Restrictive and Expansive

by Christopher Lovejoy on September 13, 2021

Disclaimer: please be advised that some if not much of what follows will likely trouble if not disturb some if not most readers; by going deep into the darkness, my intent is to rise to the challenge of casting a bright albeit humble light on some rather pernicious and insidious be(lie)fs


Insidious v. pernicious: insidious implies lying in wait, a gradual effect or approach, and applies to devious, carefully masked underhandedness, whereas pernicious is more often applied to things that harm exceedingly or irreparably, by way of evil or by way of insidious corruption

Pernicious can also be used to characterize those who are wicked or deceitful; calling people pernicious implies that they have little if any regard for moral precepts and principles and seem more than ready and willing to hurt and harm others to gain or keep what they need or want

Dark, dense shadows cast in the personal, ethical, and spiritual realms of the psyche are almost always fleeting, at least in my experience, but they also carry a very real risk of freezing and seizing the souls and spirits of those for whom these shadows mesmerize, and even terrorize.

This freezing and seizing action likely takes many forms, but for my purposes, I will concentrate on one such form, which I highlight here as a question: what is a soul to do when it is seized by the reflexive freezing of a belief with emotion, and then treated it as an indisputable fact?

Here are a few examples: (1) “we live in a hostile universe punctuated by rare albeit welcome sparks of goodness, kindness, and sweetness;” (2) “the bulk of humanity is worthy of contempt and disdain, both for its pernicious tendencies and for its unquestioning obedience to authority;” (3) “this world would be worth saving were it not for the fact that human consciousness is saturated with evil.”

Before we address such beliefs, let’s take a walk on the dark side of be(lie)f.

The Dark Side of Be(lie)f: “What Do I Be(lie)ve?”

I wrote in my previous post, Expansive and Extensive, and I quote:

knowing and believing are two very different states of mind: that is, if I know, I need not believe, but if I believe, I do not know, and may never know. Regardless of not knowing, believing can still serve this vital function for living and loving your life to completion: to compel you and propel you towards realizing your own cherished notion of happiness

Where knowledge is a shelved knowing (existential, distant, on a ledge, inside a book), knowing is experiential, immediate, and indisputable to the knower: for example, “I know for a fact that I am typing these words.” Contrast this knowing with believing, which is of two types:


believing: (1) accepting X as if it were true; (2) placing trust or confidence in X as if it were true

In view of these two types of believing, one could state that “if I accept X as if it were true, and it turns out to be true, then I was merely believing, but if I accept X as if it were true, and it actually turned out to be false, then I was merely be(lie)ving. Note the subtle yet vital difference.

The same logic applies to the second type of believing: “if I place trust or confidence in X as if it were true, and it turns out to be true, then I was merely believing, but if I place trust or confidence in X as if it were true, and it actually turns out to be false, then I was merely be(lie)ving.

Note also that where acceptance of X is passive belief, confidence in X is active belief.

The acceptance of “I’m not worthy,” for example, can be flipped on its head (made active) by affirming (and elaborating) with confidence as follows: “Not only am I worthy of ___, I am deserving of ___.”

The trouble with belief, then, arises when a belief is treated as fact, when in fact the belief is a be(lie)f, and the trouble with believing, then, arises when believing is treated as knowing when in fact the believing is be(lie)ving. It pays to know when I hold a be(lie)f, just as it pays to know when I be(lie)ve.

In light of these declarations, I must wonder: what am I be(lie)ving now?

By way of response, let’s treat the darkness to some divine nonchalance.

Is it a Belief or is it a Be(lie)f?

This morning, before the first light of dawn, I put on my joggers for a jog, but as soon as I opened the door, I got a whiff of skunk. I supposed (surmised?) that if I went out, I would be sprayed, and I believed (be(lie)ved?) that if I stayed indoors, I would spare myself the stink.

In the moment I caught a whiff, I thought (reflexively), “I can’t do this right now.” Some time afterward, I thought (reflectively) that “hmm, I suppose I could have summoned the courage to go jogging, regardless; I mean, who knows how long the stench had permeated the air.

The dichotomy between reflexive (immediate; confident; arrogant?) thinking and reflective (thoughtful; ponderous; anemic?) thinking has plagued humanity since it first had to grapple with it many moons ago. Today, each type of thought is running interference with the other.

The risk of doing too much reflective thinking is that little if anything ever gets done: “maybe I’ll go jogging later, but then again, maybe not; what do you think?” The risk of doing too much reflexive thinking is made apparent with a quick perusal of the following distortions in thought:

1) dichotomous thinking (black-or-white thinking or all-or-nothing thinking) is the tendency to think, feel, and act on extremes (always or never, everything or nothing) without accounting for nuances
2) overgeneralization is the tendency to make broad, sweeping assumptions based on little or no evidence
3) mental filtration is the tendency to focus on small negative details to the exclusion of the big picture
4) disqualification is the tendency to dismiss the positive aspects of an experience for irrational reasons
5) jumping to conclusions is the tendency to make assumptions through mind reading or fortune telling
6) magnification (catastrophizing) is the tendency to magnify the details as being far worse than they are
7) minimization is the tendency to minimize positive details in an experience as being less than they are
8) emotional reasoning is the tendency to take one’s emotions or feelings as evidence of objective truth
9) moral rigidity is the tendency to apply overly strict rules to how you or someone else should behave
10) labelling is the tendency to describe the self or others in absolute terms (positive or negative)
11) personalization is the tendency to attribute negative outcomes to yourself with little or no evidence

These cognitive distortions become all the more apparent (and all the more insidious) when they get habituated through repetition and emotion, so much so that those doing the distorting are no longer willing or able to see them and treat them for what they are: ways of be(lie)ving.

It is all too easy to reflexively be(lie)ve under the influence of intense emotion, like frustration, exhaustion, indifference, or boredom, and yet, from an evolutionary point of view, before the advent of reflective thinking, reflexive thinking most assuredly had a role to play in survival.

It’s just that reflexive thinking hasn’t yet caught up with reflective thinking.

Am I Believing or Am I Be(lie)ving?

In view of the forgoing, let’s examine the beliefs (be(lie)fs?) I shared near the start of this post. In your examinations, I invite you to reference the distortions listed above to see if any of them might apply.

Let’s start with . . .

1
we live in a hostile universe
punctuated by rare albeit welcome sparks of goodness, kindness, and sweetness

This might be true from an omniscient point of view, but from a more relative, subjective point of view, who can say whether we live in a hostile universe? Potentially chaotic, yes. Seemingly random, yes. But hostile? From the point of view of God, perhaps, but then again, perhaps not.

Upon further reflection, if our seemingly dense manifest universe is in fact running down energetically with clocklike precision, or even if it’s becoming increasingly chaotic in very precise ways, how would the attribution “hostile” apply to a cosmic order without any intentionality?

By the same token, collective human consciousness on planet Earth has generated, for the most part, an antagonistic and narcissistic universe unto itself, but what would account for the goodness, kindness, and sweetness that is turning its back on this antagonism and narcissism?

If, on the other hand, the manifest universe expresses a deeper divine order saturated with sentience and intelligence, and the manifest universe itself offers an infinite number of sparks of goodness, kindness, and sweetness, how could it be said that the universe as a whole is hostile?

Cognitive distortions apparent in this first declaration include overgeneralization, magnification, minimization, and emotional reasoning. My suggested revision is “we live in a harmonic universe punctuated by rare albeit unwelcome sparks of badassery, meanness, and bitterness.”

2
the bulk of humanity is worthy of contempt and disdain
both for its pernicious tendencies and for its unquestioning obedience to authority

I would readily concede that there is much to hate about humanity in general, and human beings in particular, including the many and various insidious and pernicious tendencies on offer, as well as the unquestioning obedience to authority, but then, is there also not much to love?

Who among us has met the bulk of humanity?

And who is to say that a few essential catalyzing adjustments to human consciousness en masse might not dispel or even dissolve all that is contemptible about the human condition and the human experience?

Cognitive distortions apparent in this second declaration include overgeneralization, disqualification, magnification, and emotional reasoning. My suggested revision is “the pernicious tendencies of humanity, with its unquestioning obedience to authority, deserve intense scrutiny.”

3
this world might be worth saving
were not for the fact that human consciousness is saturated with evil

The key implication here, I believe, is that this world would be worth saving if human consciousness in general, and human beings in particular, weren’t so prone to being evil and evil-minded, respectively.

But is human consciousness saturated with evil? It might seem so, given what is happening in this world at this time, but even if this statement of fact is de-identified into a statement of mere belief as “human consciousness seems to be saturated with evil,” the question goes begging . . .

What does it mean for human consciousness to be saturated with evil?

For an answer, we might do no better than to bear witness to a real live exorcism, or to read a book like Thirty Years Among the Dead, or to follow the newsfeed of a conspiracy analyst of many years standing, or to position ourselves to bear many acts of pure unadulterated evil.

There’s no shortage of opportunity to be a witness to pure evil acting through humanity.

One cognitive distortion apparent in this third declaration is emotional reasoning, as it treats a belief as fact, but for good reason. My suggested revision is “this world might be worth saving were not for the wealth of data indicating that human consciousness is saturated with evil.”

Now let’s turn our attention to a more personal matter: the intractability of personal belief.

“My Life is No Longer Worth Living”: Belief or Be(lie)f?

I’ve noticed, when preparing to negotiate my position, even in a mundane matter, how important it is to “get the words right.” The use or misuse of just one word can make or break the negotiation. Likewise with making decisions that have fateful consequences: the timing and positioning of a decision can make all the difference in how good I feel after I act on the decision.

So much of what we say and do with success in mind requires “getting it right” the first time (or the second time if given half a chance), and I suspect that those who fall short of this exacting standard grapple with issues of personal worth, so much so that they feel compelled to wonder “what does it mean to focus on what matters?” or “what do I do when I feel overwhelmed by it all?”

These are significant questions in view of the fact that the immune system in the human body is mediated through the vagus nerve. When this complex nerve functions well and good under stress, it keeps the “the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway” humming along quite nicely.

If at all possible, we don’t want the body experiencing any long-lasting cytokine storms.

Constantly activating fight or flight or freeze or fawn or fix, however, eventually shuts down the organs of immunity (the spleen, the thymus, the gut), which in turn sets off a complex series of events that compromises immunity, initiating a downward spiral of proper immune function.


aside

decreased activity of the spleen means poor filtration of white and red blood cells: a relatively inactive spleen stops being effective at detecting viruses, bacteria, and other potentially harmful micro-organisms, which is one of the main tasks of this all-too-vital organ of immunity

the thymus is primarily involved in the production of T cells: the body uses these cells to destroy infected or cancerous cells; T cells assist other organs of immunity to grow properly, and so, can you guess what might happen if the thymus is compromised by a weak vagus nerve?

the gut is key to overall immunity; any serious compromise of the gut lining has serious consequences for overall immunity, as this lining is the first line of defense against toxic chemicals and micro-organisms being introduced into the body, to prevent chronic inflammatory responses

did you know that 70 to 80% of immunity resides in the GUT lining (or more precisely, the GALT)?

GALT = gut-associated lymphoid tissue

In view of the forgoing, consider the chronic use of these questions: “am I getting the words right?” “Am I getting it right the first time?” “Am I staying on top of the stress I feel?” If no, one might be forgiven for feeling “stuck,” and for even wondering: is my life even worth living?

A lot is going on this world at this time, much of it not all that good, and more than most can even imagine if they haven’t been keeping up with developments. In view of this, a lot of people are opting out ~ opting out of the system, opting out of old ways, opting out of this life they live.

For those who are keeping up with what is happening, the future does not look at all certain. For many among us, a darkness is descending, a darkness that threatens to seriously compromise, if not erase, everything we’ve worked so hard to accomplish and acquire in our lifetimes.

The realization, however, that “my life is no longer worth living” can, like all beliefs, be challenged to its very core, and in ways that have us coming out feeling good about ourselves. To begin, any seriously fateful belief like this one can be reimagined as “putty in my hands.”

Medical disclaimer: what follows is something that has helped me in my darker moments that arise from my unrelenting focus on what is happening in this world in the midst of darkness; it has not been tested on others, and so I advise caution and discretion in the use of it


My life is no longer worth living.

When treated as fact, such a be(lie)f can be shaped like putty to defuse fact from feeling, and to loosen any attachment to it as a fact when it’s just a belief that might contain a lie, and so, we begin by adding this qualification: my life is no longer worth living in this world at this time.

We quickly follow this qualification with an act of de-personalization: this life I live is no longer worth living in this world at this time. At this point, one can defang the “no longer” while posing the question: is this life I live really and truly not worth living in this world at this time?

Follow this with a further de-fusion of feeling from fact, and you have two warm putty-like statements of true belief (take your pick): (1) this life I live might not be worth living in this world at this time, or (2) this life I live does not seem to be worth living in this world at this time.

At this point, you can grant yourself at least one concession: this life I live might not seem to be worth living in this world at this time, but I am nevertheless willing to concede that this life I live does have at least one bright spot that makes it worth living: __________________.

If needs be, let the tears flow, and when you’re ready, afform as follows, even before you can feel the feelings: why am I suddenly feeling so calm, clear, and content in this moment? Why am I suddenly feeling so free to be? And why am I feeling so blessed to live and love this life I lead?

Later, try these on for size: Why am I feeling so happy, healthy, wealthy, and wise? Why am I feeling so much freedom and fulfillment in this moment, even as I flow from one moment to the next?

Before proceeding, I encourage you to remind yourself from time to time, as you go about your day, of this very personal question: if I were someone other than who I know myself to be ~ ready, willing, and able to see myself from the outside looking inside ~ what advice would I give myself?

In light of this protocol, I strongly recommend reading what follows in a stable frame of mind.

COVID-19 or COVERT-19?

Disclaimer: please be advised that much if not most of what follows will likely be disturbing to many if not most readers; by going deep into the darkness, my intent is to rise to the challenge of casting a bright albeit humble light on some rather troubling developments and events

For their own safety, there are those who live inside bubbles of their own making; for their own protection, there are those who feel they must avoid, bypass, deny, dismiss, evade, or ignore anything of consequence that they feel might burst their carefully cultivated bubbles.

We all have our comfort zones, including me. As I indicated above with brief mentions of the human immune system, we are all vulnerable; we can only take so much negativity and we can only bear so much reactivity. We all have our limits, or at least we believe that we do. Part of being spiritual in human form, however, is to push past limits that are both believed and perceived.

In pushing past the limits of innerstanding through thought, feeling, and action, we eventually encounter more apparent limits, but as I said, we can still keep calibrating the use of words with more precise languaging, just as we can still keep calibrating the timing of our decisions.

Think of it as an evolutionary process from one peak of ascension to the next.

In light of this preamble, I invite you to assume the role of Devil’s Advocate, and to mull (think deeply about, and at length) the statement that follows, while pondering its status in the back of your mind, in terms of whether you think this statement is a fact, a belief, or a be(lie)f:


most human beings are best characterized as “useless eaters” or as “disposable containers,” and therefore, a covert depopulation agenda, with eugenics as an added feature, is required to safeguard the future of planet Earth at this time, and COVERT-19 is so far fitting the bill

There’s a lot to unpack here, so let’s take our time with it. If you’re feeling at all resistant to proceeding, I totally understand, but I nevertheless encourage you to take a moment (or more) to let this feeling pass. Consider, too, sharing this process with trusted friends and family.

The attributions “useless eaters” and “disposable containers” are easily dismissed as labelling.

I first heard about the appellation COVERT-19 from Foster Gamble. It’s a clever way to draw attention to questions being raised about COVID-19, questions that are being censored on social media and in the mainstream media, questions that suggest a covert agenda for COVID-19.

In view of the fact that no novel coronavirus was ever isolated, is there a cold virus on the loose, and if so, was it weaponized? Or is the contagion of fear around COVID-19 serving a carefully crafted narrative in the mainstream media that is designed to advance an agenda covertly?

In view of the fact that the PCR test is not meant to diagnosis anyone, and that it can be manipulated to boost the number of false positives, are we in a casedemic, rather than a pandemic, and if so, what does this say about the contagion of fear that is being generated and perpetuated?

By way of response, and in view of the fact that the so-called “vaccine” is experimental, and is being mandated under an EUA (an emergency use authorization), and is immune to legal liability, what does this say about removing, directly or indirectly, informed consent from the equation?

Given that the survival rate of this “virus” is astonishingly high, on par with a bad flu season, why is a vast infrastructure being put into place to promote “vaccine” passports and administer “vaccine” boosters to counter the rise of variants? Who stands to benefit? Who stands to profit?

In view of the fact that only the most inquisitive researchers know, at least a little, what’s inside the “vaccines” (and why), and given that there are so many reported (and unreported) adverse reactions to these “vaccines,” one must wonder, at least a little, “what is really going on here?”

Could the mainstream news narrative around the “virus” (and its variants) be the Trojan Horse for generating (and perpetuating) the “vaccine” (and its boosters), so that the one can feed into the other inside a mutually reinforcing cycle of perceived threat and perceived need?

In view of the statement, “never let a good crisis go to waste,” could what is going on be best described as (a) an opportunity to bring about a global reset; (b) a greedy lust for pharma profits; (c) a genocide in progress; (d) a stealth war for global hegemony; or (e) all of the above?

The conventional narrative of “we the sheeple” believing the consensus reality that this is just another pandemic feels much more palatable and comfortable to those who feel they have better things to do with their time, and that questions being raised about it is just misinformation being generated by those who have more time on their hands than they know what to do with.

But this is simply not the case.

Highly reputable and credentialed doctors, nurses, and researchers are raising serious questions, as well as alarms that (a) mainstream media sources are suppressing discussion around these questions, and that (b) professional bodies are threatening reprisals for speaking out.

When the cells of human immunity first detect the presence of pathogenic or toxic agents in the gut, the vagus nerve stimulates the thymus and spleen to increase their activities, which in turn triggers the release of a neurotransmitter called norepinephrine, causing the immune system to become highly reactive to the presence of threat. With the threat neutralized, the vagus nerve turns off the immune response by sending another transmitter called acetylcholine into the gut to keep immune reactivity in check. This system only works, however, when there is enough capacity to turn off the response, and it has come to the attention of researchers that the “vaccine” is messing with this capacity.

Many are waiting for the next cold season to see what happens.

There is no doubt that something is going on, and that more people are waking up to the fact that something is going on, and that more discussion is being generated about what is going on, where facts, beliefs, and be(lie)fs are getting mixed up in some very complex and complicated ways.

Where all this is leading is anyone’s guess. Certainly, the uncertainty is quite unnerving.

How does one plan for a future that cannot be reasonably addressed and assessed?

/

looking for some comic relief? look no further . . . (opens in a new tab)

Previous post: