terminal 0
unfinished
NEFX - "Historical Thoughtforms and Their Tragicomically Intercontradictory Husks" Thoughtforms do not always adopt or beget the systems most outwardly befitting of them. Though they inevitably tend more towards certain systems than others, they ultimately tack towards whatever is most expedient for their purpose at the time. If a malignant thoughtform detects sufficient support to gain mass control over a territory, it may well paradoxically latch onto the very existent system in place so seemingly at odds to it, if only to erode its structure from within like a virus. Mass thought can paradoxically be influenced into consensus (or at least a formally recognized territorial consensus) not only for something but against the primacy of consensus itself in deciding mass social direction. Thoughtforms can appeal to a sense of threatened exclusivity among its adherents even where just the sheer number of such adherents precludes this being true. Ultimately such adherents, prey to such common mortal limits of perception, are unable to acutely sense the nature or even presence of most of their fellow travelers except as a vague mass, but are content both in the seeming meeting of their needs and in their surroundings coming more to resemble the outward form they seek. Nonetheless, the conflation of thoughtforms with the social system most commonly affixed to them, and the conflation of such thoughtform-system combinations from historically distant times and places with those of the here and now, remains a common and pernicious thoughtvirus; especially within a territory governed by a system operating on a formalized dichotomy of “options”. Such a dichotomy does not necessarily prevent the development of sub-factions of thought — they only mean that the sub-factions cannot leverage their ideas but through the highly restricted channels afforded by one of two formal options; and the landscape of thoughtforms within each option can have a lot of time to shift and develop, reaching only a rough “final” form after years of coagulation, while still such thoughtforms and their according actions are retrospectively attributed purely to the (currently perceived) nature of the option under which they were then expressed. Moreover, territories and systems may have their own sub-classes as well, under which but one main option may reign that is too entrenched in a particular measure in service to its subjects for said measure to be as easily overturned. This creates further confusion and discord in later periods under the broader territorial system as those within one faction in a given time may wrongly shift blame for the deeds of their fellow thoughtform adherents of yore to those of the opposing faction as representing the opposing thoughtform — especially concerning the needs of a set of beings. The fact of one option being technically better for a set of beings than another, or said other option nonetheless having anomalistic followers from said set, does not negate this truth; especially when we consider that many such adherents to the opposing option are so by a combination of fear and contingent, temporary, and transactional allowance due to their momentary usefulness and acceptable level of belonging to other cross-blending sets of beings (generally according to extant social or material privilege). The dichotomy of such a Zeitgeist (or Blightgeist, as we may call it) frames its two options as fully and thoroughly encompassing the most polar possible opposites of a spectrum of thought and action, failing (or perhaps pretending not) to account for the limited range of thought conceived of within a system, or the various contradictions that would lead subsets of it to adopt an at-odds system for their use and thereby appear totally opposite. Under such a system, one option can (and has) encompassed the span of moderate thought along such a spectrum, with the other housing opposing extremes. This makes for enough thought distortion without the putrid disingenuity of attributing purely to one option-faction a trait now curiously monopolized by another. And what trait could be so treated as the grimmest, barest manifestation of the weakness in subjugating another, least of all over deterministic or biological phantasms? The rancid soul that longs for destinal topology often shrinks from its own blind rage, at least so long as such rage seems socially impractical or unleveragable at the moment. It may tentatively propose being-set sorting according to the above phantasms, the supposed rule of merit, etc; but the tentacles of the thoughtform it follows have extended before to subjugate and will again. Regardless, to honestly acknowledge the fault of this thoughtform within a territorial system is to acknowledge the fault of whosoever at any point abided by it, even — nay, especially — if this extends to the roots of that very system; as it indeed has, to the discomfort of those convenient to pass its buck to later factions within the territory. The healthy soul must and will see beyond this weakness and instead take beings for their being.