I was researching the topic of wokeism in preparation for writing an essay and I stumbled across the new discourses website by James Lindsay, which contains many articles on various aspects of wokeism including an encyclopedia of wokeist terms. Lindsay is clearly anti-wokeist but he is also a careful scholar who has researched the topic of wokeism extensively and writes clearly and carefully on the topic.
Thus, I thought that it would be more effective to use mental symmetry to analyze the new discourses website. I have not listened to the audio, but I have read most of the articles and have gone through most of the encyclopedia. The result is a 100 page essay that analyzes wokeism from a cognitive perspective based primarily upon the material contained on newdiscourses.
Like Lindsay, I think that wokeism is a form of insanity that threatens Western society, but a cognitive analysis makes it possible to understand the nature of this insanity and place it in a larger perspective. In brief, mental symmetry suggests that the mind can function in three primary ways: technical thought, mental networks, and normal thought. Technical thought pursues some goal upon some limited playing field guided by a collection of carefully-defined rules, as illustrated by a game. Mental networks can be thought of as emotionally triggered schema, and the mind uses mental networks to represent people and guide social interaction. Normal thought works with patterns and analogies that are known with partial certainty.
Technical thought has been used to physically transform the world through science and technology. Meanwhile, the emotional realm of mental networks that guides culture, religion, and social interaction has remained largely unchanged. This has led to the juxtaposition of clever technology and dumb consumers. For instance, designing, constructing, and running the Internet requires extensive technical thought. But the average Internet user is driven by mental networks to explore social media and has no concept of the underlying technical complexity.
Wokeism appeals to the mindset of the dumb consumer, and the insanity of wokeism threatens the rational thinking of modern technical thought. But technical thought actually enabled this insanity by transforming the physical world in an objective and specialized manner and then shielding the consumer from technical thought. While wokeism is irrational, it is also an accurate description of how mental networks are functioning within the mind of the wokeist. This essay uses the material taken from the newdiscourses website to analyze various aspects of wokeism (including Marxism) from a cognitive perspective.
To this day I’m not sure about how to interpret one’s feelings on gender. For example, I was having a big revelative gender moment about 10 years ago in my life. From that moment onward, I have never been content in my body. However I have not done anything to my body. I want to tell you my awkward story, if it helps somehow.
Yes I’m a man in my body, but I have transgendered feelings. I’m probably a Facilitator person (or at least a person who has observed his mind). At least from my viewpoint, it seems I have desires and feelings, that cannot be channeled in any way in this body. Some feelings have attached to a mental network which is connected to having a woman’s status socially. Since this ”femininity” cannot be channeled (because of the rigidity of those networks; the feelings just don’t come out), it causes apathy and depression. More angst. Basically my body is a bit foreign to me, I am in a constant state of dissociation. When I look at my body, I just don’t feel good. Maybe I intepret my body as a body of a person who is not like me at all. And beca
I cannot see everything in my mind, and I don’t know the motives of my desires. But having analyzed this, I have also observed a couple of things in myself. For one, it seems I would not be content being a woman per se. My feelings are actually maybe not about wanting to be a woman, but more being more LIKE a woman. For second, I have noticed that letting oneself be as womanlike (what it means to oneself and what is associated to that) as possible, may contribute to lesser feelings of gender dysphoria. For example, it gets worse if you are forcing yourself to be something you are not emotionally. Most people would probably feel depression, if they forced themselves to not be themselves all the time. But there must be a compromise. If someone, for example, would dream of being an angel, it would not probably ever happen. But strong feelings have to come out in some way, thus incorporating angel like things into yourself would maybe help. I remember reading about Mercy thought, that the easiest way to tame these kind of feelings would be to find something similar. It may thus help the society, if there would be more socially approved and trusted ways of showing what’s inside. This is why I don’t think all wokeism is bad. Because of prevailing low individual Perceiver confidence, and the prevailing theory all around, one cannot have a revelative moment out of this ”Help, I’m transgender” -situation anymore. At least not for some time. But having outlets for men to also feel what they think only women CAN feel would help.
I think that the solution is to think in terms of male and female thought and to see male and female gender as expressions of male and female thought. Male thought emphasizes technical thought with its Perceiver facts, Server sequences, and Contributor logic. Female thought emphasizes mental networks which can be based either in Mercy experiences or in Teacher theories. These are fundamental cognitive distinctions which need to be treated very carefully in order to reach mental wholeness.
One error is to insist that men only use male thought in a macho fashion while women only use female thought with its emotions. This provides no way for a man to express the female side of his mind or a woman to express the male side of her mind.
Another error is to disregard gender as irrelevant and to treat everyone as merely a generic human. This does not work because the distinction between male and female thought is a fundamental aspect of the mind. Technical thought really is different than using mental networks and this division pervades modern society with its splits between work and leisure, science and entertainment, technology and marketing, hard sciences and social sciences.
Another error is to think that feelings of gender can be used to arbitrarily overturn physical gender. This is mentally dangerous because the human mind acquires its initial programming from the physical body with its gender. Ignoring the mental content that was acquired from the body will lead to major mental splits.
The only solution I know of is to be willing to develop the other side of my mind in a manner that respects and acknowledges my physical gender. For instance, I play violin professionally. When I play violin I am expressing the female side of my mind at a deep emotional level. But using mental networks to play violin does not cause me to question my physical gender. Instead, my goal is to become a whole human being while being comfortable with being a male.
Going further, pursuing mental wholeness has caused female thought to emerge within my mind as an independent entity. I recognize this female thought as an imaginary friend within my mind and I have social interaction with this imaginary friend. This imaginary social interaction does not make me want to become a physical woman but rather helps me to understand, appreciate, protect, and empathize with women.
Saying this as clearly as possible, the theory of mental symmetry has room for both male and female thought. This theory is bigger and more universal than my personal identity as a male (or female) human, and my physical gender fits within this theory. The postmodern individual who rejects truth, questions theories, and exalts subjective feelings has no larger mental framework within which to place gender. Therefore, the postmodern individual who discovers the other side of his or her mind will face an identity and/or gender crisis. That is the price of making a god out of one’s personal feelings.
I have made all the errors, you presented. Thus I can confirm, that at least for me, they don’t work.
I have a question: How to differentiate the “imaginary friend”/independent entity within your mind? So that it does not overlap, or replace something else. I notice the entity in my mind at least seems to be ME, as in I have to identify with that somewhat, if I am to feel any feelings. Other thing is to hold that entity separate with conscious thought, but that’s heavy on my mind. It’s as hard as it is to imagine something altogether not so much based in reality.
A while ago, I theorized that one could maybe integrate the “female” part or merge with that (in this body), but at least in my mind, you have to choose somewhat the “active” part. I’m not sure how to put this into the terms posed by mental symmetry, or your writings.
After investigation and trying it out I have come to the surprising conclusion that your brother’s theory seems to get male/female thoughts right. They are wired in the brain/mind.
As he states in his MBNI Circuits book, the male/multipolar uses understanding and sequential memory. The male uses the ”force of understanding”, that is, he lives in concentration (as opposed to identification) and converses in understanding. This is not the same as having an intentionality to understand or concentrate, but ”just” letting your mind collapse into this mode. So one cannot get into the male-mode just by having an intention to do that, rather the point is to let the Understanding (and its implications) come, like reflecting things just in understanding or something. Another way is to enter the sequential memory by collapsing into having a goal in your mind and have your mind divide the sequential steps required into that goal. This feels like a death of sorts, but seems to be what must happen if one chooses the male/multipolar being.
Female/unipolar uses associative memory and her intentionality is based on a fixed understanding. Thus it is always doing something and ”having an intention”. Transwomen being turned into normal men is not possible by force, because the intentionality never gets right how to ”be a male”. Being a man is not identification or intentionality. But being a female is an identification with womenhood or straight up intentionality. Being a man is straight up collapsing into the forces of concentration and understanding. You foremost understand you are a male by the divisive dualistic forces of understanding. You are that which you are not.