Friday, October 14, 2011

The Democracy Illusion - note to protesters and revolutionists

     Is the past really behind us? Was the French revolution a success or an illusion? It has been said and believed that our modern civilization (democracy), comes from the common peoples revolution against their aristocratic oppressors. By the will of the common man to be free. Yet what if the Castle and kings still stand, but in new clothing and formation? Or what if we have misunderstood the very meaning of freedom? Did not the kings and emperors of old all observe and impose upon themselves, a common set of, or concept of, universal law. Laws that dictated how the king himself should rule and how his subjects should behave. These laws were most certainly not seen as whimsical adaptations of the wants of an elite ruler. For any ruler worth his crown would be wise to bend his wants towards these very elemental and universal of laws.  
     We as a race of people were never simply ruled by other people. For there was no law imposed on us , that we did not already impose on our selves in an unofficial manner. We imposed upon ourselves the belief or faith in a divine law. We then were ruled by the people who ruled themselves by this divine elemental law. The ones that by their nature and upbringing, embodied the divine law. We were by de facto willing followers of those whom we collectively judged had a keen perspective on the law of the stars, nature and society. Those who in the service of there people, past from a young age through divers steps of attrition in order to acquire the skills and knowledge needed to lead their people. Shaman's and then later Priests, Kings, politicians, managers, skilled workers and teachers, schooled by institutions of apprenticeship reserved for those who were by birth right, set to observe and rule by the understanding of this divine law.
     Now those of today who have found some truth through this muddle we now call modern time, and with this truth developed a way to rule themselves, know this all too well. For these are the ones who now often feel are left holding the proverbial bag of society. The ones who find themselves today often dogged by the inadequacies of the world. The ones finding themselves with king like responsibilities without the empire to back them up. People can not move as a group without leadership. But what have we done to the benefits or respect attached to assuming such responsibilities on our behalf? If only we had stopped at Mary Antoinette's' head. We may have cut the hand that held the levees of power, but what of its responsibilities? In our zeal to decentralize the powers from our then (oppressors) this democratic experiment has gone on to systematically cut the head of any semblance of real authority. We made ourselves so afraid of the tyranny of the elite, but what of the tyranny of the masses.
    We in our previous societal incarnations use to respect authority. We use to be able to accept the notion that the (authoritarian) was but a messenger of a greater divine or universal authority. Now I realize that in far too many cases absolute  power over others becomes a addictive elixir which compromises ones ability to perceive the divine. This would be the failing of most humans, yet the laws can not be compromised. For at the end nothing will come from corruption but degradation and chaos. Empires fell not because of flaws in the systems or law, but rather the flaws of man and his inability to observe the law. It is the King's failure to live by the laws he is to enforce that doom an empire. Much like it is now our failure to observe the most common laws of decency, that's dooming our economies and various ways of living. Now the concept of law is not foreign to the devout, ethereal thinker or scientist. All faith based beliefs of any kind must come from an acceptance that such divine or universal laws exist. In fact for the most part these beliefs of faith often stem out of a need to justify in a tangible way, laws that seem to be governing from an intangible place.
    Laws for the most part are generally accepted as a series of established president. The universality of  laws come from the observation of established patterns in the fabric of the reality around us. The zodiac is a perfect and most ancient of examples. We first created laws on earth by imitating the laws we perceived were already in existence at the creation of the universe. Our Kings and Pharaohs we deemed as earthly representations of the Gods we imagined held the balance of the universe in place. Our earliest of systems were nothing less than an attempt to imitate the Heavens. A place it seemed to us then where balance trumps over chaos by the unflinching following of the law. For were there not to exist this law, Mars or Venus would have no reason to follow there orbit. For if the stars can be predictable, there must be a law to govern them. So then if this law governs the stars, it must also be governing us. With this thought, did man attain his first glimpse at enlightenment. The thought, that law is not an imposing restrictive tool to keep the population in line with the demand of a hierarchy, but rather the universal or divine way to exploit the resources of the human condition. It is a way to collectively rise despite our individual short comings. The discovery or acceptance of a divine law, served to remedy the most important burden on the human condition. The burden of free will.
   Now we, in our modern westernized imagined selves, have come to consider free will as a birth right of sorts. We no longer perceive this free will as a burden. Rather it as been metamorphosed into a post modern romantic dream of self fulfillment through free choice. In so we presently stand in the global belief that the more choices people will have the better it will be for all. A very modern belief that seems to stand against thousands of years of societal progress and evolution. This may appear at first quite contradictory. On the other hand, this problem was predicted by Nietzsche in his construction of the superman. It was through Zarathustra that Nietzsche asked the people in the village, what will they do now that God is Dead? Who are they to replace him. This I found to be a profound vision of the future of the human condition of which we now live. In fact it is a vision of man that is as old as creation. Adam was but the first, warned to stay away from the apple and avoid the burden of knowledge, of which he was in no position to digest. Adam also shows mans' inability to face the responsibilities of such knowledge by blaming Eve for the whole situation. Eve is in this case the archetype of the perfect  surrogate. She is both the giver of knowledge and exonerate of the burden. If any wrong comes of this new information, it will be by her hand. Adam ( Man ) becomes her son, protected by his mother figure from the reality of life. Now he can find freedom, through the absence of any responsibility tied to the chaos his freedom will cause. To this day we can still  find the amorality often associated with the acquisition of power and wealth exonerated with the veneration of Venus. A popular archetype in Freemasonry and occult traditions.
    Free will was not something Adam asked for. Rather it was thrust upon him through Eves' trickery. In this way Adam can benefit from his free will and be forgiven for his chaotic transgressions. He is a victim of higher powers at play. This is the source of Lucifer's supposed contempt toward mankind. They are the direct benefactors of actions precipitated by Lucifer, and yet he is to be dammed for it. Adam may be free, but he now stands naked and overwhelmed in a world his limited knowledge of self cannot appreciate. It is no wonder that the father archetype (God), later decides to forgive mans' sins. What man needs from the beginning it seems is exoneration from his responsibility. It is in this way that man needs Lucifer, much like he later needed kings. They both serve as the higher authority needed to exonerate man from his inadequacies, by suffering the blame for them. This is how man then turns the burden of free will into a gift we call freedom. We through our modern ways have come to forget these truths. Through our on going revolt against law and authority , we are fast running out of authoritarians, demons and scapegoats, Finding ourselves with less freedom than we had. Maybe it was the freedom to remain blind to our reality that we now feel is slipping. Now that the Monarchy is dead we face none but ourselves, so what shall the villagers do indeed now that they have killed God?  We once were free from facing our own actions, but our quest for freedom is slowly turning our gift of free will back into the burden of responsibility we still think we were exonerated from. It was said to Lucifer that his rein would be for a set amount of time. For man will no longer be able to blame Lucifer once man in his turn abandons God. This may be the inheritance we all must face. The reassuming of our social responsibilities. We are left shifting from a collective coming of age to an individual coming of age. What was an ensemble of peoples, washing their hands of the actions taken by the greater collective are now left with hands stained by individual freedom. 
    We may indeed have more individual freedom than ever in recorded history dew to advances in technology but what do we know of the individual we feel we are freeing? Are we fully self aware of ourselves and responsibilities or are we still searching for exoneration. If so, what chaos will come from taking a bite from this new apple. Did Adam not teach us all a valuable lesson?  We in the mist of a new global awareness through the Internet and social media, are finding ourselves attempting to BRING DOWN BIG GOVERNMENT, BRING DOWN BIG BANKS and BRING DOWN the ESTABLISHMENT. All very nice punk rock slogans yet with what are we hoping to replace these with, and do we honestly think any transition will be smooth? Lets ask the Romans, or the french republican revolutionaries, the Zapatistas or Eve her self. Maybe we should ask ourselves if we are made for the kind of social structure we collectively claim we want. Remembering that often in life, what one wants is not always compatible with ones needs, or in this case ones sense of collective freedom may not coincide with ones individualized needs. I feel some may be just "fronting", frustrated by their lack of individual power and freedom but unaware of the responsibilities and limiting freedom tied to power itself . This is the dangerous game we play. A game that may lead us to the conclusion that a Pharaoh may  indeed be required. We may one day come to miss the ones we hated, ironically for the same reasons we hated them, for they were the ones who told us what to do and bore the burden of our responsibility for the collective chaos we produce. All Hail the Exonerate. The one who will bear our sins. Which one of us will be willing now to wear this crown? Are there any takers left or are we finally voiding ourselves of any willing and able leadership. Voiding ourselves of any moral reason to want to assume such a position in this new hyper society. Voiding the world of any remaining respect for authority. If that's the case, then I sure hope that apple was tasty! Cheers.        

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Canadian PM spills some truth about Iraq

I have always admired this man.
 Jean Chretien ex- Prime Minister of Canada explains in a new interview
10 years after the fact, why he thinks the US and Britain went to war. 

Friday, April 22, 2011

Saturday, February 5, 2011

Facebook- The New House of Commons

    In the time I right this blog, millions of people will have debated, discussed, and deliberated their personal views on everything from home gardening to the state of the nation. We, through the advancement of technology have become an ongoing exponential consensus building commission. Further more, this new way of online communication by the masses is also the new common form of entertainment. Making its on going popularity a done deal. We must now begin to realize the way this will change the definition of  a leader. We in the industrial system of democracy have established the masses as the check and balance of decisions made by the elected few. This I believe will soon be turn on its head. As we can witness in the present postmodern islamic awakening. The media and world establish system franticly vetting posable figure heads and leader of said movement are missing the point entirely. The need for a leader of such a movement is vastly diminished by the very way the movement exists. All discussions and referendums are done in advance of any cultural show of force. This takes place organically in a competition of anonymous ideas rather than personalities. It is the natural removal of this need for a personality to represent common ideas that makes this revolution so decisive and viral. For it is next to impossible to control a movement that can be headless and organized. In any case, who needs a leader when the conversations and agreements take place before any push for change happens. The most important blog I have come across during the Egyptian crisis came in response to the argument that the movement should have come with a central leader. The blogger states" We have no need for a leader, We already know what we want."

    This is indeed a paradigm shift. In this paradigm the eventual figure head becomes the check and balance of the popular consensus. A final filter to ensure continuity in the public discussion. The political web host pare excellence. One can only imagine the rate of the falling sky, in the technocratic and diplomatic world. After all they are still trying to wrap there heads around Wikileaks !!! Only to find that there services as decision brokers and makers will no longer be needed. There jobs will be henceforth open sourced.                

Friday, January 21, 2011

Fashionable Morality

        Morality is ambiguous. Much like the air we breathe in that it is that part of culture we unconsciously take in on a constant basis. It is the prism in which we create the synapses of our understanding of society and our selves. Indeed much is said about morality. Most discussions traditionally revolve around debating certain sets of absolutes. The belief in an absolute reality often stems from the ego's push to finalize its reality. To come to a full understanding of its life before its full decay back into nothingness. 
        What we then see as absolute is more of an absolute perception of our present structural system, of our impending reality, rather than any timeless truth. Truth which is often equated with morality can never be entirely structured. For the time alone it would take to decipher the truth, the truth has time to change. And so the only absolute moral truth lies strictly in the present. We can only absolutely know what we know, in the moment we know it. The time one takes to reflect on that moment is all the time the truth needs to change itself to another truth. Sometimes the shear act of reflection will change the truth one is reflecting upon. And so finding absolute truth can be absolutely unforgiving, attesting to following an absolute truth is madness.
        It is with this false belief in an absolute truth that a society too often constructs its structural foundations, which it then uses to erect its operating systems which we call morality. We then fashion ourselves, to conform to our perception of this social structure. In the egos' attempt for validation one reduces one's self to managing his problems within this superficial system instead of searching for enlightenment beyond the accepted morality or system. For the ego, any departure from the accepted truth will never fulfill its need for validation through others. It is this need for validation which imprisons all of us within our ego led mind. It is ego that compels us to be in fashion with the times. To be in fashion is to create ones identity within the parameters of cultural acceptance, to be fashionably modern is simply being one who conforms to a predicted new acceptance. Though one needs to be considerably self aware to be perceived as modern, it remains a validation one receives "from" Culture as opposed to a validation of any self awareness. Once again it is this validation through others which the ego seeks to achieve through morality. Fashion is merely a modern twist on the concept. One who may once have been considered of high moral fibre is now said to be in fashion as in "He knows what's up". In this sense being moral or fashionable are one and the same, depending on your accepted culture. They are both ways of attempting to find yourself outwardly rather than inwardly. The reason for this is simple. There is no fulfillment for the ego when an answer to a challenge is found from within, for it cannot be so easily shared or explained. This kind of solution often compels one to act regardless of cultural views and often alone. Without a social acknowledgment the ego is often paralyzed which our mind reads as fear.   
         Morality comes often as the progeny of fear and superstition. The second being a reaction to the first, It is the way we give reason to our current behaviour at any given time. Our place in time there for serves as both cause and effect of our determination of what is moral. It is important to understand that morality is far from empirical. It is closer to a momentary thought in the many thoughts of human consciousness. It is fashionable information used to facilitate the synthesizing of cultural currents. We there for do not move along with morality as much as morality moves along with us. It is a plastic manifestation of our perceived unflinching beliefs in an absolute reality. Yet our belief in reality is also plastic. It is as flexible as the new set of cultural norms lurching over our next horizon in time.
        Time then presents itself as an unstoppable tied of our universal expansion into consciousness. Like a flow of understanding, constant in its division of possibilities. It is these divisions of our known possibilities that make an inflexible society inevitably obsolete or extinct. They say that a society that cannot imagine its future will not have one. One sure thing with morality is that it serves the need of society, by fashioning those needs in a common direction. Yet the initial needs of society already show signs of change by the time said common direction is conveyed across the majority, which in turn constantly seek out the new modern fringe coveted as the next wave. It is this act of unknowingly flowing towards change which intern condemns all traditional culture to evolution or extinction. F W de Klerk was once the president of his nation. Nelson Mandela was once a prison inmate. One was dedicated to managing his present reality while the other was dedicated to the possibilities he imagined for the future. In retrospect the president never stood a chance against the inmate.                                    

Subject to cause

 What is subject to the cause we call existence? Does the information we relate to it give us a direct reason for our existence, or an indirect one? If one is affected indirectly by the cause of existence, is their then not a secondary subject affecting our existence directly. If so what of that subject. How then do we decide and form our perimeters to formulate the questions or equations that lead to the subject. That then leads us to the possibility of deconstructing said subject, for the discovery of new information. If this is not made clear, then all information stemming from a misunderstanding or misrepresentation subject carries that misinformation within its evolution. The evolution of any such subject then carries with it a probable chance of turning into dogma. Yet this is the kind of information we carry with us as knowledge. There for this is why our knowledge in general is dogmatic.  
         One must understand that to realize one follows dogma is to just as suddenly fall out of dogma. It is self awareness that determines one's own susceptibility to dogmatic thinking. A self-aware individual stands a better chance at realizing the relation between subject and cause. Why you may ask? The answer lies in the ability to ask one's own questions as oppose to adopting a set of belief system that wasn't ours. So if they were not ours to begin with, were did they come from? The answer would be collective thinking. Collective thinking arises where the individual egos need for validation met with the need for social acceptance. It appears like magic, whenever the search for a subject gets substituted with the confirmation of a subject. It appears whenever there is a lack of need for clarity or when a simple validation of purpose is sufficient.  A subject is often reflected as a purpose. The individual needs this purpose to validate one's own place in time. One's own sense of place and time determines ones sense of being. Therefore to progress with purpose which was given by others leads to being in dogma. The "in" dogma is simply a reflection of the prism one submits ones sense of being too.
         We either create our own reality or submit to one already created. Our ego does not allow one to be in a vacuum of reality. It is either one or the other. A good way to check or measure this is through the relation between creation and consumption. I would propose that the need for creativity is more present in the individual who can find one's own subject, and the need for consumption is present in the individual who has adopted a pre-packaged or manufactured subject or purpose. They both serve the same purpose to the ego but in very different ways. The ego only seeks validation of progress. It seldom knows the difference between substantial or superficial progress. Meaning that one's ego receives just as much validation from the purchasing new material than it does from creating it. This is why consumerism in modern society is so prevalent.