Wednesday, May 31, 2006

gotta wonder

Who exactly built the altar of academia & determined that it should be perceived as the ONE right way of knowing?
and why do those that are fighting the system think that by being educated by the system that they are coming to know truth?

The time has come to move beyond the illusion.
drop your programming & get on with it.

if your mind shuts off or starts to immediately argue at the simple mention of a word or phrase, if you are already preparing your answer instead of listening, you are moving way from truth.
you are still anchored in the world of self-righteousness...
that is, your ego wanting to protect & prove itself correct for fear of being wrong, for fear of failure.
In order to be a true problem solver, or scientist for that matter, one must completely drop the notion of failure.
Matter of fact one must completely drop MIND itself. That is the ONLY way to be objective – if mind is not involved at all because mind is always asserting a perceptual preference.

The only way to discover what works & what supports mutual unfolding of potentiality is to put ideas into action & observe what unfolds WITH AWARENESS and a critical mind (but remember that you are the master of your mind not vice-versa), remembering that the majority of the tools which you are utilizing through your mind are borrowed, programmed, and do not belong to your own experiential knowing.
Only if we are willing to look at all aspects equally, without prejudging can we find truth.
This is what is supposedly meant by being “objective”, yet a good part of the scientific community still speaks in an extremely subjective manner when discussing itself & it’s theories & ideas.
While this kind of language may make for more enjoyable reading, it has NO PLACE in objective science and is nothing more than a marketing ploy used in order to feed the egos, research grants, and machinations of individuals who are more invested in “being right” or feeding their egos through recognition and leaving a legacy rather than being interested in truth.
It is their investment in a particular preference of reality perception that colors their language and leads them astray of nondeceptive language and presentation.

brief interjection here...if something cannot be experimentally verified, such as the majority of historical sciences like anthropology & archeology, shoudl they really be called sciences or should we be creating a new subset of knowledge which contains these and recognizes that they are an amalgam of art & science? are they not based mostly on extrapolation an the application of imagination in order to attempt to come up with some sort of story of what has happened before? how is this science exactly?

We cannot continue to pretend to live in a strictly Cartesian/Aristotelian reality when we are already nearly a century past the introduction of the ideas of quantum mechanics.
It is too limiting. It is time for the jump into the world of systems dynamics/systems theory.

A true problem solver or "designer" cannot and never should be political.
Idiology gets in the way. It comes further along in the process, in the filtering out part, not in the conception.
Even Bucky Fuller says that the key to his ingenuity is absolute selflessness.
Everything he ever attempted to do for his own or his family’s benefit ended in disaster. It was only when he decided that the only motivation should be for the greatest good and the survivability of the most that he became fruitful.

We always need to remember though, being a cheerleader for new alternative solutions without being critical of them is more dangerous than not implementing the solutions at all.
One must recognize first & foremost the fact that every single problem which humans set out to fix is a human created problem to begin with.
Agrarian culture is not only not evolutionarily viable in the long run, it is EXTREMELY inefficient and takes many many more calories exerted to obtain calories than we had to expend with hunting/gathering.

The first act of creating slavery occurred when the first person locked up the food & decided that they had the right to determine each individuals abstract worth and how much they deserved to have to eat.
I would actually contend that this was the single most violent act in the entire history of human existence, as it has lead to all of the slavery & toil which followed.
Think about it…if you can provide your own food & shelter, who can control you?

Instead of taking sides in the debate whether humans can & should change or our technologies should change, i see it as a both/and situation.
Fuller always contended that it was wrong to attempt to change the behavior of people. That it just does not work.
True to an extent, it cannot be relied upon or forced.
Anyone who has been in a relationship knows this. You simply cannot expect people to change unless they are ready willing & able. It only occurs within the individual’s own timeframe of personal development and cannot be forced. Matter of fact, to force it will only cause dis-ease and violence of some sort or another.
That is psychological warfare and a (not so) subtle form of intellectual fascism.
It could be said that this is the goal of the supposed ‘Illuminati’ ,which I really wish people would refuse to refer to as such because they are very obviously not filled with light, rather, they are vampires feeding at th trough of human suffering which they create & manipulate on a global level, but that is a discussion for another time.
I’ll just say that there is a lot of resemblance between the writings of Fuller and the types of ideas & technologies which the “globalists” are attempting to utilize in order to assert total control.
(note- is does not necessarily follow that the assertion of total control is founded in a negative attitude. It could very well be that these beings actually believe that total human control of the entire environment is a positive thing. This does not mean it is, ask any discordian…)
matter of fact, those that are so against RFID, microchipping & the like should most definitely read Fuller’s book “Critical Path” as it is one of the birthplaces of the workable idea of total resource tracking.
One could even argue that the very emergence of this paradigm of total control is birthed from humanity’s inability or unwillingness to create a balanced relationship with existence.
The only reason for resources to be controlled is due to irresponsible use.
Believe it or not, this most definitely includes HORDING, which is nothing more thatn keeping things for yourself so that others may not utilize them. It is a fear based idea that only exists as a byproduct of the previously mentioned locking up of the food.
It is an attitude meant to pit neighbors against one another & dissolve communities.
According to people like Fuller, as of the mid-seventies, we reached a point where the efficiency of our technologies reached a level which negates the Malthusian myth of scarcity.
We are reaching a level of doing more with less that will propel us into a different relationship with technologies.
And it is the bullshit rhetoric & idea of nation-states which causes the situation in which different cultures are forced to go through their own industrial revolution, further damaging the balance of the ecosystems & destroying naturally occurring systems & replacing them with gardens (a garden being ANY space which is human defined/ refined).
If we openly shared technological innovation globally, there would be no need for this whatsoever!
But due to EGO, do the need for POWER, there are certain factions of humans which continue to base their relationship with existence on old paradigms which need to die.
It is not going to be an easy transition because it takes all involved to participate & it is going to a lot of work and probably a lot of suffering too.

There is going to be….HAS to be…some level of globalization if we are going to maintain any of the things we’ve currently built as civilization. To throw the baby out with the bathwater is extremely shortsighted. Why have we gone through all of this? Simply to dismiss it all? To kill the tree without picking the fruit?
We can have a both/and situation here. The individual personalities of people & populations need not be dissolved.
I have to say though, it seems to me that immigrants should have more of a right & desire to stand up & be nationalistic, as they are the ONLY ones who have actually chosen to live in that nation.
If one is born into a nation, there is not choice, you are programmed from birth with that nations identity, there is NO choice involved!
So what kind of reason is there to rejoice at all?
You are really rejoicing in you slavery!
In your mind control! In what others tell you you are supposed to be!
In this way, any patriot shows themselves to be nothing but a sham.
The same can be said for religion.
If your relationship with the divine has not blossomed out of your own experience & exploration, how real is it?
People put more effort into deciding what kind of car to buy!

When it some to changing the internal, i tend to agree with "zen" masters like Osho in saying that any surface changes are nothing more than that and cannot be trusted or made permanent.
They are only masks & are superficial, more an investment in deceiving the self & others & creating a “personality” which is recognized as being “good” or “holy”.
The only real change that happens is at the center of one's being and all external changes, if they are authentic instead of pretended, flow forth from the internal changes.
The occur naturally and do not have to be forced or decided on any level when the internal is transformed. It simply becomes the natural way which one manifests.
Repression of aspects of self simply turn into unconscious expressions and perceptional shifts that tend to be unhealthy and entropic in nature.

i personally think that to dismiss either view (changing internal vs. changing the external) is wrong.
both possibilities exist simultaneously and are complimentary.
the idea is to create an environment which is symbiotic, self renewing, and supports the unfolding of creative potentiality, both human and non-human.
and this is where i start to differ with Fuller.
his mind seems to be the product of the early industrial age, mostly pre-quantum and aristotelian in nature. it still sees the world in terms of mechanisms, although it makes the leap to complete interconnection and a cosmic mindset.
it is a great platform to lauch from, but it still remains a product of "old thinking".
it has reached the cosmic on one level, yet it remains rather humanistic on another. very understandable, as we have been programmed with “species survival” (whether or not this is an abstracted idea or a result of nature can be debated at some other time)

This is also the point at which I would aspouse the virtues of animism and monism.
Both of these “spiritual” or belief paradigms lead to a relationship of CONNECTION to ALL THAT IS which is expressed in a sacred manner.
Every other belief system tends to head immediately towards profaning the human relationship to cosmos and to material existence.
And if quantum theory is correct, then the way in which we perceive reality, the beliefs we choose, the way we view the world, is directly responsible for the way reality manifests.
It is the belief in something that makes it so, not vice-versa.
And no matter what ANYONE tells you, nothing that humans know exists outside of human perception, as all thoughts & ideas that exist are products of humans, and this includes all of the technologies and languages of science, religion, philosophy, etc.
They are all creations of human belief systems.
And truth be told, according to the supposed methodologies of science, nothing science says can be proved true other than as a localized human perception phenomenon UNLESS the experiments and observations are made by some other manifestation of being other than humans.

Now that I’ve probably ticked off a few & made a few more laugh, I’ll leave you with one final though…

When the hell are humans going to accept the idea that if dophins have brains that are 40% bigger than ours , have a region which we have not even developed, and have a sound vocabulary thousands of times larger than humans, that humans are more than likely not the most advanced form of intelligence on this planet?
It seems to me that the dependence on external tools for survival as a measure of evolution is backwards.
We reward our inefficiency & need to distrust existence.

Somehow, I feel like civilization got it all backwards…..

No comments:

Post a Comment