functional ideals vs paranoid idealism


Expectation (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

People may notice the experience of distress. We may have a panic reaction to suppress the display of distress. The more we repress, the more likely that an explosive tantrum will result.

So, suppressed panics of distress could be rooted in a simple inconsistency between ideals and experiences. That is the point of complication (and of untangling things back to simplicity). Let’s simplify.

Idealism: taking an entirely valid IDEAL and ruining it through naive EXPECTATION. To be slightly more specific, ideals are presumptions or speculations- like “I think that I would prefer to have that for dinner before 6 pm rather than not eat at all.” A few hours later, new information/feedback may be available.

However, the idea(l) that “other people will like me more if I wear this sweater to the Christmas Party” is MORE speculative. The intensity of holding on in terror to the construction in language (a speculation or expectation or presumption) is the issue, not the presuming itself, but desperate panic of clinging to the ideal (which typically involves the expectation of social approval if not also ideas like hell and heaven), like “but if Bob recovered from cancer through the protocol in that green book then that means I was WRONG about my skepticism and cynicism and ridicule!?!?”

Icon and Hope of a new generation

Icon and Hope of a new generation (Photo credit: Liamfm .)

Again, it is the terror of desperate, naive sincerity that is the issue- not the expectation itself. An expectation recognized as just an expectation can be easily refined over time. When people defend, rationalize, justify, and ridicule perceived threats, that is not about any particular ideal, but the terrified paranoia of IDEALISM.

Relating to ideals as sacred rather than as ideals. Idolatry. Rejecting God for a tradition. (As attributed to Jesus in Mark 7:7-8, in which he was quoting the prophet Isaiah.)

I think of idealism like this: relating to ideals as if they were not just ideals. If I find a contrast between an ideal (which is formed in language) and an experience, I can either reject the experience or the ideal. I must favor one, right?

If I reject the direct experience for the linguistic ideal, that is hiding the display of disappointment (grief). Was it the experience that disappointed me or the expectation from the ideal? I may say “the experience disappointed me,” but how is that possible without a pre-existing expectation? In FEAR of revising an ideal (which would admit that it is just an ideal), I “blame” the experience as the source of disappointment.

That is hell. Hiding disappointment seems to be what we are programmed to do by culture (schools, media, church, etc).

“Do not display disappointment or regret. Do not admit that an ideal may be subject to refinement or greater precision. Be terrified of learning something new. Display your loyalty to the system and the sacred ideals of the system. Reject your own experience (including intuition and of course logic).”

The hell of idealism is like believing that “the past has ruined my life.” That is self-condemning. That is “the sin against the holy spirit,” which is the worst sin in that it can be so hard to recognize. In recognition, the tension of the sin finally relaxes.

I would be saying that “I know better than God and God made a mistake in my past, (ruining everything,) and why me and it is all so horrible.” Why would I say something like that? Because I cling in terror to an expectation, a desperate hope for salvation.

If I believe that eating peanut butter will be my salvation, but then it is not, then I suddenly hate peanut butter. I cannot bear to be reminded of it. My shame is immense.

However, the distress is not from peanut butter itself, but from the prior idealism about it. The idealism was imprecise (or even totally foolish).

Maybe I was fooled by Santa Claus in to believing in some kind of solution to eternal damnation by worshiping the baby Serapis who was born of a virgin and yada yada yada. This myth is quite ancient. It is not just any myth, but a system of social organizing or mind control. It works pretty well, too.

Little kids may cling to ideals about Santa. Adults cling to similar ideals. Many adults have so little self-esteem and self-awareness that they strive to be saviors (at least to see themselves as justified in their actions because they are saving other people). That is intense guilt. They are desperate to compensate for their shame of not having already fit the great ideal of savior. That is their hell.

Again, all this is the typical conversation of anyone who is a product of our mainstream culture of social programming, which is derived from the Noahide system to organize society through guilt and shame and terrorism (Noahide as in the 7th commandment which was given to Noah in which Noah is the chosen one of God to impose order on all humans whether in the Hebrew tribes or not). So, idealism is a tool of imperialism. It can be an effective tool.

Ideals are also effective tools. “There should not be reverse psychology because mind control must not exist” is an ideal that children may worship, but it is a joke from the beginning, a paradox, a contradiction, a silly irony. However, those who worship language will suffer until they see the language as just a tool.

Other ideals are less complicated and socially charged, like “I like this shirt with that belt.” If someone else says “I disagree,” than an idealist would have a tantrum of panic to argue and defend, while a mature adult would not argue and defend.

“To fix everything that is wrong with the world, first we must pass a law that requires everyone to wear a blue shirt” is a typical model of the thought-forms of mainstream insanity. For the company who makes the specific blue shirt that everyone must wear or that monitors the blueness of the shirt, there is no idealism. It is just another day of imperialist competition. They are just lobbying for the creation of a government (to save the masses from freedom).

Public schools are one universal foundation of fascism. However, public schools everywhere teach the students to reject “the most evil political ideology,” which we in the US may have been trained to call fascism. Why the programming of rejection?

To hide something that is in plain sight, teach everyone to reject it. Program idealism. Blind the children early. That way, they make better soldiers and bureaucrats and slaves.


Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: