Psychedelic Society

"Exploring the far-out spaces of human consciousness is the fastest way to social transformation."

- John C. Lily

If there is any one thing that everybody today could probably agree on, its that we are living on a planet in crisis and something has got to change. Where most would disagree, however, is what steps ought to be taken in order to divert the impending variety of apocalyptic forecasts. What I propose, rather, is that instead of addressing individual symptoms or topical remedies, we assess the ailment at root; the insidious malady being, to my mind, a feeling of disconnection and helplessness when faced with the daunting enterprise of the modern human condition. Yet it need not be so.

The interconnectivity of the universe can indeed be an immediate presence in felt human experience. When people can connect on this fundamental level, the dangers and fears inherent in modernity can be moderated via new reality filters. Although these connections and filters can be learned from experience and integrated into mental life, it is much more likely to occur if taught. Since the technique for paradigm integration that is taught today is one of conformity, complacency, apathetic ideology, and a misplaced idea of normality, the ideals that people are looking up to are generally unattainable and in the long run unsustainable. By teaching a reality filter that includes the opportunity to undermine ingrained mental structures, the less desirable ones are more easily weeded out and replaced. As it seems to me, the most desirable models are those that can include concepts such as the interconnectivity of the universe, and especially the inter-relationship of all life on earth. People too, no matter what denomination.

That's what it will take to have a sustainable cultural enterprise; to relate to others as one experiences oneself, a lofty ideal indeed, but I don't think too far out. Instead of thinking of everyone in terms of their appropriate social category, we can consider ourselves participants in the development and manifestation of the archetypes that all arise from a common source, our experience itself. This is what psychedelic society means, and all societies are psychedelic; defined succinctly, 'mind made manifest', all societies make manifest what is on their mind. The individuals that make up the group can decide on what sort of manifestations they want to bring to the table. We can come together by embracing the diversity and differentiation of each individual with strict compassion, strictly of course, to bring about the better experience for each individual so that they're able to do the same for those that follow.

In a positive society there would be less use for erroneous and superfluous language as the immediacy of interpersonal relationships makes so much of what happens in today's culture totally irrelevant. The limited capacity afforded us by language need not be a constraint to our communication and interaction, insofar as the imperative to action need not be spoken. It's been said, by whom I forget, that the best way to evaluate a society is to check how they treat their most desolate and disenfranchised members. When we're helping it along tacitly by complacently accepting, whether conscious of the fact or not, the society that is manifesting itself around us just doesn't seem up to par with what people had in mind. This is why we need to open the collective unconscious eye, have a good couple blinks, and really pay attention to what the mind of our species is inflicting on the planet and ourselves.

Climate Change

Television doth decree that there is undeniable anthropogenic global warming. Anything else is revisionism, and we all know what that word means, holocaust denial. Challenge the status quo enough and you'll be branded some sort of hate-worthy opponent.

To my mind, the climate change that is happening here on earth is undeniably important. But to say that cars done did it is laughably naive. Just consider other sources of carbon dioxide. A rocket launch is somewhere around 2 000 000 cars driving for a year, a small volcanic eruption is somewhere around 100 000 000 cars driving for a year, and both pale in comparison to the CO2 that enters the atmosphere from water vapour. The most telling data for me is when the graphs that show increase in CO2 as it correlates with increase in temperature, indicate that temperature increases first, and CO2 after, causing the idea of anthropogenic CO2 based global warming a fatal rebuttal.

Let us please reconsider everything that the global warming agenda entails; I think the biggest aspect being a carbon tax that has been in discussion for quite some time now. Basically, it's another way to strip individuals of their well-being, that is, unjust and unnecessary taxation, and make them feel guilty about ruining the planet, which of course is just a deferral of blame from those truly responsible. Granted, it is individuals that make up governments and corporations alike, but once given that status, the organizations themselves become pathological entities wherein the individuals have lost their ability to act as as reasonable human beings. By having committed themselves to representing these artificial monsters I think there is something to say for their having lost a little bit of humanity, or something like that.

Climate change is an important issue, for sure. It's also important that the temperature of most of the other planets in our solar system is increasing as well. Did we make Pluto warmer because we drive our cars too much? Get real...

Legalese

There is a type of language that is written and spoken every day around the world that occurs in many different languages no matter the dialect, only you need a special pass to use it. It is within a narrow margin or general society that this society exists whose members use this type of language and you need to be approved to do so. In order to speak legalese one must pass the bar. In Canada that means to join a society that agrees upon the terms by which everything will be defined. These people are lawyers and they represent the society that presides over all legal matters in the name of the crown. If you have not joined this society you are not entitled to interpret or use the legalese language and must seek out their expertise to adjudicate any issue.

What this all boils down to for me is that we, as regular old citizens, do not even have the capacity to interpret our own legal status in the society we inhabit, and furthermore, that we have to beg a member of another society, dedicated to upholding the statutes deemed legitimate by a crown, in order to be heard at all.

Having been stripped of autonomy and sovereignty at birth and given an inauthentic strawman of a person to identify with, people are flaccidly complacent even in the face of bold-faced liars, thieves, and outright scoundrels that call themselves authorities and governments.

Here's the break-down as I see it right now: first, little Johnny is born and is issued a birth certificate. Second, John enters the workforce with his S.I.N. and lives ho hum day to day. Third, something happens to John that he could never have seen coming, and it can happen in many different ways. Maybe it was a little 'legal' slip up and John broke a rule. Maybe that rule is generally accepted to be breakable, like smoking pot, or maybe it's something more serious and a legitimate, like drinking and driving. In either case, policy enforcers, I mean police officers, will intervene on your behalf with or without your consent. This is because they are of the perspective that everyone is subject to the statute laws that apply to persons, and that flesh and blood human beings are identical to the persons created for poor Johnny when he was born, and that he unknowingly and tacitly agreed to in becoming an employee of the state with his original S.I.N. Ever signed a contract with anyone saying that you owed them a particular amount of money called tax? No? I didn't either.

A New World Order

"Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective - a new world order - can emerge."

- George Herbert Walker Bush, September 11th 1990

Although not the first mention of the NWO by Bush Sr., and certainly not the first of all its iterations, this one resonates on many levels for its symbolic attachment to the later event on the same day. Taken without adequate context this quote can be interpreted in all sorts of ways. Regardless of what the face value of the statement means, when considered in context of the many previous reiterations (great list of quotes straight from the horse's mouth here) from the last hundred or so years, it becomes rather evident that this elusive phenomenon is indeed in operation behind the scenes. Whether beneficent or malevolent is for the individual to decide.

Many researchers and theorists postulate that the objective of the new world order agenda is world government. I agree with them insofar as we already have a fully integrated global control grid and not that we are doomed to suffer it at a particular point in the future. Nation states are now a mere talking point, fabricated identities for people to rally around, boundaries in the collective unconscious. I don't know about you, but I never got a vote at the united nations meetings. Not to say I'd want to, but where's my input? With the North American Union coming down the pipe, many people see it as a unique turning point, which it is to a degree, only that its infrastructure has been in place for quite some time. The incremental adjustments mostly go unnoticed. Many authors on the topic have analogized the situation that is the N.W.O. as a frog in a pot of water being brought up to a boil. The temperature change is slight enough that the frog doesn't notice that it's being cooked. This is our situation.

A Little Ditty

A Little Ditty I wrote during my short European tour in '05, aided in creative inspiration by my older brother.

(sung to the tune of 'These are a Few of My Favourite Things")

Chemtrails and Masons, government organizations,
Tesla, MK-Ultra, ancient civilizations,
Aliens, psychedelics, and structures on Mars,
These are a few of my favourite things.

Secret societies, obelisks and druids,
September 11th and mind control fluids,
Sacred geometry in crop circle rings,
These are a few of my favourite things.

In occult symbolism,
I'm an astute little fella.
Try to pass something by me,
And I'll probably tell ya:
There is evidence that you may have not seen,
These are a few of my favourite things.

What about the attacks on September 11th,
And how they're related to those on July 7th.
Were they terrorist acts or conspiracies,
These are a few of my favourite things.

My Specialty

Even though I have no majestic revelations to bear from deep esoteric research, no special insights into secret agendas at play, no intimate connections with influential elite insiders, or any particular synchro-mystic bend to my gait, I feel my contribution to the development of the species' consciousness is worthwhile. What I've been able to do is amass a plethora of data and perspectives that interconnect in an infinitesimally variegated archive of neural structures. Having this infinite resource at my disposal means I can interpret phenomena from many varieties of perspectives without ever being absolutely committed to any of them. Not to say that I don't take some perspectives to be more relevant, correct, and appropriate than others, but that I'm ready to change when the occasion arises. This is my specialty.

A good example of this has got to be my involvement with researching the ill-fated day of 9/11 and all of what that entails. It wasn't until 2003 that I woke up to the reality of the matter, even though it hadn't sat well in my system beforehand, especially due to the lack of cogent information in the mass media. But after having awakened my dormant mistrust of 'the man', an impetus to truth lit a fire under my ass and I took the red pill, went down the rabbit hole, peeked beyond the veil of ordinary everyday life, and changed my own life. What I found was a distended morass of scientific information, agendas of concealment and revelation, jingoistic disinformation, government lies, first-hand accounts, and conspiracy theories so strange that they postulate holographic UFOs or autonomously operating bands of Arabs able to thwart the entire American military establishment. Through the course of years of committed research I've found untold numbers of perspectives that lay claim to to truth of the matter; more importantly, however, are the perspectives that report their findings as information to be interpreted rather than Truths that require defending. Upon my initial investigation, and remaining so, I'm open to new ideas to explain this event. Judgment is postponed.

Imagine walking into a movie theater with full intentions of enjoying a story, say, a fantasy movie made for children, laden with all the magic, spells, glitter and glamour, and applying a scientific reductionist model to every phenomenon presented. This will not be much fun at all, not to say that children's movies are either, but the overuse of the belief matrix here has prevented the viewer from appreciating the other aspects of the film. Instead of engaging a new idea complex with previously functional models, why not trying raw sensory involvement? I think this is a tangible operation. By postponing judgment I'm open to wonder. The wide-eyed amazement that follows is a perpetual state for me. I'm always wondering...wandering.

Belief

"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."

— H. L. Mencken

I find beliefs one of the most beguiling notions of the time. Too often do fears boil down to an unfounded hope or fear. To me, a belief is an an operational mechanism that can be useful if properly addressed. Rather than taking up the common idea that beliefs are a guide for social coordination, such as relating with people of the same religion or philosophy, consider that ideas and concepts are useful to perform certain tasks, just like a hammer and a nail. By utilizing the appropriate tools in the appropriate context you can hang a picture on the wall or determine the distance to the moon. But when ideas are gathered together outside of the appropriate context without the proper foundation, that is, unfounded hopes and fears, pictures fall off the wall and the moon might as well be made of cheese. Honestly assessing phenomenological experiences with a spirit of healthy skepticism circumvents belief systems.

"Depends on what your definition of 'is,' is."

- William Jefferson Clinton

Working with the ideas of Robert Anton Wilson, there 'is' a pretty easy definition of what 'is' is. He, drawing from the work of Alfred Korzybski, a semanticist of the early 20th century, agreed that the verb 'to be' was one of the ifluential ailments of the modern mind and determined himself to solve this dilemma. Coining the term maybe-logic, R.A.W. gives us a solution to any and all issues we might have when identifying too directly with any mere concept, that is, when we're too strongly committed to a particular yes or no, is or isn't, true or false. The fundamental tenets of maybe-logic dictate that every statement is true in some context, false in another context, meaningless in a third, true and false in a fourth, and neither true or false in a fifth. Take the sun example from my post on intellectual honesty. It is not that anyone was ever wrong or right about anything, only that the contexts change. Scientists who postulated that the sun must be made from an inordinate amount of coal were not wrong about how much energy we receive, that some thermal or combustion mechanism was occurring, or that life ultimately arises by its beneficence, only that they hypothesized a less correct causal mechanism than we have at our disposal today. Don't forget that our theories for explaining the sun are still hypotheses and not irrefutable facts.

"There is no such thing as fact, only interpretation."

- Nietzsche

While the fruits of our imaginations will ever persevere to ripen into stimulating ideas and concepts, they are not the basis of existence but rather its by-product. It is certainly a misnomer to give the convenient contrivances we use as tools an elevated status on par with the inscrutable mysterion called life. A great example R.A.W. cites from Korzybski, is that the territory is not the map. This is meant to dissuade people from identifying the with symbols on a map as the reality at hand rather than the existential terrain of the human condition. The ideas we use to explain reality are not the origin of reality, insofar as those ideas are after-words to what enabled their elaboration in the first place.

My favourite technique for analyzing beliefs is to render them on a spectrum of utility for the task at hand. It is without doubt that concepts like god and evolution are useful in the construction of world-views, for example, but ought not become a covert agenda or a stick for beating people over the head with, as is the tradition of the past. Science and religion have both attained dogmatic status, for the most part, since dissidents in either camp are relegated to the most remote fringes if not exiled altogether. However, in mitigating the forcefulness that a belief might inculcate in certain people, the information that it is based on might be useful for a wider perspective. By calculating beliefs' positions on the spectrum, their impacts are lessened and can be appropriately addressed. The information contained therein will not be hampered by the belief's particular outlook.

Beliefs are necessary, just as intentions, agendas, perspectives and methods are too. This is not to say that the necessity of having beliefs ought occlude the other necessities of life. I can believe as much as I want that there will be a turkey dinner with all the fixin's waiting for me when I come home from work every day, but unless I make a concerted effort by having a clear purpose fully articulated and delineated, no dinner. Beliefs have to be back by intentionality.

Skepticism

Continuing on the idea from my first post, as to the idea that I hold myself responsible for the risk of being wrong...

To risk being wrong puts one in a closer position to being right. If and only if one maintains this tenure can truth come into scope. The strict adherence to a paradigm that considers itself correct leads to stagnation that is unsuitable to maintain healthy systematic integrity. Living systems require healthful input, capable processing, immunological response and filtration, and finally, excretion of non-required material dejecta. So too with ideas...

It is on this note that the idea of skepticism undergoes a semantic schism. It is defined amongst status quo skeptics as an inherent doubt in anything irrational; with irrationality considered a sufficient enough concept to contain anything and everything that has not been explained away already. Ordinary skeptics abide by the ever-so-beneficent scientific guardians of absolute knowledge who have already bequeathed unto us unworthy goyim as much of the fundamental truths that our meager computational brains can handle. Skepticism thus defined becomes adherence to popular scientific opinion. Nothing more nothing less. Let's call this skepticism A.

I, however, am perhaps more skeptical. Seeking to create my own intellectual demarcations, I have to first taste an idea. Chewing it up and getting a good feel of the taste and texture an idea has, I can decide whether it's appropriate for me to ingest. If the idea has a nice flavour, an appropriate toothsome quality, and seems to have nutritive substance to it, then I'll feel good about having eaten that idea. Feeling my existential curiosity temporarily satiated, the idea then passes through my multiple intellectual stomachs that are required for adequate rumination, and eventually my unconscious intestinal tract will extract all the substantive nutritious ideas into my bloodstream and pass the bulk of the matter through my system as waste. Next!

My hungry mind can eat just about anything, so long as it's new, interesting, and will expand my mental frontiers. But that's not to say that everything it eats tastes good, goes down easy, sits well in my stomach, doesn't cause cramping in my guts, or passes through the exit system peacefully. Alas, I have a rugged disposition about me, as well as the capacity to digest even the most vile of concepts without being encumbered by illness or disease of mind. My digestion stays pure as I remain skeptical of everything until I've given it a chance, and everything gets a chance. This is my healthy skepticism, and I call it here, for convenience's sake, skepticism B.

Some pills are hard to swallow, I know, but upon consumption can have drastic effects. Consider, generally, someone who is suspicious of the status quo reality of his or her time and place, whoever, whenever, and wherever they happen to be. If such a skepticism is voiced, that individual has undertaken what has been historically proven to be one of the greatest risks of all. That symbolic act is more often than not met with physical violence. Ordinary people maintain common skepticism by identifying with the status quo and defending it unto the peril death by vanquishing the moral realm of infidels, i.e., to challenge skepticism A, is the highest degree of heresy and one's neighbour will most likely to be the first in line to lynch the offender. This challenge is what is required by a healthy skepticism, that is, skeptical mode B. Thoughtful questions challenge accepted reality, and this is the honest heart of skepticism. Red pill or blue pill? Follow the white rabbit down the rabbit-hole, see how far it goes.

"It is more noble to declare yourself wrong than to maintain you are right, especially when you are right. Only you must be rich enough for it"

- Nietzsche

Intellectual Honesty

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

- Upton Sinclair

The idea of intellectual honesty follows only from a healthy skepticism. Once attached to an idea, whether actively conscious of the matter or under undue subliminal influence, that individual is precluded from entertaining any notions that might endanger the overarching paradigm. Even though the latter is more forgivable than the former, both are choices made by the individual. We all do this every day. We have to. Take, for example, the words sunrise and sunset. Now, I'm not the first to note this linguistic inconsistency, but under auspice of our current cosmological understanding, it is the earth's rotation, in orbit of the sun, that occasions the parabolic movement of our solar body across the sky. The sun neither rises or sets. Alas, dear reader! There is hope yet in intellectual honesty.

I recall a story of how during industrial revolution England, there was a discussion among those cosmologically inclined intellectual types that postulated the various amounts of coal that probably made up the sun so that it could be hot enough to energize the solar system as it so obviously does. We look down on such primitive thinking because our science is so much better, of course; yet I inquire further. Why is it that their best scientists were any worse than ours? They applied the best models at hand and were generally satisfied with the results. After the planet witnessed the tremendous voracity of nuclear technology, the sun became a nuclear phenomenon to those generally satisfied with the models at hand. Sound familiar?

But what if I were to tell about a paradigm that explained the sun a bit better? Ever heard of the electric universe, or maybe the holographic universe? They are different perspectives that have many overlapping ideas, and to my mind, better explanatory power for certain phenomena that lie beyond current 'scientific' thinking. We can detach ourselves from the ideas in our minds, and see them from the bigger picture. As noted earlier, we have to attach ourselves to particular ideas to use in specific operations, but once removed from the required perspective, what sense is there in perpetuating it? Holding on to outdated perspectives is to be a believer. To push the envelope of new ideas is to be an innovator, a creator.

So, maybe and electro-holographic paradigm is not the be all end all of universal cosmology, but that's not the question at hand. As far as Mr. Upton Sinclair so succinctly describes in the short prologue to this post, some people might prefer to keep their jobs in lieu of the potential consequences.

Common skepticism dictates that all ideas must adhere to rigid parameters to merit consideration, which is a valuable contribution in and of itself, but also the limit of it's worth. The limitations inherent in theories ought not be given precedence to direct experience of events that supersede explanation, even by the full utilization of the best explanatory models at hand. At the best, any model that seeks to fully explain anything needs to leave out other things that don't jive with it, and necessarily, leave out all the rest of the mystery of the universe. Models are good, don't get me wrong. All I'm saying is that any and every human model ever will be faced with anomalies eventually. There's just too much to be known for us to know it all.

Intellectual honesty leaves room for the universe to do its own thing, even though it would be doing that regardless. Unfortunately, the hardest part of healthy skepticism is to use the same language used by common skepticism in different ways that will communicate beyond what can be contained in the language itself. Authentic communication necessarily requires the interchanging of people's feelings in order to be recognized as such. Emotionally committed, not blinded, individuals are able to relate to each other better. Plain and simple. Displaced apathetic language and mind-control usurpation of instinctual responses have no worth in the dialogue of dignified human conversation. Argumentative polemics asserting their domination would have no chance for survival in a free and open society.

People emotionally committed to the pursuit of truth will do their work. They'll back up their work with palatable results available for all to behold, to the best of their ability, in spite being excommunicated from ordinary culture and vilified by common skepticism. The results they reach might be confusing to the novice in esoteric thinking, but upon significant investigation and research any individual can expand the scope of their perspectives by just giving in to the mystery of it all for a while and wandering around with open eyes and ears, ready to imbibe the elixirs that life has to offer.

It all comes down to persuasion (to be elaborated further) amongst members of a community (to be elaborated much further) of individuals with common interests (to be elaborated much farther further). When I identify with my peers as a unification of sub-totalities we are able to progress the cause. If the cause be truth we will invariably disagree yet have common terms.

Sovereignty

An issue that has weighed heavily on my conscience is that of sovereignty. Is the individual able to express his or her uniqueness in this world without being subjugated to domination or control?

This question is still open so far as I can tell, even though the predominant human trend is of dominating other humans. Keep in mind that domination comes in many forms, from outright physical control to more subtly inculcated indoctrination. Physical control can even take many forms itself, from plantation style sweat-shop slavery to the unlawful extrication of wealth by taxation of income from labour. The subtleties of indoctrination too have varying degrees of perceptibility, from obvious and flagrant stupidities like the general acceptance of the current state of affairs in the mass media, to the unquestioning perpetuation of cultural mythos that can certainly not be shown to be in the best interest of individuals that must suffer their torments like male and female circumcision both.

When decisions are made for a child before it is able to make its own decisions, will that child ever be free? Of course, many choices parents make on behalf of their children are absolutely necessary, like providing a healthy environment. But decisions like genital mutilation are way beyond anyone's rights to inflict on anyone else. And what to say about selling children into slavery, on the day they're born? Is that even on the same scale? If my point hasn't been made clearly enough, I am comparing the issuing of birth certificates with male and female genital mutilation as somehow equatable on the basis of severely restricting that child's ability to make decisions in life. Jean-Paul Sartre said something to the effect of the only thing in his life he felt he couldn't take back was his having been baptized, but somehow I feel more grateful for not having been circumcised, and more distressed by having been 'birthed' as a 'citizen.'

So what does it mean, then, to exist as a sovereign? It's my contribution that sovereignty is nothing more than the absence of mind control.

Chemtrails

Chemtrails, O Chemtrails,

From whence dost thou cometh?

Sowing seeds of confounded mystery

In the soil, our food, and our minds.

Really, what the fuck?

-me



I remember walking out of the Harriet Irving Library at UNB in Fredericton and seeing 7 or 8 planes in parallel formation flying directly towards me from the north. It was nearly sunset as I'd been studying for a paper I was working on, and I was probably relaxing to smoke a joint. It must have been only a few days before that I had been exposed to the chemtrail meme via the oracular endowments of the internet, (why does every spell checker want to capitalize Internet for me?) namely a documentary called 'Goodbye Blue Sky' (can't find google video link) and the work by Freeman of the Freeman Perspective. What was most interesting about the planes was what they were leaving behind. This was something I'd never noticed before! How could we not see!?

Now this is one of the most vivid memories I have of witnessing chemtrails, mostly because they're visible almost everywhere I've been in the world, on a daily basis, so the sight of them because somewhat commonplace.

to be continued...






Although the chemtrail action of late has been disparate and consolidated to covering the setting sun, it persists nonetheless. I really just wanted to post this picture I rediscovered recently of the heaviest spraying I've ever seen, and this was in Amsterdam circa summer '05.

2012

The ever ubiquitous date arrived at by various forms of calculation has engendered speculation to the nth degree among many clear thinking individuals. If new to the topic, I recommend the following infographic from informationisbeautiful.net as it outlines a balanced look at the issue from two popular angles. From these starting points, any keen seeker can find untold myriads of interesting new perspectives on what the next few years has to offer.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/2012-the-end-of-the-world/

And even though this is far from an exhaustive source, it's nevertheless a solid introduction.

Sustainability

To begin with a rant that continues in the spirit of my previous posts, I'd like to comment on the word sustainability in the broadest sense I can imagine, rather than a buzz word for politico-media types or eco-friendly lefty nonsense. A definition of the word sustainability as it applies to human life on a global scale, i suggest, only be considered in terms of at least millions of years. Save from an external catastrophe, 'humanity' ought be able to remedy its ailments and live long into a common peaceful future; if there really were a clearly definable group called humanity that had sovereign control over their own upcoming destiny, this might perhaps become the case.

As is increasingly apparent by the emerging world order, a neo-fascist style feudalism is the rampant style of governance and control on a global level. From the unlawful income taxes forced on most, the licensing and registration of people as persons (i.e., items of property) and the subsequent statute laws enforced outside of common law, to subliminal mind control of the populace by centralized interests with ties to think tanks, media, secret cabals (i.e., Bilderbergs and others), and governmental organizations, where is the Individual able to pursue sustainability?

Any idea of sustainability needs to take into account the propensity of ordinary individuals to ask things like, "How much will sustainability cost me, my city, my province, my country, etc.," without taking into consideration that the entire global financial system is a fundamental control mechanism that any average citizen has no influence over whatsoever. One of the most essential ingredients for a better world is the abolishment of money. Plain and simple, as complex an issue it is, money as it stands today is a method of control and domination and it has got to go before any coherent idea of social order can be expected to emerge. I call anyone who agrees or disagrees to please let it be known to me.

The trends that have resulted from our social engineering have made individually sustainable lives quite a remote possibility. Private property, the financial system, and international economic interdependence have been, I think, the three most influential factors in the compartmentalization of human life. We allow the system to regulate our lives only by participating in it. Just because the food is in the supermarket doesn't mean there isn't any other food out there. Just because someone says you owe their corporation taxes, even though they can't show you the 'law' that says so, doesn't mean they have any right to do so. Just because a bunch of talking heads on TV say we need oil doesn't mean anything more than a pimp telling a prostitute she needs heroin. We can change things on our own and it involves separating ourselves from the addiction to petty ideas like money. Sustainability starts with personal responsibility, especially to recognize the influences of social engineering.

No need to further digress, as a philosopher named Husserl endowed us with a phenomenological operation called 'bracketing,' whereby we can put aside those previous considerations and move on as though they did not apply. Even though they do apply, the thought experiment of developing a definition of sustainability can continue nonetheless. So, we bracket the money issue and move on.

I think sustainability is best defined as taking responsibility for all the necessary energy inputs for my body, my homestead, and eventually the community. There are infinitesimal variations on how this can be accomplished and suited to meet the human needs of any community. I tend to have a very regionally focused tendency in my ideas, because I think that everything people need, even up to the level of manufactured goods, could reasonably be provided for within the radius of a couple hundred kilometers at most places throughout the world. There is no need for massive manufacturing sectors that enslave children and countries in order to fill bargain stores all over the more 'wealthy' nations. If instead people desired quality goods that aided them in achieving sustainable lives, everything needed could be fabricated within the region. This infrastructure hinges on the region having a population that provides itself with enough food and resources to be able to provide for another industrial sector, to speak in common terms. If everyone takes care of their own energetic inputs, which I think is totally viable if the mental structures are in place first, then there is no dependence on centralized control, and if we want to build a TV factory then so be, a TV factory will be built! And sustainable!


_________________________________________________________


An interesting perspective called: Permatopia, global permaculture.

__________________________________________________________


Subtopics on the issue,

An Incomplete List:

Shelter:
-underground homes
-straw-bale homes
-earthship, impacted earth homes

Permaculture
-permanent agricultural infrastructure
-seed banks
-minimize energy input, maximize energy output

Energy:
-solar
-hydro
-geo-thermal
-wind

Resource Based Economy

Method

"The soft-minded man always fears change. He feels security in the status quo and he has an almost morbid fear of the new. For him, the greatest pain is the pain of a new idea."

- Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior.


Although the words revisionism and revisionist may garner suspicion because of their association with certain unquestionable enterprises such as 9/11, so-called global warming, chemtrails, holocaust, etc., I take revision to be a fundamental tenet of human cognitive ability. Whether or not the revisionist approach is preferable to the popular 'opinion' can only be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and only by manner of intellectual honesty combined with extensive investigative research.

But if further analysis is either thwarted, delayed, or obfuscated in any other way, cognitive function is limited in direct proportion to the limitation of accessible information. The method here utilized is committed to developing structures that include as much information as possible in a coherent and unified perspective. In seeking the broadest base of data available, no datum can be omitted. No matter the source, a consideration to be taken into account at a later time, all information that can be categorically ascertained ought to be correctly organized as best as possible. If any connections need to be reformatted this paradigm not only recognizes new interpretations but whole-heartedly encourages them.

Whether this task is a self-defeating or self-reinforcing principle is up for the interpreter to decide. For me this is intellectual honesty and human integrity, the definition of open-mindedness. Constantly seeking new information to corroborate and refute old ideas is the outlook of a healthy skeptic, willing to evolve consciousness internally and externally.

This is my method: constantly pursue novel developments in my inner and outer experiences to contribute an evolving and conscious perspective to my peers.

Agenda

The agenda at hand follows from the ideas developed after my mind had determined the landscape in question. Basically, I seek to undermine any and all popular and ordinary perspectives by providing wider and more interesting insights and interpretations to phenomena that might seem obtuse to people coming from closed-system perspectives. My strictly-open calculus keeps as many perspectives as possible available at any given moment to lend interpretive power in analysis of the situation at hand.

As far as I can tell, scientific analyses of repeatable phenomena in experimental settings is the best way to determine the validity of a perspective in most cases. In certain circumstances, however, the phenomenon at hand is beyond the scope of interpretive ability afforded by the scientific paradigm utilized. This is not to say that the phenomenon cannot be explained, rather, that sometimes there are better explanations available that are not exactly scientific, (yet?)

The agenda here presented declares that any and all perspectives put forth hitherto do not stand in opposition to anything whatsoever. Truth is a singular and unified whole to be approximated as best as possible, never achieved.

Ideas that might seem opposed to this paradigm are rather ideas that have already been previously integrated, or information that will further reinforce the paradigm that informs the agenda at hand, even if that means knocking out its' foundations. Truth ought never be restricted by perspective.

The agenda here presented declares that it has as its' heart an intention, to go beyond the everyday ways of thinking in order to bring back jewels of data that might act as catalysts in the transformation of human perspectives.

When science is at its' best, scientists approach those sorts of rare gems with curiosity and interest, and usually open minds that are able to perceive beyond the limitations that their current perspectives are offering to interpret the phenomenon at hand.

This is my agenda: to approach the world in a way that stays honest and true to my intentions, never giving in to any mechanisms of control that might unduly influence my healthy skepticism. Based on how I feel and what I think can be backed up by my experience is what I hold on to as right and true. Constantly learning and changing is the name of the game to my agenda.

With curiosity at heart, acuity of eye, and subtlety of ear, do I pledge my mind to this agenda.

Perspective

My outlook is based on a paradigm busting paradigm. Seem paradoxical? It almost is. This is the mental perspective that I require in approaching the world, insofar as, I must necessarily operate under auspice of parameters assigned by whichever paradigm is predominant in my mind, yet, I am whole-heartedly committed to continually update the paradigms I've got here-and-now. My task is to use all the information at my disposal to show different ways of looking at the same thing when there are multiple perspectives on the matter. My method is an 'inter-disciplinary' approach, only to speak euphemistically, with the foundation of my intention; which is to say, I am not committed to anything but my pursuit of further learning.

All perspectives are valid. A perspective is a human way of doing things, looking at the world, a filter, per se, by which the incoming information from the world is interpreted. To further qualify this, as is of course necessary, some perspectives are better than others. Sometimes this can be assessed quantitatively, for example, when faced with new data to interpret, a perspective that includes more developed and integrated information from more sources is preferable to one that does not. By gathering more and more perspectives together, the resulting perspective can test perspectives against each other by means of human experience, and, the more perspectives that are weighed and balanced in that human life, the better off they might be in encountering the condition that is life.

I see those perspectives as the most advantageous when putting together conceptual structures that address common human life, and also in making new neural networks in human individuals. But only when these more advantageous perspectives can be recognized as such, and then themselves be integrated into social and mental life does any benefit from better perspectives actually occur. Better integrated paradigms lead to better human function, insofar as incoming information can be better assessed and further integrated into human life. This is the strictly-open calculus of operational paradigm construction.

Sometimes perspectives need to be assessed qualitatively as well. The best way to point this out is to show the inverse of the open-ended calculus, that is, closed-system paradigms. With all too many examples to offer, it boils down to a perspective that refuses to acknowledge any potentially conflicting datum that might inhibit its' survival as a filter for consciousness. Whether this is inherent in the perspective or the choice of individuals involved I don't know, but it's most likely a combination somewhere along the line. This mode of being feels satiated with its' limited station in life, even when faced with the immeasurably wondrous mystery that is the condition of conscious life. These kinds of perspectives do not qualify as sufficient for me, even though they might for some, which is not my station to judge. I only hold my paradigms as valid inasmuch as others' are as well, even though my tendencies could generally be considered contrarian in nature to begin with.

Any perspective that can be demonstrated to be a closed-system, by its' refusal to admit novel information that can be assessed from within its' own parameters but not integrated, is inadmissible on a level playing field. For example, an easy one, is the general public literacy on the concept generally called UFO, but having within itself as a particular discipline of human learning, many sub-categories with inexhaustible treasure troves of physical evidence, eye-witnesses, official and unofficial documents, pictures, videos, etc. ad infinitum, to say that "I don't believe in aliens," is a manifestly closed-system perspective. I like to use the word ideology, as it shows that, broken down, the idea (ideo) and the word (logos) are sufficiently contained in each other, and no further inquiry need be made.

Although my perspective assesses the predominant paradigms of the day as hopelessly closed-system and doomed to eventual failure, I am living a strictly-open life. When it comes to looking at a phenomenon I can usually refer to several perspectives at a time to analyze what I'm seeing, and thus have many interpretations to choose from when picking my preferred perspective. This open-system paradigm is never satiated with any particular way of looking at life, and continually requires new information to integrate; out of both curiosity and the idea that by widening my ability to make new paradigms I will eventually be able to help others along their own paths of constructing appropriate filters of their own for the reality we all face together.

Together we can come to common perspectives for the betterment of us all. By incorporating a paradigm that necessarily busts all previous and forthcoming paradigms by providing better paradigms to follow, the conditions of life will become more clearly ascertained and configured to tailor everyone's individual needs.

Intentions

Seems as though the beginning of it all would be an appropriate place for me to state my intentions. The ensuing blogzilla will be a recombinant forum for ideas that I've been entertaining over the years that make up my reality. This will be a dynamic and hopefully dialogic enterprise whereby the anomalous and incongruent aspects of everyday life can be brought together in order to form an ever evolving paradigm that dismisses nothing, has no absolutist commitments, and constantly revises itself to transcend the liminal reality that we are told to accept. I'll do this by myself, for myself, as I've been doing, but if I happen to meet positively unique people along the way the better off we all are.

Coming back again to the misfit, I keep my eyes open for things that don't fit in. How can we be coerced into believing in a world that blatantly ignores and rejects a vast spectrum of human experiences that are as real, if not more so, than the models we're told explain it all. With utmost confidence do I declare that every academic discipline is rife with inconsistencies, explanatory gaps, and physical evidence that just has to be ignored in order for their models to work at all. Needless to say that the reality handed down to the masses by this inchoate ivory Babel is facile, immature, and I think immodest of any self-respecting human being.

Coming back again to the shaman, it is a position in a society for one who looks beyond the veils of culture, perhaps even visiting these realms, and returns with insights that would otherwise be unavailable to the ordinary perspective. Note here that ordinary is used in a value-neutral way. As one who lives entirely in the spirit world, as it were, is totally useless to their society, and even in ordinary daily life do extraordinary things happen to seemingly ordinary individuals. The mediator here between the polarities of material and spirit, parts of a unified spectrum, is the shaman. He or she (in many cultures gender neutral, androgynous, or otherwise) acts as symbolic interpreter.

Coming back again to my intention: to play the role of nomad taxonomist, wandering around learning what to call things, a modest interpreter of symbols, especially mis-fitting ones, and sharing my findings with those who are curious enough to find them. My intention is to never stop learning, and now, to start sharing my learnings. So, I extend an invitation to any and all that would like to participate in this enterprise of mine, to contribute their comments and questions alike at any point in this forum.

That this become a communication is its ultimate goal. Maybe by showing my perspective to the world someone will be able to relate. Hopefully, I will be able to communicate enough of my experience to at least one person who retains something I've written as a positive feature in their own edification. This is my call to all geeks, nerds, outsiders, misfits, and really free thinkers. Join me in evolving ideas.

Getting Started

"Truth has never yet clung to the arm of an inflexible man."
- Nietzsche

Well this is my first foray out into the blogosphere as the blogger rather than the blogee; doing the blogging instead of being blogged at. Having only contributed my participation as an observer, so far, I have amassed multifarious research, data, and perspectives on many curious topics without lending my own interpretation to these findings in writing for others to find. Now is my chance to will to life a communication that is open for any and all. This is the chance for me to renew ideas of old in fresh language. Thusly, a feisty and fiery Misfit Shaman arose from the ashes of his previous lives, to bring his unique visionary words out into the world.

"You must be ready to burn yourself in your own flame; how could you become new, if you had not first become ashes?" - Nietzsche

I call this enterprise the Misfit Shaman for a multitude of reasons. I chose Misfit because I never fit in to any particular popular category of person, and everything I'm interested in could be similarly considered as mis-fitting into any and all popular categories. Sometimes ideas are no longer appropriate and need to be cast aside, thrown to the fire to be consumed.

I chose Shaman because it is a word that our (western) culture has lost, save for academic and flaky new-age nonsense, but still retains the potency of times long forgotten when every culture around the world had a specific and special role for those misfit to ordinary, or popular, cultural activity. These people were always ready to walk through to fire, into worlds beyond the ordinary, by consuming their inner flames through transubstantiation and bring insights back from that which lies outside the limitations of material life.

The name is more so a stylized reinterpretation of a psychedelic vision I had, in which the name geek shaman seemed appropriate in describing my thought patterns at the time.

From that psychedelic perspective I wrote:

'This scrap of meat and soul demands to be given a higher word.'

An inspiring tidbit to anyone else or not, I became motivated to get something done, anything, so long as I was evolving. Cryptic and of little apparent sense, I take this to mean that I require ever changing language to describe my experience, and also that it requires some form of communication outside my own use. The demand seems more like an affirmation of intent rather than a physical command. I seek more in life than what is available by conventional means, and need the appropriate language to communicate my perspective.

Please don't take any of this blog to mean that I feel inclined to considering myself as apart or higher in some way to my peers; but that as far as the status quo can be stretched, it will never satisfy my insatiable curiosity for novelty and further precision, nor will it ever be able to extinguish my passion for having been extended the opportunity to temporarily wear a skin bag meat puppet and experience the incredibly wonderful world we live in and the awesome sensation of being here-and-now.

Here is my opportunity to risk being wrong. If my ideas stay entirely with me, I might as well think I'm right all the time. But that's not where the passion lives; it's in my capability to tell the most articulate story I have available about how the world works, and here is where it will happen. I venture from one experience to another learning stories to tell about what I find, and the purpose here is to tell my story so that it can evolve and develop even better.

What are we ever if not story tellers. Everyone walks around congratulating each other that they all have a similar enough story to tell that minimal representation of neurological states can be related by 'small human mouth noises undulating sound waves though the medium of air to be recognized as significant by another nervous system as reverberations calculated in a tiny bone fragment stimulated to action a human ear,' or something of the sort to paraphrase Terrence McKenna, as no one so masterfully describes a seemingly simple act of speech so gracefully precisely as he.

My story follows....