hardheaded rational thinking can accept is the forced prayer like one at gunpoint where you are left with no other option:
Transcendent personal controller of all thoughts and actions, please exist and protect me from the self-control explosion I foresee. I have transgressed my self-control. I see no solution, no way out of this fatal self-control disaster, but to imagine you and pray to you.
This is all completely tentative and hypothetical, but I was there and I supposed that that is the only type of prayer, the only motivation for prayer, that is true ultimate transcendent prayer -- other types are irrational, superstitious, and are never warranted.
Self-control rationality that is completely humanistic and self-willed explodes into a dangerous unstable state when pushed and amplified to the extreme: control completely escapes itself, even *practical* control threatens to go completely out of control in runaway unconstrained freedom, and there is no hope, no resource left; that system of thinking kills itself, ending up a one-way path inexorably leading to dangerous indeterminate radical loss of control.
That rational, self-reliant system of thinking contains no solution within itself, so what can that mind possibly do to step out of that system? Roll the Greek god onto the stage and bring the play to a harmonious conclusion.
That is real prayer, real religion. Anything else is just superstition and magic thinking. To gain full enlightenment about the self who fancies itself a controller-agent, only accept a transcendent or religious-style solution as a truly last resort, if you have played your final rational card and find yourself "staring down the barrel of a gun" (Dukes of Stratosphear), find yourself drawn inexorably into a strange attractor of manifest harmful loss of control.
I doubt what I have said above. The only way to be fully enlightened about self control is to hate a religious solution and continue to seek a purely rational self-reliant humanist solution -- we must try that. We must avoid a religious solution at all costs. Only if rationality is fully proven to break and hang so that it leads to destructive harm, is prayer acceptable.
Only a fully prayer-averse approach to the self-control problem can lead to any kind of certain proof that rational self-control is impossible. Now, supposing that everyone reaches the conclusion of the atheist mystic altered state song The Body Electric:
The android (1001001 = 'I') bows its head and prays to the mother of all machines ("Mother of all machines!")
Rush, self-reliant haters of religion (it seems to me), also admit, in a roundabout way, praying in the cybernetic enlightenment song No One At The Bridge. "Cry out supplication, but there's no one there to hear." I consider that verse in that song to be the peak of all inspired philosophical Heavy Rock.
That song can be considered the theoretical cybernetic heart of the album Caress of Steel (the album title refers to the peak-cognition guillotining of king ego). That album is from 1975 and it has been said that 1974 was in some ways the moment of the most widespread manifestation of 1960s culture.
I love rational self-reliance infinitely more than prayer. Accept prayer? Only over my dead body. It's not so much that I'm anti-religious, but rather, I consider religion to be irrelevant and only something that can lead to regressive muddle headedness. Religion leads only to muddle headedness -- unless for some amazing reason, rationality is absolutely *forced* to bow to it with no other option than a chaotic explosion that amounts to some kind of insane destruction.
If my hypothesis is right, which I hope it is *not*, rational psychonauts may be forced to conclude that the only viable rational model of self-control is that which includes some kind of transcendent element that is somehow equivalent to a compassionate controller-god outside of time.
What we'll need to do then is redefine "rationality" very carefully to include just enough room for a cybernetically defined functional equivalent like "god" in Hofstadter's Godel Escher Bach, a god defined purely in rational scientific cybernetics terms; in other words, "the mother of all machines", the god of the cybernetic self-controller androids, the god of the alien machines. That is the only kind of god that can be considered legitimate to a truly skeptical, hardheaded, rational self-control theorist.
Ultimately, we might (or might not) find some kind of mathematical proof that a rational self-control system *must* include the idea of a caring personal controller outside time or else it will explode into control-instability when examined closely in the light of loose cognition.
I don't understand all this myself, I'm just reporting and systematizing the hypotheses that are coming in from multiple cybernauts on the frontier of research. I may commit to fully detailing this system that falls back on prayer, but only as a hypothesis. All self-control researchers should do everything possible to provide a better model than the broken, irrational, muddle-headed system I'm defining.
I'm trying to define a certain research space, report a fascinating dangerous potential that exists (reported by various rationality-committed cybernetically oriented psychonauts), and tell you the viable solution they all seem to report -- that is, *one* viable solution so far -- that the researchers have found: desperate prayer pleading for a god to be lowered on a platform down onto the stage as the only alternative in sight for a harmful implosion of the rationality-based self-control system.
It's true that I'm the only theorist who is formally systematizing along these lines, but do not think that I am the only thinker who is passionately committed to rationality as part of a desperate struggle for mentally grasping and comprehending self-control dynamics. Remember my motives, common in the loosecog state: "above all, secure self-control, think clearly! think clearly!"
It's precisely this problem of chasing self-control that leads one to run away from all supernaturalist thinking and take rationality to the extreme. I hypothesize that only by taking the desperate hunt for fully rational self-control to such an extreme, where one has no time at all for spirituality-styled thinking, but only for pure scientific, engineering, cybernetic thinking, that one can discover, ironically and in amazement, transcendent religious truth.
On this model, the one true universal religion of the experience-based mystics is the religion of self-control cybernetics. At its most esoteric peak as I have defined it, Christianity is finally understood when it is explained in terms of the religion of self-control cybernetics, the religion of Unit One in The Body Electric; the religion of the helmsman in No One At The Bridge.
Is the cybernaut forced to the religion of God and Jesus, or some Eastern deities? Not exactly. Rather, for the cybernetic religious theorist, all religion is mapped to, and explained in terms of, the transcendent theory of self-control cybernetics, and one "worships" directly the explicitly defined "transcendent deity of self-control cybernetics", the great compassionate cybernetician in the sky.
Is it possible to make a more rational self-control system? As one who has desperately grappled with controlaholism, no one wants such more than me. It is way too early in cybernetics theory to accept the screaming incongruity of having a box in my model that says "hypothetical compassionate personal author of all thoughts outside time".
If we end up testing my philosophy and collectively accepting its conclusion, that won't really be any worse than how mathematicians accept and heavily utilize the construct, "square root of -1". For all my worship of mathematics, remember Godel, remember infinity, remember Hofstadter's strange loops, remember how surprising Einstein's theory of invariance was -- many scientists were reluctant to accept it.
Remember, science and math have turned out to be far stranger than we expected -- they have their own gods and miracles lurking. We may ultimately end up retaining God, but re-conceptualizing it with entirely different, cybernetic connotations. How do androids conceive of the character of God?
The summary in my current very long version of my .signature lacks coverage of the transcendence of the black-box ineffable god outside the deterministic cosmos. I claim that religion is far simpler than everyone assumes, therefore I should address the main thing which appears to contradict that emphasis on simplicity. The only difficult or complicated or above-rationality aspect of religion is the ineffability of any rescuer-god from outside the system of cosmic determinism.
This conception, the ineffable black-box god, is standard in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity -- I'm not sure about in Neopaganism, Buddhism, Hinduism. Check the great book Mysticism in World Religion, which does a good job of shoehorning all religions into a great and flexible general model, lining up their functional equivalencies of themes without diminishing them as biased apologists of comparative religions do.
http://www.egodeath.com -- the only simple and comprehensible theory of the ego-death and rebirth experience. The only essence, paradigm, origin, core, fountainhead, and ultimate goal of religion is the use of visionary plants to routinely trigger the intense mystic altered state, producing loose cognitive association binding, which then produces an experience of frozen block-universe determinism with a single, pre-existing, ever-existing future. The return of the ordinary state of consciousness is allegorized as a transcendence of Necessity or cosmic determinism. Myth describes this mystic-state experience. Initiation is classically a series of some 8 visionary-plant sessions, interspersed with study of perennial philosophy. Most religion is a distortion, corruption, literalization, cooptation, and missing-the-point overcomplication of this simple, standard initiation system.