Historicity of Jesus - 2

[dhu]

This is a brief outline for the interim, still working on the full text.



1. The rebellion is deemed as emanating from an inimical and principled ideology, i.e., ideo-opposition to emperor worship, rather than just a rebellion. This is done at the level of the Academia of the Empire, and never by the native. Emperor worship is conflated with a false idol and this affords the opportunity to damn the resistance as intractable and principled ie unreasonable in its opposition. The Empire (the sepoy) also damns itself (the Empire) as reactionary (rather than principled) affording for further ambiguization.

2. The ideology level abstraction is amenable to being overtaken by the Empire in cloak i.e., by the "sepoy Revolutionary" or the idol-breaker; this is a social theory level abstraction ie ideology.

3. Following the nature of the beast that is ideology, the gaze of the idol-breaker is directed primarily to the native culture with a gratuitous and misleading contemporary edge which serves to cloak (eg the sepoy marxist damining the native with occasional damnations of the Empire). The mantle of revolutionary is thus donned by the Empire.

4. The sepoy Hasmonean, the Jew, followed Antiochus IV Epiphanes in same fashion as the sepoy Christians followed Titus. The orientalist sepoy assumed the mantle of the native resistance in both cases. OT is primarily concerned with damning the native culture in a revisionist history project (ie the Bristish educational project in India). The NT updates the scenario by damning the Jewish OT agents themselves, just as the elite (communist) sepoys of the American Empire damn the previous British Empire as divisive and "colonial".



5. The first “task” of the colonizer is to “establish” a framework which allows for problematization; the ‘construction’ of such a framework has a few overt requirements and many salient consequences. Oftentimes, the (secondary) consequences will be mistaken as the ‘required’ features for operation of the system– this is a necessary result of the bipartite “design” (with a ‘pseudo-dynamic’ between ‘overt meme’ versus ‘hidden meme’) of the system and “serves” as an additional level of ambiguization (i.e., another level of false flag).



Consequences which are commonly deemed as defining features include:

1. the interpretative singularity (the normatized interpretative background) of the (Will of) the “One True God”;

2. “intentionality”;

The empirical evidence which we have is that these two “features” emerge simply as a consequence of the pseudo-dynamic arrangement between the ‘seen meme’ and the ‘unseen meme’ (a diptych of 'the ideology' and 'the [necessary] mirror image image of the ideology'; the mirror image is the normed version and can alternate b/w the religious version and the secular version depending upon the user preference).[color="#0000FF"][sup][a][/sup][/color]



The required feature which transforms any disparate set of entities into a specifically monotheist ‘system’ is simply the bipartite arrangement of a ‘seen meme’ against an ‘unseen meme’ (memes are standalone normed units [either socio-theory or theology] which change or rather “advance/progress/regress” by materialist “mutation” in “understanding”).[color="#0000FF"][sup][b][/sup][/color]



The pseudodynamic inherent in the seen and unseen meme is a replacement notion for the (orthopraxic, experiential; true) ‘dynamic’ seen with the heathens and overtakes in grotesque EWS simulacrum the characteristics of the heathen experiential reality. The ideology is always non-relational at the interaction level but is always dependent upon the construction of an (orientalist) mirror-image for the (aggrandizing) self-image; the “dual” images are non-relational and thus in fight for elimination of the mirrored rival; this manifests invariably as totalitarianism; before a denoument becomes possible either in religious revelation or in materialist insignificance.[color="#0000FF"][sup][c][/sup][/color] Ideologies can are never bbe relational and thus they are totalitarian in scope (two eventualities are feared: 1. other rival total systems 2. the unseen mirror image; the relationship between ideologies is pseudodynamic; that is, they cannot inform each other).



Another consequence of the framework is the elimination cultural diversity; this is a consequence of the disconnect between the seen and unseen portions of the diptych wherein one side will try to eliminate the other side, in hopes of becoming the Truth and forestalling a possible denouement.



[color="#0000FF"][sup][a][/sup][/color] that is, the "aggrandizing" self-image (which is independent, declared, obvious, non-relational, non-negotiable, revelatory, and self-professed) always has an orientalist mirror image [which is irrational , etc]). One meme will be seen at any one time and never togethere; the two images/works are written in pseudo-relation to each other, i.e., they are not in conversation with each other. In other words, they are juxtaposed and in competition and not in dynamic relation (as seen in Dharma).

[color="#0000FF"][sup][b][/sup][/color] in contrast to a ‘dynamic’ which is relational and dependent upon others’ concerns and is constituted solely “as a self” [in-so-far as it makes sense to speak of a ‘self’] in relation between 2 entities). Dharma is a dynamic and not a meme.

[color="#0000FF"][sup][c][/sup][/color] revelation for the materialist is a denoument.