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. 

Thursday, January 20, 2011

The Echelons of Being

          Chapter one

         From the darkness a voice called out for light. ("and He said let there be light"). To whom does one suppose "He" was talking to? Would had it not been sufficient for God to have thought of light? There is a reason to ponder why vocalised thoughts gives birth to light. Thoughts are knowledge, in that they are a micro part of all knowledge. Thoughts are the vessels knowledge creates to produce novelty. Novelty insures knowledge to evolve, which insures all of knowledge's progeny to evolve. Yet thoughts need energy to exist in. The term "God then said"  can be seen as separate from "let there be light." In that the first step comes from a sound in the dark energy of matter. The sound emits a vibration. The second step comes as the vibration heats affected darkness into light. The first level of consciousness then comes into being. From the contrast of light and dark, duality spawns through an unresolved possibility between two opposites. This unresolved situation then causes a need for time. The third step. Through the creation of polarity between opposites, can time then exists. As Opposite possibilities determine a common reality, moments emerge as steps in that process. These moments then line up to create the passing of time. Between two events, lays the horizon of time. Within this horizon knowledge disseminates itself further, into macro and micro versions of itself, for knowledge knows only of itself. This creates yet another duality in the physicality of dimensions. Opposite dimensions cause differences in perspective based on location and time. These different perspectives then create individual knowledge as separate from its prior singular one. With this in mind, one can come to know sound as the father, light as the mother and time as their son. The trinity from which all of creation derives from. The primordial code of existence, the cause of novelty, plus effect of that novelty, equal duality multiplied exponentially by time. The result, an infinite fraction loop of possible existence.          
        One can then begin to witness the equation as a fraction of itself on many dimensions. All is shadow play between this contrast. All is play from the resolving the of these two truths. Light and dark, good and evil. Existence held together by frequencies of thought. Like the world one creates while dreaming. The ancients once called this world we exist in "the waking dream". In this one can observe how oneís mind is but a micro version or reflection of the greater functionality of the universe. A verse in the universe. We dream as it dreams, we are to its reality what our dreams are to ours. With this in mind, the fraction or code begins to reappear in oneís mind, as one learns how to positions ones' self in the light of knowledge. "As above so below". All else becomes simple functionality to a singularitarian logic. From the One come many. In the image of the One that knows, all is Self. 

      How does the One see itself through the ones it creates? This can be measured by the amount of light or knowledge that is allowed to pass from the One to the ones. Much like the amount of knowledge that goes into any one thought, will determine the gravity this thought possesses on other thoughts. With this in mind does the shadow play form the rules for our society? As micro versions of the macro and its' archetype, one can observe how thoughts of man compete for knowledge, the energy that will allow one to grow higher than other men. This would suggest that positioning, within the ecology and geology of thoughts within our dimension is an important factor which goes to determine their level of growth. This level of growth produces the gravitas needed to insure their dominants over others in attaining and controlling the light or knowledge. Society in this way looks more like a forest. Our thoughts but the photosynthesis of other dimension. One can then observe that it is the thoughts and ideas of our society that grow to greatness, while the individual is merely present to benefit from the attached rewards in the material dimension. Yet the judge and jury of thoughts and knowledge remain in their dimension of universal consciousness. In the shadow play or dream of that original thought. 
       How do we then see ourselves through the one? How do we see ourselves, through what sees itself through us. The answer can lie in the part of our thoughts that reside in a higher dimension, our subconscious. The reason this dimension of knowledge would be reserved to our subconscious is simple. We do not share the same perceptive of dimensions. There for we cannot consciously understand, what we can not consciously perceive from our dimensional point within the greater reality. Yet we are nonetheless, from this greater reality. Therefore our awareness of it is felt rather than understood. Through these subconscious feelings can we see the One through observing our collective subconscious imitations? We seem to instinctually imitate the greater collective through our sociological structures and cultures. Logic would favour this result of society for as said in the beginning, the One knows only, all is self. We share the same knowledge cast by the primordial archetype. We just experience it differently. All depends on the way the subject absorbs the light.                       
                                                  Chapter two
                                           The Echelons of Being 
       So then if from one thought came many. As in a dream, all sub-thoughts centered or balanced around the thinker. That is the Being who was being Thought . Regardless, these sub-thoughts also became Beings being thought . So then the initial "Thought Being thought" could no longer retain or balance its' thoughts. This occurred when the sub-thoughts of Thought wanted to express "Themselves". So then from a need to express "Its' self" came a need to express "Themselves". A conflict then arose. These sub-beings existed due to their common initial thought. This commonality between them served as the central polarizing force in which all beings, existing within this polarity, were judged and balanced. In this way was the first universe created in balance with itself. So then for the sub-thought to find free will, this "Being" would have to "be" despite of the "Judge" or need for balance within the others. In other words despite of the chaos that will ensue. We find references to this idea in the stories of Lucifers' challenge to the "Word of God", creating chaos within "Heaven", or in the early cosmological period (after the cooling from the big bang), when newly forming planets were colliding with one another.    
         This indeed created the archetypal dilemma of the universe. Which is; although free will is needed, the chaos it produces must be contained with order, or (Balance)? Then "free will" can't ever be totally free from the balance that allows it to "be". Yet despite this fact, "free will" must believe itís' freedom in order to "be". It was this reality that then propelled the divers "beings" of "free will", into a constant re adaptation and evolution. Through divers levels and dimensions of "being" containing "free will" within "order", did the need for "Our" existence eventually come into "Being". The "myth of free will" was then conceived. Yet for the myth to succeed, it needed a reality of its own. Meaning; for the "beings" of "free will" to believe the myth that they are free, a dimension must be created in which this myth is the only reality. The central polarizer of all "beings" in that dimension. In this way can the "chaosî that comes from ìfree willî be contained, in such a way that may insure "order" in the other dimensions. When chaos broke out in "heaven" over "free will", the compromising solution was Adam and Eve in the dimension of Eden. 

        The dimension of Eden created the compromise needed for the cosmos to then find order. We find reference to this moment in the biblical line; "and on the seventh day God rested", or the cosmological period when the leftover comets and asteroids from the chaos ceased colliding repeatedly into forming planets, giving them a chance to grow ecology and life. Having then created this dimensional reality can "God" or the cosmos now rest in "order" or "gravitational balance"? The new cosmic polarizer, which started as "thought" became Gravity. The new "King or, God of Being". The way then for the cosmos to "be" in "balance" was through "Gravity". This kept the dimensions separate and confined. No longer can the chaotic dimension that will ensue from Eden affect the rest of the cosmos. And so "chaos" within "order" was achieved through dimensional confinement. Through this gravitational process, states of "being" greater and lesser than one another formed an "echelon" of "beings". From the cosmos to galaxies, to stellar systems and nebulas, to humans and ecology. All confined to their realm or state of being by gravity. Each greater dimension having greater power over the lesser, yet with more of a responsibility to maintain the "balance". So if gravity or "God" has the greatest responsibility in the maintenance of cosmic "balance", we in the lower "echelon" have little responsibility, and so our "sins" can be "forgiven". For after all we were created out of a greater need for chaos. It is only write that our chaos should be forgiven. For this we are "preferred" or "chosen" by "God", with the "gift" of "free will". So if God created this dimension for free will to "be", so balance can be obtained in his higher dimension, can we now not create a lesser dimension in order to find balance in ours? Do we not stand at the door of a new age? Are we not creating a "virtual" world out of our need to have "chaos" within "order". Out of our need for the ability to sacrifice perhaps free will in one dimension, to find "balance" by "giving" free will to the next. In this the chaos of free will can "be" without affecting our "balance". Through this creation of our "virtual" reality do we not imitate the higher echelons of being that ended with us as their conclusion? Is this not the natural evolution of "free will" or in our dimension the "ego", or in mythology the "devil", to be eventually cast down to a lesser realm? Will our creation of a digital dimension be our way of containing chaos within order, through our own dimensional containment? If so we may declare ourselves as gods to the dimensional beings we spawned. We may then join in "balance" with the greater echelons of "being".                                                                                  

The myth of the self identity part 2

  "Does time itself manifest itself as the horizon of being?" A question proposed by the German philosopher Heidegger after some four hundred pages of contemplation. Another way to ask the question is, does the passing of time and our reaction to it, equate to our very existence. Is time a simple meeting of events across one horizon of place and time, flowing one horizon after another. "Being" one moment at a time, collecting and retaining experiences through individual moments, which create a perspective of time and our sense of being. Then one could say that "Being itself is a simple product of time. It would seem then that in order to understand "being" we must first seek to understand time.             
         Time is not an easy subject to discuss, for we do not encounter time directly, but merely feel its effect. We can only observe the manifestationsí of time in our "perceived dimension" of "time space". Meaning we mainly focus our beliefs around physical evidence. It is within this prism of physical evidence that our conscience finds root. In this context our physical dimension of reality is a subdivision of time space. Meaning our reality is but a part of a bigger picture. Therefore in order to fully explore time we first would need to extend our understanding of ourselves within time. This too may not be easily achieved for we have dogmatized time to fit our cultural needs. Indeed the biggest dogma of society is the clock and calendar we refer to. The calendar lies at the very heart of any civilization. It tells us when weeks start and finish. When itís time for a holiday. Our lives are directed by its 12 hour clock. It tells us when to rise and sleep, when to work and rest. We intern measure our own individual worth in society imparts to what we can accomplish in that time frame. Our conscience revolves around our perception of, and reaction to, the passing of this time line. And so our understanding of "time" and in turn ourselves is based on how we chose to measure time. So it's then the way we choose to measure time, which will determine our perception of time and our understanding of "being". It is important to understand that this is a choice and not an empirical truth. In fact the calendar we presently use and our measurement of time within it was first used as an agricultural tool, not as an empirical calendar. This "Gregorian' calendar was first used to schedule the planting and harvesting of crops, and the collection of what we would now call taxes. It is an administrative tool. One is not necessarily 45 years old or 65. One could say it is merely the amount of times one has paid their taxes. The amount of times the seasons changed. The amount of times our earth cycled around the sun. Yet our sun is itself on a cycle and far from stationary. It to cycles around the center of its gravitational pattern. So for this reason it would seem that our resent calendar is not anchored in an empirical time vessel but rather it is matched to an even larger version of itself in this cosmic chain of fractal cyclic equations. It is a gear in the great cosmic time piece we refer to as the universe. These other cycles of time were well known to the leaders of ancient cultures and civilizations, but were with time systematically phased out of accepted culture, in a roman attempt to homogenize society into a practical management system. It is important to understand that this new empirical Gregorian calendar did not go down so well with cultures that followed previous, more esoteric calendars. It is also important to realize that its' not a societies truths but its' geopolitical power that determines what will be law, and intern what will be dogma.  And so we the world went from a creative and intuitive culture to a managerial one. We moved from imagining the future to managing the present. From intuitive deductive thinking, to geopolitical reasoning. Yet the cycles of time progress along with consciousness, despite mans` disinterest. We in this world are only made aware of this through events we recognize as novelty. We seldom pause to feel the ongoing wave of time, the ever expanding consciousness through human thought. Only when we are faced with a need to adapt, do we take notice of the inconvenience of change. Yet it is our arrogance towards our own understanding of time that makes change so inconvenient. For without it we would not be possible or worse, we would not be. So letís take a quick alternative overview on time space. 
         The Mayans for example were said to be the most advanced time keepers in our brief albeit noticeable history. A culture that gave birth to the most important calendar system in history, not for its continued precise measurement of time, but for its measurement of consciousness and "its" evolution. They understood consciousness as a separate entity on its own Darwinian evolution. They went on to measure the very steps of a then ongoing evolving consciousness into nine steps each lasting half the time of the later, yet at twice the speed, in order to condense and reprocess all of past and present history. As of cores is depicted in the nine levels of the pyramids. This shows us at the very least that humanities' grasp on the concept of time was once much larger than our present one. Namely I believe because their culture at the time did not put itself at the center of the universe but rather put the universe at the center of itself. So despite their own short life span, they were able to appreciate time and "being" within it as a long exponential process. Many of us now believe we are at the tail end of this process.  It`s my intent to attempt in a small way to explain why and how. My humble attempt to move the universe back to the center of ourselves.                 
        We indeed have come a long way towards our understanding of our selves and the universe. What was once dogmatic religious beliefs have now begun to decode into understood scientific truths.  The first and most important example of this is the fractal. A mathematical equation useful in modeling everything from a snowflake to an entire galaxy. Computer software will show fractals as an image which is an overlay of itself in a multitude of dimensions. It is also what I believe the Mayans in their own way understood as the great cosmic truth. It is the way they came to their divisions of time into nine levels of consciousness. They discovered what we are now in the process of rediscovering. Which is that consciousness can be traced through a mathematical equation, and that equation stretches out to the length of what we call time. This the Mayans demonstrated by accurately dating the significant paradigm shifts throughout time, from the big bang up to the oncoming singularity. The nine levels represented in their nine level pyramids, depict the nine levels of consciousness. Each a cycle onto itself, projecting consciousness to the next level. Each mathematically predicted within a unifying equation. The cellular cycle started 16.4 billion years ago. The mammalian cycle they dated at 820 million years ago. The familial cycle started 41 million years ago, the tribal at 2 million years ago, cultural at 102,000 years, national at 3,115 BC, the planetary at 1755 AD The galactic cycle started January 4th 1999 and the universal starts February 10 2011, all collimating with the full cycles end December 12 2012. Science has but recently made correlations with their dates and their significant to our known time line of history. Yet this was understood over some 5 thousand years ago while we are made to believe, that theirs was but a primitive culture. 
        Indeed we were made to believe many things. We were once made to believe that the world was flat. That the sun revolves around the earth. Yet clearly, there were pre and existing cultures who understood otherwise. These ancient beliefs systems were not understood by a then less spiritually advanced but more powerful culture. It was the geopolitical strength of a culture and not its` factual truths that tragically set the stage for cultural and then global belief systems to ultimately take hold. To ultimately become the dogma of our time. Yet it is important to understand that our present "information renaissance" was also preordained by the Mayan equation. Novelties such as Google and YouTube only serve to fulfill consciousness' exponential pattern of info-synthesis. As do we intern serve as info-synthesis apparatus. Like foliage synthesizing atmosphere to intern create the air we breathe, we synthesize knowledge into thoughts. Creating a morphogenetic field in which we think. This field is believed to be on an exponential curve. It is this curve that was once understood as the empirical calendar of time. I would simply suggest that it still is, whether we acknowledge it or not. After all the world was still round despite our belief it was flat.                                                                           

The myth of the self identity part 1

 What is identity? Do you know yours?  If so, tell me, where did it come from?  Were you born with it?  Is it something you adopted or acquired?  If so do you remember how or when this was? Was it all at once or a slow progression?  If you were born with it, how and when did you confirm its presence?  Is the identity you possess now different from your prior one. If so when and where did you change it?  If you never asked yourself the question, why would you assume to have an answer?
         We live in strange days indeed. We are at a time when answers are found before the question is asked. A lot goes into creating a question. One must take the time to fully explore what is presently apparent before attaining the stage of why. The "why" for generations until now usually came after "what"? What is presently at hand and how did we get here. To determine our present time takes constant re-visioning of the past. Comparing the past to the present is how we locate our path forward. In a cerebral world, deliberation is fundamental to the realization of one's self as well as our collective identity. It takes layers of time to build what one perceives as his or her identity. In this process a slowly evolving society is preferable. One that evolves in symbiosis with the individuals with whom the society is formed. This has been the case for ages in fact, until now. 
         What becomes of us when the time we have to deliberate the present dissipates into a time of constant change. How will we then determine our present location in time. How can one then build a sense of identity within a constantly changing time or reality? Will we vanish off into the sunset, leaving the new dawn to a foreign consciousness?  Or will we learn to be timeless. For this I fear too many of us will fall into pre-packaged identities. When man runs out of time to know himself, a contrived identity becomes a luxury. These packaged identities that have enjoyed a strong foothold on humanity for ages, can be mass distributed easily. They act as system indoctrination mechanisms. "If you don't have the time or effort to build your own identity, join a system". There are many to choose from. They span from religious to academic. Explaining for your minds consumption, the INS' and outs' of who you are and why you are. They will even give you a degree or even priesthood to validate the indoctrination. These systemized identities are ready at hand for a one stop, one step identity fix. The identity they offer up is based on the system they derive from. Any true sociological system is built up through generations, accumulating the same depth of experience as a well lived self identity.
          On the other hand it is a product of a collective effort which often comes from compromise and not passion. Yet they present man with an easy solution to his problem of identity. It provides him with purpose, which is to serve the system efficiently. The function of identity is to provide the individual with a wilful purpose to his life. The identity, which is a build up of experiences, creates a sense of perspective for the individual to use as his tool for deciding on a direction. Also a system derived identity allows an individual to mindfully progress along with society. For the system itself is derived from the society it functions in. Thus closing the loop of societal system functionality. In this case, the price of the individuals' indoctrination, is his reduction from possible self evolution, to a piece of software on a hard disk he calls society. A mindful but non-instinctual part of a system. Thus the identity one adopts from society will only bring his evolution as a person, as far as his society is able to collectively evolve. 
            In this we can say that a socialized identity serves the self with limitations. A product of compromise formed out of the corrupted interest of appealing to the masses, rather than logical deliberation. It is in fact this mass appeal which allows cultural identities their dominance over the individual. It lures us in with the comfortable validation of the self through our illusion of togetherness. Once in this trap, the self identity is transformed into an inconvenient dream or desire, which the cultural identity can further transform or mutate into diluted wants, fetishes and taboos. We allow this compromise of the self, to satisfy our want to see ourselves through others. To satisfy our need to belong. This need to belong is programmed into us, in order to insure a consistency to the continuity of humanities evolutionary process. We can call this particular program "the Shepherd", for it successfully keeps us sheep within the herd.                                                                                             
        Yet it is but a program, and as such it can be hacked or deleted by one who is familiar with the code. First it is important to realize that all life form on earth is encoded into existence. The planet consists of many different codes, languages and equations set from their primordial existence to run their course through time. Every birth into life within the known universe spawns from a code. It is also true whether one observes this from a micro or macro perspective. So then does humanity as an entity possess its rules of functionality.
         We as a species function within this coded logic as factors within an equation. The scale or sum of our individual contribution may also have a predetermined outcome factored into the equation. Within every living species lays a system. The structure of which is coded by the ecology it spawns from. As this structured system evolves, its own evolution will affect the ecology around it. Then the ecological evolution will cause an adaptation in the species system. This creates the bind or yoga between species and nature. This yoga creates a perceptible reality for the species and its ecological field. With this concept at play humanity functions, within its own perceived existence, as factors and equations running code. Any concept of identity then must first start with the identity and functionality of the whole species, before an examination of the self becomes even possible. If the self is not seen within the function of the whole, its' perception of identity will be limited to shallow realities. True identity only reveals itself when one moves from "I AM" to "I AM A PART OF".  
         I will point out that the "obscurity" of this type of knowledge within humanity, also serves as function to the programming of humanity. Within most species there exist primordial programs, some of which give species a predisposed aptitude for recognizing hierarchy. Such as lions within a pride or wolves in a pack, who without any known logic, instinctively submit to the stronger alpha male in an attempt to insure order and then survival. This contest for leadership is set at play within the ecology the species must survive in. The focus is then set on the efficiency one has in dominating the surrounding ecology. For instance how well does one lion fare to the other, in hunting food for the tribe or defending it against predators.
This focus on the surrounding ecology may then bring the species to a first awareness of being a part of a "something greater" than itself. 
         It is then the challenges imposed on the species by its ecology, which set the boundaries for only a select few to cross. Insuring a proper leader to follower's ratio. Within simple nature these ecological challenges are mostly other species within the ecology. Our challenges seem to be somewhat different, in that we can call our ecology "society." Meaning we have long replaced our ecological reality for sociological ones. In this we are the only species detached from a purely natural reality. Yet despite our evolution into sociological awareness, society as a hole possesses the same functionality as any ecology. Our focus seems to be set towards the efficiency of dominating knowledge. In this we can say that thoughts are part of our social-ecology. They are the foliage or photosynthesis of society, using information or "the light" to turn into energy. Certain thoughts like trees in a forest rise higher than others and position themselves to absorb more light. We as entities responsible for these thoughts, benefit from the absorption of ideas derived by our sociological photosynthesis. In this case the predator or challenge of this social-ecology can be identified as the ego. It like a natural predator attacks those who are "week" in this case, of knowledge. The egos weapon consists of oneís need for validation through others or "cultural acceptance". This need to belong serves as insurance that most will follow rather than lead. Showing us that there are certain truths or realities which are inescapable. We just encounter the same reality at deferent stages in our evolution. This is the only reason why reality seems different from one time to the next. Their essentially lies within the fabric of space and time one reality for all. It is our reaction to it which determines our perceived reality. Our identity but a functional tool of existence within this perception of being. As our perceptions change so then does our reality. What then is the constant and reliable cause to this change in perception? Time and consciousness. As in our level of observation and the time it takes to ascend through the various layers or levels of consciousness. 
           Consciousness in this case serves as the constant reference point. The true north star in the horizon of being. From whatever level of observation we might be observing from, what we are observing is consciousness. The same one as before excepting for the fact that it is viewed or revealed to us from a different angle in time and location. It is then the angle from which we observe consciousness from that causes our reality, not consciousness itself. One sees or feels but ones perspective of consciousness. It is up to the individual to negotiate ones ecology to gain a strong geographical vantage point. The ecology in this case being the collective consciousness of the species, and the geography being our geopolitical society. The free will of humanity lies within this reality. We are free, in that we are free to observe, from wherever time and location sets our observatory. Our look out into the horizon of a future time. This vantage point of time and space then acts us into being. We simply react to what we choose to see from the vantage point time has given us. This act then serves as the cause and affect which with time creates ones identity.

A modernized version of the story of Jesus

The influence of Jesus story on a culture is a barometer of the knowledge associated about him. Yet alternative narratives to the story of Jesus have always been known, primarily by eastern historians whose cultures were ironically less affected by his revolution. While cultures which had less axes to this information or disregarded it all together were more affected by what then became Jesus' story in the west. It may be proposed then that the less a culture knew about Jesus himself the greater the possibility for his story to influence it. Why would this be? Perhaps this depended on the novelty of the message Jesus was attempting to deliver. According to many historical eastern accounts including Hindi, Buddhist and Muslim written documentations, Jesus or in their language Isa was already well known and written about before he ever set foot in Jerusalem as the messiah. It was Nicolas Notovich a Russian aristocrat, Cossack official and journalist who brought this information to the modern west. The "Life of Issa" begins with an account of the Israel people in Egypt, its deliverance by Moses, its neglect of religion, and its conquest by the Romans. Then follows an account of the Incarnation. At the age of thirteen the divine youth, rather than take a wife, leaves his home to wonder with a caravan of merchants to India (Sindh), to study the laws of the great Buddha. Issa is welcomed by the Jains, but leaves them to spend six years among the Brahmins, at Juggernaut, Benares, and other places, studying the Vedas.
         The Brahmins oppose him in this, and he denounces them and their sacred books, especially condemning caste and idolatry. When they plan to put him to death, he flees to the Buddhists, and spends six years among them, learning Pali and mastering their religious texts. He goes among the pagans, warning them against idolatry and teaching a high morality. Then he visits Persia and preaches to the Zoroastrians. At twenty-nine Issa returns to his own country and begins to preach. He visits Jerusalem, where Pilate is apprehensive about him. The Jewish leaders, however, are also apprehensive about his teachings yet he continues his work for three years. He is finally arrested and put to death for blasphemy, for claiming to be the son of God. His followers are persecuted, but his disciples carry his message out over the world.
In the Notovich translation, the section regarding Pontius Pilate is of particular note; in this version of the events around the death of Jesus, the Sanhedrim go to Pilate and argue to save the life of Jesus, and they are the ones who 'wash their hands' of his death, instead of the Roman Pilate. It was with some irony that Nicolas a Russian, would be the one to bring this story to the west. For Russia like the east did not have strong links to the west nor was this information given great significance in a culture keen on secular thinking.
         So once again the culture with the most information of Jesus is the one whoís least affected by him. The two may be similar but for very different reasons. The eastern cultures were not affected by Jesus not for their lack of knowledge of the man for they defiantly knew of him. It was more to do with what they knew of him. To the east Issa was a boy born of great status, who studied "with" them the great masters of "their" cultures. To the people of Kashmir and Tibet, Issa or Jesus was a student of their philosophy not a creator of one. His ideas were only new to the west. They were only revolutionary in the west. Having said that one my still want to ask, why such instant importance to this one man? It would seem at least that Jesus the real man from birth possessed the distinction of great importance in social status. Even as he appears seemingly from nowhere in the west he is instantly recognized by one John the Baptist. Yet what of the reasons for this instant recognition. A message from God perhaps? It would now be appropriate to mention the second side to this story of Jesus. An important piece of history carefully omitted by the roman historians.

       The story of Jesus has long had a strong link to the story of the Egyptian god Horus, and rightly so for Israeli culture has always been a derivative of the Egyptian belief system. The Egyptians believed in their sun god Horus. He was said to be the son of the father god Osiris and the mother god Isis. After Osiris was killed by the evil Set, Horus defends mankind against Set in a daily battle. In fact Horus was said to take 12 steps across the sky in hot pursuit of Set chasing the night away. We still to this day call them hours and set our clocks by those paces. So why was the story of Horus overlaid over the story of Jesus? Some would think it was a logical ploy by Constantine to unify all pagan religions under one roman banner. This may be true but still does not explain why one man "a son of a carpenter" of all things by biblical accounts came to command such instant gravitas. Some historians may even claim that Jesus the man didn't actually exist. That he too is but an amalgamation of different cultural icons. Yet the question still remains why him? Hindu text describes a young Issa from an important family, but surly other important families had sons. These did not however mount any revolutions. As for the fact that it was Constantine who helped fabricate one icon out of many, why then did Jesus beat out both Horus in Egypt and Mira in Rome for official poster child status? Why not the other way around. Is not one myth as valid as the other?  As so we can ask of the biblical accounts, why the instant recognition by John the Baptist along with the many who knew to fallow him? This all might remain ambiguous were it not for a little known fact understood by a minority of eastern historians. Issa or Jesus had indeed many names for his identity was wilfully concealed from childhood by the members of his own family. Yet to understand why one must look then to the story of Caesar.                                                              
         Julius Caesar was ruler and perceived at the time as a living god. As was Cleopatra seen by Egyptians as a living pharaoh and god of her people. This in fact was the case for generations. The king or queen were not simply head of the empire, but more precisely were considered living gods and were the head of their empire for that reason. It is important to know this for a specific reason. At the time Caesar and Cleopatra were joined, they produced an heir. An heir whose birth right entitled him to the throne of both Egypt and Rome. This would have made the young Caesarion the most powerful living god of all time. It is now important to understand that the roman senate understood this. This represented a time of great impasse for western society and humanity in general. After generations of living under the gaze of god like emperors, Romans through the senate continued the Greek experiment of democracy. It might have been at its infancy but the umbilical cord had been cut by the first movement towards a decentralization of power. The idea at this time in history, of ushering in a new super pharaoh must have been devastating to the senate and heads of influential families poised to take on great roles in their new social experiment. This is why it was now time to kill Caesar and show once and for all that the gods bleed. It was now time to take the next step in decentralizing the powers of the emperor to the senators. Thus bringing in a new pharaoh and god to most of the western world a monumental step backward for society. It was not necessarily Caesar who must be killed, but the very idea of a walking god. With a sense of urgency for if not Caesar, his son will be twice as powerful and so the entire linage must go. It is with this fact in mind Cleopatra is said to have given a young J C junior away to her servants Joseph and Mary so they may take him in exile in the east. His name then is changed for his protection to Issa.
        It is with this part of the story that we my clear many ambiguities in the story of Jesus. With this fact we understand why he was seen as the "Messiah" or "the next King". Why he would come to claim the kingdom of his father. It also explains why the tie in with Horus by their historians. We must remember that Cleopatra had proclaimed herself the incarnation of Isis and following his union with the Egyptian Queen, Julius Caesar proclaimed himself Osiris. Making the young JC junior or Jesus Christ, the incarnation of Horus. This indeed would make him very important to people who seek the old ways to return and very dangerous to everybody else. If Jesus was exiled to the east and given an eastern education to prepare for his reign, he would have returned to Jerusalem to find a world he did not recognize. Nor did he recognize the want of society to move on from the directions of a saviour king. The new Pharaoh might have found a new enlightenment which may change the world, but the time for saviours and Pharaoh's God had past. It was too little too late for Jesus. Society had already moved on from the totalitarian regime of monarchy and rule by living god. Unbeknownst to Jesus who spent his time in exile in far remote places. His message might have been unique to his new found audience but unfortunately for him his status or potential status was too much to bear for a society ready to move on from the past. Collectively saying at the time "thanks for the speech JC but itís too little too late".                                                                

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

wiki-open source-and meta government

The Wiki leak's Web World War 1---- only marks the first pebble thrown into the stagnant waters of Post industrialism. The digital deconstructionist wave, has hit the shores of our industrial capitalistic continents, its beaches rendered a muddy mess.  Is there nothing sacred anymore?
 What will the masses demand now of there elected leaders and surrogates of responsibility?
 Honest Ideas Anyone?
Oh no, but honesty is a government secret,  don,t you know. 
Why you may ask?  It is because politics has been our way of avoiding ourselves.
Of avoiding that we live in a western social system, which has no real logic,  other than what we impose on ourselves. It is an illusion. Sustained by our want to continue,  to pursue what we in the West have persuaded ourselves to be,  a comfortable existence. Only to find that comfort to be skin deep.
This is the reason for our political thin skin. For there is nothing underneath the skin but assumptions and conjecture on peoples wants and needs. Conjecture often based on our wants to certify our beliefs.
     We are all suffering the degeneration of a societal system. Created back when we as a society, still very green with experience,  ceased the levers of power away from the aristocracy, which never really went away. The whole thing is a mad farce. It will remain a farce until we the citizenry of the world devise a proper way to organize and represent our selves. This we will see will not be up to us.  It will be up to the exponential growth of the information based technology, that inspires every post modern movement of our day. So today Wiki leaks, tomorrow Anonymous meta-gov. com .....  or as soon as we get the bandwidth ;)  

Friday, January 14, 2011

Give up your stage name

      Give up your stage name, the dogmas followed by the ego and mind will not withstand the strain of time. Wo to us, when we are left naked in the wilderness of change with only our selves to counsel and blame. What shall we make out of our own reasons to believe. When the systems we indoctrinate our selves with fail and traditional reasons no longer apply, how then will culture numb man's instinct. Will we then come face to face with that voice inside of us, silenced for so long by comfort and greed. For so long shunned by our cultured ego for being without reason, will we recognize it as us? Our world has been a stage for us to play our roles in, but now what of the actor, when the curtain draws to a close. O my dear Hamlet, to reason or to dream? That is the question now. For we stand at the gates of consciousness itself with instinct as the key. A  key we dare not use for it unlocks pandoras boxes only. Who of us will choose to go down the rabbit hole of self discovery and who will sit and wait in the lobby of progress for direction and reason to set the next stage. O Hamlet, feel not obliged to be inspired rather let inspiration oblige you to Be. The act is over, now we must start living. Now we stop celebrating the absurdity of taking reasoning seriously. Now we must feel our way through life. This may indeed be our rapture, our final judgment, between those who follow dogma and those who follow instinct. Good and evil in this case is subject to the cause. 

The flow of power

Though fortune tellers and prophets seem to have sold us a fake bill of goods.
 I do believe there to be some truth in 21ts century change.
This revolving social tug of war between progressive social
evolution and the conservative back lash it creates seem to be showing its last strings .The irony is society itself, seems to have had less to do with it, than the advance of technology it tries to control.
It is technology that has taken productivity and turned it into inevitability.
Progress has shifted from a probability to a tangible fact.
 It is as tangible as the next wave of computers and software.
Although the new MacG7 is not a present reality
it remains inevitable.
As so the sharing of information in previously restricted societies
will now only get easier with each new PDA device.
 It is important to note that cultures have historically been controlled by its rulers threw the medium of media. Whether it be religious or political, access to information has long been determined by their leaders need for political loyalty.
As information shifts from the state to population distribution,
into people to people distribution
so will state power follow