Thursday, October 27, 2016

the Girl who died from Salvation


the Girl who died from Salvation

she died from starvation
food was too fast for her

Saturday, October 1, 2016




the pest got loose in Maracaibo
wall in streets of Acapulco
nothing is real in Phoenix
fields are railroad
poppy between teeth
and amateur humans in war

Thursday, August 25, 2016

Painting and ontology

Slobodan Škerović

Painting and ontology

Philosophy and art, two seemingly very different disciplines of human spirit, match in terms of purpose, method and contents. The difference is only indirect; expressive means of philosophy is primarily speech, as well as articulation of particular experience, then language; and the means of painting are - light and only next to it color. Similarly, when it comes to speech and language, one should know that speech is also basically intensity, and language may be arbitrary, because, just like color, it expresses something quite different.

Treatment of intensity is particularly important, which is the basis of any distinction. In painting it is expressed as the difference between light-dark, and in speech as the difference of speaking terms themselves, namely their "contents".

In painting there are two basic ways of presenting differences. Those are lines and surfaces. Line may vary its direction of propagation, its thickness and its shape. Line may be straight, broken, rounded, ragged, thin, fat, and can combine all these qualities in various combinations. Surface may be big or small, of certain shape, as for example geometric figure, amorphous, more or less illuminated, with varying or monotonous illumination, etc... Lines and surfaces can be infinitely combined, but each must be considered as a special mean of expression, although line can be understood as an abstracted surface.

So, what enables painting is the intensity, i.e. the difference which is innate to intensity, and the means of expressing this difference are lines and surfaces. All other functions that can be added to the line or surface, with the exception of this basic one, in representing certain intensity, are of ideological nature and as such must be considered separately.

As in speech a special meaning can be added to some word, like in "God is good", so the premise of some kind of painting can be set as an axiom that light is "good", i.e. that "the light is from God", which forms connection between speech of words and speech of light, but we should not forget that this definition is not innate to either speaking or painting terms. A good example of such different treatment of painting can also be seen in difference between the Renaissance and Byzantine art, and this difference I will explain in particular. It should be known that both forms of painting were founded in certain ideological positions and views.

If it is already clear that intensity (as free activity of force) enables expression, as differentiation, it only leaves to clarify what the light itself is. We can freely say that light is the intensity, our sense of vision in such a way interprets the intensity, but there is not anything like "pure light" or, say, "pure white light". Light is always something special, especially by intensity, sharpness, coloration. Since light describes each spatial point, it also has to be different in each spatial point, and that only by intensity and not by color, or otherwise that area would be revoked, its different points would be converged into one.

This feature of light exactly presents the base of painting ontology, because the term "pure light" can easily be used as analogous to the concept of "pure being", i.e. God, as something stripped of any distinction, therefore extra-temporal and extra-spatial.

Byzantine painting is precisely about this, the light is treated as "pouring out from God" and what this light illuminates is created by God, and what it does not illuminate, that is in shadows, does not belong to God's creation. In Byzantine art, light is the building material of any existence, as a "divine" one. Shadow, which in this art has a form defining function, is almost totally linear in character and is maximally simplified. Here shadow is completely unnatural and generally does not represent any non-illumination which we encounter in nature. The dark line is simply a break, with the help of which it is possible to distinguish God's images, not in spatial or temporal dimension, i.e, not by the intensity, but only by God's will. Hereby it is expressively emphasized that God's creations do not exist as causing and limiting each other, but they exist only by their creator. This way of viewing things is purely subjective and excludes any objectivity, since the world is not seen as a sum of jolly abundance and differences, but as something unique and essential, and any difference in itself is strongly indicated as unsubstantial.

In Renaissance painting, the issue is completely reversed. Light is treated as objective, that is, as we see it, in accordance with the laws of optics, i.e. science. Such treatment of light is too of ideological nature. Namely, the light is viewed solely as result of some previous process, for instance combustion, and so it is defined as the difference in the relations of existing things. It is assumed that the light simultaneously expresses the nature of things by transmitting information about it, and still remains embedded in it, as something innate. Light is a moving object, it is coming from certain source, then meets another object, and that object partly absorbs it and partly reflects it. The basis of Renaissance ontology is also "pure white light", but in this case, no thing is entirely composed of light of God, as it is in the Byzantine ontology, but the "quantity" of the divine varies in each of things. Renaissance painting, therefore, describes a semi-world, world in semi-existence, a world in which God is only partially present. Such a world is unredeemed world and is a habitat for all sorts of fallen creatures, more or less good and more or less bad. Such a description of the world occurs simultaneously in philosophy: Leibniz's "Monadology" can be quoted as an obvious example of this correspondence. According to Leibniz each monad sees a whole more or less clearly, by which ability monads are classified into a hierarchy, the highest in the hierarchy is the Supreme monad - God. In essence, such philosophy does not see God as something outside of this world, but it brings Him down, nails Him to its "top" or its "end", practically condemning Him to infinite confinement within His own creation, which as being objective, "acquires" the right of essential existence "together" with God. Obviously, God is needed only to justify any possible existence.

Every serious philosophy and every serious painting will not be based on such interpretation. When it comes to Renaissance painting, and its influence in the following centuries, many painters of the era do not fit into this ideology, but are being just tendentiously categorized as its main proponents, mainly because they did adopt an objective perspective as a means of expression.

In addition to understanding that the basis of any painting is intensity, it is necessary to consider the notion of perspective, as an interpretation of that which is observed. Perspective is a vision of the world and it carries the intent and an attempt to organize the observable world. But, what will be the organizing principle of that world? Do we encounter here, again, another kind of ideology and is there really a perspective "as such"? Man has two eyes, and their position allows him to see the third dimension of space - depth. This view enables an objective insight into the distribution of objects in the world. Such an objective perspective was adopted as the policy in Renaissance painting. In Byzantine painting, on the contrary, the use of such perspective is minimal. Even the plasticity of characters in the Byzantine painting is represented by other means, not by objective perspective. Also, allocation of persons is such that, again, it denies or ignores the natural laws, or space-time continuum, and its inherent cause-consequence conditioning, so that there is neither something which is "ahead" or "behind" something else, nor is any person limited or conditioned by another person. Persons on frescoes appear each for themselves, and not in the crowd. Even when they are next to each other, they must be considered separately. The subject of Byzantine art is not abundance, but unity. Hence, a radically different perspective. Perceptual basis of Byzantine art is God, i.e. a subject which "sees" things only in relation to itself, and therefore such its relationship with the "seen" is exactly penetration into the very essence, while "objectivity" is neglected. Byzantine painting is fully in function of this purpose and clearly highlights irrelevancy of objective world. In objective painting, however, everything is as is given in the world and God himself is dissolved in it. Subject observing such a picture inevitably departs from itself and is lost to infinity marked as the purpose. So, in this case the subject is in disappearance, and it sees its own disappearance as a hierarchy of an organized world, and its place and role are in maintaining such an impersonal participation.

What is impressive in Renaissance art is the power of illusion. But we should know that illusion in painting is only the means, not the purpose. Unfortunately, as in almost all other disciplines that man developed, these two things are substituted, and instead of human activity to serve the purpose of spirituality, it is used as a means of manipulation.

In Byzantine painting, however, what impresses most is the expressiveness, the way the artist expresses, we could say, his spiritual experience. The very structure of contents, of character, refers to the creative force that creates. Force is the painting tool here, and it goes beyond ideological, religious plot, which appears as an illusion, as the image itself. Belief that images are myrrh-pouring probably has its source in this.

This element is also highly expressed in the paintings of masters from the "other side", but combined with the ideology of perspective, artists find different means to express the same thing: since objectivity of looking must dominate, painter applies constructive moment directly to the senses, stresses it over its borders and thus abolishes precisely what is the most imposing as ideology. Pavel Florensky criticized "Western" art because it is too "juicy", as in Rembrandt's paintings or Bach's music. However, just this excess of sensuality leads to the meditative effect, satiated senses switch off and a metaphysical space is opened in which man encounters God.

Art can neither be criticized nor justified by ideology.
Ideology is a set of rules, an aggregate, and one can easily, over-paint it with one stroke, demolish it. With Rembrandt, whose paintings have a lot of realism, pregnant idealism, objectivity, all of that bows to sudden burst of light from an unexpected source - what should simply reflect light, actually radiates it. In his paintings Renaissance perspective is whirling, into a spiral, into golden rain that falls on Danae, and from her Divinity speaks. From Rembrandt to Van Gogh there is less than a half-step. Only, Van Gogh uses a wider palette, a multitude of colors, which completely overcome the senses - remains the expression itself, clean power which the spectator is facing.

It is clear from this what the purpose of painting is, but a philosopher would have to find a word to name it. But a word, as well as a grain of matter, itself alone means nothing. It is important who speaks, is there someone out there, it is important what is the word about. And just as painting does not explain the essence using line or surface, so philosophy does not explain using words -- philosopher directs words so that they, as they disappear, release meta-space or force, in which all meanings exist, and all the answers. If for a painter it is the light of golden color, or a line which disturbs the supposed order, for a philosopher it is an eternal fire, but also complete quietness, as in Bach or Buddha, which denotes the state where there is no perception - existence itself.

Heraclitus' dictum on fire which ignites with measure and extinguishes with measure, or about corpses which are best to be dumped out of the window, are also over-straining the matter, just as the effect of fugue in music (or, say, like fierce "chopping" in Beethoven's Fifth Symphony), or myriads of colors in the paintings of Oscar Kokoschka, or the countless layers in Turner's watercolors, or terminal precision of Durer's paintings, which are not just "as" alive, but they rather directly discover life - only not as a life of a painting. This somersault performed by artists, philosophers, is the very quality which makes possible to fulfill the purpose of human activity, transgression into the metaphysical sphere, into the very marrow of existence.

Hence the attempt to find a "pure white light" ends so that one finds a condition in which light is "darkness", the lack of perceptional experience of light. And so in music, the "pure sound" is discovered as silence. In philosophy, as well as in poetry, "pure word" reveals itself as speechlessness.

(The article was published in Književne novine, no. 1121, Belgrade, 2005)
Published on Rastko: 2007-10-06
Date of the Last update: 2007-10-05 21:27:39

Sunday, August 21, 2016

one liner man


one liner man

hard workin'
bithc her in
hard earn'd bithc hiv positiv'
pr'tect hard earnin' bithc
zen christian 'n' mammal
and bithc mental disorder
bithc 'm gulago
bithc 'm y'all

flat bubble

flat bubble

this pop is selling hop
this cop is selling dop
this bank is selling junk
this hell is selling well

Thursday, July 14, 2016

monkeys watch man


monkeys watch man

do you want soda?

Wednesday, June 22, 2016




What are ideas? Where do they come from? What makes them?
Human being is dipped into the ocean of ideas and it would be good to learn into what it is being involved and how to get the hell out of it.

First of all, it should be understood, as any honest philosopher would, that all ideas go to Rome, they spring in and out from common womb ― The Great Mother Idea, and they return to her, after they have seen, indulged and/or became disgusted, with the world they have created.
It is a basic mistake to believe that among ideas there is order, hierarchy, chain of command. Between themselves ideas are in chaotic relationship, they are, at least apparently, in constant war, as Heraclitus would say. I do not agree with the claim that there exist some Supreme Idea, or God, or even worse ― good idea. My experience tells me that ideas are, just like fire ― good servants but very bad masters.

The “system” of ideas has to be understood dynamically, very much like an ocean, it is up to us where we will go and where we will arrive, which idea will be our cozy home or our hated dungeon. Swimmer among ideas must learn to move fast, orient himself, learn which ideas are nutrients, and which should be spat out like venom.

Ideas have common properties, as well as uniqueness. First, one should learn what is common for them all, and then this knowledge can be applied in each new encounter. Ideas move in flocks, packs, herds, they go solitary or, like assassins, they wait in ambush, jump on and murder the careless. There are ideas-sucubae, which can easily seduce, use and discard us . There are ideas-whores, which will charge us dearly for a night spent with them. Comforters, educators, naggers, gardeners, drivers, cooks, tailors, fashion plates, singers, small time thieves...

Great nations had their own philosophers and philosophies, and these, in turn, realized that the whole world came from a principle. That principle, creator of the world, is ― discernment. What discerns, is called sense. The act of sensing is discerning. Then, in order to establish articulated difference, one needs a number. Number is the means to mark the the infinite aggregate of discerning.

Understanding this, some philosophers believed that the number itself was the principle, they tried to use numbers to explain all world events. From those philosophers became ― bankers. As philosophers they became bankrupt. The idea of number established authority over them and took them to an infinite fiasco. And with them almost whole humanity. Historically, the most notorious bankers are the Pythagorean and the Kabbalist. Bankers are the most persevering in belief that each thing owes something to another, that debt is in the nature of things, and this debt can be paid off, ad infinitum. Thus the idea of number became the idea of debt slavery. In all, each idea which manages to impose itself on man, does it by turning him into a slave. The idea of debt is the means of the idea of number by which the latter manages to infinitely re-establish itself at the position of Supreme Idea.

Idea is like a hundred headed Hydra. You cut off one of its heads, a couple of them will spring in its place. They all work for each others profit, even when it seems they are mortal enemies. There are ideological, religious wars, but from them only people suffer, and ideas, even after they are defeated and suffocated, can always resurrect― while people can't.

Philosophers who created an all seeing and omniscient God from the principle, are called prophets. They are founders of religions, which they conceived as a system of ideas put together in such manner so that man captured in it ―  runs in circles believing to be doing the right and good things, which are pleasing to God. And those systems-ideas serve only one purpose ― their own survival at the expense of the faithful. Gods are all cannibals.
That's right ― one of the common properties of ideas is ― cannibalism. In old and new mythologies, the motive of cannibalism is often present. Myths became as caches of knowledge and understanding, and they are maybe the safest place to preserve insights which would, because of political incorrectness, fall out from well thought ideological systems of reigning over human flesh. Myths are, actually, works of art, which unlike philosophy and religion, express wisdom in an indirect, subliminal way and thus survive unnoticed within human mind, popping out only when man is, along with his experience, ripe enough to bring them to consciousness.

The basic effect of sensuality is organic life. The basic effect of organizing is the state. The basic effect of the state is the deficiency of cognitive ability ― ignorance. The one who believes that these three aspects are the most important, will never get rid of ignorance. He will never swim freely. Will always live in dungeon, whither, dull, suffer.

Here on the scene comes another common property of ideas ― promise, hope, boasting, advertising. Those are the basic means of the rule of religious and political ideology. Better life is always promised, since life in present is so difficult, is in crisis, etc, wealth promised at the end of exhausting work or adventure, an award which never ever happens. This fraudulence, pretense, slyness, whoring, vileness, viciousness, appears either sugar-coated and perfumed or, as perverted threat, horrifying and blackmailing, bloodthirsty and criminal. In any case, such work of ideas dominates human history.

Development of technology and science contributed the most, along with the help of idea of progress, to the strengthening of ideas' reign over humankind. First as the sweet promise of the increased living standard and life expectancy, and then as a promise of increased safety, to end it all, as is now almost complete, by using all technological and scientific achievements to strengthen the fetters of authority and to deprive people of the little freedom they still possess, after the millennial perfection of political methodology. Idea does everything to secure itself from its most dangerous enemy ― knowledge!

That's right, the greatest enemy of idea is knowledge.

Idea, as it is pure consciousness, contents, projection of reality, is by no means the effect of cognitive insight, but is simply a vision with no other ground except in itself ― therefore another common property of idea ― self-justification, self-importance, self-pity. But, by knowing the properties of ideas, man acquires knowledge, the force with which he can resist and free himself from their rule.

Suckers believe that by “widening consciousness” they will acquire greater freedom. That is not true. We are witnessing new technologies, electronic multimedia, which do widen our consciousness, much more than LSD, mescaline or some such agents ever could, but there is less and less freedom, because this consciousness is occupied with the self-marketing contents ― the most recent and very efficient form of slavery.

Instead of spreading consciousness, I propose― increase of knowledge. Of such knowledge, like an eye, which penetrates through the visible and there, in the background, sees the invisible mechanism of the malefactor's rule.

Work is, believe it or not, another common property of ideas. Work did not liberate man, on the contrary, idea's work has been successfully, by using its self-promotion and pretense, “sold” to man as “his own” most important and decisive property of “evolutionary” ascendance towards the “top of the food chain” position. Thus the main idea's food has been transformed into the main, but ―  imaginary, predator. What an irony! Man has become a sheep which believes to be a lion!

Well, even when people understand that the means of work are what determines the way of life, the customs and an all-out organization of human society and psyche, the final insight is missing ― that it is just a way by which ideas, always appearing in newer and more advanced forms and systems, tighten up their leashes and direct man towards satisfaction of their own interest, their own survival.

Work, the means of work as well as the products of work ― belong to ideas, not man.
This is important to know, otherwise it will stay in power of idea that the work created man (which is true) and that one must work in order to live (which is also true). But, the truth is also that life is a bad thing, that life is suffering, and therefore one doesn't have to live (which is tricky to understand).

Since life is organization of matter, and matter is just a consequence of differentiation, the question is why would a free spirit, suddenly from its freedom, submit itself to the infinite sequence of conditioning?

The answer to that question will not be given to us by ideas, since self-preservation is in their nature and they will not offer themselves to be sacrificed for the sake of someone else's benefit.

We are, for the ideas ―  aliens, fuel, food, and they are to us father and mother ― does this really make sense?Respect your parents”... thus orders idea. And we are obliged to execute orders, aren't we?[1]
Ideas lie. They take food we produced with our hands and sweat, and then return us crumbs and demand us to say thanks before meal. And to feel guilty and as if barely deserving such mercy. We even have to feel proud for deserving mercy to live another day and be useful.
Indeed, one must be stupid, and above all a coward, to agree to something like that.

That's right, cowardice too is a common property of ideas. If we continue with this, there will be a lot more common properties, and in the end each property of any idea will be “common”. And maybe it is so. Shall we continue exploring?

In the same way a man or animal choose what they will eat, so ideas choose people, leaving for themselves the sweetest morsels, that means the stupid and dull, weak and cowardly, and discard tart, hard, squirmy and disobedient ones.

That too is a common property of ideas ― fussiness and pickiness, specialization. One idea can never rule all, it always look for the “chosen ones”, for the herd of specific kind, which will obediently follow it, serve it as a source of survival. There, you see, along with the idea always goes ― the menu!

The Eternal War

I have already mentioned the principle. Philosophers using deduction came to it, that in the beginning there was One, and then this One fell apart ― Bang! However, it is unclear why. I think this is simply an oversight. It is not true that from the One became multitude (sea and sky, and like that). Such seeing is a consequence of a habit to represent events as in time(line). One and multitude exist simultaneously, in the present point, which actually means out-of-time. I claim this because I can simultaneously observe things from both view points. This is possible because the subject (personality) is mobile, while the world of multitude and singularity exist independently from each other. And more, it is a matter of decision to which of the two worlds will the subject incline, and it can surely decide ― both.

Difference between the two worlds is not some imaginary line, although it can be represented in such a way. The true difference is knowledge. The one who possesses knowledge can roam from one to the other, instantly and effortlessly. The one who has no knowledge, can't. He stays imprisoned inside the bubble of perception and ideas, and cannot leave it but, like fly inside a jar, endlessly hits the invisible obstacle. Because what is invisible for senses ― does not exist!

One and multitude are in no space-time relationship. Their only connection and difference is knowledge. There is no advancement from point A into point B. There is no dissipation of the world А so that it can constitute the world B. The relationship of the One, which is abstract, and multitude, which is concrete, is knowledge, and knowledge is discerning, dissolution, analysis, deconstruction, it doesn't matter which expression you prefer, those are all synonyms.

So, how is it possible that two worlds exist without being connected except through the subject which is aware of them?

What kind of personality is such subject?

Studying one and the other world, the world of ignorance and the world of knowledge, since it all comes to that, I came to the conclusion that it was the (analytical) method which enabled the existence of the two extremes. Also, I realized that there is no “struggle” between the two poles, no fight between good and evil, smart and stupid ― nothing of the sort.

Fight or war, as Heraclitus would say, exists only in the world of multitude which was born out of eternal destruction, in accordance with the principle of discernment. The war indeed exists, but there is no winner. Ancient sage was right.

Subject which carefully observes the war, apart from suffering, since it is attached to the sensual form ―  the body, inevitably, because of its focused attention (that is the condition), arrives to the cognition which automatically frees it from the dependence on the cause-and-effect sequence of events (karma) thereby terminating the suffering. Therefore, focused attention is the decisive moment after which the subject acquires the ability to move outside the bubble, since the knowledge it acquires does not belong to the world dominated by impressions (affections). Knowledge is what prevents conditioning, that which frees. Knowledge is anti-gravitation.

Where are ideas in all this? What shall we do with them, once we are free from their rule? Nothing.

We owe them nothing. There is no slavery.

Transfer of knowledge

On the road of cognition (which doesn't exist, isn't it?) the initial problem is the attempt to transfer the awakening of the subject to the surrounding world, to its neighbors. Which doesn't really “work” and may present a constant source of frustration, often opening conflicts. Knowledge simply cannot be transferred from subject to subject, there is no virus which will infect other people with knowledge, there is no true danger of contagion by knowledge.[2] Persecution of truth-sayers by truth-fighters is a common manipulation, there is no fear in the ruler that the stupid masses will ever awaken. They only want to get rid of the disobedient, and it is convenient to do that with lots of noise, persecuting those which are the least capable of self defense, which also is a cheap way of fear mongering. So, many witches and sorcerers were burnt on a stake, stoned or shot, while the real contagion was by plague, dysentery, cholera, typhoid, tuberculosis, cancer and leuchemia, and we know who and what created conditions for such nasty events. Dirt, misery, poverty, undernourishment, ignorance, atom bomb, pesticides and asbestos. From the men of knowledge, one could expect to do something useful about all that, but alas, reigning, not betterment, always is the highest priority for the ideas.

Ideas even allow the existence of the Other world , but it is them who decide who and how one is to get there. And since it does not benefit them, because people paying attention to themselves and the world around them inevitably escape the control, fake systems of salvation are invented and imposed (religions, ideologies) with all the necessary relics: rituals, calendars, menus, holidays, sermons, advises, prayers, liturgies and saints, etc.[3] Temples and sanctuaries are built for the purpose of adoring and respecting the Supreme Idea, which had taken the responsibility upon itself, isn't it so, to guide people to the Other, Better world― only if they have deserved it with obedience and respect!

My experience is opposed to that. Merit for moving to the Other world is earned in a very different, simpler and much more efficient way.

The only victim of following that “way” are, no more and no less ― ideas!

Therefore, the only true war (drama) is waged between the personality and ideas, since ideas are intruders which have, thanks to their tricks and cunningness, succeeded to establish rule over the majority of humankind. The war between ideas themselves is not “for real”, because it is their inherent property ― they simulate it. Ideas mercilessly rush and attack and our only defense from them is ― knowledge. Unfortunately, ignorant people cannot resist them, they rather side with one or the other (one-and-the-same) and become tools and weapons, victims and cannon fodder in this dirty, eternal war. [4]

[IE root weid]
Idea (Gr. eidos) is the same as sight, the seen, projection, thought. In some old languages, to see means the same as to know. Like “vedeti” as in Vedas.

Ideas appear in the realms of thinking i.e. memory, projecting. Ideas become as consequences of sensing, that is, perception, as forming / interpreting / organizing of data (reason), which is the consequence of the effect (work) of discerning principle. They are, thus, forms which can be dissolved (analyzed).

Idea (or ideas) is the work of the principle (or of the idea of principle), but also that which does the work, actually the only thing which does the real work. There is no other real work except the work of the idea. The work of the idea is the sum of its properties based on the conditioning of their relationship. Work of the idea produces forms as itself.

There are many attempts to identify ideas. One of the most common attempts comes to deduction from the principle of discerning ― as in Pythagoras, lets say, or with Kabbalist. This then ends as cataloging of different forms, ideas, and creating of categories. This is all, at least partially, practically useful, but it by no means explains the existence of idea and its nature.
Idea is the universal mover. Aristotle had the idea of the unmoved mover, which moves all things but is itself unmoved (that would be a principle). Various interpretations of this idea often incline towards justification of God i.e. the authority, and I will not enter such speculations (Leibniz, Theodicy). What idea puts in motion is the cause-effect sequence, action-reaction, karma. In other words, universal mover is a principle by which one thing causes the other and so produces bad infinity ― a bunch of ideas, manifest forms, which all permeate and devour each other. In Spinoza this is well explained since the means of existing in space is defined as discerning, and that is the same as moving.(“Matter is in constant motion”, Lucretius). This can clearly be seen in Zeno's aporia, where the measure is arbitrarily chosen as half the distance between points А and B, but it is counted from the subject of movement (which is equalized with point А), so the measure is constantly being halved in relation to the initial one. Thus one falls into an infinite sequence ― principle ― aporia. It is important to understand that establishing measure is an act, and that this act is not conditioned ― that is an axiom. We know that mathematics is based on axioms, arbitrary values, and this is often forgotten. The very act of deciding the measure in the realm of abstract produces cause-effect sequence and turns the abstract into the real (concrete). This is the same as an act of naming. [5]

Properties of idea(s):

Work of the idea relates to incessant recreation of projection within the sequence of transitory moments. People are being sacrificed for the idea, cause, homeland, family, party, etc. The source of work is the principle of discerning. See. Meaning
“The show must go on!” Folk lore

Self-justification, self-defense, meaning, self-pity
Idea defends itself with all available means. Defense is activated by means of conditioned reaction most commonly by causing certain emotion ― of being threatened, insulted. Of course, idea will use people to defend itself, all people that are within its power. In history there are uncountable examples of this practice. Defense of the idea is automated action which is same as its essence, i.e. its work. Defense of the idea is always “reasonable” and a reasonable man cannot disagree with it.

Example: (first time in France 1242, then establishing Inquisition in Spain 1478) auto-da-fé is a ritual of public penance in defense of Christianity in the name of which huge number of people have been burnt at the stake. All states and other authoritarian institutions use, in greater or smaller measure of cruelty, similar method.

As long as there is an urge (most obvious in writers) to explain that which is being written, means that idea still “works” i.e. defends itself by explaining itself. Writer should learn that this is valid part of process of mastering the idea and should be able to recognize it, and then wait until the full “explanation” comes to light, and then simply delete it from the text. Only when idea is thoroughly understood, it is “ripe” and one can play with it and include it into his arsenal.

Survival, self-preservation
Excuse that one must live, justifies existence of the idea and all the means to achieve the goal.

Idea is life. Idea struggles to survive, to reproduce (to project), to grow, to be immortal..

Presenting (projecting), advertising, marketing 

The effect of idea / feeling / emotion on other subjects, trickery, violence, indoctrination, contagion, propaganda. The whole humanity, today like yesterday, is the battlefield of internal struggle between ideas and feelings. [6]

Self-importance, race, nobility, generosity
In conjunction with the survival the idea of self-importance is part of the justification of the use of slavery workforce. Best slaves are racial slaves. We are important as much as the idea we serve is important to us.

Basic purpose of language is camouflage, hiding the truth, expressing lies and seduction. Also, language is an obstacle to real acting, because there is a demand for thing to be first resolved in language, and to do that it takes a true philosopher not just anyone. Legal system serves that purpose. Idea, with the help of legal system, by using laws, attempts to “explain everything” and to impose this explanation (legal order) by force, before or after the event.

Fear of freedom (truth). Inability to say “No” to the idea, logic, order, etc.

Is explained by urge to survive or belonging to superior race. [7]

Faithfulness, loyalty, obligatoriness, obligation
Feeling of faithfulness (loyalty) does not allow freedom. Faithfulness is gawking into the rules i.e. show. Faithfulness is a variable because it can easily be expressed by the system of values.

Responsibility, obedience
Idea demands responsibility i.e. obedience, from its slaves.

Intrusiveness is the same as gluttony. Ideas adopt (eat) each other in order to survive.

Seduction and curiosity
Combination of these two definitely kills the cat.

Voracity, greed
Ideas are work of the principle and have no brakes. Therefore, they suffer from lack of restraint.

Camouflage, hiding
When the eye was begotten, so was the predator. The consequence of that is the whole arsenal of means of deception. Life is all about that.

To ideas, craftiness serves so they can pose as wise.

All craftiness and violence of ideas in one word.

Labeling, denunciation
In a war between ideas and personality, ideas always go against personality and personality goes against the method.

Defense mechanism of an idea.

Discouragement, absurdity, hopelessness
Unlike cowardice, discouragement (low morale) has special role in preventing any action which would liberate man from suffering in life. When all the evil in the world is seen, one inevitably comes to realization that nothing can be done about it. This is usually the end of attempts to improve life, because any improvement of life leads to even greater corruption. What man must realize is that there is something like the realm outside life, in which one can be free.

Idea punishes the disobedient. Before that, it either reassures or intimidates them.

It is easier to believe than to know. It saves energy so badly needed for work. In contemporary civilization working man has no time to think things through. Even his believing is simply about fulfillment of obligations― it is believed that it “has to be”.

Telepathy, reading of thoughts
Although ideas cannot read thoughts, they strongly want it and instead they imagine they can do it. This is called ― projecting.

Hatred is an emotion triggered by any threat to the idea. Typical is hatred of the good slaves towards the bad, lazy, disobedient slaves, as well as towards anyone who expresses intention to free slaves from slavery. Three minutes of hatred every day raises morale and working enthusiasm of slaves.

Future is the favorite projection of ideas; imagining nicer future is the expression of hope, imagining ugly future is terrifying. Both have life as an assumption, i.e. are advertising life.

Ideas create history as a collateral: all debt is historical fact. Debt slavery.

Censorship and self-censorship
Oppressive mechanism and automatic reaction (emotion of fear) that prevents the disclosure of truth. Since the rule of ideas is secret, and public is a projection of order, all that disturbs the show is forbidden. We have already said: analysis of reality is death to idea.

Secrecy, privacy
Thoughts of the master are public truth, and privacy of subjects limits authority. Therefore authority does everything to enter with its senses into every corner of its domain.

Attention, struggle for attention
Idea struggles for the attention of “others” so that it can devour / adopt them. Attracting attention and fascinating the prey is a strategic moment of this activity. In order to attract attention all means are used, especially science and technology, pharmacology, psychology, ideology, entertainment as well as rough intimidation. In nature, among living beings, techniques of attracting attention are very much developed: members of one sex are trying to attract attention of the other because it is the function of mating, predators and prey have the whole repertoire of attracting or distracting (camouflage).

Authority is insulted when not respected. Lack of respect means debt unpaid. Idea tends to appropriate, and it is insulted when someone or something refuses belonging or obedience (loyalty).

Slavery is the way for the meaningless to survive. Slavery is the first condition of history ― the regulated system of the rule of ideas.

Laziness (inertia)
Laziness is cozy because matter doesn't like to move. Laziness is synonymous to cowardice. The reason knowledge so terrifies is because of the possibility that it will move things and force the body out of “balance” of intoxication with ignorance.
Ignorance, laziness
Ignorance survives because knowledge has no ability to affect (to influence). Knowledge is dark matter, is not conditioned, causes no reaction. Because of that, no matter how much we shower the ignorant with facts, they will not react. Knowledge is dangerous only if it appears from within, and it normally resides “inside” (sub conscious). The way to prevent this is to constantly shower irrelevant information which busies attention and prevents sinking into meditative state, which in turn brings man into the contact with cognition.

Blowback, counterrevolution, revenge
Whenever an idea or emotion are suppressed, vacuum is created and then one should expect counterattack: attack of self-pity, discouragement, repentance, urge for security; slavish adherence to safety position is advertized. This is the best moment for the Devil to collect signatures on the Contract.

[1] Henceforth it is no longer the human that conceives the world; it is the un-human that conceives us.Jean Baudrillard

[2]  I used to tweet but it’s an act of futility. You’re not really making any impact and if you find yourself in a mood when you wanna be a bit controversial and you post something, you suddenly realise, ‘Oh my God!’ because you’ve opened yourself up to criticism.” Sylvester Stallone

[3] This is what “political” power comes down to today. It is no longer driven by any positive will; it is merely a negative power of deterrence, of public health, of security policing, immunity policing, prophylaxis. Jean Baudrillard

[4] A man goes to knowledge as he goes to war, wide awake, with fear, with respect, and with absolute assurance. Going to knowledge or going to war in any other manner is a mistake, and whoever makes it will live to regret his steps. Carlos Castaneda

[5] “Nothing exists until it is measured.” Niels Bohr

[6] "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We do not allow our enemies to have guns, why would we allow them to have ideas?"
"Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach". Joseph Stalin

[7] “Wolf has right on sheep / like tyrant on weak man” Njegoš