If you think that made no sense...(assuming you traced it)

...then what else is new in this world? I'm rather used to having people not get what I mean, and even more so when it builds off the elaborations of cerebral duality.

Nonetheless, I'll maintain that it does have truth, even though of course I can demand no recognition of the fact. I try very hard to keep fact and fiction distinct -- not always segregated, but clear at least. Hyperlucidity is one of the places I try to deal more with the "real" world as the issue, even though some of the things inside may seem weird to a stranger's reading. Others may seem too mundane, straight repostings from the daily news -- so what's my motive, what's the purpose here?--I mean, there, or anywhere I try to explain?

It's not the same as Pravda, at least--though, how can you not love Pravda (at least for the reading of it)?--the firm credulosity, the determined weaving of observation and science and folklore into one proudly authoritative package...it breathes new life into the meaning of the word "superstition." No, I am not Pravda -- though, this is not to say that I make no claim to truth (in-joke, that's what "pravda" means). It just takes going about it in a different fashion, more dissection with less conclusion. I'd rather suggest lines of thought than lay them down firmly in every detail, and though I can certainly write a manifesto or a catechism doesn't mean I have any present use for doing so. I'm mainly just trying to - make people think.

Of course, for some people that's an unbearable torture. Those people never last long with the kind of conversations I tend to get into (not bragging, just saying...) -- they haven't enough mental foliage to comprehend the canopy nor the marshy undergrowth in mine -- nor do they have the woodscraft to penetrate into the heart of the forest. Best to lose them at the gate lest they get into trouble.

But, if this intrigues you rather than confuses altogether, maybe you ought to come in a bit deeper into the jungle, off the beaten path. It's more dappled in here, but you can see the roots much more easily, and multiple strands and limbs and tendrils...connections are closer, though tangled, and you run across more at a time.

But all that's just a sheer metaphorical ramble. Suffice it to say, I have a (fairly new) new group where I talk about things that connect to the outside world, but (intendedly) geared to address concerns closer and more relative to us -- and who "us" is, as a matter of fact, a rather interesting and controversial topic.

Which, again, I think I'll refrain from spelling out too clearly right now....

Scientology -- I got the dirt on how it works...you wanna read more?

Here's the crux of the matter, and the reason behind Tom Cruise's
immoderate behaviour of late: Scientology split his brain apart, and
he doesn't think or act the same anymore as what we would call
a "self-aware" person.

If you want to know more about my research and theory on Scientology,
either write me privately or apply to the newsgroup 'Hyperlucidity--
the eternal pathology' ....the relevant post on this is in the message archive there at
message #277 , and I have even more extensive material (the full account of my work on this when I
delved it out) in my thesis Language and Selfhood: Power and
Coercion in the Art of Words.

_________________________________________________________
Note: I don't accept people with blank profiles into my private online groups unless they've introduced themselves sufficiently
beforehand, enough to know that they're not, you know, crazy religious fanatics or government spooks or totally fluffed off their heads. And please do be sure to read the description first, of course.....we don't want to confuse people who were just looking for a simple chatty coffee-klatsch about nothing atall of deeper consequence.

"Post-Modern Evolution" (the foundational proposal)

Original Date: Fri Jun 3, 2005 5:42 am "Post-Modern Evolution" by K. Aurencz Zethmayr / posted June 3, 2005 at my LJ blog and thence to hyperlucidity [If the content of this bothers or offends you, then go away and forget about it--though I warn you that your belief or skepticism will have no effect on the validity of these concepts, or on their operation in the world and people around you. Those who do not believe in evolution are condemned to...well, become extinct...>:)] My newest theory, and one that ties into everything subcultural as well...not to mention providing that direct reason why we're logically in the direct firing line of the Religious Right. Post-modern evolution--or, to spell it out, having arrived at a point in the human species' evolution where it is experimenting and exploring at an unprecedented pace. And, in that process, exploring and revisiting all that has come before--including things not even in its own direct genetic lineage. Before birth, a human fetus recapitulates every stage of evolution that has led to this shape, from gills to a tail. Now, we're doing something even more creative, and which has vast implications for the range and diversity and interconnectedness of all life itself. We're finding inside ourselves that which may have never existed on this planet or plane, but which is still "part of us"...we're consciously living as territorial and feral entities, whether creating new packs and clans or moving as loners through the world....we're learning more and more that there are myriad forms of energy sustenance besides just caloric intake, and that some of us need that in high and specialized degree. And that's not even taking into account anything distinctly "spiritual", though I think I can say that a great many of us, the more sensitive ones at least, suffer greatly from a sense of alienation from the normal round of human society, its priorities, even its developed emotions themselves. Whether we feel as angels above it, or as therians and fae indifferent to its shiftings--or as empathic vampires all too tangibly aware from the outside of that which we somehow cannot completely share ourselves...these are only hypothetical perspectives, feel free to add on--there is a sense of being essentially different, and of that difference causing pain because there is no sense of a place in the world for us--hardly even a way to express the anomie of knowing you're "abnormal" in such a way that cannot be medicated away (though there's always other things to drug for), cannot be simply persuaded out of, converted away from, swept under the rug of conformity and the expected course of things. Even those closest to us, sometimes, though genetics don't happen purely out of the blue...they do not know who we are, what we are--how on earth can they help and ease the growing pains, when they know so little, and when we ourselves have (I speak in general) far more a tendency towards rules than reasons, towards clan ideologies rather than continued searching--and moreover, so little a sense of destiny overall. The only ones who speak pervasively of destiny are the Starseed, Indigo, Crystal demographics...and bluntly speaking, a lot of it comes off as wishful sci-fi crap, just as much as Scientology--and written by regular New Age human adults (female of course, though no offense intended) who think we all oughta worship the little enlightened genii who'll show us the way. But I'm an Indigo myself, by the way--one of the older ones, whose mission is to try to cut the crap and translate to people what's really going on in a practical way, to lead them clearly. As a matter of fact, I know very clearly that's my task, as it was told to me. And I have very little illusion about that being a glamourous or even well-respected role--I'm a bit of a rebel gadfly of a cerebral leader, more goading than dictating, more outside than inside even when I'm in the middle of things. But I can see the whole picture--and no one else seems to have done that yet. Anyhow, we're the waves of the future gathering, in a world that's not ready to grow. What is that gonna mean?--a whole lotta repression and suspicion (especially here in the U.S.), a lotta chafing against the status quo and its patterns, a lotta going underground, so to speak--catacombing, communing, creating our alternative families and support systems as best we can. It's been done before, after all--and not to sound too :uber-psychic, but I've been hooked on that theme for years, and it's always been my ideal to gather that way, though never forcing too hard upon the needs of solitude. So...those are the lines I'm thinking along, together with greater advocacy in the areas of education, social identity (gender, sexual orientation, religion), and basic civil rights altogether, particularly by those who are articulate enough to be taken seriously by all. It's not even a matter of intelligence so much as clear and well-mastered communication, something that a lot of the right-brain dominants among us (and I think most of us likely are either close-to-the-middle, balanced, or right-brain dominant) just haven't got as a useful habit, not when it comes to trying to reason with the outside world. ______________________________ Anyhow...that's the start of my manifesto-manifestation. More to come. [from Aureantes Talks... ]

The conservative Intelligent Design movement....(brief comment)

[This is, with some additions, what I posted on the AlterNet message board for one of the
stories re ID and its effect/methods to deal with it in the classroom - http://www.alternet.org/story/22039 ]

The Real Threat of Evolution.... -->Posted by: Aureantes on May 24, 2005 11:29 PM -->

...is the idea that these bass-ackwards, head-in-the-sand creationists might possibly not be at the top of their own evolutionary ladder. That the best of humanity might lie elsewhere than in the ranks of the faithful, that a conservative politician in a three-piece-suit might be someday as outdated as a pithecanthropus, that America might not be the greatest country in the world, that the status quo of the good old days might need some revision and growth after all, even reinterpretation--in short, the very simple-yet-complex fear of being superseded, both in reality and in the process of human consciousness, morality, honour, ethics, whatever they pride themselves on as a separation to keep from realizing that everyone and everything must keep on growing and learning and adapting in order to survive.

Personally, I believe in emanation, not creation--with a direction and purpose, yes, but not arbitrary, and certainly not dropping in a species from above to have dominion over the earth and its creatures. Biological domination, apart from environmental circumstance, takes intelligence on the inside of a creature, not from the outside via deus ex machina.

The paranoia that's always lain at the heart of every religion-based scientific reactionary trend is the fear of being displaced from the center of the universe, from the apple of God's eye, from having unquestioned rulership and exploitation rights over all. It happened with astronomy, it happened with evolution, and now people are still trying to drag it back into that literal Ptolemian egotism that allows no doubt as to plan or priority, and conflate it withall their other fears as well. In short, they're afraid of not being the superior species, or type, or culture. Creationists fear for their existence, because they have reduced it themselves to such an absolute of domination or utter helplessness, irrelevance in the scheme of things. Therefore they must bolster their delusions and try to force others to believe them as well. If not, they just might become...well, extinct. >:)

Pharmacists (and others) w/ incapacitating moral scruples....

Original Date: Sat Jun 11, 2005 3:05 am

[Posted as reply in another group, in response to a member opining it
wrong to "coerce" pharmacists to fill prescriptions against their
moral beliefs.]
==========================================
"I'm with you except for one thing: passing a law obligating
a pharmacist (or anyone else) to do something against their moral
principles is a NO-NO in my eyes. If the pharmacist won't fill
someone's script because of moral objections, then take it up
with the store manager and get someone else or some other company to
fill your script. Enough people going to the store manager or
another company about their script not being filled on moral
principles will ultimately result in removal of pharmacist X to a
different job.
To force an unwilling pharmacist to fill a script against
his/her moral code is just as bad as any other form of coercion.
As for me, I'm strictly pro-choice."]
=================================================================

If a pharmacist refuses to fill prescriptions given to him
(and incidentally, I sincerely doubt that any female pharmacists are
having these "moral" dilemmas), than why the heck is he in the
profession?

A pharmacist is by definition the person who dispenses medications at
the express request/order or a physician. Call it enabling, whatever-
-that's their function, deal with it. They dispense drugs. They can
keep whatever suspicions or doubts or dislikes they want as to the
uses involved, but a valid prescription legally ought to be honoured--
or, information given as to another pharmacy that will not be so
(pardon the term) "obstructionist".

It is /not/ part of their job to second-guess either the physician's
judgement or the patient's needs, regardless of their own personal
beliefs. I live in Illinois, and I'm glad that Gov. Blagojevich
(yes, I can spell his name w/o looking it up) had the extreme
common sense to pass this measure telling pharmacists to fulfill the
logical duties of their job.

Aurey

(Chronically and unmedicatedly intellectual :P )

_______________________________________________________________________
Furthermore...... (I added)

Most consumers are sheep when it comes to complaining to stores and
getting any positive changes out of it. In some areas, going to
another pharmacy may be extremely difficult if not impossible. Free-
market economics are not always operating under free conditions,
contrary to the gospels of Ayn Rand.

And most of all, have you NOT NOTICED that this whole idea of
protecting "moral beliefs" in the workplace is basically a cover for
Christian right-wingers in any/all professions to refuse to do
their jobs without bias or prejudice, to withhold services and
information selectively according to their own opinions and not the
real needs of the patient, customer, client or student?

That means all medical personnel, high-school counselors (guidance
and school psychologists), librarians, public-school teachers,
police officers, and everyone else whose job description ordinarily
and properly states that they are not to let their own moral scruples
interfere with the actual job at hand, nor let them favour any person
above another in terms of attention or quality of care,
confidentiality, dignity, and civil rights.

Some people, in case you've forgotten, do not 'morally believe' in
civil rights.

All told, I'd rather 'coerce' them all to err on the side of putting
another's /needs/ above their own /preferences/. Anyone got a moral
problem with that?

Aurey