essay || Edward Nichols

      Due to the hazardous  nature of the following material,caution in reading:

         The astounding idea of deity-ideation still fascinates me,and,how it could invoke such a following will be discussed.Through the Denial of Existence, the reflective-substitute this is bound to occur. Also through coercive-ideation, something like this following was bound to be actuated. Though through dualistic-transfer, his 'opponent' also has an opponent also has a following.The 'Bearer of  Light, Reason and wisdom, also referred to as the 'Morning Star', Venus, is discussed by the  gnostics. The gnostics were considered 'Heretics' and many were burned alive by the powers that be. Dogmatic teachings that the powers that be practiced through 'coercive-ideation' never have inspired 'revelatory-epiphany' of collective unconscious archetypes like the gnostics have. Their teachings propose the opposite of 'cosmic-reduction' and are syncestic in nature, causing ,quoting Sartre,'ekstasis.hide from the Other.'

         Through duality, we can say we have dualistic- transfer toward 'denialism'. I in denialism and the denial of existence hide the Other. Not to mistaken in hiding from,for dualistically we cannot do this beause they are already cognizant of us.No, it is for the 'inner-directed' state and the 'reflective-substitute that we engage  in denialism. In 'deity-ideation' you can also deny the deity-ideation,or,creator, even in the denial of existence to protect the 'ego-subjective',or, we might have an inimical attitude.In denialism, this is where dualistic transfer comes in, by , ignoring say our bored side we engage in some activity.Such as these pack of cigarettes,I want to make sure I have enough to make it through thte night, this relieves boredom(especially along with writing),which leads to pleasure,which also relieves boredom.

        The edifice of the ekstasis in 'deity-ideation' we have been taught to believe in acreator and that their is only one. This reflective substitute is not syncrestic,as for another it is not syncrenistic,as for another it is not a substantive substance that stands for-itself,because if it stood for itself(indeity-ideation) it would still be lacking reflective substance by the very fact of it's being unaware of itself, that it is not fractured,or, syncestic - multi-faceted ,or, fragmented consciousness,which cannot be,especially in the prescence of the Other.