"How about a good news story about drugs for once? Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather...
You see, when we talk these things through, it becomes a little clearer doesn’t it? That’s called logic and it’ll help us all evolve and get on the fucking spaceships and get outta here...
Folks: It's time to evolve ideas. You know, evolution didn't end with us growing thumbs. You do know that, right? Didn't end there. We're at the point, now, where we're going to have to evolve ideas. The reason the world is so fucked up is we're undergoing evolution. And the reason our institutions, our traditional religions, are all crumbling, is because … they're no longer relevant. They're no longer relevant. So it's time for us to create a new philosophy and perhaps even a new religion, you see. And that's okay 'cause that's our right, 'cause we are free children of God with minds who can imagine anything, and that's kind of our role."
----------------------------------------
Even though the late great Bill Hicks summed up the matter quite succinctly and satisfactorily, my take on evolving ideas can be elucidated a bit further in reference to the previous perspectives developed here. The last two posts describe postponing judgment in the case of absolutes, favouring the idea that these mono-logical mental commitments aren't worth the electrolytes expended on their consideration, and that it's about high time for something better than a world 'run by money.'
An idea I'm working on goes something like this: given the current status of our technological development, and, in my opinion, sufficient conditions to provide individuals and communities with the means of producing their sustenance, a political situation allowing for a transitional period between statism and volountarily generated social arrangements is a realistic enough concept for me. The culture we're producing is not in our overall best interest, however, intelligent utilization of the means at hand could point to a more sustainable future.
Let's take for instance the shitty fuckin economy that everyone's blithering about these days. It is, inherently, integrally, and overall a for-profit venture wherein everyone runs around trying to make more money (individuals and nation-states alike) while the entirety is governed by a minority of select interests. People bitching about relatively isolated cases, as in, their own, while the possibility of any situation other than the current gets subsumed by the workload involved in living as a slave. By not challenging the overall status quo, our inviolable human right, we acquiesce to the world-wide slavery of dollar-chasing that sucks up all of our creative freedoms that might otherwise be expressed.
Since the point I'm trying to make here is that a transition to a better situation is not only necessary but possible too, I'll get right to it. A slight understanding of the 'freeman-on-the-land' perspective might help a bit, but my post on The Call, Anarchy, and 'The Party,' sum up well-enough my feelings on statism, which is exactly what I'm proposing we transition from.
Statism: doctrine that holds the 'corporations' people identify as 'Nation-States' to be sovereign entities, and that the 'citizens' who've tacitly rescinded their god-given sovereignty to be reclassified as operational chattel for monetary consideration and not the freely unique flesh-and-blood children of god.
That this is the unquestioned dominant paradigm remains unacceptable to my taste. Instead, why not have an option out? Well, that threatens global hegemony and control for the elites, and is therefore out of the question. But what if enough people demanded it? That's the one thing, I think, that the powers-that-be are really afraid of, and I have a proposition to make. It starts like this:
A Universal Declaration of Intent, in which is stated an outline for common law contractual arrangements, an inherent human right, whereby the five-word maxim: 'cause no harm or loss' can be held to it's full potential. (This is an idea I'm whole-heartedly working on and will develop here further when I've got it better worked out in my head.)
This idea includes that the individual no longer consents to governance, to govern or be governed, and accepts a citizenship-severance package from the appropriate government being severed. This conditional acceptance in no way can include contractual arrangements with the previously governing body, as the fraudulent relationship between fictitious corporate entities (persons and states alike) ends with the severing of citizenship, thus establishing individual sovereignty.
The severance package might be something like this:
A parcel of land, that, by a reasonable scientific measure can support the number of individuals staking their claim.
An energy infrastructure appropriate to the conditions of the environment to provide sustenance.
Seeds and maybe basic livestock.
And, most importantly, the recognition that the human beings involved are no longer subject to the previous governmental structure.
------------------
Well, that's the start of the idea... I guess that's what a blog is for, so that I can develop my ideas conditionally before fully worked out, and still try to communicate them with my peers. (taht's you...)
As an adieu:
Thank you NWO for providing me with the opportunity to recognize the fallibility of your enterprise and the capacity to realize my inner-experience as a freely creative enterprise, that, if nurtured and developed by my healthy perspectives, can eventually come to fruition in my external experience of life. I accept this parcel of land on the conditions that outlined in the Universal Declaration of Intent. No longer will you, as institution, have any dealings with me, as individual. Peace...
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
Absolutisms...
Religions are like penises.
It's all fine and good to have one,
and do what you will with it in private;
none of my business.
But please don't whip it out in public,
and it's especially inappropriate to jam it down children's throats!
So, please;
Keep it to yourself.
Same thing goes for materialist science and statism.
These three monologues have repressed the development of the human condition in a manner that is unintelligible as of yet. They have also provided for the opportunity for me to be here and comment on their development in such a free and independent manner that is able to communicate thusly, and, therefore invaluable for their contribution to human freedom regardless of their out-datedness...
Now that I've been able to realize that the three mega monoliths of centralized power all have the same root, it is more apparent to me on how to react accordingly. What these institutions of ideology have established is that the responsibility for life is external or exterior or separate somehow from the individual that is experiencing that life. What is more correct and appropriate, however, is that every individual is intimately responsible for the life they live, and if the option of opting for another entity to take over one's inherent responsibility is enacted, the individual in question has abdicated their right to live a free life by their own measure and enabled an authoritarian power structure to take charge of life as they know it.
This is how the so-called Powers-That-Be are 'in control' of world events according to the 'truth movement.' I, personally, don't believe anyone is in control of anything unless someone has given up their ability to control and is therefore controlled. The unfortunate circumstance is that money, as control mechanism, has infiltrated all and every aspect of most life on the globe. As that turns out in every day life, we are all controlled to a certain degree by our use of the money system
No matter how much money goes to 'aid' any impoverished community, the assistance involved is rooted in the control mechanism that will inevitably extract more than was initially invested. This is not an uncommon phenomenon but a constituent part of what makes anything that can appropriately be called a corporation. What that entails is a pathological commitment to the furtherance of financial growth no matter the repercussions, so long as the bottom line is never thwarted from beneath the power structure that prevails.
This is the same for statism, monotheism, and materialist science: they all have the same bottom line that is dollars.
States, as bankrupt facades (especially Canada and the U.S.) operate on the money they borrow from private banks; religions, as morally bankrupt facades (especially the Vatican) operate on the money they coerce from private individuals; mainstream academic science, as bankrupt facade (nuff said?) that operates on any money it can get whether to pursue creationist science or any other absolutist perspective; all of which rely on the idea of, "if we had more money we'd be able to get to the goal we've been promising you for oh so long..."
What all that comes down to is the common denominator of relying on the financial systems of the day to control enough people to provide for their continuance... What would happen if people stopped paying for the non-benefits of committing to particular ideologies and economies? Would they find their own way of operating without the currencies that compel control, or would they falter and fail in response to unforeseen consequences? What, really, is money doing for any of us?
My perspective entails that money ought be reconfigured, if used at all, in considering a sustainable future for the species. By committing to any one of the three monological perspectives elucidated briefly earlier, statism, monotheism, and materialistic science, we have given up our abilities to decide for ourselves what the outcome of our human experience might be, and let it happen without our input in the realm of fictitious financial schemata.
Next post: evolution of ideas....
It's all fine and good to have one,
and do what you will with it in private;
none of my business.
But please don't whip it out in public,
and it's especially inappropriate to jam it down children's throats!
So, please;
Keep it to yourself.
Same thing goes for materialist science and statism.
These three monologues have repressed the development of the human condition in a manner that is unintelligible as of yet. They have also provided for the opportunity for me to be here and comment on their development in such a free and independent manner that is able to communicate thusly, and, therefore invaluable for their contribution to human freedom regardless of their out-datedness...
Now that I've been able to realize that the three mega monoliths of centralized power all have the same root, it is more apparent to me on how to react accordingly. What these institutions of ideology have established is that the responsibility for life is external or exterior or separate somehow from the individual that is experiencing that life. What is more correct and appropriate, however, is that every individual is intimately responsible for the life they live, and if the option of opting for another entity to take over one's inherent responsibility is enacted, the individual in question has abdicated their right to live a free life by their own measure and enabled an authoritarian power structure to take charge of life as they know it.
This is how the so-called Powers-That-Be are 'in control' of world events according to the 'truth movement.' I, personally, don't believe anyone is in control of anything unless someone has given up their ability to control and is therefore controlled. The unfortunate circumstance is that money, as control mechanism, has infiltrated all and every aspect of most life on the globe. As that turns out in every day life, we are all controlled to a certain degree by our use of the money system
No matter how much money goes to 'aid' any impoverished community, the assistance involved is rooted in the control mechanism that will inevitably extract more than was initially invested. This is not an uncommon phenomenon but a constituent part of what makes anything that can appropriately be called a corporation. What that entails is a pathological commitment to the furtherance of financial growth no matter the repercussions, so long as the bottom line is never thwarted from beneath the power structure that prevails.
This is the same for statism, monotheism, and materialist science: they all have the same bottom line that is dollars.
States, as bankrupt facades (especially Canada and the U.S.) operate on the money they borrow from private banks; religions, as morally bankrupt facades (especially the Vatican) operate on the money they coerce from private individuals; mainstream academic science, as bankrupt facade (nuff said?) that operates on any money it can get whether to pursue creationist science or any other absolutist perspective; all of which rely on the idea of, "if we had more money we'd be able to get to the goal we've been promising you for oh so long..."
What all that comes down to is the common denominator of relying on the financial systems of the day to control enough people to provide for their continuance... What would happen if people stopped paying for the non-benefits of committing to particular ideologies and economies? Would they find their own way of operating without the currencies that compel control, or would they falter and fail in response to unforeseen consequences? What, really, is money doing for any of us?
My perspective entails that money ought be reconfigured, if used at all, in considering a sustainable future for the species. By committing to any one of the three monological perspectives elucidated briefly earlier, statism, monotheism, and materialistic science, we have given up our abilities to decide for ourselves what the outcome of our human experience might be, and let it happen without our input in the realm of fictitious financial schemata.
Next post: evolution of ideas....
Put on your PJs!
Listen up everyone! It's time for a new mental exercise, appropriate for the whole family!
By using our brand new innovative product design, the Postpone Judgment Pajamas, anyone can enjoy the infinite worlds of sovereign individuality that brings about your true innate experience as a human on planet earth! All it takes is a minute to calm down and relax, put aside nonsensical belief systems, and enjoy the pleasure of experiencing this exact moment for what it's worth. Think of yourself entering a waking dream-state where there were no absolutes that determined what your imagination might be able to entertain or negate. In a universe that afforded you with immeasurable possibilities, would you not want to exercise those potentials as best as possible? Wouldn't it be great to bring into existence, through imagination, the most ideal and utopian environments, or get rid of those harmfully controlling elements that keep the world in chains?
Well, do I ever have the product for you! And, did I mention, it comes free of charge!? Well you already have all that it takes to calm yourself into a relaxed ecstatic daydream full of untold miracles. All it takes is abandoning the ways you've done things before, just for a moment of course 'cause we're only dreaming here, and imagining something different, something better. These pajamas can bring you to a state of total uninhibited creativity where you're able to tap into the creative forces of the cosmos and bring into your life the most amazing prophecies that you, and only you, can realize in immanent experiential reality!! Only in such an altered state of consciousness can the limits of truth be extended slightly further than before. When you wear these PJs the opportunities for evolution become apparent to freely conscious entities that seek to ameliorate and reconcile their disadvantageous relationship with the ecosystem as a whole. PJs make everyone happier and healthier by letting a little bit of living room between what the individual is and what keeps the individual safe. Better balance comes from better pajamas.
All it takes is to relax your roll a little, dawg... Let it slide, and don't get too worked up. Try and take things from a more grounded level, not putting yourself higher or lower than anyone or any- thing, for that matter. No one and no- thing has absolute arbitration over your existence. This is what is revealed when you chill out in your PeeJays...
And then, something happens that calls you back to everyday reality...
an unacceptable occurrence compels reaction: Absolutisms haven taken hold of the entire world!?!? It gets very difficult to adorn the pragmatic pajamas of postponed judgment when all around one finds the melodramatic mediocrity of melancholic materialist monotheism. All of the dominating ideologies demand strict adherence or downright dismissal, anything in between considered a moralized inferiority by dogmatists.
Fuck that... There's always another path. So long as we hold that to be the closest margin of absolutes, that is, there are absolutely none to be determined by linguistic statements alone, there are infinite permutations for ideas to evolve into.
By using our brand new innovative product design, the Postpone Judgment Pajamas, anyone can enjoy the infinite worlds of sovereign individuality that brings about your true innate experience as a human on planet earth! All it takes is a minute to calm down and relax, put aside nonsensical belief systems, and enjoy the pleasure of experiencing this exact moment for what it's worth. Think of yourself entering a waking dream-state where there were no absolutes that determined what your imagination might be able to entertain or negate. In a universe that afforded you with immeasurable possibilities, would you not want to exercise those potentials as best as possible? Wouldn't it be great to bring into existence, through imagination, the most ideal and utopian environments, or get rid of those harmfully controlling elements that keep the world in chains?
Well, do I ever have the product for you! And, did I mention, it comes free of charge!? Well you already have all that it takes to calm yourself into a relaxed ecstatic daydream full of untold miracles. All it takes is abandoning the ways you've done things before, just for a moment of course 'cause we're only dreaming here, and imagining something different, something better. These pajamas can bring you to a state of total uninhibited creativity where you're able to tap into the creative forces of the cosmos and bring into your life the most amazing prophecies that you, and only you, can realize in immanent experiential reality!! Only in such an altered state of consciousness can the limits of truth be extended slightly further than before. When you wear these PJs the opportunities for evolution become apparent to freely conscious entities that seek to ameliorate and reconcile their disadvantageous relationship with the ecosystem as a whole. PJs make everyone happier and healthier by letting a little bit of living room between what the individual is and what keeps the individual safe. Better balance comes from better pajamas.
All it takes is to relax your roll a little, dawg... Let it slide, and don't get too worked up. Try and take things from a more grounded level, not putting yourself higher or lower than anyone or any- thing, for that matter. No one and no- thing has absolute arbitration over your existence. This is what is revealed when you chill out in your PeeJays...
And then, something happens that calls you back to everyday reality...
an unacceptable occurrence compels reaction: Absolutisms haven taken hold of the entire world!?!? It gets very difficult to adorn the pragmatic pajamas of postponed judgment when all around one finds the melodramatic mediocrity of melancholic materialist monotheism. All of the dominating ideologies demand strict adherence or downright dismissal, anything in between considered a moralized inferiority by dogmatists.
Fuck that... There's always another path. So long as we hold that to be the closest margin of absolutes, that is, there are absolutely none to be determined by linguistic statements alone, there are infinite permutations for ideas to evolve into.
Monday, October 4, 2010
[Philo-sophy] or (Phi-lo-sophy)
The etymological analysis of the word philosophy has never satisfied me for many reasons. As 'the discipline to unite all disciplines,' or so I've often considered it, academic philosophy seems hardly appropriate enough in and of itself to deserve the title 'love of wisdom,' let alone be bestowed with something better. My very uninformed assessment (I studied undergrad for four years...) of the higher academic levels is that they're a bunch of pandering ninnies preying on corpses of dead idols.
as per online etymological dictionary:
c.1300, from O.Fr. filosofie (12c.), from L. philosophia, from Gk. philosophia "love of knowledge, wisdom," from philo- "loving" + sophia "knowledge, wisdom," from sophis "wise, learned."
and the omniscient god Wiki, philo- and -sophia:
Philo-, a prefix form of -phil-, from the Greek for "love of", e.g. philosophy
Sophia (Σοφíα, Greek for "wisdom") is a central term in Hellenistic philosophy and religion, Platonism, Gnosticism, Orthodox Christianity, Esoteric Christianity, as well as Christian mysticism. Sophiology is a philosophical concept regarding wisdom, as well as a theological concept regarding the wisdom of God.
The undergraduate courses and all other professors could easily be called philosophers by this definition, but, these constituent parts could not contain the whole of what I experienced in my interaction with the ideas presented in the upper level philosophy classes of two particular professors. I was getting more out of it than I was supposed to, methinks, because my ideas were growing too rapidly to be presented within the limited parameters of twenty page term papers. I wanted to be working on an honours project that would sum up my undergraduate learnings in an expressive and explicative way, and I tried to get it going, but the faculty wasn't ready for that. What they told me was that I'd better keep my focus on the classes at hand and not write about psychedelics any more because it's not appropriate at the graduate level, and that's what they're there for was to get their students ready for grad school. This tirade is not to blame them for my leaving academia, because that's one of the best choices I ever made, but to put into context that their academic pursuits were just that, academic pursuits, and would not or could not compromise the essential political nature of institutionalized realities. I had more to do with my mind and life.
Somewhere along the way I've reinterpreted how I define philosophy.
That Sophia was goddess from some time and we have a particular fascination with it does not suffice my awe and wonder with the mysteries of consciousness.
And what is the suffix -philia generally associated with? Negatively sexual words like corprophilia, the 'love' of shit, necrophilia, pedophilia... So is philosophilia like fucking an old dead goddess or something? Hardly appropriate.
And now, for something completely different, I have a new way of philosophizing (eww, that's sick bro) that will show us out of this etymological maze.
Let's consider the world comprised of three distinct parts instead of two:
[philo-] and [-sophia] becomes [phi-], [-lo-], [-sophia]
phi is the golden ratio, a transcendental number of a ratio found everywhere in nature from the proportions of the human body to the shape of the spiral arms of the galaxy, 1:1.618.......
This ratio is encoded in the logarithmic spirals of shells and tornadoes, the dimensions of credit cards and many corporate logos, the teachings of mystery schools since the first Egyptian dynasties (and I think before, too...) to name only a few amongst many. I would bet that lifetimes have been spent trying to examine this phenomenon without ever coming close to exhausting the multifarious manifestations of this essential fractal pattern. If you're interested in starting it out I'd recommend looking up 'sacred geometry' as it's a more than compelling idea that reaches out far and beyond what is able to be entertained in academic circles. The circles of sacred geometry constitute the foundation of our experience called reality.
Well, if we've got a place to start to look at the basis of life, the universe, and everything, and it's a simple-enough starting point like the 21st letter of the Greek alphabet, and been known by humans for thousands of years, well, let's get started? I've only just begun,
and,
- lo - and behold,
I find myself on the path to -sophia. Instead of postulating fantastical fictions based on outdated moral relativities, let's look at something that can be found at every level of our experience as consciousness! Doesn't this seem like a better foundation for an attempt towards wisdom than a sickly fetish with dead ideas?
Philosophy, to me,
Φ, behold, wisdom...
perspectives that include this most intrinsic of ratios are better equipped to withstand the awe and wonder imparted by experiencing the beatific wisdom contained therein.
peace...
as per online etymological dictionary:
c.1300, from O.Fr. filosofie (12c.), from L. philosophia, from Gk. philosophia "love of knowledge, wisdom," from philo- "loving" + sophia "knowledge, wisdom," from sophis "wise, learned."
and the omniscient god Wiki, philo- and -sophia:
Philo-, a prefix form of -phil-, from the Greek for "love of", e.g. philosophy
Sophia (Σοφíα, Greek for "wisdom") is a central term in Hellenistic philosophy and religion, Platonism, Gnosticism, Orthodox Christianity, Esoteric Christianity, as well as Christian mysticism. Sophiology is a philosophical concept regarding wisdom, as well as a theological concept regarding the wisdom of God.
The undergraduate courses and all other professors could easily be called philosophers by this definition, but, these constituent parts could not contain the whole of what I experienced in my interaction with the ideas presented in the upper level philosophy classes of two particular professors. I was getting more out of it than I was supposed to, methinks, because my ideas were growing too rapidly to be presented within the limited parameters of twenty page term papers. I wanted to be working on an honours project that would sum up my undergraduate learnings in an expressive and explicative way, and I tried to get it going, but the faculty wasn't ready for that. What they told me was that I'd better keep my focus on the classes at hand and not write about psychedelics any more because it's not appropriate at the graduate level, and that's what they're there for was to get their students ready for grad school. This tirade is not to blame them for my leaving academia, because that's one of the best choices I ever made, but to put into context that their academic pursuits were just that, academic pursuits, and would not or could not compromise the essential political nature of institutionalized realities. I had more to do with my mind and life.
Somewhere along the way I've reinterpreted how I define philosophy.
That Sophia was goddess from some time and we have a particular fascination with it does not suffice my awe and wonder with the mysteries of consciousness.
And what is the suffix -philia generally associated with? Negatively sexual words like corprophilia, the 'love' of shit, necrophilia, pedophilia... So is philosophilia like fucking an old dead goddess or something? Hardly appropriate.
And now, for something completely different, I have a new way of philosophizing (eww, that's sick bro) that will show us out of this etymological maze.
Let's consider the world comprised of three distinct parts instead of two:
[philo-] and [-sophia] becomes [phi-], [-lo-], [-sophia]
phi is the golden ratio, a transcendental number of a ratio found everywhere in nature from the proportions of the human body to the shape of the spiral arms of the galaxy, 1:1.618.......
This ratio is encoded in the logarithmic spirals of shells and tornadoes, the dimensions of credit cards and many corporate logos, the teachings of mystery schools since the first Egyptian dynasties (and I think before, too...) to name only a few amongst many. I would bet that lifetimes have been spent trying to examine this phenomenon without ever coming close to exhausting the multifarious manifestations of this essential fractal pattern. If you're interested in starting it out I'd recommend looking up 'sacred geometry' as it's a more than compelling idea that reaches out far and beyond what is able to be entertained in academic circles. The circles of sacred geometry constitute the foundation of our experience called reality.
Well, if we've got a place to start to look at the basis of life, the universe, and everything, and it's a simple-enough starting point like the 21st letter of the Greek alphabet, and been known by humans for thousands of years, well, let's get started? I've only just begun,
and,
- lo - and behold,
I find myself on the path to -sophia. Instead of postulating fantastical fictions based on outdated moral relativities, let's look at something that can be found at every level of our experience as consciousness! Doesn't this seem like a better foundation for an attempt towards wisdom than a sickly fetish with dead ideas?
Philosophy, to me,
Φ, behold, wisdom...
perspectives that include this most intrinsic of ratios are better equipped to withstand the awe and wonder imparted by experiencing the beatific wisdom contained therein.
peace...
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Here Comes October...
Well I thought I'd be consistent enough to keep an average margin of posts per month, but as it happens, life changes....thankfully. New occasions bring new opportunities and I find myself writing as much as ever, although not per blogosphere, as it were.
My ideas are coming together through the question of culture. I am asking myself why the cultural programming I've been endowed with has brought this free-thinking individual to where I am right now. I credit the entire ecosystem of the planet for blessing me with the potentials I have before me, and I pledge my allegiance to the multiplicitude of organisms and ecosystems that will inevitably evolve and pervade all the surfaces of this planet either without the species of which I'm a member.
Thanks life...
My ideas are coming together through the question of culture. I am asking myself why the cultural programming I've been endowed with has brought this free-thinking individual to where I am right now. I credit the entire ecosystem of the planet for blessing me with the potentials I have before me, and I pledge my allegiance to the multiplicitude of organisms and ecosystems that will inevitably evolve and pervade all the surfaces of this planet either without the species of which I'm a member.
Thanks life...
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
The Question of Culture
I've always asked myself why the world is like it is. I still don't have the answer, and don't expect to either, but over the years have developed many more ways of answering life's more humble questions. What is our culture and how has it gotten its shape? Where did it come from and where is it going? Who put it together and why does it seem as though appearances change on the surface while the undercurrents trace back thousands of years? Is there something going on that we as the general populace have no idea about?
Here's my unique way of formulating what must be an ancient question, and what I present as a unique way of answering it; steeped in contrarian perspectives both new and old, the method to my madness is to question what is called culture. To set up the asking I want to outline two different modes of thought. Neither having priority, both are aspects of the existential situation we call human experience.
The overriding thesis at hand is that the origin of this duality comes from a unified source. The basis of experience as consciousness is essentially unity; only in order to experience itself as anything, consciousness must necessarily make its limits. Be they just veils and membranes enveloping relatively independent transitional bodies, the code at their base has common denominators. Two categorical bodies are to be developed and employed here to indicate this fundamental dynamic. One question is to be asked of both ways of thinking: is this a sustainable way for culture to evolve? My answer is that they both need to be balanced consciously for culture to evolve sustainably.
To characterize this dynamic, two metaphors will serve to illustrate the idiosyncrasies of each end of our spectrum. The one I will call culture, for convenience's sake, as it is my way of describing what is commonly accepted as the normative and categorical elements of western society. The other I'm calling community, as the word holds common ground with unity, and hints at the feeling I'm trying to communicate. Culture, as elaborated here, is a process of building, whereas community is a process of growth. Community is an organic function whereas culture is an artificial one. Culture postulates that the original unity breaks down into a duality whereas community recognizes the impervious nature of unity as a polarized spectrum. Community shows that evolution occurs as a process of cooperation among biologically diverse members of an ecosystem whereas culture asserts that evolution happens by competitive domination over the environment by the most able organism.
As a general overview, I'm calling the metaphor of community organic and the metaphor or culture as archonic. The roots of these words indicate how I'm putting them to use here; as organic derives from the Greek root of organon, meaning 'that with which one works', archonic derives from the Greek root of arkhon, meaning 'ruler', or 'beginning to rule' in its verb form. These polarities can be considered as part of a spectrum and not mutually exclusive. Both are necessary and valid modes of thinking and being that constitute the yin-yang balance of this human condition. Try and guess which is yin and which is yang. My position is that in order for any sort of existence or experience, these forces need to be balanced enough so as to provide the form and content on which it can be founded. Therefore it is also my position that these forces are still balanced enough today so that we can experience existence and I can communicate my perspectives. The motivation behind my need to put forth these ideas is that although we're still balanced enough between culture and community to 'be' 'here,' where being is too vaguely defined and here is at a precipice. There has been, and still is, an all-too-much emphasized aspect of culture that implicitly refuses recognition of the importance of community.
It is an overwhelming tendency that summarizes my take on culture: humans have for too long invested their energy and attention into systems that divest them of responsibility for their actions, be they religions, sciences, or systems of authority. The idea that one can rest assured in something external doing everything necessary to provide the individual with sustenance, morality, entertainment, and ultimately salvation, is an irresponsible decision at best, and, more honestly, a parasitic scourge on the planet. Believing that one need not blame oneself for the happenings in and around the community, and that self-satisfaction is the ultimate goal of life, is to condemn the entire population and all of posterity to failure.
Rather, by taking up responsibility for one's own community by first standing up as a unique sovereign individual,
( still in progress)
Here's my unique way of formulating what must be an ancient question, and what I present as a unique way of answering it; steeped in contrarian perspectives both new and old, the method to my madness is to question what is called culture. To set up the asking I want to outline two different modes of thought. Neither having priority, both are aspects of the existential situation we call human experience.
The overriding thesis at hand is that the origin of this duality comes from a unified source. The basis of experience as consciousness is essentially unity; only in order to experience itself as anything, consciousness must necessarily make its limits. Be they just veils and membranes enveloping relatively independent transitional bodies, the code at their base has common denominators. Two categorical bodies are to be developed and employed here to indicate this fundamental dynamic. One question is to be asked of both ways of thinking: is this a sustainable way for culture to evolve? My answer is that they both need to be balanced consciously for culture to evolve sustainably.
To characterize this dynamic, two metaphors will serve to illustrate the idiosyncrasies of each end of our spectrum. The one I will call culture, for convenience's sake, as it is my way of describing what is commonly accepted as the normative and categorical elements of western society. The other I'm calling community, as the word holds common ground with unity, and hints at the feeling I'm trying to communicate. Culture, as elaborated here, is a process of building, whereas community is a process of growth. Community is an organic function whereas culture is an artificial one. Culture postulates that the original unity breaks down into a duality whereas community recognizes the impervious nature of unity as a polarized spectrum. Community shows that evolution occurs as a process of cooperation among biologically diverse members of an ecosystem whereas culture asserts that evolution happens by competitive domination over the environment by the most able organism.
As a general overview, I'm calling the metaphor of community organic and the metaphor or culture as archonic. The roots of these words indicate how I'm putting them to use here; as organic derives from the Greek root of organon, meaning 'that with which one works', archonic derives from the Greek root of arkhon, meaning 'ruler', or 'beginning to rule' in its verb form. These polarities can be considered as part of a spectrum and not mutually exclusive. Both are necessary and valid modes of thinking and being that constitute the yin-yang balance of this human condition. Try and guess which is yin and which is yang. My position is that in order for any sort of existence or experience, these forces need to be balanced enough so as to provide the form and content on which it can be founded. Therefore it is also my position that these forces are still balanced enough today so that we can experience existence and I can communicate my perspectives. The motivation behind my need to put forth these ideas is that although we're still balanced enough between culture and community to 'be' 'here,' where being is too vaguely defined and here is at a precipice. There has been, and still is, an all-too-much emphasized aspect of culture that implicitly refuses recognition of the importance of community.
It is an overwhelming tendency that summarizes my take on culture: humans have for too long invested their energy and attention into systems that divest them of responsibility for their actions, be they religions, sciences, or systems of authority. The idea that one can rest assured in something external doing everything necessary to provide the individual with sustenance, morality, entertainment, and ultimately salvation, is an irresponsible decision at best, and, more honestly, a parasitic scourge on the planet. Believing that one need not blame oneself for the happenings in and around the community, and that self-satisfaction is the ultimate goal of life, is to condemn the entire population and all of posterity to failure.
Rather, by taking up responsibility for one's own community by first standing up as a unique sovereign individual,
( still in progress)
Sunday, September 19, 2010
update
Well, it's been a while since I've posted, mostly because I've been in transit, moving from one place to another as I so often do; also because I've been updating my ideas and how they relate overall, the ideas have subsequently developed substantially. My work of late has focused on the ideas I originally wanted to include in the philosophical sort of treatise that I imagined creating shortly after resigning from academia. Though the ideas I want to express haven't changed very much, the way I express myself has changed quite dramatically. Indeed, I've developed some very succinct ways to show what I have to say that are far more precise and definite than I ever had before. Writing through this blog format has rendered my style more acute than I was previously able to communicate.
What I've been doing is compiling the couple of months worth of writing that occurred as the initiation of the misfit shaman, and incorporating that work into a previous project that was my retort to academia. The post entitled The Stone That The Builder Refused was my first draft at a first chapter for the aforementioned project. It has changed quite significantly over the past few year that I've been entertaining the ideas, even though the heart of the matter remains true to the original intent. The posts that follow will be my work on this philosophical treatise that will hopefully adequately contain the scope of my intended communication.
What I've been doing is compiling the couple of months worth of writing that occurred as the initiation of the misfit shaman, and incorporating that work into a previous project that was my retort to academia. The post entitled The Stone That The Builder Refused was my first draft at a first chapter for the aforementioned project. It has changed quite significantly over the past few year that I've been entertaining the ideas, even though the heart of the matter remains true to the original intent. The posts that follow will be my work on this philosophical treatise that will hopefully adequately contain the scope of my intended communication.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)