The Ubermensch

The Ubermensch has a dynamic method of perception that integrates the two modes of thinking,
the lateral and the logical.

The method is dynamic because it favours neither the lateral or the logical that avoids constructing
additional absolute symbols through which to perceive reality. Instead, information processing is
seen to be both qualitative and quantitative (there is one shoe, a shoe has X qualities). These
processes create a structured (how many of what things exist) and un-structured (qualitative
elements existing as tension between things) environment.

Instead of attempting to gain knowledge in order to create scaffolds of meaning with it, the
Ubermensch resists the popular manifestations of the mind that attempt to reconcile the
environment with the mind through projections from the mind. These include notions of self, of
others, of oppositional concepts, political and moralistic ideas, rituals and other ways that external
forces create the internal world.

The Ubermenschs plane of reality therefore is not something that is positively achieved, attained or
kept, not a skyscraper to be built or a mountain to climb but a reductive and ruthless overcoming of
the human proclivities towards egotistical, political, religious and ‘moral’ ideas. The Ubermensch
identifies these abstract constructions as a kind of parasitical ideological baggage and has removed
them as false projections from mind to world.

If a person is able to do this they become self-directed as their thoughts and actions are manifested
internally. Their expression of will is uncorrupted by external forces that trigger bias and they can
expect to enjoy their own internally manifested fate.

Smooth Reality describes the unconstructed and undefined universe that exists without
contextualisation through perception or even physical ‘laws’. It sits behind formal and natural
sciences as the true nature of the universe. In Smooth Reality, people are a manifestation of, part of
and indivisible from, smooth reality. It is simultaneously the pieces of the universe as well as the
forces under which they operate, these things being indivisible from each other. As both physical
and abstract, this thing-indivisible-from-properties manifests the physical world. It is inherently
resistant to the crude contextualisation of logical structures and in fact in being contextualised with
any structure at all.

In people, smooth reality has manifested complementary processes of lateral (also qualitative or
relational) and linear (also logical) constructions of the environment. These processes are the
interface between the constructed and highly structured individual mind (and reality) and the
smooth, construction defying universal reality.

The qualitative (lateral) assessment manifests a highly abstract essence-of-a-thing.

The logically-constructed assessment recognises the essence and categorises it and represents it
within a single thing with definitive boundary/structure. Together the qualitative and logically-
constructed processes are the processing interface between the mind and the physical world.

These processes build the mind as an abstract manifestation of the physical world, especially as the
physical world relates to the individual.

The logical construction process becomes quantitative analysis through the logical structure
‘mathematics’.
The essential but untrue assumption behind the sciences, is that a rule-based, logical explanation
exists for all phenomenon of the Universe. The belief in a logically ordered universe is the
idealisation of the linear/logical thought process combined with the authority of an all-powerful
being (God). Being a manifestation of Western civilisation and its philosophy, the history of the
linear thought process as a consciously realised, utilised and valued psychic process has its basis in
Socrates legacy and the authority that it is imagined this thought process could have is a product of
the success of the mono-theistic God.

So, in some ways Science is tied into the universe of its predecessor – God is a single, uniform and
structured power behind the phenomenon in the Universe whose logically arranged fingerprints may
be revealed through study of the natural world.

In the natural Sciences, the logical structure ‘mathematics’ is used to describe an aspect of Smooth
Reality under stable conditions and over a quantity of observations and time. The rules that are
found exist in stable parts of Smooth Reality over a quantity of observations and time but have a
non-specific, ‘average’ power that relies on accurate qualitative assessments. They also rely on
qualitative assessment being stable and non-reflexive with the subject or the assumptions of the
stable state.

In the social Sciences, an irredeemable complexity is often embraced in attempting to frame

(conscious) human behaviour through logical structure. The qualitative component of social
Sciences attempts to distil a definable essence in a system of high complexity, reflexivity and
instability that resists definition.

The abstract (usually unconscious) world of humans is partly visible through consciousness, which is
the awareness the abstract thing the mind (the self, or the individual) has in relation to itself. The
abstract world is separate to the physical world it perceives. This leads to The Neurosis of
Consciousness, an inevitable irrationality of consciousness that seeks resolution through the
construction of ideas, and especially ideology.

So to sum up, smooth reality is a concept that describes the non-constructed universal reality of
which humans are a product of, and contextualise in perception, memory, attention, lateral and
linear processes and the total set of inter-related concepts that humans create that is the mind.

Lateral information processing

The lateral processing of the mind is also the qualitative, relational, parallel or fluid information
processing function of the mind. When Nietzsche talks about things having an Dionysian nature he
refers to the lateral information processing function of the mind and its free expression. This
information processing function generates emotion and intuition and reflects the set of concepts in
the mind.

For example, how you feel about your grandmother is lateral information processing.

A new idea is considered by the lateral information processing function through sensory
information, or as a product of the mind itself. The output is a change in the state of the mind.

A person doesn’t have control over how the lateral mind processes information in the short term.
The minds pre-existing state is related to a new concept, contextualising the new concept and
changing the state of the mind. This might necessitate projection, where a person takes the product
of their mind and attempts to externalise it onto a foreign ‘other’. Here is the cross-over point where
the linear information process rationalises the output of the lateral process. The lateral ‘output’ is
rationalised with linear information processing in post-hoc rationalisation.

To conclude, the mind perceives a thing laterally using all pre-existing concepts. On perceiving it, the
whole mind attempts to contextualise the thing amongst every other concept currently in it. This
gives it a complicated quality-like essence as the new idea is related to the existing concepts in the
individual mind. The rationalisation process of linear information processing attempts to create an
internal logic of this event.

Linear (logical) information processing

The natural logical/linear information processing of the mind is piggybacked with concepts
(numbers, operations, e.t.c.) that allow quantitative processing in mathematics. When Nietzsche
talks about things having an Apollonion nature he refers to the logical/linear information processing
function of the mind. This information processing ability allows formal sciences such as mathematics
and logic. Outputs of this type of thinking are rational thinking, logic, masculine thinking, realist type
thinking and can imagine and promote end-goals, goal-oriented tasks, outputs themselves e.t.c.

1 + 1 = 2 is linear information processing.

The brain has a logical or linear process of thought that allows it to take qualitative concepts and
measure their effect against other qualitative concepts. This process creates the structure in the
universe by creating limits around the qualitative things recognised. The logical/linear process
manipulates those ‘things’ with embedded or added functions of the logical/linear equation.

Although they are supposedly complementary, the logical and lateral modes of thought are often in
competition in society. Men and right sided political views usually reflect the logical/linear process
and women and left sided political views are usually more lateral. Groups also go through stages of
logical or lateral outputs being dominant. What we call wisdom employs the lateral and logical
process as complementary, existing in symbioses. Absolute failure of either, or absolute domination
of either is expressed in totalitarian views.

By comparison, the complementary symbioses of logical and lateral thinking leaves an individual
with a sombre feeling, perhaps with one of tragedy. As the human mind is inherently irrational and
can never correctly model itself in the environment, the idealised and true state is to experience the
irrationality.

The dichotomy between lateral and linear information processing can be seen in the following table.

Linear Vs Lateral

Apollo Dionysus

Logic Emotion

Masculinity Femininity

‘Right’ ‘Left’

Individual Collective

Realist Relativist
Order Chaos

Reason Intuition

The Neurosis of Consciousness

“I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough without
ever having felt sorry for itself.” – D. H. Lawrence’

What we call ‘natural’ acts are the expression of energy in an uninhibited, smooth way. Non-
conscious entities take information and react to it in a linear way – the input information from the
senses instruct the output in an action. There may be physiological conditions affecting the
thresholds of what sensory information manifest results but the process is, input – black box
(mind/body) – action.

As conscious entities we are aware of being perceived by others, we are aware of the possibility of
hostile contextualisation of our thoughts, actions, identity and even presence. We are aware of the
superstitious politicisation of ourselves in our environment without ever having intended it. In this
instance, the black box of mind/body actually affects the inputs, changes itself during the processing
and instructs the outputs in unpredictable ways. The output even affects the black-box unconscious
that generated it in reflexivity.

So although the mind itself is a rationalisation machine, this process inevitably creates irrationality,
especially in attempting to synthesise concepts of ‘self’ vs ‘other’. (Acts contributing to the
successful rationalisation of the mind are called moral acts. The principles through which to achieve
this rationalisation is called ethics.) A set of models exist in each mind through which to perform this
function of rationalisation. An individual is assisted in this function through culturally generated
meaning and symbolism that appeal to natural tendencies towards archetypal models. In this an
individual is allowed recourse from irrationality/immorality through mechanisms generated socially.
With these individual and social mechanisms the conscious mind attempts to generate the type of
logical output of the unbothered bird having dropped dead without a thought to care.

Irrationality is inevitable because of post-hoc rationalisation and reflexivity.

In post-hoc rationalisation, the mind has produced an output of its lateral process as a psychic
change in state. Within this output which is a production of the whole entity ‘the mind’ are personal
biases of ego, as well as political biases, ‘morally’ necessary outcomes and other methods that the
individual has created to rationalise their mind, especially a belief in Gods.

This flawed output is rationalised with the linear process to attempt to create an internal logic to
explain the qualitatively generated change in state.

The post-hoc rationalisation process maintains the status quo of the mind by controlling ‘reality’ and
avoiding the neurosis of consciousness.

It does this through historical revision, attempting to alter the present through methods such as
searching for consensus by others. The person will attempt to identify the biases of their
consciousness as external things in their environment, attempting to manifest the necessary symbols
to access the meaning. With this they re-use existing mental frameworks with which to contextualise
the world.
Through this bias, the post-hoc rationalisation process also precludes history and in fact drives its
own reality.

However being conscious animals, the output is re-contextualised by the mind again a second time,
effectively testing the internal logic and the stability of the mind. This process is called reflexivity.

In Reflexivity the mind re-contextualises its own output as a new input, having changed itself in the
first process of input – black box unconscious mind – output. That input and output become part of
the black box mind, and the new changed mind re-contextualises the output after the fact. This is of
particular concern to those attempting to create ideas that are logically consistent. It must be
respected for its transformative power, as well as the tendency for new states to revert to the status
quo.

Without logical perfection, any of the minds output will be corrupted over time as it is reinforced but
displaces the balance through which it emerged (it will be strengthened over time through virtue of
it becoming an individually and socially reinforced mechanism – and this success eventually means
failure).

The damning failure of conscious thought is revealed in the reflexive process. Essential biases
created to rationalise the mind exist as positively reflexive features of the mind. This is where the
bias creates an output in lateral thinking that changes the state of mind in a way that reinforces
the bias in the reflexive process. – the bias becomes more entrenched as the person reconsiders
the idea the second and third time as a necessary and natural feature of the conscious mind.

These biases are very powerful – they can easily change historical reality for the individual. They
also exist to escape irrationality, experienced as terror, or existential angst e.t.c that we call the
neurosis of consciousness. Because of this, most people do not attempt to avoid the biases, the
instinct is to embrace them. But it is the relief of avoiding pain that validates the biases, not for
their truth but for their ability to provide comfort against the pain of existence, the neurosis of
consciousness. They are even held as a jewel, or weapon against others.

The major problem of consciousness, post-hoc rationalisation and reflexivity causing neurosis is the
‘self’ and ‘other’ conflict. The ‘self’ and ‘other’ exist within the same ‘self’ of the mind. This creates
an irrationality within the system ‘the mind’. The conscious mind cannot be fully rationalised without
bridging this seemingly impossible gap. The natural solution for this is the ‘ego’ – figuring how to act
in the world in order to either bridge this gap, or to prevent it being exposed and experience
irrationality/existential angst/terror.

All in all, this constant rationalisation of an impossible to rationalise problem causes a neurosis – the
neurosis of consciousness, or, the neurosis of humanity.

Attempts to solve this neurosis are spontaneous, predictable and necessary and occur through
manipulations of self and other while an individual reacts to their environment.

Art, culture, philosophy, religion, Science, identity, myth and other narratives all contribute to
building sophisticated and complex bridges to solve this neurosis. The point of all of these activities
is to solve the set of concepts in the mind, with the environment and with the mind in a stable and
enduring way.

God, Morality and Ethics are related phenomenon that exist to explain the minds natural
rationalisation process. As described, the irrational conscious mind attempts to find rationality
through means that are initially successful, but also survive the re-rationalisation of reflexive
consciousness.

God has been the most popular psychological mechanism through which to achieve this
rationalisation over time. Gods characterise an absolute power existing in the world that explains
the forces and powers that are experienced by the individual. We can delineate the God-concept
from God where the God-concept is a pre-loaded bias to believe that this power exists. The God-
concept itself is universal in culture and it manifests as a cure-all explanation for the irrational and
unknown. It can be the Christian God, Allah, Money, Marxism e.t.c. They exist as tools of
understanding that carry their own predictive power with that powers ability to rationalise the mind.

The God that the God-concept is projected upon psychologically is the thing that is most similar to
the God-concept.

Moral actions are those that help a person rationalise their mind, so moral actions are in touch with
the set of ideas existing in an individual mind. The link between a God and Morality is reciprocal – A
God is the power and authority behind the morality. Ethics are the guiding principles of the
morality. Because ethics must exist in the real (non-abstracted) world, there is often a conflict in
applying morality to real situations and it is usually reflected in an inability to create consistency
from Ethics to Morality to God. Politics are a type of corrupted ethics, because they aim to achieve
the rationalised mind by prioritising the ‘self’ at the expense of an ‘other’. The ego is the attempt to
resolve the core irrationality of the mind, the self/other conflict.

There are many beliefs that exist as absolute factors in post-hoc rationalisation in order to avoid the
neurosis of consciousness. These are identity biases, ego, God, contrasting self v other. In contrast,
the Ubermensch rejects moral, political and personal biases from influencing their consciousness in
limiting ways.

How we have dealt with this Neorosis of Consciousness

The most obvious sources of this neuroticism has a basis in the ego, in a conflict of tension between
the ‘self’ and the ‘other’. The attempt to achieve homeostasis drives the creation of solutions such
as self-identity, group-identity, politics, ritual, religion, culture, art, philosophy and science. These
solutions re-purpose the energy of the neuroticism into a more stable and bearable plane of
perception. The success of these things in manifesting themselves within the system depends on
whether or not they resolve the neuroticism, not whether they reflect reality.

These solutions to the problem of existence all involve the construction of abstract concepts. Some
of these concepts are constructed within the one individual, some of them come from others or as a
group, and some of them have a genealogy of thousands of years. These concepts are similar to the
memes suggested by Richard Dawkins. However, these concepts speak to a person in a more
enduring way than a jingle or clever turn of phrase. They are more closely tied in to the hardware of
an individual, existing as both hardware and software.

Once constructed, the abstract concepts become part of perception. With this perception the world
is seen with a new lense, a lense that softens the neuroticism but which now holds the mind
hostage. The perception has both a positive incentive for belief – it creates meaning, and a negative
incentive – it helps a person avoid pain.
The greater the effect a concept has in balancing out the neuroticism, the greater the power of the
individual as they have overcome this fundamental disadvantage to acting in the world. Also, the
closer the individual holds this solution as a fundamental truth. This often results in the individual
requiring the world to conform to the perception, where the successful uptake of their own
perception in others is required on pain of their own (ego) death. This is because the neurosis of
consciousness still sits behind that formidable ‘solution’.

These solutions to the problem of consciousness represent a secondary evolution. The abstract
world in which they exist has been created by consciousness. The reflexive process between the
mind and the physical world allows for thought to consider, and reconsider, and reconsider an
event, proposition or idea. The truth of these ideas have been their ability to create meaning – to
create an emotional event, not to accurately describe the world. Meaning is power and the power
of the meaning through the more powerful individual (in recognising the power in the meaning an
individual becomes less neurotic and more capable in executing their version of reality, including
promoting the concept with the new-found meaning/power) can manifest that meaning where it
may not have otherwise existed.

Many perceptual lenses cause an individual to act in a way that conforms physical events in the
world to the requirements of the abstract perceptions. The greater the ability of a concept to force
‘reality’ whether by accurately describing the physical world or by forcing or allowing a deluded
compliance from the physical world, the more power it has to any individual and the greater uptake
it will enjoy.

These sources of power all have their disadvantages. The self-concept is contrasted with other self-
concepts in a way that generates personal conflict. The group-concept is contrasted with other
group-concepts in a way that generates group conflict.

Politics attempts to use self-concepts, group-concepts, cultural information and pre-suppositions of

the paradigmatic plane of perception to weave a narrative that allows some small number of
individuals to take charge of the people. The greater the ability to weave the story that the
stakeholders of society hold to be important, the greater the power enjoyed. In democracy, this skill
at its most diabolical/successful reflects the will of the people back to them. Used cynically, the
ability to construct political narratives is used for personal power.

Politicians are representatives of a self v other narrative that an individual attaches themselves to
for its ability to solve the neuroses of consciousness. This gives a politician power comparable to a
priest or pope existing as the human representative of the power of the religious narrative.

Ritual is effective for a short time but relies on unstable superstitions that must be held as true.
Religion as an abstract idea can be very successful in creating a stable plane of perception in the
abstract world. Religion usually addresses the self/other conflict in novel ways to ‘solve’ it.

Culture can be quite a vague and unsatisfactory solution in itself, relying on a combination of
solutions. Art may communicate novel ideas using existing frames of reference and philosophy can
alter those frames of reference to create sophisticated ways of perceiving that neutralises the
neuroticism.
The Abstract and the Physical world

The mind/body problem is the link and cross-over point between the physical world and the abstract
world.

An abstract world exists unconsciously, created by and projected onto the physical world. There is a
personal abstract world and also collective abstract world and a single unknowable smooth reality
that is both. I will attempt to explain this idea with a simple explanation.

‘a + b = c’, ‘x + x = y’, ‘x + x = 2x’, ‘1 + 1 = 2’, ‘1 pie + 1 pie = 2 pies’, ‘this pie ≠ that pie’.

Each one of these equations represent the exact same thing existing in the physical world on
different planes of understanding of the physical world – two pies. It also exists as a hierarchy of
sorts where each plane compromises the physical with the abstract over time.

The abstract world is more vague, less defined and more universal up until the manifestation of that
abstract thing in the physical world. As the equations become less abstract and describe the physical
reality more closely they become less universal despite all of them describing the same physical
reality.

With this hierarchy of equations, we can also draw family tree’s of things that are the same. For
example,

1. (Most Abstract) a + b = c, x + x = y, x + x = 2x, 1 + 1 = 2, 1 pie + 1 pie = 2 pies, this pie ≠ that

pie (Most Physical)
2. (Most Abstract) a + b = c, x + x = y, x + x = 2x, 1 + 1 = 2, 1 dog + 1 dog = 2 dogs, this dog ≠ that
dog (Most Physical)

The two physical realities of there being 2 pies and 2 dogs share a common physical reality at the
third power of abstraction in this hierarchy. At 1 + 1 = 2 there are 2 ‘things’ in the physical world.

1 + 1 = 2 is a crossover point, being a very low-power physical and abstract concept.

At the fourth power, x + x = 2x, we describe a purely abstract world for the first time. It has no power
to describe anything specific in the physical world but an infinite power to describe ‘things’ in the
abstract world. It can be used for anything in the universe instead of a physical thing. So with this
perception two separate pies can become even more abstract concepts.

In this example, we can see 6 realities using the same language and logical structure to describe the
same thing in a different way.

A toddler perceives at the very first level. ‘This’ pie is NOT ‘that’ pie. The toddler wants a specific
pie, the toddler does not accept that the other pie is the same pie. The toddler may have its ego tied
into a specific pie and this makes the pie unique. It is HIS pie. For the toddler, this pie ≠ that pie

The toddlers parent would probably understand that this pie and that pie are interchangeable. The 2
pie-things both have a similar pie-ness and they have developed past the point of investing their ego
in things that are interchangeable with other things. 1 pie + 1 pie = 2 pies

Seeing the interest of the toddler, perhaps the parents would like to teach it the mathematical
concepts in order to overcome the projection of the self into the object. So they remove the specific
object as the thing in the equation. They teach their toddler that 1 + 1 = 2. One thing plus another
thing equals two same things. At this resolution, it is not just pies, but things that are identifiable
and can have the logical structure of mathematics applied to it. 1 + 1 = 2
There is a qualitative assessment emerging of what constitutes a pie and what constitutes a ‘thing’ in
the quantitative process. This qualitative assessment of what is a pie or a thing is part of a lateral
analysis and the quantitative part is a logical process. The lateral and logical processes complement
each other in perception/processing/deriving meaning. As an abstract concept, 1 + 1 = 2 opens the
two pies to have abstract commonalities with every other identifiable thing in the universe, and just
like that a huge abstract world emerges from the humble pies.

However, it only becomes greater and more infinite the deeper we delve into this abstract world.
The accountant of the bakery might find x + x to be the dollar value or profit margin of the 2 pies,
with y representing revenue or profit. The accountant finds that x + x = 2x

When x + x = y, two food products might create an amount of calories that allows a car to be
washed. The pie now represents the function of the abstract thing food, which is energy. So x
(energy) + x (energy) = y (car washed).

As an abstraction, the meaning of the equation a + b = c does not even need to be real in the
physical world. It could be that somebody has an irrational fear of pies, perhaps their mother
prepared them for their father when he was particularly angry and they were conditioned to ‘know’
that pies meant a beating. In that case, for them the pies might be recognised as fear in an equation
a + b = c where a = ‘fear’, b = ‘presence of father’ and c = ‘a beating’. It should be noted again that
this equation may occur without any physical manifestation of it whatsoever and without any
awareness that it has been made.

As each equation becomes more and more abstract, the power of the equation increases in
describing things over time, but decreases in its specific application to real(physical) things.
However, there is always something physical in the abstraction and always something abstract in the
physical.

So, who is most correct in this hierarchy? It can be argued that the toddler is in fact the most
correct. The child identifies that ‘this pie’ is just ‘this pie’, and ‘that pie’ is nothing like it at all. Could
this be the most correct statement of them all? The toddler is living in a very direct relationship with
reality. Its ego does not allow it to consider another alternative. It may be argued that the toddlers
reality is true but lacks power.

This lack of power shows itself in a moral dilemma. Although the toddler is correct in that moment
and in the first instance, the next day it may be back at the bakery and it may see the pie that it did
not want the day before. Today, THIS is the pie that is most like a pie according to the toddler. In
choosing the rejected pie from the day before (or any other pie with any other pie-like
characteristics that were identified on the first day), the toddler exhibits a worldview that
contradicts itself, insisting every time that it has identified the thing it wants despite changing the
identification process each time that it wants the thing. From this it emerges that the thing that
each individual pie has is the want itself, and this is revealed as an ego-driven plane of
understanding.

So in one perspective the toddlers reality is most correct, but it only takes a second instance of pie-
choosing in order for it to significantly lose its power in describing a universal reality.

It is easy to see that you wouldn’t want to be the toddler as the power of the equation increases.
The perspective has no power in describing the world. It’s not just toddlers with this perspective
either - it is easy to imagine mature and intelligent adults arguing over a car-park spot that they will
never have with the person who took it, adopting the powerless paradigm of the toddler without
achieving whatever their goal was and in fact probably disempowering them to achieve goals in the
future.

By the same token, would you want to be the theory-obsessed mathematician at the power of a + b
= c where you must calculate all possible things in the universe in order to make sense of a couple of
bakery products? In the same situation, in the same place, doing the same thing, making the same
decision you are confronted with an infinite number of possibilities of meaning and how to identify
the world in front of you, paralysed by abstraction and trying to figure out, what does this or that
mean. Is the pie what you are craving? Or is it going to make you fat? Are you going to exercise to
burn the calories, is a bakery the kind of place you want to be seen, does somebody you know work
there, are there totally unjustified fears or conditioned behaviours that will be used to generate
meaning out of these pastry products?

And that’s just looking for lunch.

Also – the equations represent lateral vs logical thinking. The highly abstract equations have a huge
number of possibilities as highly lateral interpretations of what exists in front of you. The more
physically bound interpretations are more structural. We have already demonstrated that the
appropriate lense is required for the function – the accountant sees dollar values, the hungry
customer sees food preferences.

A Toddler without its Pie

When the toddler comes up against the parent in insisting that it must have one particular pie that
does not share a pie-ness with another pie, there are competing ideas at play.

It is ‘This pie IS NOT That Pie’ Vs Pie’s share similar qualities.

The parents of the toddler attempt to enforce the greater perspective onto the Toddler by dis-
allowing the inconsistent perspective that imbues physical things with the ego or ‘self’.

If the toddler fails to understand the greater perspective they are likely to create a ritual (or
narrative). Their ‘model’ of the world has failed and the event destabilises their psyche, revealing the
irrationality.

When a person has a negative psychic event it reminds them that the set of concepts in their mind
through which they model the world is incorrect. This disturbs the reasoning that they have
previously established to avoid the irrationality the reasoning was invented to cover.

A very common strategy is to externalise the irrationality to an external object in post-hoc

rationalisation - ‘Other’ people in the story are imagined as bad, evil, stupid, immoral in order to
contrast with and protect the damaged ‘self’ concept. Support for this is found in popular and
currently accessible concepts to match with the details of the story.

In fact as the story is imagined, the story changes reality in a post-hoc way – this includes history.

Using common and popular concepts also assists for when the story is told to other people to
influence the perception of this new reality to enforce the details required to make it true.
Going through this process suggests that the attribution of intentions and values into other people
are actually projections of the individual making the attribution.

The story creates meaning and meaning is power. This story/meaning/power is designed to replace
the power that was lost to the individual feeling vulnerable. The story must re-store the power
through the creation of meaning. For most people, meaning is derived through the culturally
allowable artefacts in their environment combined with their ability to have that meaning accepted
by others. Frankly, this is because most peoples problems are a self vs other problem.

This easily becomes notions of Racial discrimination, Gender discrimination, evidence of a partners
lack of love, the idiocy of another person, basically whatever information is available will be
compiled in order to create a narrative of meaning. Deeply felt events require contextualisation
because they have made an impact on the mind. They especially require a story when they have
displaced any of the large and complex mental structures that they rely on for power. For the herd,
these are usually identity, politics, morality, religion. Known memes that exist in the social
atmosphere are the most likely explanations, sharing the story with friends and finding agreement
with them is important in neutralising the pain felt and re-establishing reality.

Of course in this post-hoc rationalisation, the feeling comes first and the explanation comes
afterwards in response to the feeling, not in response to events. However, after the fact of the story
being created, the feeling is linked to the symbols of the narrative and the narrative becomes ‘the
reason’ in a previously unreal and self-serving synthesis between the psychic event of the lateral
mind with its biases and the rationalisation of the logical mind. For the toddler, and for the ego, the
reason, the rationale and not the satisfice of hunger or gaining food becomes the thing protecting a
person from the vulnerability of experiencing irrationality.

A Role of Philosophy

From the physical reality of there being unique ‘things’ in space and time we can see the advantage
of perceiving the ‘things’ using different logical processes to address different qualities that we
perceive. At the highest powered abstract logical process we can see a universe of abstraction far in
excess of what is possible in the physical universe. Although the greatest powered perspectives can
be highly abstract and infinite, the human mind has limited power going over detail. In order to use
high powered logical processes we can add philosophical concepts to parse the infinite. We can
discriminate between a) the philosophical filter b) the abstract filter and c) the physical world and
see how the philosophical qualitative observation of pies(no pies) and the abstract logical process of
x + x = 2x becomes 1 pie + 1 pie is 2 pies in the physical world.

1.
a) Things (no things), Food(no food), Pies(no pies),
b) a + b = c, x + x = y, x + x = 2x, 1 + 1 = 2
c) 1 pie + 1 pie = 2 pies, this pie ≠ that pie
2.
a) Things (no Things), Animals (no Animals), Dogs (no dogs),
b) a + b = c, x + x = y, x + x = 2x, 1 + 1 = 2,
c) 1 dog + 1 dog = 2 dogs, this dog ≠ that dog
Recognising a state of the world with ‘pies’ or ‘no pies’ is a filter on the qualitative (lateral) process
that identifies the ‘things’ or ‘concepts’ that can be manipulated by the logical processes. Like the
set of equations the philosophy can be specific or more universal and dogs(no dogs) and pies(no
pies) can both be identified under things(no things).

This added filter creates a qualitative designator to the thought process. Qualitative thinking is also
lateral thinking. The qualitative thinking complements the quantitative thinking and they are both
applied in a specific way to the situation that creates suitability to context and coherence. This is
high quality, efficient thinking.

Creating coherence between all of the levels of abstraction that a person considers allows them a
sophisticated state of homeostasis and the mind is able to use philosophy to create agreement
between multiple levels of abstraction. So if there are (‘things’ = a + b = c = (1 pie + 1 pie = 2 pies))
then at 3 levels the mind has found coherence. This coherence is pure mental power. The marriage
of philosophy, abstract and physical world allows the pure expression of the psychic energy that
drives us.

Apollo and Dionysus

Perceiving the world through the Gods of Apollo (linear processing) and Dionysus (lateral processing)
presents a significantly different perception of the environmental and social milieu to the dominant
Judeo-Christian morality in Western Society. Judeo-Christian morality would imagine opposing
forces of ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ for a range of events that could all be described with a single designator
‘Dionysian’, or qualitative/lateral information processing. This presents inconsistencies to the
Ubermensch, whose perspective is ‘beyond good and evil’ and does not appreciate the distortions of
these concepts in the self and in reality. The Apollonian process is similarly seen as a self-evident
fact of the universe or possibly as a threatening manifestation of profound evil for its logical
implications in Judeo-Christian morality.

In fact to recognise Apollo and Dionysus is to recognise the information processing capabilities of our
species. Deified as they were to establish a necessary mystique, now they may be understood as
more defined concepts.

In fact, the monotheistic religious tradition sets our complementary information processing features,
Apollo and Dionysus against each other. In the concepts of monotheistic religion, complementary
Gods/thought processes are sliced and diced along confusing and inconsistent principles (ethics) that
obfuscate reality by demanding specific moral outcomes. These outcomes become expressions of
power against others that aim to serve the idea itself and not the people who accept or reject it.
The necessary outcomes of monotheistic rationalisation sit farther from base-line reality than
information that is processed in a combination of linear and lateral information processing. In doing
so they estrange themselves from their true self, and others and the individual is in service of the
ideology. It is the power of the idea that creates comfort through rationalisation of the mind and its
ability to make changes in the world that becomes the dominant force within the individual rather
than the individual. It is reinforced through its ability to recreate its psychic effects in the physical
world as the group uses the idea as protection against neurosis and irrationality. In doing so it
demands the aggressive recognition of its own symbolism and ritual. This can be clearly seen today
with the aggressive demands of what constitutes ‘good’ and ‘evil’, objectifying race, gender, sexual
orientation to manufacture outcomes to be used in rituals to satisfy Judeo-Christian morality, one
spontaneous, popular and common method to combat the neurosis of consciousness.
In Judeo-Christian morality these events become separate to the ideas own logic and its own aims
and principles – serving logic and establishing qualities have become second tier objectives in this
new monotheistic paradigm. And in this paradigm, second tier is ‘evil’.

In order to approach such a way of viewing the world it is necessary to overcome the concept of
‘Good and Evil’. Each distraction, quest, problem and folly experienced in life must not be allowed
to be contextualised with the religious notions that create meaning and power – that allow a person
to take a break from the irrationality at their centre. Meaning must be created in the depth of that
irrationality, emerging from Apollo, Dionysus and the tension between them. This meaning is often
some state of tragedy, an acceptance of the universal lack of total and absolute meaning. A true
representation of the true state of the universe and the conscious individual.

Apollo and Dionysus at War

In ‘The Birth of Tragedy’, Nietzsche suggests that Socrates marked the historical event where
Apollonion and Dionysian forces began to be considered in opposition to each other. Socrates used
the structure of logic and reason with the false but self-validating assumption that logical
rationalisation is necessary to know anything at all. This belief has been taken to an ultimate
position in Science today, and the study of logic and mathematics. As mentioned, the Universe itself
has a smooth nature, with a sense of balance and stability existing in a particular place and time. This
in itself suggests physical space and also ideological space existing in a set of opposing forces, forces
that make-up the fabric of physical and abstract reality that are not a free-standing, logically and
rationally impenetrable structure. Whether physically or ideologically, if a structure is completely
rational or logical there is no tension through which anything can exist at all. It would exist as a
closed system with known outputs.

Later we do offer a definition of objectivity that can survive this essential subjectivity of qualitative
features and the space that exists in the tension of different qualitative things.

It has been shown that these information processing strategies are complementary and at face value
this should be taken as uncontroversial. Of course it isn’t – for the man with a hammer, every
problem looks like a nail. Some people are more rational and logical and build an identity and reality
around this information processing style. This is especially the case when the environment around
them has been especially qualitative and their logical instinct has been proven correct time and time
again – that rationality and logic is ‘true’, is ‘missing’ and is pre-eminent in discovering reality.

Alternatively, the qualitative information processing function can dominate the individual. Their
ideas are recontextualised in consciousness in a qualitative way that they understand as self
evidently superior to the ‘immoral’, ‘evil’ methods that they will describe in their opponents. This is
seen in popular thinkers - Simone De Beavoir contrasted Apollo and Dionysus by suggesting that
Apollo is ‘Violent’ (the violence of logic). The paranoid and hysterical approach of the qualitatively
dominant thinker, brought about by their degeneratively qualitative thinking in positively reflexive
bias leads to these extreme characterisations.

This disconnect between complementary thought processes includes the relativist v realist problem.
This problem can almost seem to be an issue of semantics in its looping discussion. The problem
easily degenerates into an impasse, and it becomes a political affair of whether qualitative or
structural features are pre-eminent in defining reality. In fact it is not semantic but it is the
competition of the Apollonion and Dionysian forces, supposed to be complementary.
A similar phenomenon is occurring in left v right politics and in the communication difficulties
between men and women.

These issues occur within the individual mind but also develop in groups, organisations e.t.c.

When Apollonion and Dionysian thinking are perceived as being in conflict rather than
complementary, an individual supports their Apollonion thinking with more Apollonion thinking,
drawing criticism from Dioysian thinking that necessarily doubles down on itself as well. This
process occurs in the reflexive process where radical changes can occur to the mind in a short
space of time.

Apollo²
Rational and logical thinking reinforced reflexively with rational and logical thinking leads to a type
of terminal rationality that fails over time because of a failure to consider qualitative effects. In this
thinker, qualitative thinking is objectified as an other and rejected outright. The rejection itself
becomes logical as reality forms around this type of thinking, in an absolute manner.

Without qualitative re-consideration, the solely Apollonian thinker devolves into highly structural
and rigid thinking and is characterised by rigid social structures, rules and logical systems of
governance. This reflexivity where one style of thinking dominates in post-hoc rationalisation leads
to rationality and logic being perceived as an absolute factor in divining reality.

The Islamic religion in Wahhabism and Salafism manifests as an Apollonion² structure where there is
not a great deal of qualitative interpretation in the guidelines and how they should be followed.
Perhaps we can say that the Wahhabi Allah is Apollo².

The governments described as fascist are also an Apollonian² organisational structure.

Dionysus²

This perspective takes rational and logical thinking to be a type of evil and immorality.

With each idea produced re-contextualised qualitatively, the Dionysian thinker fails at systematic
and logical thinking. The output of their ideas will easily contradict their own stated aims and
principles through which they justified the output. For example, Social Justice Warriors justify
racism to combat racism – the failure of logic is natural for Dionysus².

This hypocrisy is a constantly degenerative feature of this type of thinking. It brings inevitable failure
without the structure and form of logical/Apollonian thinking.

Judeo-Christian morality is a function of Dionysian thinking contextualised reflexively with more

Dionysian thinking. In the first instance the individual pities an object, whether themselves or
others, and in the second instance they objectify their object of pity, contrasting it to another object
they have created. This Dionysus² thinking creates a large and interconnected set of facts for the
individual experiencing this absolutism that they revert to. Although the Christian institutions
managed to create structures to wield the power of Judeo-Christian morality, the problems of this
are unquestionable.
Judeo-Christian Morality

1. David and Goliath was an early expression of Judaeo-Christian morality that attempted to
instruct that the power of God was an absolute moral force that backs the small, weak,
meek, shepherd David to kill the large, strong, soldier, Goliath.

2. Christianity was an attempt to use the power of God, as the publicly recognised authority on
the natural world (at the time) to ‘prove’ Judaeo-Christian morality. God was the pre-
eminent authority available at the time Christianity developed.

3. Marxism was an attempt to use the power of Economics as the publicly recognised authority
on Money, to ‘prove’ Judaeo-Christian morality. Marx is open in admitting that he considers
money the pre-eminent cultural artefact of power – he considers money as God, so
Economics is the authority he invokes. (Or that Judaeo-Christian morality invokes, through
him)

4. Intersectionality is an attempt to use the power of Academia and Science as the publicly
recognised authority on knowledge to ‘prove’ Judaeo-Christian morality. Academia/Science
is the current authority of knowledge in the world. It is natural and normal for Judaeo-
Christian morality to seek and establish authority for itself depending on what society and
culture designates as authority.

1. David and Goliath fantasizes about the size and threat of Goliath (and the small, meek status
of David to contrast)
2. Christianity fantasises about the very concept of Good vs Evil. The ultimate Good being
represented by Jesus, a meek, humble man and Evil represented by Satan, the strongest
form of evil imaginable. In being a victim, Jesus is of the ultimately high morality.
Simultaneously in being of the highest morality, Jesus is also a victim.
3. Marxism fantasises about enemies of the virtuous working class. Capitalists and Bourgeoisie,
are contrasted with the virtuous worker. Both are stressed as romantic symbols of Good v
Evil.
4. Intersectionality fantasises about evil in Racists, Misogynists, Rapists, Men. White people,
White Men, White Women who are contrasted with small, meek, morally superior victims in
Minorities, Gays, Women, Illegal immigrants.

It is disallowed to insinuate anything positive about the oppressor and anything negative about the
victim. The extreme characterisations are necessary to contrast to maximise the effect of Judeo-
Christian morality.

1. For David and Goliath, we have the weak David killing the strong Goliath.
2. For Christianity we have ‘the meek shall inherit the earth’. Opponents of Christianity may be
killed.
3. For Marxism, we have ‘the proletariat should seize the means of production’. Owners of
capital are killed.
 4. For intersectionality, we have affirmative action, female quotas, minority quotas. Violent
rhetoric is common for intersectionality.

1. The logic of David and Goliath is corrupted when David is more powerful and kills Goliath.
The objectification of them both allows this as the morally ‘right’ outcome that God makes
sure of.

2. The logic is corrupted for Christianity when it claims that 'the meek shall inherit the earth'.
This is promised in heaven, whose existance is not logical. The divine feeling of belief in God,
the arbiter of morality, makes this ok.

3. The logic is corrupted for Marxism, when a conspiracy of an elite hoarding capital is fixed
with an elite hoarding capital. The objectification of capitalists as evil people taking
advantage of the workers is replaced by an entire government structure of an elite taking
advantage of workers. The objectification of the ‘good’ Communist/Socialist politician
allows this, compared with the ‘Evil’ of the capitalist.

4. The logic is corrupted for intersectionality, when Race/gender becomes of utmost

importance in objectifying individuals. The objectification of the ‘good’ race and the ‘bad’
race makes advantaging and disadvantaging people for their race to be ok. They create un-
natural and unscientific social constructions to combat social construction. The moral
implications make this corruption ok.

Why do we care about the logic of belief? The Socratic approach to knowledge – to apply reason and
logic, to embrace Apollonion thinking is pre-eminent in Scientific conceptions of reality. At face
value, mankinds greatest achievements are rooted in this way of perceiving reality. Nietzsche
actually challenged this thinking. Later, in Apollo v Dionysus we show that complementary process
have become opposing forces, especially as people became more aware of themselves and aspired
towards their own internal logic.

Dionysian assertions manifesting mechanisms of power such as Judeo-Christian morality are seen to
have transformative power in making judicious changes to society and to reality. The purveyors of
this morality preach of an ascendant consciousness, a pre-determined terminal result of a great,
compassionate and empathetic humanity. They truly believe it, that they are leaders of humanity,
taking us to the cusp of a formidable transformation.

We do not have to look far to see the benefits of logical structure within an ideology. Without it, the
ideology creates its own failure mechanism through its internal weakness, in spite of its allure as a
full truth, an absolute morality.

The failure in applying logic is inherent in all of the outcomes and the inevitable failure of the idea.

Marxists are obsessed with money and so they crave the power to control the economic system,
something that they allege of their opponents.

Feminists seek to establish an ordered and entrenched bias against the opposite sex, something that
they allege their opponents to do.
Racial justice warriors seek biased social conditions towards somebody based on their racial
characteristics, something that they allege their opponents to do.

Of course, Marxists and Feminists are consciously acting as an established group identity while their
opponents are identified as a ‘group’ but have never attempted to act as a group or subvert the pre-
eminence of the individual.

Marxists suggest that capital leads to corruption and the system is gamed but themselves end up as
corrupt government officials, siphoning from the public through the government. The absolute
morality and the narrative they are seen to control give them an absolute power.

Feminists project specific gender-hating conspiratorial social construction leveraging systematic

control but end up constructing a specific gender-hating systematic bias leveraging systematic
control.

Eventually it can be seen that they are projecting all of their own intentions into their scape-goat.
The lateral thinker contextualised with lateral thinking is an inherently degenerative reality. For the
people themselves, they are revealed as the thing they are ‘against’, and in this degenerate and
totalitarian-morality ideology they all become the thing they hate. After all, it was a projection of
their own beliefs into an ‘external’ object that they were fighting all along

The Soviet Union attempted to achieve a transformative social order using Marxism, the Judeo-
Christian morality through a materialist lense. Having taken a set of qualitative facts as hard fact,
they did attempt to apply hard logic and rationality to their method of applying hard qualitative fact.
This led to the greatest cognitive dissonance and absurdities we have ever seen in a people.

This morality identifies power disparities with a presumptive correctional mechanism – that it is
true, proper and correct that the party perceived as weaker should defeat the party perceived as
stronger. In fact this mechanism is expressed as an absolute morality, which is the same as saying
that it is expressed with a literal belief in the power of a God.

The morality acts like a perceptual virus, it becomes a pre-supposition in generating personal
reality. The individual reality cannot be understood from the perspective of a logical and consistent
systematic reality. This morality slowly changes the world around it to imbue meaning into people,
creating objects out of them and herding them into groups. There are always religious overtones -
this totalitarian morality creates the impression of a good versus evil story.

Judaeo-Christian morality creates objects of people and things and establishes qualitative value in
them so that a new, twisted and ultimately self-contradicting logic may be established. This is the
inevitable weakness of the ideology – it is unstable, degenerative, irrational and doomed to fail.

As members of the herd (as opposed to individuals), they seek external authority for the growing
power of this mechanism, and grasp it from whatever cultural and social sources of authority they
are allowed to claim. This authority is used as credibility – ironically enough it is credibility that they
simultaneously assault. The evil in their enemy is a projection.

Being able to divine the morally correct conclusions of this morality using available cultural and
social objects gives a person a Priestly status – their goodness and authority is established in spite of
obvious corruptions to their stated set of aims.

Ego

It could be seen that the toddler was unable to grasp any higher-level abstractions of the physical
world and the type of difficulties that somebody would have can be imagined if they were stuck with
that perceptive power.

There is often a natural polarisation of same concepts that occurs when the ego is involved. For the
toddler, this pie has nothing in common with that pie even though they are the same for any third
party. The decision and the tantrum that might follow is baffling without understanding that the ego
attached itself to this pie. It is not just this pie, it is already my pie and we might understand the
difference for the toddler as my pie vs that pie.

It would be unreasonable for an adult to throw a tantrum over a pie, but it is very common for an
adult to be irretrievably unhinged over their self-concept.

The most low-level impediment to Ubermensch individuation is the ego. The ego involves itself in
simple things, starting with ‘I have X car and so X car is better than Y car’ and the more somebody
argues with them in favour of Y car, X is imagined far greater and Y is imagined as far worse. Both of
these things are far more similar to each other than different yet it is almost like the more similar
they are, the greater the differences must be imagined once the ego is involved.

Even adults are perfectly happy to begin arguing over their skin colour in this way. It is my skin
colour rather then it being crazy to argue about the skin colour X. Even if they do not begin arguing
that X skin colour is greater than Y, they will almost certainly take exception when somebody argues
that Y is greater than X. The ego also creates oppositional concepts for meaning in which anything
said about something perceived to be an alternative to an aspect of the self-concept becomes a
wound. So not only is my pie better, but you must enjoy yours less – this then manifests itself in all
kinds of bizarre outcomes.

This type of thinking is a gateway to political perspectives, where the range of desirable outcomes
are seen as competing even when they may not be.

The problem of a critique of Good v Evil and popular morality

Critiquing morality and ridiculing somebody who ‘wants to do the right thing’ seems that it could
lead to amoral outcomes. What of the ‘bad guys’ amongst us, and their deranged ‘will to power’?

Similarly a common criticism of Christians towards atheists is that ‘If there is no God, what is
stopping (atheists) from raping and murdering?’. We can consider these the same questions.

To question an Atheist progressive on their ‘moral’ conclusions is for them to perceive that you
condone racism, genocide, misogyny e.t.c. – they are revealed as no different to the Christian. Their
belief in absolute morality is a literal belief in an absolute, totalitarian power of Judeo-Christian
morality - the Christian God.

For those dedicated to a conception of the world where they can designate things as ‘good’ or evil’,
they act as if their projected designations create some kind of protection, that they themselves
manifest a trans-terrestrial holy order around them.

What of the thing that they have in common – this absurd belief in an absolute, totalitarian power
that they must promote outwardly as if it offers some kind of protection. A ‘true nature’ of man is
self-evident without their unnecessary projection, and so why do they offer it to begin with.

It is easy to completely dismiss these protests – the belief in a holy order larger than the individual is
a total and cowardly abrogation of personal responsibility. It is not an act of courage to designate
good and evil, it is a direct refutation of an individual responsibility to personally perceive and
intervene in the world where necessary – a problem foreign to the Ubermensch.

Besides that, the concept of evil is used to empower individuals to do ‘evil’ things. This phenomenon
alone invalidates the concepts of good/evil at their a priori assumptions, these assumptions being
that the goal is to avoid, reduce or stop ‘evil’ behaviour or actions. Realising this, the utility of
Good/Evil becomes obvious as an attempt at constructing order so that the individual feels secure,
or in this writings language, an attempt to rationalise their mind against the environment.

Politics and binary oppositions

In a political perspective one wins or loses at the expense of a perceived ‘opposite’. This notion that
such a binary opposition exists at all is the kernel of the political idea. This is that X exists in
opposition to, and in competition with Y. As political perspectives develop, the X becomes far
greater and the Y far inferior. The X is internalised deeper into the psyche, as a more essential
component of it and its pre-eminence is imagined in a far greater way. As it is internalised deeper, it
is externalised more aggressively, the X demands to be seen and its meaning enforced in an
aggressive and specific way. The Y must be contrasted in its own specific way, and any information
that precludes the desired meaning is ignored, refuted, adapted e.t.c. to fit the politically necessary
model.

The creation of this absurd structure exists in a hyper-reality. Politicians are people who identify and
cultivate these ideas to empower their own base of power, a practice that is at the heart of the
democratic ideal. The more essentially it must be believed, the more outrageous the idea itself
becomes. The idea, becoming increasingly absurd, developing a weaker structure is then held more
essentially.

This is the nature of political ideas and binary oppositions.

An idea like this is expressed in

Hyper-Reality

In the Ego, Politics, Judeo-Christian morality, hyper-rationality, Science e.t.c. an individual finds a
way through which to rationalise their mind with the environment. The successful avoidance of
existential angst becomes the truth of the idea. In achieving this state, the rationalised mind
experiences a type of power, a power that allows them to act freely in the world.
The power that they experience is one of full moral power. The contents of their mind allows them
to act in the world and to change the world in a way that seems to reflect their desires, whims and
proclivities.

It seems at odds with Nietzsche that these people are not Ubermensch who have succeeded in
discovering their own will to power who have gone on to multiply their internal algorithm
successfully, their energy flowing from their body, acting with purpose and manifesting a great and
powerful reality.

It is not necessarily the case that these people are not above human foibles, however holding an
structured ideology as part of the ‘solution’ to the neurosis of consciousness does suggest that a
person is fully embracing mundane and human mistakes.

These people utilise external ideas to create an internal homeostasis, and they are trapped by the
idea itself. Their manifestations of power are manifestations of the power of the idea that they have
embraced and its false promise. They have made a Faustian deal to betray their true nature for
power and their existance can be contextualised in a firm, structured, typical and ideological way.
They are a type, and not an individual, and not a manifestation of the free flowing energy expressing
itself evading categorisation. Therefore, they are not, and can not be an ubermensch.

In fact, these people are playing at a game-theory in which the cynical, rapacious, aggressive
amongst us hold the rest of us to ransom. The first person to impose these conditions lowers the
potential of the group and stunts the individuality necessary for the ubermensch. They enforce
strong, structural ideas that disempower the ideas of individuality by disallowing them through the
gravitas of their own ideological promotion. The ubermensch ideal is not just not talked about, but
forgotten over generations and centuries and the individuals are born into an environment where
they are trapped into necessary ideological outcomes. We can see today with intersectionality that
even when they try to escape, the weight of historical ideas fall back in on the escapee, and all their
efforts to resist ideological possession return them to the Judeo-Christian morality they tried to
escape from, with all of its idiosyncracies. Even Marx literally repeated the Christian mantra ‘The
meek shall inherit the earth’ suggesting that ‘The Proletariat should seize the means of production’.
This, from a man who suggested that religion was ‘the opiate of the masses’. How did he not know?

After rejecting the set of terminal ideas,

This is not to dismiss the value of hyper-reality. In proposing ideas that fundamentally change the
process of thinking by the nature of the idea, an incredibly powerful, important, dangerous and
sensitive process has been undertaken. This direction is taken by those who pronounce morally
absolute outcomes, where they intend on fundamentally changing the nature of reality.

There is a standard of objectivity for subjectively held ideas.

Objectivity:

1. Can it exist?

A conceptual structure is objective if, within the conceptual environment, it is supported by

and supports all premises.

2. Does it do what it is supposed to?

 The conceptual structure leads to the predicted outcome, and its process neither alters its
own structure or invalidates the premises of the conceptual environment.

3. Does the process or outcome change over time?

Nor does it change the environment so as to invalidate 1 or 2 if it occurs in the future. (the
structure itself must be internally consistent).

Therefore, objectivity and rationality may be promoted in the context of subjectivity. It is not
subjective to relate energy to the speed of light and mass even though it is a relational equation and
depends on other stable states of the universe. This is an attainable goal for all disciplines.

There are many ways for highly intelligent individuals to fail to grasp the true nature of reality. The
first is to deal with the fact that the models in your mind do not accurately describe the world. To
deal with this, a person must deal with the nature of reality, which is to deal with constant
uncertainty. To experience this in the first place, a person must pry themselves away from their
biases, and although there are many, chief among these are hyper-rational and hyper-qualitative
thinking. Hyper-rational thinking is seen in Islam, and in a total belief in Science. Hyper-qualitative
thinking is the belief that some absolute moral world exists. These states exist due to consciousness
and as a terminal result of the challenge of consciousness – to rationalise the irrational.

Dionysus, Apollo and Tragedy.

For all of these failed solutions to the underlying neurosis, it comes back to a balance of lateral and
linear thinking. The balance of Apollo and Dionysus. Dionysus suggests and so Apollo asserts. The
result is some inevitable failure, inevitable because there is no absolute characterisation of reality
that assuages the neurosis of consciousness. The result is always an unknown and necessarily fails on
some level, and that is the deepest truth, the inevitable tragedy of existence. In understanding this
and embracing it the irrationality itself becomes the highest ideal and the highest truth. This is the
deep and enduring tragedy that drives the Ubermensch as the energy driving them to manifest their
internal fate.

There may be an issue with suggesting a structure to these forces, and to suggest them as individual
separate things as they are naturally complementary and exist together as long as a person has the
internal strength to cope with the tragedy, the irrationality of the neurosis of consciousness and can
avoid the allure of power by ideology that exists

They naturally become opposites in our environment and ideas that are stated so frankly, that
attempt rationality and logic have a superficial quality to them. There is resistance to internalising
them deeply and so in understanding them. Perhaps we can say that the balanced mind is not one
of Apollo and Dionysus, perhaps it is more worthwhile to suggest that it is Dionyus, Apollo and is also
necessarily Tragedy.

The Ubermensch
The Ubermensch lives with a pre-eminent goal of their existance – to manifest an internally
generated fate.

This fate is an expression of the greatest abilities and potential of the individual, magnified through
embracing life. The Ubermensch’ articles of perception are the Apollonian and Dionysian forces.
Discovering and cultivating this fate means destroying all ideological baggage that has been learnt
socially, culturally or developed independently.

There are no moral pre-suppositions or political necessities, no egotistical performance, no

degenerative post-hoc rationalisation and the reflexive process is life-affirming. The individual is a
set of concepts that exist as balanced forces that extrapolate into the physical world like a positively
affirming algorithm.

So what is the Ubermensch?

The Ubermensch is above these human traps, having an internal locus of control. They do not accept
established ideas with their unwanted baggage - the unconscious implications, especially political
and ‘moral’. The Ubermensch is not interested in being a member of the herd and does not pine for
the punishments and rewards of such membership. The Ubermensch has a coherent and symbiotic
philosophical outlook to complement their abstract and physical world. They are above their ego
and the symbols created by culture to denote status.

They have sophisticated thoughts that are neither purely lateral thinking or purely logical thinking
and will seem contradictory to the ideologically possessed – they are not on a side, they do not have
the mental vulnerabilities which drive such thinking.

They do this because they are not afraid of others, and are not afraid of the consequences of their
beliefs and ideas. Their ideas are fully rationalised and realised within the individual and their
actions in the world and so they are happy to accept the consequences of their ideas and beliefs.
They are self-aware, they know how to maintain this balance through whatever boundaries and
structures they require to stay away from people who act as purveyors of the destructive mental
practices they are avoiding.

An Ubermensch will easily break all of the social codes and rules as they state a sophisticated
viewpoint, or simply state the obvious. Dealing with the herd would almost be like dealing with an
Alien race, living upto the claim of Wittgenstein that ‘If a Lion spoke, we would not understand him’.
Without the need for the complex, hypocritical and always too-slowly-changing stories of the mass
of the herd, they would not respect the political necessities, the moral necessities, the social
conventions and the Ubermensch would simply not have the same frames of reference.

The Ubermensch desires great events through which to improve themselves. They throw
themselves into the crucible accepting the risk and emerge with an idea to grow strong enough to
become part of, to be inseperable to great events.
Empathy

The relationship between self and others exists as a function of the lateral process and reflexivity.
The degree to which an individual shares a self-concept with others is the degree to which they can
form empathy. If the scale was from 0-1 with a person scoring 0 seeing no difference between
themselves and others to 1 being a psychopathic belief in the absolute difference between the self
and others. A person scoring 1 does not have the neurosis of humanity in being unable to relate the
self and other concepts to each other consistently. The dynamic relationship between ‘self’ and
‘other’ is the ego.

All kinds of mental processes may be engaged which take that number closer to 0 or 1 and in a
‘normal’ mind any perspective is validated and invalidated over time.