Zombie_Ritual__Second_Coming (Chapter Two, Part Two (of Two Parts))

Zombie_Ritual__Second_Coming (Chapter Two, Part Two (of Two Parts))

This is the second part (of two) of Chapter Two to a novella called The Zombie Ritual_A Second Coming by r(E)volutionized founder/contributor John Corry. Book is available in the r(E)volutionized store.

 

‘Are they just total-jealous-bitches? [1]he continued. ‘Pissed off because they lost whatever this is at some time, or at many times; or because they sold out when they were my age, when they gave in to all those ‘suckas’ telling them that there was something wrong with being in love xºº[2], and that not caring about anything but love was somehow detrimental to a progressing civilization #TheMost-ProgressingCivilization*TheMostProgressingCivilization?

‘What’s a future, not just without #Love [3], but without loving, as its own idea–like a type of ‘love-becoming’, if you will–as well[4]he went on in his head, but then he realized that he’d never thought anything like that before, and he shut himself up for a moment (xx), ^up there^. Even just the day before, Helen made some joke about #Love , and Chuck laughed at it. They were both pretty stoned, but they both laughed real hard. Was he having this ‘change of heart’ because he was actually falling in love with a person now, and not just the ideas in his Favorite books or idols, or the riffs, beats and lyrics in his Favorite GG Allin serenades #BiteIt,YouScum [5]?

Shannon was likely right to suggest a potential for change after Helen and he had finally done the deed /> both of them were virgins, and they were both very excited to try out that whole ‘sex thing’ they’d always heard such horrible things about[6]. But, as everyone asks, at any age, regardless of the politics: ‘Would sex change the relationship’? Was it really all that ‘complicated’ #ShoutOutTo-AvrilLavigne ? And, moreover, if it did end the relationship, would that mean that they weren’t truly in ‘Loooove’ before?? Or would it mean, in a more grand/Societal context, that they weren’t kids anymore, in that they were no longer willing to so easily give up Individuality (or: the moment) for the sake of the greater good (which has gotta be some type of love, right?), without simultaneously losing that knowledge that nothing could ever take away that Individuality[7], even after such a #ComplexDecision had been made?[8]

‘Why should I give a fuck about love now? It’s only an idea[9],’ he thought when he came back around that way. ‘Half the world is starving or in some kind of terrible situation, and most people think they are (appropriately miserable), even when they aren’t. What could #TrueLove have to do with anything if even God is incapable of employing it on any ‘general’ grand scale? Or if people would rather get drunk on #Yolo [10] than let God challenge them, or than let ‘that challenge’ challenge what they think they know of God, or of the universe, or Happiness, or love–or anything!–or of how all those things interact, or relate to one another?...

‘Or whether ‘hate’ isn’t ‘love’s ‘Absolute’ ‘Opposite’??’

o.O

‘I can’t recognize how hate could be the opposite of some-thing so grand and #TooComplicated as love, or as people so often seem to make love out to be; #Hate is so inherently simple and closed. Considering the byzantine conundrum #TheByzantineConundrum *TheMostByzantine*TheByzantineConundrum implied by the Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Mechanics[11] in relation to simple Opposites by the thinking faculty[12], #Love must have some type of other Opposite if it were to be as powerful as certain ‘sects’ make it out to be[13]–or as ‘I’ make it out to be.

‘Love as an entity, or a #SimpleForm [14], could not exist without an opposite, yet I cannot easily pinpoint one, even after hours of contemplation, without ignoring its possible[15] Opposite being that loving previously mentioned, or a love regarding itself simultaneously as both an Individual and a Societal ‘emotion’ or ‘relative fact’[16]; something like a more #ComplexForm [17]

‘But this could not possibly be the case because Individual love and Societal love are both still coming from the same idea (#Love [18]), ignoring the obvious opposites of the original, more ‘simple’ love vs. this new, more ‘complex’ love. We need opposites to understand subjects. Without that Relativity, one could not tell black from white, man from woman[19].

‘Plato argued that there are certain Absolute truths[20]. Many disagree. Could #TrueLove be the only Absolute truth, in that it has no immediate Relative Opposite? Because, as its own Complex Form masked as Simple, it is infinitely open-minded, and, therefore, encompasses even Relativity itself? Or, based on its necessarily higher degree of ignorance of all things beside itself (because, without that, it would be too complex to comprehend (or: exist?) in focus (in this reality???)), could it be the ultimate, final argument for a potential #AbsoluteRelativity ? As some kind of absolute-relative (Absolutely Relative) opposition to Plato’s #AbsoluteReality [21]?

‘When people talk about love vs. being-in-love[22]–or: loving–what would be the Relative Opposite of loving? Or when we talk about Death vs. being-Dead, or: Dying? Life and Death theoretically cancel each other out, but living and Dying imply a time factor (moving time). Could this imply destruction of simpler Forms, from these other spheres in time, under the umbrella that is the most complex Form[23]? As Plato said in Phaedo[24], all Opposites in this life come from one another: life from Death, man from woman, it’s that Absolute Relativity thing. But if that were true, which I currently feel it is (that thing about not knowing black without white, life without Death, decent people without judgmental, assuming pricks, etc.) being proof), it would not imply mere (Simple) Opposites, or even relative ones, but, rather: a sort of circle /> a Circle of Life in this case, while simultaneously ignoring a circle of life’s apparent opposite, one more complicated than simply ‘death’, though one still retaining both Simplicity and Complexity, that being: a Circle of Death.

‘These two #Circles (life and Death) are part of the same #Complex process, or at least a more complex process than those issued by simpler Forms, which is what makes them Absolute–or closer to an (defined?) Absolute truth–or: more of a relatively absolute Absolute[25] /> a Relative absolute Absolute. In this case, the first ‘absolute’ of the term: because we are talking about them as entities within themselves, and not from a personal, or Relative, point of view; the second ‘absolute’: because we are talking about many entities (and (Simple) Forms)[26]; and overall Relative because the two must imply one another, and need each other, in order to exist–in fact, needing of all Forms, of all caliber (so: including ‘Simple’, ‘Complex’, ‘absolute’, ‘Absolute absolute’ (and its variations (*CAPS*)), and ‘Overseer’ (and its degrees)[27])–in order to exist–

‘But, as this circle[28]any circle–is ignoring the mere Poss-ibility of its own destruction, of its own deletion, its birth–it still being mimicked as ‘Simple’ in this circumstance (also: any circumstance where any ‘definition’ must be made), and Simple being what it necessarily can’t be, any ‘circle’ inherently being a Complex Form (because it’s a fucking circle, after all #Don’tBeSuchASquare,Dawg )this is still underdeveloped. Is this where life (Simple/singular) versus a kind of Dying life (that is, a Complex Form constrained by time or by contradictions (in this case those contradictions being a combination of the Form of one thing (life), in thought as a mental faculty[29], and its Opposite Form (in this case, Dying, as opposed to Death, which would be life’s Simple Opposite), as an Action, or Will #Becoming ) through the will [30] as another mental faculty) come into play?–

Can this circle of Absolute Absolutes, this overseeing focused/unfocused infinity of the web of life and thought in all of existenceadvanced or otherwise–that perceived divine inter-pretation!–coming from a different sphere–one unknowable in this life![31]–be a way of canceling out Forms? Or, perhaps much more so, those circles of complexities and #ByzantineConundrums which have always ruled over man’s thought, preventing us from becoming /> THE DIVINE! we so perceive as such a Simple Abstract only as lost or as found as it can be readily perceived or destroyed??

oo.OOOOOOOo

‘And is this all still occurring under the ringleader I just coined #TrueLove earlier? Or #TIME?!?! Even the Absolute Abso-lutes?!?!?!?!–

=O[32]

Chuck looked over to his dad, and thought of his G-Pa-Dad. Chuck’s G-Pa/Dad/dude/person spent over forty years after the war teaching the fourth grade, before retiring and becoming a full-time ‘philosophy’[33] writer. Guy was very progressive politically, liberal out the ass, and very, very /> Catholic (xop).

‘It’s certainly bigger than them,’ he continued, referring to those who judge and acquiesce to terror before actually thinking about things #TheyJustLikeLittleBoys,SoLetThemDoIt,Right??? XP. ‘Those who choose to ignore thought, for an #Absolute and total replacement by the Will in the singular sense–a type of #Singularity [34] being more necessitated and inherently unquestionable than any other Form or kind of Form–or vice versa: those who revel in that need of a subjectively relative viewpoint[35]. If they don’t see the Absolute Absolute in the Quantum Relativity that is the infinitely complex concept-in-process which rules over all thought, will, judgment, evolution and being–in #Time (so: different than ‘in life’ (or: undefined time (Plato’s Absolute/Eternal Reality)))–run by those quantum mechanics in which man could never, almost by definition (right now, at least (Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle)), fully understand–which is the beauty of it all!–do they succumb to the vortex which implies that never-ending #CircleOfLifeVersusDeath ?–the Simple deletionor: /> of living life as though one were already Dead? Simply because of Death’s merely implied possibility??? And the implied possibility of its implied impossibility’s implied possibility of inevitability?”

ooOoOOooOo.OOooOOOOOOOooOOO[36]

Chuck put a finger in his chin dimple, stood in deep thought.

o.O

‘But is this just yet another way of getting ‘stuck’ in the Circle?’ he eventually thought. ‘Just another way of finding oneself Comfortably Numb in that boundless Tornado of Souls that so ‘con-sciously’ comprises the difference between the Dying life and the living Dead?...’

Chuck shook his head (;\), closed his eyes (><), and faced his head toward the ground (X/). Through the corner of his ear, he could hear Kelly blabbering on about some fucking thing involving dancing shadows on a cave wall she’d seen in some dream she’d had the other night. Chuck had only heard her tell this story about a billion freaking times /> but whatever.

XX![37]

Fuck these fuckers, they don’t know; they don’t know shit about me. They don’t know shit about shit about the future /> about music, Plato, time, #Time , Forms, love, political correctness, or #TrueLove ; they don’t know shit about Shit about SHIT…’

He closed his eyes tighter.

>< 

‘They don’t know, they don’t know, they don’t know…’

>< >< ><

 

 

[1] Possible term for?: definition of ‘adulting’/conscious chosen abandonment of ‘childish’ (different from: ‘infantile’ or ‘immature’) (innocent/subconsciously knowingly naïve/more primal/emotion-based) tendencies/that ‘definition’-implied-by-the-will’s (thought vs. will; see later footnotes), and by ‘abandonment’s, effect on the growth of society, and its affect on the potential for happiness in Individual people and how they interact (this may or may not be a troll o.O)

[2] xxxºººººº0ººº

[3] #Love as the ‘defined’ term/ the definition we need in order to reference it, or: to know that any type of love exists at all; different from: #TrueLove (which is the highest/ ‘most complex Form’ of Love (and: possibly infinitely Complex (?))), or simply ‘love’, which potentially represents all of the Forms of love in between, and/or, more generally, any Form having primarily to do with love at all (including #Love , #TrueLove , true Love; potentially loving, or being ‘in love’, etc.), if we weren’t to ‘need’ the ‘Definition’ (…#TheCircleOfForms )

[4] Plato, Parmenides, 140e-141e, 154e-157b; Timaeus, 27d-28a, among more. This (‘Becoming’/‘Consciousness’/‘Willing’ (variants)) has been a major philosophic topic of discussion both before Plato (Heraclitus, Parmenides) and after (Nietzsche, (particularly Beyond Good and Evil, Twilight of the Idols and The Birth of Tragedy), Kant (Critique of Pure Reason), Hegel (The Phenomenology of Spirit), Heidegger (Being and Time) Arendt (The Life of the Mind (though this is admittedly more of a summation)) among many more). All of those titles are highly recommended, by the way (although I, admittedly, personally know some better than others :/), as are many more not mentioned here (for reference, in regards to some of the material presented in this book, I would, in addition to those just mentioned, also recommend The Undiscovered Self, Man and His Symbols and The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious by C.G. Jung, The Wisdom of Insecurity, and The Way of Zen by Alan Watts, The Origins of Totalitarianism, On Violence, and Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt, A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene, Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, Meditations by Marcus Aurelius, The Art of Rhetoric and Ethics by Aristotle, and anything by Plato of course)

[5] ‘Bite it, You Scum’, GG Allin, Hated in the Nation, ROIR, 1987

[6] #SoMuchWorseThanMurder,TortureAndGenocide #Thanks,Religion #MoreMoney? #MONEYMO-NEYMONEY #We’llNeverGetRidOfViolence #ViolenceSells,ButWho’sBuying?(Everyone) #MainstreamMedia #ReciprocalSex? 

[7] Keeping in mind the possibility of ‘the soul’

[8] This is complicated. I’m basically trying to ask, keeping in mind the subconscious ability of kids to always ‘be in the moment’, which also means that they’re more apt to be considered less of an ‘Individual’ (also: since they have yet to develop as a potential intellect), if a child grows up without losing an inch, not one inch, of that ‘childish instinct’ (or: whatever that is which keeps her/him ‘in the moment’), does her/his ‘Individuality’ then grow more ‘naturally’ with/within, or for, her/his natural place in the universe? And: keeping with that tradition across the board, does ‘Society’ then also grow more naturally with this ‘Zen’, or whatever you want to call it, in action summed as a constant as well, within both (and these are two different questions) the ‘Individual’, and: within ‘Society’? #Actions #BeingInTheMoment #GrowingUpCanBeHrdToDo #2+2=4And10+10=20AreEssentiallyTheSameThi-ng,They’reJustOnDifferentScales #Circles…

[9] Intro to ‘The Circle of Forms’/ the insanity begot by the Circle of Forms

- Plato’s ‘Forms’, in a way, could also be classified as the modern ‘Ideas’ (#Circles… )

[10] You Only Live Once

- Is this keeping with the ‘childish’ notion previously stated in the last paragraph? Is ‘yolo’ childish? Or is ‘adulthood’ simply about finding those moments where it is appropriate to act like a kid, and how to integrate that simplicity into the complexity that is ‘Known Existence’ (different from ‘life’, because a lot of things have ‘Existence’ (like, everything?), and not everything has life (and life can be taken a lot more subconsciously subjectively because there are so many more emotions and experiences involved in it (as opposed to ‘Known Existence’))) :D #Circles…

[11] The Uncertainty Principle (for position and momentum) states that one cannot assign exact simultaneous values to the position and momentum of a physical system. Rather, these quantities can only be determined with some characteristic “uncertainties” that cannot become arbitrarily small simultaneously (The Uncertainty Principle. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Oct 8 2001, Substantial Revision Jul 12 2016. Web Apr 9 2017. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/.

- You cannot measure both the position and the velocity of a particle simultaneously on the smallest scale. Also implied: the mere act of ‘measuring’ makes the study potentially invalid

- #ExamplesOfComplexOpposites:ParticlesVs.TheActOfMeasuringTheParticles??? #Circles…

[12] Using the Uncertainty Principle as a metaphor: you can’t know one thing/Form in full if you only know its direct/Simple Opposite

[13] This goes for ‘God’, and ‘the universe’ etc. as well #Foreshadowing

[14] Plato’s Forms

[15] Relative

- Intro to the Theory of absolute Asbolutes/True Relative Opposites

[16] ‘Relative’ insofar as it is relatable to the subject at hand

[17] Because ‘#TrueLove ’ (or: Complex Love masked as a Simple Form) implies the potential for many Opposites (hate, fear, doubt, etc. and any number of combinations of these (see: definition of ‘The Theory of Absolute Absolutes in the Glossary on page 113). These ‘Complex Forms’ become more complicated as the argument for tranquility vs. true (perceived) spirituality is developed, and: as an inevitable ‘Circle of Forms’ progresses and becomes ‘unavoidable’ #Circles… #TheCircleOfForms

[18] Love of something? Love for something? Love inhabiting, or debilitating?

[19] ‘Relative Opposites’ have an inherent sense of complexity to them; they are not necessarily Absolute, though they could be taken as such, if thought about deeply or for long enough (∞) and are indeed potentially closer to ‘Absolutes’, in their applications, than are the relations between Simple Opposites, as Relative Opposites have more to do with the Will, or with Becoming, than they do with Thought or Being (though they are not specifically 100% either one way or the other; Relative Opposites induce this balance (or lack thereof) as more necessary)

- If we ‘need’ opposites to understand how the universe works–or even just to perceive the universe altogether!–does that mean we also need what that relationship between ‘opposites’ implies: a challenge? A compromise? Or maybe the balance itself between the two, that which makes them opposites? Or: that which makes both of them existent? Moreover, from the first tip there, if we need a challenge to understand things–and, therefore, to move forward as an ‘intellectual species’–does silencing someone, regardless of how obviously wrong they may be, by simply saying ‘be silent!’ do anything but satisfy an indulgence into the knowledge that ‘to challenge’ is the way forward? Is there any balance, or even just potential for a bridge to compromise or understanding, in doing that (we are all humans, are we not?)? /> You know that fact (in this case that ‘challenging’ has an important part to play in the progress man takes from ‘Man’ to stars (‘life unknown’)), and, therefore, you’re clearly ‘tha’ shit’, but if you know you’re right about something, you’re not being challenged, are you? And if you’re holding to that ‘knowledge’ like a star to its fusion, you’re certainty not going to compromise, or admit to any other mere reason someone may come from a different place (understanding), and the fact that change happens with contributions from everyone (existence comes from all stars), and not just you and the people who happen to think like you do

- Um, did you just assume my gender?

[20] Phaedrus, 245c-246a, 249d-250c; Timaeus,  48e-52d; Parminides, 143a-144e, 150a-151e, 166c, among more

[21] Plato, Phaedo, 74e–77b; Phaedrus, 244a-257b; Timaeus (all)

- Absolute Reality: The place where Absolute knowledge resides, and where the Forms, in their true forms, exist

[22] Again: Plato’s ‘Becoming’ (Heidegger’s Being and Time, Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology of Perception, etc,)

- A relative Opposition? #WhatIsTheHastag?!?!?!?!?! #Circles… #TheCircleOfForms

[23] ‘Intro to the intro’ to the ‘Overseeing Forms’ concept of #TheCircleOfForms (see: next chapter)

- This could have the potential for even further foreshadowing of an idea presented a little later in this book (it does (have the potential)): the idea that #Time (time defined) is the ultimate ‘Overseeing’ Form above all ‘Overseeing’ Forms, because it necessarily encompasses, both within and without, everything (defined?), and because everything defined (or: focused), necessarily has to do with it (time, without the hashtag). It’s the most basic tool behind Perspective, Known Existence, Knowledge and Relativity #ThereforeTheMostBasic‘Form’?

[24] Plato, Phaedo, 69e–72e (how this is brought up in that dialogue is also relevant, in that we’re here talking about life, Death, Forms and Overseers /> all of which are big themes in Phaedo)

[25] absolute Absolute: A Complex Form where the less distinct Absolute is the leading factor (please refer to the Glossary on page 113 for more reference on these terms)

- Also see: #ASingularDivinity on pp. 74-82 (also in glossary))

[26] Or: at least more than there are Complex Forms or Overseers, as far as we can conceive right now

[27] ooo.OOOOO #Circles…

[28] The Circle of Forms

[29] The differences between ‘Thinking’ as a mental faculty, and ‘Willing’ (Nietzsche, Heidegger, Arendt etc.), a variation/evolved interpretation of ‘Being’ and ‘Becoming’ previously mentioned. #TheWill is defined, although that thought is contradictory (because, technically, the will can’t be defined, because ‘willing’ implies actually doing things, and not thinking or defining them) (Recommended: The Life of the Mind (Volumes 1 & 2) by Hannah Arendt, Edited by Mary McCarthy. Mariner Books. 1981)

[30] Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Penguin Classics. 1982. Chapter VI (specifically: Chapter VI, “Of the Interiour Beginnings of Voluntary Motions; commonly called the PASSSIONS. And the Speeches by which they are expressed.’)

[31] In the exampled case: coming from the Will, rather than from Thought, though still in an infinitely mixed conundrum of Being between the two

- Unknowable because it is too complex

[32] #Circles,Circles,Circles…

[33] I mean, what is ‘philosophy’ anyway???

[34] Definitions of ‘Singularity’ (from Singularity Symposium (What is the Best Definition of Singularity? Singulary Symposium. 2012. Web. 7 May 2017. http://www.singularitysymposium.com/definition-of-singularity.html ):

                  1. the state of being singular, distinct, peculiar, uncommon or unusual
                  2. a point where all parallel lines meet
                  3. a point where a measured variable reaches unmeasurable or infinite value
                  4. (mathematics) the value or range of values of a function for which a derivative does not              exist
                  5. (physics) a point or region in spacetime in which gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density; associated with Black Holes

- Please visit http://www.singularitysymposium.com/definition-of-singularity.html for more interesting takes on this fascinating topic

[35] Full indulgence into anything/ necessitated unquestioning as the devil/ route to infinite evil

[36] #Circles,Circles,Circles… #Circles,Circles,Circles,Circles…

[37] Fuckin’ bitch #CanPhilosophyExistAtAllInTheWorldOfPC? #Plato #Forms #AbsoluteReality #Plato’sAllegoryOfTheCave #Plato’sRepublic’TheAllegoryOfTheCave,514a-520a #AbsoluteReality/Relativity #Circles… #TheCircleOfForms

Zombie_Ritual__Second_Coming (Chapter Three, Part One (of Three Parts))

Zombie_Ritual__Second_Coming (Chapter Three, Part One (of Three Parts))

Zombie_Ritual__Second_Coming (Chapter Two, Part One (of Two Parts))

Zombie_Ritual__Second_Coming (Chapter Two, Part One (of Two Parts))

0