I often find myself passionately speaking for an Idea yet separate from it. It used to be quite unsettling at first. Even as I wrote the words, something in me resisted my writing.

Over the past year, I have allowed myself to be possessed by MAGA—the Idea as it stands separate from those who adhere to it. I have allowed myself to be possessed by the Christian Church. Then, Gnostic Creation mythology. And all of it seems incomplete.

Two years ago, as I dove deep into Gödel’s work on the Incompleteness Theorems, I got a framed picture of him—hoping that if I could allow the spirit of Gödel to possess me, then I could understand the work as he intended it. This was right before I explored demonic depossession modalities—IFS UB Unburdening, Compassionate Depossession, and then landing on Jesus Christ, the Exorcist as I started reading the New Testament.

I find myself filled with fear and thrill when I speak for an Idea. The thrill of the life that an Idea brings. The fear of being seen as the Idea itself. Over the past year, I have attempted to create some space in how I speak for Ideas by introducing more questions. But when I introduce too many questions in my writing, I feel disconnected from my readers.

The best way for a writer to connect with a reader—and this is a myth I believe in—is to have them be fully possessed by what is possessing me. In that moment of shared possession, I feel connected with them. Now we share this very human experience of being possessed and they, I imagine, get the adventurous thrill of a strikingly different world-view than perhaps what they hold right now. Isn’t that why we read? To be transported elsewhere?

It feels quite expansive to permit myself to be possessed by a variety of Ideas. Especially Ideas that contradict each other. Recently, I felt that expansion in me as I finally got the core thesis of Communism—dialectical materialism—after a handful of years of being an avowed Capitalist and regularly mocking Communism (& Communists) in my writings.

Dialectical Materialism is predictive in nature! It predicts the cycles of a Capitalist economy really well. It does so by applying the powerful tool presented by Hegel—the Dialectic—to the concept of property and asset ownership. The Dialectic is a way to trace the evolution of human history—where often change occurs by going from a thesis, to its anti-thesis, and then onwards to a syn-thesis.

The key transition point for me in going from mocking Communism to getting it was sitting with this contemplation post the release of the Epstein Files—what socioeconomic societal design is least likely to lead to wide spread child sex trafficking? Capitalist? Communist? Islamist? The answer isn’t clear to me. The Epstein Files have revealed the shadow side of a society that promotes self-interest as a core virtue. A year prior to the Epstein Files, I was noticing this flaw through direct experience. When I got ostracized from my local community for being a “Trump supporter”, the actions that hurt the most were from my “friends” who had secretly leaned towards Trump in 2024 but were afraid of associating with me because they did not want to receive the hatred that I did. They acted in self-protective ways and as I contemplated their actions, I realized—hmm, there is something missing when the foundational paradigm of one’s life is conservation of the Self. This paradigm underlies how the so-called healing communities operate, through language like “needs”, “boundaries”, “desires”. Within the frame of needs, boundaries and desires, I understood the actions that my friends took, but it seemed incomplete. I don’t know how one can get to honor from a self-protective life orientation.

As I have reflected on this journey of representing Ideas, I have found myself drawn to the practice of love thy neighbor.

I noticed that when I allowed myself to be fully possessed by an Idea, it was easy to let myself spit hatred in how I wrote. Ideas demarcate, on account of being expressed in words. Words themselves demarcate. The demarcation tells you what belongs and what doesn’t belong.

When I speak passionately on behalf of the belonging side of the demarcation—representing the Idea—it is easy to either directly express distaste or hatred towards the other side of the demarcation. Even if you explicitly don’t do that, the polar opposite of the Idea—the Antithesis, if you’d call it that—will whisper lies to the human reading. Lies filled with judgment and shame.

The world of language today is thick with judgment and shame. It’s the easiest route towards creating disconnection and thereby, it is our collective responsibility as users of language to guard against that proclivity.

There is a real power to the language of exhortation that a writer who wants to stir passion often resorts to. There is life inside the language of exhortation, because in that language the Idea itself comes alive fully. Possesses both the writer and the reader to create a bond that meets that deepest of human needs—belonging. An Idea presented passionately in exhortation weaves threads of belonging that cut across the common visual prejudice that we otherwise carry. It unites humans in the realm of thought independent of sensation. But as it unites, it also divides because every Idea has its Antithesis. These are living entities that have independent existence in their own plane.

Every Idea seems incomplete and often, contextually true. Every Idea has a polar opposite—what Hegel calls the Antithesis.

As I have practiced complete possession by an Idea and passionately speaking on behalf of it, I have noticed that it takes me to the edge of what the Idea claims to know. At that edge, starts the Antithesis. A whole new adventurous world of its own!

And the flavor, if I could describe it, of reaching this boundary often has to do with the meaning of the words being used to represent the Idea. Glimmers appear of an alternate interpretation of each of the word. Just ever so slightly different from the interpretation I am relying on to represent a particular Idea. But enough that when these slight shifts collect together, you end up in a completely different world!

In that process, I end up with a slightly expanded meaning for the word itself!

Consider my last essay, which I first titled “God, the Prison Master”. As I wrote that title, I felt that now-familiar tension of what I think vs. what the Idea thinks. A couple of days later, I renamed it to “The Creator is the Prison Master”.

The meaning of the word God has expanded for me since then. I now sit with the possibility that we actually don’t share a material realm—not in the way I thought we did before. Perhaps there is an overlap of realms going on? Perhaps the distinction between the physical and the non-physical isn’t as crisp as I thought it was? The Abrahamic Creation mythology—a source of great strife between the Creationists and the Evolutionists—claims that the Earth began 6000 years ago, that seems to clash with archaeological evidence. But what if what began then was a certain dimension of the Earth that overlaid itself on top of the Earth that existed already, that birthed this particular manner of Abrahamic life—that seized and became dominant via possession. Via belief and faith.

That creates room for many Creators that create many “Earths” that get overlaid on top of each other. This concept of many Creators, distinct from the One—is something we encounter in Hindu mythology, where Brahma, the Creator is a title more so than a particular individual.

These Earths share space and time—where it is important to acknowledge that the nature of space and time as most of us understand clashes with the nature of space and time as arrived at via the most hardcore of empiricist disciplines—Physics. In regular lived life, we see the 3 dimensions of space and time as independent of each other, which is not how the Theory of Special Relativity sees it.

There is much to be explored and I am learning how to write on behalf of Ideas without becoming them. Perhaps that’s why people write fiction? Did you know that Galileo Galilei presented his main dissertation in the form of fiction with characters debating heliocentricity vs. geocentricity?

I tried reading and it seemed very dry. Is that because my capacity to possess multiple ideas simultaneously is limited? Perhaps presently I need to be possessed fully by one idea to represent it?

I had this experience vividly during my MAGA days. The way MAGA lived in me—uplifting the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness—felt like the purest form of the Idea contrasted with the meaning it carries in typical usage, often wrapped up with some flavor of White nationalism. At some level, I do find it true that the White race today is superior by some metrics, but then the individuals who seem to attach themselves to the superiority of the White race don’t seem particularly superior. It’s quite the paradox.

I felt this heartbreak—the heartbreak of an Idea not fully living up to its potential as I saw it—when I encountered the concept of Christian Apologetics. I thought that meant Christians who apologize for the harm that has been done in the name of Christ. What it actually is Christians engaging in theological debates in favor of Jesus Christ. I find my version of the Idea better honestly. Is it not?

Perhaps I am speaking from under the possession of the Idea that holds me strongest right now—Love thy neighbor. This Idea seems superior to me. It is so superior that it emerges across various introspective, spiritual or religious disciplines.

I have been in exploration of it, but not in the manner that you might assume, having encountered the idea in Christian contexts.

Simply put, I wonder what the modes of offering love to a neighbor are? I’ll note that this contemplation is partly inspired by my present neighbor, who is quite gorgeous. If I love being caressed, does love thy neighbor as thyself suggest that I should caress my neighbor too?

The best answer I have landed on is—yes, if she is open to it. The best framework to then explore this is the Consent Framework and its close cousin—the Verbal Consent Framework, to account for traumatic fawn responses.

And that has significantly shifted the paradigm of proper touch from the past year where I was trying on Christian dogma. A few months ago, I’d have said two women should not kiss each other. Now, I feel freed of shoulds. Go for it if you are both into it!

Even wilder a shift have I noticed in my orientation towards anal sex. A few months ago, I was mostly the desire for anal sex was a trauma response—having been sodomized myself as a child—but then I was also broadly sitting with the question—is all desire for sex a trauma response?

And I was at a bar sharing a drink with a lovely lady where I reached this subject and I was telling her how I thought anal sex was a trauma response. And she blushed and shared that she really liked it and it switched me out of my mental theoretical space and my loins roared to life letting me know—yes, we’d like to engage in that with this particular lady. Desire really doesn’t seem to care about theories.

The human body seems to have been gifted with tremendous capacity for pleasure. When that pleasure capacity is engaged by force, it seems to cause hurt. But when engaged in a space of love and spaciousness, the same act can be deeply healing. I knew this from my Shibari days but I’m coming back to it with the full support of the Red Letters from Jesus Christ.

A few months ago, I’d have said homosexuality was a sin, but now I realize that I was uncomfortable saying No to advances from men and so I needed to hold onto an external framework to support my own No. Now I feel a lot more comfortable saying No to advances from anyone that I am not attracted to, so I don’t need to lean on that external framework too—that of the Old Testament, and the Pharisee Saul in the New Testament—and am thereby able to see its shadow side.

When I seem to acknowledge my own feelings, needs and desires and truly own them, I am rooted in my own subjective reality. These aspects of me stand true irrespective of what anyone else around me says about it. If I am not rooted in my subjective truth, able to speak it softly and courageously, I seem to project what I can’t speak to onto my sense of what is objectively true. My discomfort at saying No to advances from men becomes “homosexuality is a sin”.

The most beautiful explorations of objective truth can then be in relationship with another who also has the capacity to speak subjective truth fully and clearly.

Together, we can then embark on an exploration of Ideas. Allowing them to possess us and speak through us. To do so without the accompanying discombobulation (that I have experienced thus far), it seems crucial to root in what I’d call the Master Idea: Love thy neighbor as thyself, that ensures harmonious co-existence.

That seems to be the work, beginning from the smallest act of not turning eyes away from a stranger passing me by on the street—a commonality here in the US.