terminal 0
unfinished
NEFX - Pantranghandity.txt ? What’s more, it colloquializes basic means of operation and communication (abstracted from their actual context) as being nebulous enemies of truth via “pleasant illusion”, eliding the ways in which it not only wants those same basic means and institutions around and bent to its whims (foregoing for the moment whether such institutions are indeed {in the here and now being criticized by the Erosive mind} serving of the noble cause of being-as-such that is Erosion's opposite and not just the currently allowed and afforded weak gradation of such cause within a depraved culture's Overton window), but also favors the very coercive authority at least nominally employed to yield the notions the Erosive mind despises. ? It needs the presence of an enemy to operate, and thus needs and creates the very premises it hates for its own aggression. ? That is, Erosion decries the crowd and a general majority while believing also in the presence and validity of a majority at least as an abstraction, and along biological-geographcial phantasmic lines. ? Furthermore, given that Erosion ultimately holds to a supposed societal ideal of mass coercion and conditioning, it on one hand presupposes both the inability of beings at large that would be conditioned into belief in their fundamental ability (as derived from the presence of an inability in a perceived Other) to reach the supposed height of Erosive thought that in turn would presuppose this fundamental ability, thereby making Erosion’s potentiates also its targets; and on the other hand still holds to the importance of social pressure in conditioning thought, just with the current privilege of not being present to prove its actual atrocity (at least nominally or on the level the Erosive thinker would prefer) and not for the same reasons, to the same ends, or by the same sources as arguably found in a current societal configuration. ? Furthermore, the Erosive mind is faced with a dilemma: If beings at large are fundamentally, ontologically chaff and yet are nonetheless freshly disappointing at point of inspection for their not according with the will of the Erosive mind in question that inspects them (for indeed every Erosive mind conceives of them this way as though separate from it all), then only one of the two thoughts (that of their incurability and deservedness of annihilation or that of their thwarted potential not only at large, but at large as such) can prevail within Erosion’s logical framework, and it presupposes that in fact there had been a chance before the beings in question proved that they had no chance, and therefore thwarted the supposedly superior being’s preternatural assessing abilities. ? Moreover, it reveals itself as conceiving of the capacity of beings at large to learn from mistakes in terms of outwardly imposed pressure, assuming first that beings at large derive only a sense of right from such pressure and are thereby units to be manipulated into this world-conception or the other, which also reveals that the Erosive mind is only dismayed when mass consciousness has not been bent to its coercive will (especially qua coercion as is its depraved desire), and it conceives of these conceptions as being interchangeable in quality and importance on the universal stage except as may serve Erosion’s pyrrhic power-seizure venture (always ultimately isolated to each individual holding such a mind). ? Rather than recognizing the danger of mental bombardment with such frivolities — even just as an approach before considering the actual content being used for bombarding — the Erosive mind subtly attributes malice to that not committed to malice itself. ? Thus, rather than recognizing (whether openly or to themselves, whether out of ability or will) such patterns as inhering in Erosive thought (which entails its lighter form that is foolishly poised within Blightgeistian logic as its diametric opposite rather a mere lighter gradation, being unable to conceive of anything higher) and Saturative thought, it digs deeper into its rotten hovel, maintaining that that which does not conform to it is conformity itself, borne merely of a lack of desire to grapple with a truth of such complexity and difficulty as the Erosive thinker fancies themselves to have attained to. ? Yet even while holding to this trust and occasionally stumbling obliviously through the salient point of the phenomenon of mass conditioning tropes, notions, and sayings being at once bounced back and forth among members of the crowd under the Blightgeist to reinforce false or limited understandings of facts that by perpetuation lead to decay in understanding, the Erosive mind holds also to the dichotomy of easy lies and difficult truths, their qualifiers at one point being put before these things as barometers of truth and lie. ? Trust in the historical consensus over the long-term — which in its common usage appears to be a historical consensus that has bloomed past the time in which key beings under investigation or those at least witness to events under discussion have passed — is generally pernicious and disingenuous, given that cultural and historical consciousness is as fickle in such period of reflection as is so in the period looked back upon, a notion which even Erosive thinkers prone to the same trust do hold to given their holding to a notion of “hard cyclicism” of history; and this trust can lead likewise to the belief that beings will change upon perceiving the (nominal) errors of their ways, rather than in such case operating in the same collective fickleness (before we even consider the actual content of the thing being investigated and the evaluation and consensus being had about it at any point).