I am going to revisit my theory on male and female brains to practice my explanation of it. Science after all is the explanatory art.
The superego (German: Über-Ich) reflects the internalization of cultural rules, mainly taught by parents applying their guidance and influence. Freud developed his concept of the super-ego from an earlier combination of the ego ideal and the “special psychical agency which performs the task of seeing that narcissistic satisfaction from the ego ideal is ensured … what we call our ‘conscience’.” For him “the installation of the super-ego can be described as a successful instance of identification with the parental agency,” while as development proceeds “the super-ego also takes on the influence of those who have stepped into the place of parents — educators, teachers, people chosen as ideal models.”
…also known as growing the fuck up.
The existence of id consolidates the authority of Ego, in the absence of Id the ego will be sympathetic with it’s own desires and try to get super-ego to participate with it, which is the sole purpose of ego, and exactly the opposite of what Super ego wants, it directly antagonizes the will of super ego. When I was studying male and female communication rituals my obscene abilities of pattern recognition were able to pick up on the patterns of the female brain and the way it is in relationship with the male brain. This creates emergent properties in society and the world. The 1 on 1 relationships create the norm, and people being aquisitively mimetic copy what they have seen. This unconscious process, these unconscious relationships and patterns create a normative bias that creates disparate impact in favor of feminine judgments or ego. Not only are the outcropping patterns bad they are dangerous and unsustainable.
Female authority comes from usurping, blaming, guilting, shaming, and humiliating masculine authority. Women do not see reason as their own will, they see it as a foreign invasive will, because they edit their consideration set to think sentimentally and emotionally not analytically or logically. They don’t think about the ugly things that are going on in the world they think about the pretty things that would be pleasant if they were true. The female mind ignores threats, and is naturally hostile to the masculine narrative which is to say they don’t listen to men with the same eagerness that they listen to other women and to their own emotions. The female mind uses mercy and charity to expand her authority and to appear a moral superior to reason. The male narrative is democratic, bold, offensive, truthful, easy to understand because it isn’t vague. The female narrative tries to shut the male narrative up by presupposing a meritocracy of pleasantness where being pleasant is a virtue and you can’t speak your truth plainly and boldly. The meritocracy of pleasantness thwarts the meritocracy of reason and prevents participation of the best with the best. The female mind thinks it wins by getting offended even if it throws itself in the way to get offended for someone else, once offended the female mind presupposes it’s own moral authority to judge and punish.
In rhetoric, parrhesia is a figure of speech described as: to speak candidly or to ask forgiveness for so speaking. The term is borrowed from the Greek παρρησία (πᾶν “all” + ῥῆσις / ῥῆμα “utterance, speech”) meaning literally “to speak everything” and by extension “to speak freely,” “to speak boldly,” or “boldness.” It implies not only freedom of speech, but the obligation to speak the truth for the common good, even at personal risk.
An example of this is the quote “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat” by Winston Churchill.
My term “Superficial Aesthetic Snap Decisions” are the tacit judgments made by the uneducated female mind without understanding. (http://terminclature.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/superficial-aesthetic-snap-decisions/) The uneducated mind is easily offended thinking that everything in the brief, pleasant span of its short life has prepared it to judge everything that goes on from it’s own narrow-minded opinion. It is essentially operating tacitly on a dynamic tautology of argument from ignorance.
Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for “lack of evidence to the contrary”), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof. -wikipedia
Let me see if I can explain this another way. We have all of this technology in America, google +, facebook, wordpress, etc. many people think that they are experts on how the internet works. This is called epistemic arrogance. Over valuing what you know and undervaluing what you don’t know. It is very good for making you feel good about yourself but it is very bad for knowing the threats that are coming at you. That feeling goodness, prevents you from understanding the nature of the enemy that hates you and wants to eradicate you off the face of the planet. That positive emotional female crap, is a liability, it makes you weak, slow, and unprepared.
The Deep Web (also called the Deepnet, Invisible Web, or Hidden Web) is World Wide Web content that is not part of the Surface Web, which is indexed by standardsearch engines. It should not be confused with the dark Internet, the computers that can no longer be reached via the Internet, or with a Darknet distributed filesharing network, which could be classified as a smaller part of the Deep Web. There is concern that the deep web can be used for serious criminal activity.
Mike Bergman, founder of BrightPlanet and credited with coining the phrase, said that searching on the Internet today can be compared to dragging a net across the surface of the ocean: a great deal may be caught in the net, but there is a wealth of information that is deep and therefore missed. Most of the Web’s information is buried far down on dynamically generated sites, and standard search engines do not find it. Traditional search engines cannot “see” or retrieve content in the deep Web—those pages do not exist until they are created dynamically as the result of a specific search. As of 2001, the deep Web was several orders of magnitude larger than the surface Web.
thank you iconographic art of joxua mourningstar
This is a photoshop I did of Nishkala shiva, and Sikala Shiva, an ancient Indian metaphor for the nature of the mind. Sikala Shiva is in corpse pose but still alive, although in a dormant state, he represents the subconscious mind, many orders of magnitude greater than the conscious mind represented by Shakti. Below him is Niskala Shiva in his dead form representing the unconscious mind, many orders of magnitude greater than the subconscious mind.