to be One (about interaction of paradigms)

Chimera and phoenix and whisps, few are all and none are even one. It is because as you become more of one extreme you also become more of others, because there is overlay of the various paradigms. To be more than one you have to comprimize and rationalize a break of integrity for further pursuit of your bias.

To be the most empowered chimera, you must be able to get phoenix to support you through compelling ideals, and you must have comparable understand of nature to get the whisps behind you. So to further self empower, you must compromise the outward tacit expression of greed for values of the other demographics. Similarly to truly empower yourself as a whisp you have to have a protected place in society indulging traditional platitudes you find meritless and irrelevant or against your practice at face value, because without huge group investment you are the limit to your idea’s expression. As for phoenix, without the empowerment of having competitive capacity for technical skills, or the drive for power, the zeal and passion doesn’t really matter.

 

The fact of the matter though rarely used is that chimera my their adaptive bias tend to be personally/individually stronger and more capable than the individuals of other groups, however what the other groups lack by having scruples and ideals, they make up with their multitude. A flock of phoenix, or a technologically empowered whisp, is more powerful than chimera.

 

And that is the irony of personal empowerment, by focusing on immediate self-gratification and schisming oneself from one’s group by neglecting to share labours, one denigrates their character and can cause the group to lash out or scapegoat the individual through hyperbolic rhetoric a pretence of vindication to validate the virtue and veracity of ‘vengeance’ really grounded in envy/hate of not-self and the brutal groups are less often willing to do such acts to their own.

 

…

 

You are not truly in control of your meaning. You exist in a society which will project meanings upon you and these meanings will caricature your humanity to a grotesque and deformed sense of self you will likely be ashamed of, however even though you can’t control how people perceive you can control what they perceive. You can grant personal association with caricatures they appreciate or are biased to associate with.

 

…

 

so how do we reconcile? Through the grace and balance and recognition of what you present beyond who you are. Which paradigm is most like you? Are you most like the whisps who base things on objective reality, or do you prefer allegations and anecdote, or due to prefer to have basal idolatry of idealism? (whisp, chimera, phoenix respectively).

 

Now from those values you hold as paramount, find value in the other ones. If you are:

whisp perhaps find

• chimera as competitive implements of utility.
• phoenix as nobly holding to things of truth though naïve and deluded about which things are accurate and worth knowing.

chimera perhaps find

• whisp as a means to power through technical compensation. “mind over matter is an appeal to magic. Matter over mind bludgeons in comprehension”
• Phoenix as a means to power though social compensation. “if you want it done right do it yourself, if you want lots of work done, train others.”

phoenix perhaps find

• whisp as people who hold an ideal of that which is, astrology of evidence
• chimera as proud heros, living legends. People who are foolhardy in ambition but still of noble ideals. Those who strive to make themselves into an ideal, as opposed to protect the ideal.

 

how ever you find the groups irrationally, find a way to rationally appreciate all of them, and internalize how they think to rise beyond their ability to be able to disempower, and counter their criticism with similar reasoning for the humor of it. However, Don’t expect to convert people you ridicule or criticise though. Telling people answers in the context of conversation tends to lead them to a defensive and stubborn position called ‘argument’ and many things which are critical of that ‘axiom’ will be considered strawmen, as it doesn’t line up with their emotional sense of self. And if your criticism does personally resonate it comes across as ad hominem.

Ask them to figure out their circumstance in their own words, by respectfully/kindly using analogy and by offering questions which make them venture shared values. It isn’t the con-artist/car-salesmen style of trying to make people just say “yes” a bunch to condition them agreeable and then to change the topic, but rather to ply their critical thinking towards the weak parts of their paradigm through critical analysis of a pseudonym ideology. They wont necessarily change while chatting with you but it will plant seeds of integrity. And they may change in response to your aid, just when they don’t remotely consider the change to be a loss of face/esteem. To increase the likelihood of them coming out as changed it can’t seem to be a topic of importance; if you let a topic seem to define a person you interact with, the person will pick up on it. If it is just a topic that naturally comes into conversation, especially about 3^rd party groups, the speaker/respondent will be more honest and speak in earnest. And if the person doesn’t consider you an enemy, they will be more open to your consideration. Which is why it is best to not raise standards of dogma or ideal or association or group membership. And both first and second person statements/queries raise those defences. So avoid testimony of “i am a-” or accusatory “are you a-”, these are ‘benediction’ of prejudice.

 

you will be able to understand the mechanisms at play if you do this impartial analysis, of therapeutically allowing others to talk through their problems vicariously. And if you understand the mechanistic manner in which others consider you will learn the loss and follies of your own bias until you can understand the other persons natively/fluently; as though their bias was your own.