The Fantastic Human Capacity for Transformation.

in Deep Dives7 months ago

There is currently a recognition that there is some strong craziness in "movements"

that aren't really one, but are believed to be so.
There is no LGBTQ+ movement as such.
The thing is a mind construction that people are falling for.

Whoever "who" is, the political reaction in the form of rampant legislative enactments has not been long in coming.

The legislators call this the "right of self-determination"

and thus legalize something that needs no legalization, because it is an existing fact, without any pronounced jurisprudence, that we humans are identity changers.

So who tries to establish as a "right" something that has long been a "reality" among people everywhere, tries to fill a full bucket with water by claiming that there is a right to substitute water for water.

A human who feels that he belongs to "one identity" automatically excludes all other possible identities, of which he is quite capable and proves it every day by interacting with peoples. But in particular by watching movies and knowing how to distinguish the different characters from each other.

The fact that man, as a highly dynamic being, is without any doubt capable of changing his roles within a very short time is so self-evident that this obviousness is paradoxically overlooked. Without this normal ability to flexibly switch back and forth between identities, we would not be humans.


We humans are identity changelings par excellence.

If we weren't, we wouldn't be able to understand the punch line of jokes, we wouldn't be able to laugh at ourselves, we wouldn't be able to understand a single theater play, we wouldn't be able to mentally and emotionally grasp the tragedy and the comedy side by side.

If we were not excellent changelings, the concept of good and evil would be completely incomprehensible. But to confuse the concept with the reality as a manifested one, I call tragic insofar as this ought not be allowed to be taken as fun or as cosmic humor. You're told to take it "serious".

You could never laugh at "Dick" or at "Doof" (as in Stan and Laurel - see the title picture) if you were not able to feel super-fast like Dick or Doof.

Laurel said to the duo's biographer John McCabe: "Of all the questions we're asked, the most frequent is, how did we come together? I always explain that we came together naturally." Laurel and Hardy were joined by accident and grew by indirection.

It doesn't seriously matter that you can sympathize with the fat guy even though you yourself are just the opposite, for example very skinny. If you laugh at Dick, you are laughing at him, because you laugh at YOURSELF. When you cry for Doof, you weep at yourself.

If someone has a big fat pox on his face,

you don't have to have a big fat pox on your face to feel what it's like to have a big fat pox on your face.

But now to demand that big fat pox on the face be given its own legality in the designation of the myriad of human identifications is limiting the unlimited. Why? Because it is already a fact that people play innumerable roles, each one for himself would be unable to count them, related to his lifespan.

You cannot make a fact more factual than it already is.

To turn something self evident into a "law" is absurd. Like telling pregnant women that it's from now on their self right to call themselves pregnant.

Captain Picard and his VIP guest

A vivid example about our ability to change from one attitude to another, from one character to the next one is one episode from Startrek where Captain Picard is transporting a very important person to her destiny: A woman who is being born to please.
While you may immediately shout: "Unfair! She is being treated like an object!", you utterly miss the pointe of this anecdote.

While the recipients of her ability to align her attitude towards them get this free gift, she as well gives the gift back to herself. She is as much pleased by them being pleased. Call it a circle of love. Now, this is a story just to make the obvious come to the forefront: Everyone is able to do what she does in that episode.

Except that in Startrek, the scenes are exaggerated and follow quickly one after the other to emphasize the point being made here.
You enter a situation and spontaneously recognize the mood and attitude of the given atmosphere, in this case the Klingons.

Kamala immediately changes character. If before, in the presence of Picard, she was interested in science and archaeology, in the fine arts, she jokes and laughs in a coarse way with the Klingons, much like a man-woman who has perfect command of bratty intercourse. Not only does she welcome their direct stares, she also encourages Worf to follow his Klingon nature and growls at him. watch the whole episode in order to see the point.

But if she were to maintain this open-heartedness towards Picard (fixating on her Klingon attitude and not being able to free herself from it after the situation went by), she would not come to a common denominator with Picard. And then she doesn't. She changes her identity like pants.

This is very difficult for us brainwashed people to accept.

Because we mistakenly believe that this betrays a principle or even "oneself". That one is "fluttering aimlessly to and fro like a little flag in the wind". In fact, however, one needs not flutter aimlessly, but can do it purposefully. One dynamically adapts to a situation without slavishly bowing to it. One remains true to oneself precisely by using one's changeability as a means to keep a serene disposition.


Therefor, If I stick too much to one category, I close myself off to the situations that spontaneously arise and so I enter a room as a "conservative" and criticise everything and everyone who does not conform to this image. I refuse to take responsibility towards my various abilities.

The more I identify myself with being conservative, the stronger my displeasure will be when I experience a situation in which people seem to behave contrary to this image. My displeasure can deceive me so much that I detect hostile signals where there are none.

I can now replace the category "conservative" with anything I either identify with or do not identify with. In any case, all those who think of themselves as an immobile character and block their own dynamism or thereby artificially suppress the ability to move flexibly between people are mistaken. In doing so, they may achieve the same thing with the fellow human beings they meet. They also block other people's spontaneity to behave flexibly towards each other.

Wanting to make something explicit that plays along implicitly all the time

is like telling people to breathe in after they breathed out. Or that they should blink. We blink so and so many times a minute and we breathe in and out so and so many times. We can't help it. LGBTQ is basically like a self-actualising megaphone gone haywire, saying that there is a right for human hearts to beat in human chests. And anyone who doesn't give expression to that right is doing wrong. HaHa!

Identification in and of itself is nothing evil.

You have this as a skill in order to sympathise and cooperate. What makes it evil is to stick to it. While if you change your identity dynamicly it'll make life easier. This does NOT mean that you are whimsical and that you "betray your social group", for example, Christians or Republicans. Go to church and pray to God and honor your traditions, why not? But when you enter a bikers place by accident and you feel uncomfortable, it's best to talk and walk like a biker because you can. Instead of taking your discomfort as something that threatens your identity as a non biker.

After all, Jesus talked to anybody, didn't he? To whores and money lenders and the like.

What remains as director of thinking is reification inclusive of the illusion of categorical identity. The programming is such that one is left with the conclusion that without “categorical identity,” (“race,” “nationality,” etc) one has no identity at all.

Which is of course, impossible.

Man is never without identity. It follows you like a shadow.

You cannot lose it. But your mind fears to lose it. It denies the very reality of being self.

As “commune think” persistently promotes the idea of “equality,” it denies natural inequality as the identity of each individual.

The plus behind LGBTQ is quite amusing, isn't it? What can be found behind this plus is basically everything else you could think of to identify yourself. That's why people make jokes about it, because you could then identify as a fox or a fish or a fable creature. Man can be anything in his imagination. And because he is such an imaginative being, he can put himself into stories, characters, roles, beings. He can play anything he wants. Until he doesn't. Count on this as a certain outcome of how humans navigate through life. At certain situations one will change identities, for sure. Only the mind denies it and says that "people never change".

Man is playful as he is curious. However, it is madness to declare this truly fantastic ability a "right of self-determination" by law, because only complete lunatics legislate what is a natural human ability: to play someone you want to be.

A law, by its nature, demands to go in search of violations of the law. Whoever has "the law on his side" automatically has force on his side. But it makes no sense to punish anyone who does not tolerate your "right to express yourself" since it is not a right but just natural human attitude.

The fierce resistance to this "woke movement"

tries to invoke traditional values and stays with the same attachment of identity, that of the "free nation", for instance. What is experienced as a "globalist and transhumanist agenda" leads to compartmentalisation and the effort to keep something out of "one's own" and can only go wrong, as one becomes glued to, again, an identity.

It is this identity of the nationalist or conservative, which is perceived as providing security, that does not tolerate any questioning of one's own and therefore puts water on the mills of the so-called wokists. In the effort to keep one's "own identity", one must reject or negate the "other identity", but this only intensifies the conflict, since both are mutually dependent. Without one, the other would not exist. They are similarities, not differences.

The stereotypical view of men and women in the run-up to the story,

the glorification of male heroism and female grace in this one-sided exaggerated way, inevitably led to a counter-movement in which the non-heroes and the less gracious developed a claim to inclusion in the stories. Without realising that this claim is not much different from the one that is supposedly being opposed. It is not. It's a demand for being included in the same old story.

“Free country” is a contradiction from every angle. “Country” is an abstract, a subjective idea, not a corporeal thing to be free or not free. “Citizens of a country” are regarded as subordinate to “national interest,” hence, are not free. “Citizens of a country” presupposes a “national identity,” ie the illusion of categorical identity based on arbitrarily selected similarities in direct contradiction of the actual objective identity of each individual by a differing set of characteristics.

No matter, the “sacred ideas” dominate minds and the same destructive effect telling of the same cause is simply ignored with a pretense of change by different labels and variants of superficial trappings.

LGBTQ, an arbitrary conglomeration of actually very different individual characteristics,

is like an invented disease which is summarised under one term. Similar to Aids or Corona, one simply takes many different symptoms that can occur anywhere and at any time and turns them into a one-dimensional umbrella term.

The resulting confusion is due to the fact that one recognises the incoherence of this approach, but does not know exactly how to tackle it. This is because one is not dealing with a specific but rather an unspecific thing. There is a difference between "gay" and "transvestite". An eccentric doesn't have to be sexually motivated, just as a gay person doesn't have to be eccentric.

The nonsense of being proud of something

that makes you stand out is revealed if one were to say, for example, that the Nazis were particularly proud of having blond hair and blue eyes. But then very few people would have been Nazis, would they not? Accordingly, the brown-haired people with dark eyes also cheered this idol, although they hardly recognised themselves in the image of the Aryan, so they must have dreamed it and celebrated an idea that in no way resembled themselves.

So perhaps a mother of her gay son forces herself to be proud of his gayness even though she is not. Why should she even be proud of something that is an intimate matter that doesn't need you to walk around like a peacock in public with it?

The so-called conservative says that one can be proud of one's abilities and achievements but not on appearance.

But if you think that you have neither special skills nor achievements, you have nothing to be proud of, according to this logic.
If a conservative is a Christian, he could actually recognise this pride as one of the seven deadly sins, couldn't he?

So in truth, no one needs a real reason for strutting around. Those who want to expand their knowledge, improve their skills and do something for others, these others are the direct beneficiaries of what they give but not the "general public" (there is no such thing). They do it without expecting any special laurels or hymns in return.

But to carry these very achievements like a flag in front of one's face, to seek the public stages all too boastfully and thereby position oneself as "better" or "more valuable", generated the famous backfiring shot. This one is now dancing here in rainbow colours and waving the very flag that one as a "Christian" or "conservative" or "liberal" was or is convinced to wave with pride. They were role models for the rainbowers, weren't they?


These facing each other "groups" are not opposing each other,

because there are no "groups", just terminologies, constructing the very same notion, so they actually confirm each other, only using different terms. This conflict cannot be resolved, for when you are already on the same side (glued to identity) it matters not which identity you pick. The very matter that you think that you have to stick to one identity traps all of the side-choosers.

Why then forcing or suppressing what you do anyways?

The high praise for “powerful country,” “powerful politician,” “powerful man,” “powerful woman” etc, leaves no evidentiary doubt the worship of power environment places intellect as handmaiden to coercive physical force. No matter how it may be dressed up in “noble terms” and “civilized settings,”

The rainbow terminology is doing just that. It uses noble terms.

LGBTQ has a plus behind it for the reason that it can be expanded infinitely.

But if one has already mentally grasped that expansion cannot be limited, one can conclude that even the first version with two characteristics is as unnecessary to emphasise as the one with five +. Something infinitely expandable contradicts the intention of enclosing it.

Neither limitation nor demarcation "in principle" leaves the self free,

but the fact that neither the one nor the other needs to be regulated in principle, i.e. in general. It regulates itself situationally and spontaneously, if you let it. It happens anyway.

There is no need to apply a principle here,

because principles get in the way of the human dynamic of adapting one's roles according to the respective situation. After all, situations is all you get, don't you? You cannot navigate through life "in principle" but "in uniqueness". There is no one on earth finding himself in the exact situation you find yourself in.

In the anarchist sense, it means that there is no need for a regulating authority because each individual is not only capable of regulating himself but doing it anyways everywhere.

Therefore, both the rainbow flag followers and those sticking to the nations flag are mistaken. They think of themselves being in different camps. But it's just one camp. The camp of fixed identities.

Instead, it is like it always were. You are the one in charge.

You did and you do and you will do your moves in response of what you encounter day by day.

Counting on other authorities than yourself will give you those authorities. Leading life by force will be responded with force. If you like to move with skillful spontaneity through life, you may opt for being a character changeling without needing to "be given the right" in doing so.

I need no external validation for my existence. Following is the problem, not the solution.

Picture sources:

Harry Warnecke, 1900 - 1984 -, CC0,

By Photo by Stax - [1], Public Domain,

By Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Public Domain,

By film screenshot (RKO) -, Public Domain,

Quotations from


This is an interesting read on a topic that is relevant in a variety of contexts.

So who tries to establish as a "right" something that has long been a "reality" among people everywhere, tries to fill a full bucket with water by claiming that there is a right to substitute water for water

I think this is the crux of the matter- what, who, how, and why?

There's no single answer. Some have an explicit agenda, some are just following the trend without thinking of the consequences or afraid to lose livelihood, and others just follow their base mammalian territorial instincts (to make you bend to their demarcated will and do so explicitly such as by waving the team colours and symbols, raising hand in non-standard salutes, or murmuring the same nonsensical phrases over and over).

These are all controversial topics and personally I'm way beyond discussion at this point, but I'm glad that you brought it up because we do need to have the courage to speak up before there's nobody left to speak for us.

Thank you for stopping by and finding my post relevant. I am happy about that.
I am trying to build bridges, they seem to be much needed.

It's true, it's like you say, there is no single answer. I would go so far as to say that there is no principled solution because there is no principled problem, because what is inherent in human beings, their fantastically schizophrenic nature, cannot be forbidden, nor commanded. I think the anger from this is a consequence of confusion, after which one has confused oneself too much because one thinks one has to choose a side, when there are an infinite number of potential situations that can generate spontaneous agility.
Whatever people are afraid of, I think that at the end of one's existence, one rather regrets not having been courageous and is one's own harshest judge of missed opportunities of risk-joy (literally, that's what it's called in our country). And of course, the fear is not unjustified. I myself lost my professional livelihood because I crossed the line and formulated uncomfortable questions. It was bad at the time. But as always in life, if the episode is in the past, if I didn't lose my clients, I would probably have lost my dignity and so I preferred it to be the former. I am therefore not a victim (though I was at that time).

I am alive, after all, and the loss of my professional livelihood led to my trust in my husband growing immensely and to my having the important experience of support and love. Sometimes shit happens, but shit grows into something else. Then shit sometimes turns into gold. HaHa!

It may well be that this whole thing lasts for the duration of my future life or that more craziness will come along. But every prohibition also offers the adventure of disobedience. Maybe I won't do it that way myself (getting too old for that someday), but I'd smile at the younger ones and root for them. No, I don't discuss it much either. It helps me to write about it.

Bye bye to you :)

there is no principled solution because there is no principled problem

"Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia" A constant crisis requires constant control. Flexibility is important, as you suggest, having lost your job to politics, you went on to carve out a new life. Right on!

Throughout life I learned that there are no safe spaces. If you are against the odds, safety is not something one can demand. Otherwise you would be with the odds.

If I put safety above all my other needs, I would never have been against the odds, so I would not have taken a risk. The risk is the uncertain outcome. But if I want to see the outcome determined beforehand, I reject uncertainty (always also having the potential of positive outcome).

I compare this with activities, where I went to certain places that could have been described as unsafe or put myself in unsafe situations that could well have gone wrong (that is the thrill, after all). I cannot expect my fellow world to spare me this risk; on the contrary, it is better that I accept the danger as part of human experience. One who lives too long with the illusion that safe places are being created for one personally wakes up all the harder when this illusion is suddenly shattered. It inflicts a narcissistic mortification. Speaking of experience here :D

"Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia"

Reminds me on other examples like "blaming culture vs. enduring culture" (stereotyping here)

I need no external validation for my existence. Following is the problem, not the solution.


I recommend reading his whole text as well. You'll find it in the sources :)

Just did... thanks for the find!

you're welcome :)


Congratulations @erh.germany! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)

You made more than 8000 comments.
Your next target is to reach 8500 comments.

You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Check out our last posts:

Hive Power Up Month Challenge - September 2023 Winners List
Be ready for the October edition of the Hive Power Up Month!
Hive Power Up Day - October 1st 2023

That's why people make jokes about it, because you could then identify as a fox or a fish or a fable creature. Man can be anything in his imagination. And because he is such an imaginative being, he can put himself into stories, characters, roles, beings. He can play anything he wants. Until he doesn't.