August
I use words in ways that are defined differently than what may be understood upon first read. Here are some of them:
- Process – Anything capable of the verb “to be”. Literally, a “being”. A process is stateless. Things that aren’t processes are abstractions and cannot “be”. Alternatively, I use capital-P Process to refer to the power process or to actualization in the universal sense.
- Abstraction – Artifacts of reality that are created during the Process.
- Realize – From the etymological root “to make real”. Rather than being a process of discovery, I use the term to mean a process of creation. To realize is to create abstractions – if the abstraction is useful, then it is true.
- Reality – If realization is creation, then Reality is what is created.
- Actualization – The process of Desire being satisfied. To point out an instance of this process is to realize an actualizer. To realize yourself as an actualizer is the Ego ritual or Ego story.
- Arational – A term I’ve coined to dispel the negative connotations of “irrational”. It means “outside of/irrelevant to the rational”.
- Ethics – From the etymological root “Ethos”, meaning “way”. Ethics are a system of protocols used during a personhood interaction.
- Morals – The system of Ethics used when treating oneself as a person.
- Desire – The drive to become. This could be made synonymous with Nietzsche’s “Will to Power”, which is a seeking of opportunity (power) in order to go through the process of satisfaction of desire.
- Satisfaction of Desire – The process of using power (i.e., potential or disequilibrium). Generally seen as towards an Ends, but it should be noted that the actual achieving of the Ends is not the goal – it is a side effect of the Satisfaction of Desire.
- Person – Actualizers that are capable and in the process of communicating their desires, and that are capable and in the process of understanding desires. Note that this can be self-referential. To be in the person process in relation to oneself is to be sentient.
- Hate – I refer to hate as an action. “To hate” is to dismiss one half of the person process (above) – that is, to be capable but unwilling to understand the desires of an actualizer. Note that this can be self-referential – to hate yourself is to be unwilling to understand your desires.
- Reify – “To make as a king”. Treating an abstraction as a process is to reify it.
- Ends – Reified desires. This means treating desires as things that can be reached rather than processes. Ends tend to be produced while performing the satisfaction of desires, but they are not desires themselves.
- Truth – Any abstraction useful (that is, works pragmatically) when engaging in the satisfaction of desires.
- Ritual – Any particular tool for creating abstractions and acting upon them.
- Ego Death – A useful ritual that seems to deconstruct the Ego Story. It seems like getting “outside” the Ego but I doubt that actually happens. Most “enlightenment” rituals are based around Ego Death.
2 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
-
-
Fortunately or unfortunately, they’re just words, so I’ll clarify my use of them.
Realize and actualize are basically etymologically the same. But I do intend the “creation” meaning of the word realize when I use it; so when I use it I specifically don’t mean something that is happening TO you. Sort of… it actually has more to do with the definition of “you” than it does the definition of “realize”.
The difference I intend between the two words is that realization is the creation/use of abstractions. Actualization is what is happening when desires are satisfied. One refers to abstractions, the other to the power-process. Which is why an actualizer is realized actualization – you wrap an abstraction around a reference point of desire being satisfied and BLAM – you have an ego.
In that sense, then, you are right that it is a “union” of the two, and neither. One thing I will explain in a post later is that actualizers don’t DO their actions, actualizers ARE their actions, because that’s really all we can reference (and by extension, so is reality, since it is literally “that which is created”).
You’re right on with the concept of meditation and transcendence. The intent of those rituals, and most spiritual rites, is to achieve ego death for the express purpose of expanding the “abstraction of you”. There’s all kinds of rituals for this. However, one thing that is key to the spirituality I’m realizing here is that ego death is not an end state, or a goal – it is a tool. That’s my major problem with Eastern religions and why I find them mildly escapist.
August 20, 2010 at 2:05 pm
-
Reading your definitions I “realized” that I associate the term “actualize” with “realize”. In doing so, I began to understand the difference between the two in that, to me, one is possessive whereas the other is out of my control. If I “actualize” something, I essentially have some amount of control over my perception of it; whereas to say that I “realize” something means that something happened “to” me and was brought into my world. I do somewhat disagree with the concept of desire creating my “actualization”, although if you were to think of the idea wholly within my control, that would make sense. I do not, however, feel as though it is entirely within my control nor without my control….but a blessed union of the two. Unfortunately, until we develop the technology to do so, we are limited to our own perceptions and interpretations; unable to escape our own ego. This has a lot to do with, I believe, the concept of meditation and transcendence.
August 20, 2010 at 1:52 pm