Meaning Driven Resistance: Part 1

Divine creatures

We are

Arisen from an ineffable

And the Word was won

To express the inexpressible

Though we have forgotten

The first of these

And thus, in its place

We have created the most violent

And terrible idol-the only one that exists-

Which we imbue with the power

To subjugate that which was

To be free

Meaning Drive

(Excerpted from a longer essay)

We have to work toward 0 in many cases, with our resistance. This is a complicated thing to recognize because in many cases the skills we have cultivated reside in the more positive side of the number line I alluded to in the first sentence, sometimes robustly into it. For instance, our ability to examine, analyze, the mechanistics aspects of an education (that Neil Postman calls a schooling) are, for many of us, a place where we have great ability and practice. These, however, are the tools of the systems, they arose because the dominant and dominating (dominant system is the norm, dominating system is the oppressive aspect of a dominant system) system in which we inhabit has become increasingly complex (complexity does not mean ‘better’ or ‘worse’, it is value neutral in itself though it comes with consequences) and in this complexity we needed to create tools in which we could manage them. However, when we have then replaced that which the complexity arises from and instead look at this complexity as extant and inherent in of itself, a catalyst and an effect at the same time, we fall into a deeper ignorance and because of the tools in which we have cultivated, a much more dangerous one both to our metaphysical existence and our physical one (Joseph Rotblat is a person one should know who resisted the tide of using the modern tools to create a real and deep threat to the material existence of life on this planet, let alone humans. He was a man, the only one, that quit the Manhattan project because it was shown that Nazi Germany had abandoned their efforts to produce, “The Bomb”. His exist, as one could imagine, had dire consequences).

Where we must work back to 0 on is that which we have very poor track record on examining, which is Meaning. What has been proposed, often, in this country is a fundamentalist position on both sides, either Meaning does not exist or Meaning is exempt from analysis and exists in a place outside of its engagement with facts. I will spend some time fleshing out this thought. Fundamentalist positions like these are harmful in that they are both incorrect and lead one to develop practice to eliminate vast quantities of accurate and Real lived experiences and facts. How both are incorrect are, first, that Meaning is a natural aspect of reality. There are facts in this world, but facts are in themselves incomplete. The experienced world is an expression of the Humane lens, if we examine ‘from what we come from’ we see that the perpetual dynamism (which is born out by examination) is only possible if it is intertwined in dependence on a fabric of, lets us say, eternal possibilities-it is difficult to encapsulate because this fabric is beyond the ability to define because definition requires the binding of a thing, and this fabric cannot be bound and its evidence is the nature of perpetual dynamism. If it were to be, even at this subtle level, bound it would become inherent, and the inherent cannot produce.  So, the catalyst of dynamism is also an effect of dynamism, it is dependently linked. This is a fundamental truth that is also one that is reified by evidence and examination, it holds, dependently, both of the drives of the ‘unchanging’ and the seeking of evidence.

How we perceive this dynamism and the fabric it is linked with, is important. I think that, and the experience I have had with both study and exchange, with people who are to greater and lesser degrees are privileged by both dominant and dominating systems, is that they ‘know’ this Truth but it is either willfully ignored or willfully misinterpreted. It can be seen to the vehemence that they fight for their privilege to remain, class/social warfare is not a fallacy, any authentic examination of history and the history of overt violence, laws, economic practice, etc. can see this. If they thought, to their depth, that their place was fundamentally granted (the Divine Right or its capitalistic, atheistic manifestation-Social Darwinism) there would not be so many practices to create the causes to keep them in their positions, and not so much efforts to keep us in ours.

It may seem strange, to some, that I think that the Activist is heir to the to the fundamentalist position of Meaninglessness. They posit materialist definitions of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ but none of these definitions truly transcends a ‘power’ exclusive meaning. For example, if what is ‘right’ is a particular way of expression then what does this ‘right’ rest upon, what catalyst does it have that it is the ‘proper’ alignment? This can go for any other catalyst that they have, ‘love’, ‘kindness’, what examination do they have that these are something that are True? What is rests upon, typically, is some vague sense of it being ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, but without an expression and methodology to elucidate these truths, they are just ‘out of power’. Their expressions of ‘lost’ for a simple term, and then their only avenue is either to ‘bear’ it, or to seek to gain power to make their expression the dominant expression, which usually takes the same methodologies that the oppressors have used to impose it.

The oppressors in a system are those who have taken a fundamentalist position of ‘meaning’ which elevates their position as being ‘natural’. Though, their examination is circular, they have based their reasoning on the ‘effects’ of a dominating system, for instance, because of their privilege they have reached a state of material power, because of their state of material power they are the ‘winners’ and this winning is evidence of them adhering to the natural, truthful way of things. They ignore, willfully in my opinion, the evidence that points to what I expressed above as the dependent Truth.

Why I think that oppressors willfully ignore this evidence though I think they ‘know it’ as I stated above too? I will explain via a teaching I did with a group of young people. We did a lot of work to get to a place of accurately depicted imputed truth and that it was actively dependent and engaged with the ineffable (I called it eternal possibilities before). Then we went through generally accepted negative and positive values; love, hate, etc. Then we drew a circle and called that the ‘self’. We then drew in what direction we thought these values were serving using the circle to be the referent point. The students said that love was outward flowing arrow, that hate (and I thought this was interesting) was an inward flowing arrow (I think that this is because, if I understood them correctly, hate requires the reification of the imputed self to be ‘harmed’ in order for hate to arise, that the material action is usually done ‘outwardly’ is true-but they expressed this subtle difference quite well and I was amazed and learned a lot). Then I asked which one had the most evidence of being true? That which reified the self or that which expressed a ‘selflessness’ (not annihilation because there is a functional self, we exist within this-the young people didn’t need me to explain this, I have found older people do). It was selflessness. A permanent, inherent, self does not stand up to reason, selflessness does (again, not annihilation). Then we expressed what this selflessness is like, I spoke of service to my daughter (this was before my son was born) and how when she fell, or when I thought she’d hurt herself, I spontaneously sought her out. A young man spoke to me afterwards who told me that he, once, took off his coat and gave it to a woman he thought was ‘homeless’ because it was raining. He said he didn’t even think about it and did it, then he ran, but he didn’t know why, he just did.

The honest, in depth analysis of what is Real shows that there is a selflessness that, if authentically aligned, naturally expresses the material expression of selflessness; which is Love, and Service, and to seek out that which is being oppressed, marginalized, etc. and to do what we can to alleviate these sufferings. That a ‘self’ has to be also served, is also true, but it must be served, unlike what is taught, to robust minimums (the self can perpetually be served more because of the nature of perpetual dynamism etc. we can invent a ‘need’ thus the Consumer, it is because of this an imposed ‘minimum’ is necessary-this includes pleasure-we must fight our tendencies to self-flagellate and then over compensate in this area). Once robust minimums are met then we arise a full participant in the arena of life, responsibility dawns fully. And that which must be resisted becomes more clear. It is because of this Truth that those in power are loath to truly examine Reality, though they operate in it to perpetuate a false reality, which is only possible because of the ineffable-Nature is subject to Will, though that which is aligned with Nature can persist and endure (if oppression was natural then there would never be resistance, resistance would have been bred out of us) as it is more stable, through massive and maniacal effort that which is not aligned properly can also persist, though it goes through cycles of cataclysm.

From that which we arise, we know, to that which we are beholden we can then know; once this is understood we understand our responsibility, it gives us our ability to endure and persist, and resist in full knowledge that our resistance arises from a fundamental truth of Reality and that this Reality’s authentic material expression is the best of us.

Great, Again: Part 1

One of the greatest Illusions that the Masters have conjured Is the receding future Where, upon a hill, shimmering, the oppressed’ city lives.There it lives forever Unlike a mirage even, for even a mirage Exists in the world, in the only actual there is The dynamic present

**
I will attempt to make some of these thoughts more presentable to the present, as I have written about this previously but it was too long and a bit too ‘thick’ I have been told to penetrate. Here is my attempt, though, I must warn, it cannot be read, I think, without some difficulty

**

“Why is it that the Master’s are given the past and the present and the poor and marginalized are always given the future? Is it because the future is the only thing that has never been? That it will always be this way, inherently, by the very nature of Nature? Even if we were to reverse time, and the ‘future’ switched places with the ‘past’ as some scientists say we can do, since the Master’s have owned that too, we would not move toward any liberation.”

This is what came to my mind when I sat and meditated on the subject of Time and how it is intertwined and a creation, really, of the ‘modern’ world. The chopping up of a day into small slivers, all in order to ‘be on time’ etc. Agriculture, etc. we can see to a certain extent, accelerated this, with the need for planting etc. Previously, the mode of time was much different and gross.

Perhaps it would be good to explain that I am not saying that one should not use the past, or to plan for the future, these would be of equal folly as attempting to exists or bring about both of these in totality, or near totality-not because of one’s will but because it is implicitly impossible. Any attempt to propagandize this, whether through religion, quasi-religious nationalism, etc. “great again..” is a form willful ignorance or conscious attempts of totalitarian dominance. If the People’s thirst for liberation and/or comfort can be assuaged with propaganda of the past and/or the future their urgency will be quelled, their observations of the present can either be obscured by these visions or blinded.

The past and its heritage as a useful tool enters into the present, the future as a useful tool does the same. The past as a means, for the oppressed, to have precedence to craft the actions of Now, and the future is the examination of that which can be kept in ‘flavor’ rather than ‘objectively’ saved.

What I mean in terms of the Future is that just as Nature is perpetually and interminably dynamic, one cannot ‘keep’ anything from one moment to the next, but what can be kept is the set of ‘codes’, ‘maxims’, ‘ethics and morals’ morals if you will. These are the covenants that one keeps with the society in total but also individually in how we engage our subjective experience into the ‘objective’ experience of the total.

We are, not, I think it is important to note her, annihilated by the total, though, this too is the master’s tool, this apathy of despair that arises when we only examine the ‘smallness’ of our existence which comes from, also, this fundamentalism of individualism. Each system, every single one that exists through imputations of a definition, exists as a total dependent on the variables that define it. As each variable changes so does the system entire, that we have a fuzzy boundary of the paradigm of the system (which is a definition made up of variables to reiterate) which is kept through reification of the definitions (repetition, experimentations) but is susceptible to revolutionary change as the definitions dynamism reaches a tipping point, thus the paradigm changes (Thomas Kuhn explains this second half so much better in the Structure of Scientific Revolution). So lets us remember that the ‘smallness’ of actions of the individual are, in fact, never lost, it changes the system in entire, the variable is both singularly effective in change, and, by nature of Systems, systems’s entire effective. There are no small-nesses in Nature, there is no nihilistic actions in Nature, the uniqueness of existence, your existence, is reaffirmed in each instance of your imposition of ‘self’ upon that fabric of nature, you were not the exact same system that occurred moments ago (different thoughts, heartbeat, etc) now extrapolate that out to the infinitesimal and eternal collections that came together to create You, or this earth, or life itself on this planet. This may be awe inspiring, and it should be, but more important it should be responsibility creating-if this is True (and it is) and this is the nature of existence, what is my responsibility in the face of this Truth? To what am I responsible? This responsibility is the ethics/moralistic, etc. code that we can carry on into the future, it is what can give the taste of benevolence to the future though the materialized variables may change. But it is also what Dominance, Oppression, wickedness can also pass into the future, it is why History is peppered with so many different material expressions of ‘culture’ but they all ‘taste’ the same.

The past was not Great, it just ‘was’, there were aspects of its nature that we may want to keep, the ‘codes’ if you will, the unwavering adherence to the ‘good’ by a few, by particular system’s of credos (the Quakers who practiced what they preached). But in total it was owned and operated by the masters, and a Master’s lead system can only waver between peaks and valleys of oppression. For when I use the term “Lead” I mean it to mean the flavor upon which each of these system’s resided, they were imposed to keep a few in power, to keep them in wealth, and if systems through the diligent fight of the oppressed, became less oppressive, it did not change the underlying Ethos of these systems-these acts were reform in nature (see Activist Checklist Go! Part 2 for a detailed definition of reform and revolution).

But even if the past was ‘Great’ in the sense of it being materially good, it could not be revisited again in a material sense, those times are gone. I would argue that the Materially good that did reach the oppressed was a collateral reason rather than an intentional reason (in the sake of a holistic systemic drive, there were instances of worker lead organizations that did it on a micro scale and were variables for us to build upon and to resist in their Present). If they mean it to get back to the past where the ethos included the overt, legalistic, practices of oppression like Jim Crow, then this is overt tyranny, that the Jim Crow of the modern present will look different than it did previously is true, but the meal will taste the same (Derek Bell argues throughout his career but most explicitly in Faces at the Bottom of the Well, where he argues that Racism, in America, cannot ever end because America is founded on these principles and when we think it ends it just evolves-I do not disagree but America is just a sound, a guttural verbalization of our larynx, if we revolutionize the definition, then it will be something wholly different, and we just attached the same Sound to it).

Through the practices of multitudes of Heroes we are at a time in which we can change the taste of the only time that exists, the present, and that there is such a vociferous blowback, counter-revolution, going on is the evidence of the malleable, systemic time we are in. We can take the resistance of the past and open the door for it to enter into the present.

Activist Check List Go! Part 2

The Imputed and the Unsaid
Are mutually dependant
One as important as the Other
To practice and believe in only one
Leaves the One and then the Two in Thrall
Strong, in a way, from its constant activity to support

The unsupportable
But still a hostage, a slave, to the phantom structure

It is important to reclaim and to define words that we use within the struggle. Words are the battleground, really, as any legislator, propagandist, or, perhaps less incendiary-etymologists, will tell you. The battle is for their definition, whether it is changing the Affordable Healthcare Act to Obamacare, The-Right-To-Work Law (look it up),  Reagan’s “Strapping young buck”. I want to share with you some words, here and in coming posts, that must be understood and protected-for the battle for the community is the battle to be had. The community, at least for now, is necessary to operate a social contract, without a tipping point of consent (whether bought, coerced, bribed, or forced), the rulers cannot rule. I think an important illustration of this, in particular to words, is a study I read in Physical Review E. that states that 10 percent is the tipping point to general opinion, though, this 10 percent, make no mistake, has to be a committed 10 percent. Definitions are the variables/symbols of how we understand and exist in reality, there is a reason why it is so fought over (especially in the Public Education sector). Let us move forward here in defining a few terms.

Reform:

The act of a reform model is the action, belief, that accepts (whether overtly or subtly) the dominant lens. Its form of resistance is in creating a space that reduces the harm of the dominant system. These are typically human services departments, non-profits, or even voting etc. This is not a negative critique. In almost all the societies I have ever had to study or live in (which is not much as I am a poor scholar) I have witnessed the need for a reform model, in fact, my argument is that activists must engage in both of these models, and the choice is whether they center the Reform aspect or the Revolutionary aspect. The reason, even the most radical activist, has to support reform models is that Revolutionary models take a longer time, and in my own life I am not okay answering those I would serve to, “wait for the revolution”; destructive suffering can only harm and remove those who would otherwise align with humane revolutionary practices and should be, even from just a strategic lens, be, at least, ameliorated through reform practices.

Revolution:

Revolutionary practices are actions, beliefs, that are in direct opposition with the dominant systems catalysts. Its form of resistance is radical because of this opposition and work. It is important to note that some of the practices of a dominant system may still be in practices when the revolutionary model becomes the norm, I state this because what often gets mistaken for revolution is changing the proverbial deck chairs of the Titanic-the practices- and also, often, believing that you can’t use any deck chairs once you have switched ships. There will be means of communication (let’s say email) that are still a mode of communication in an revolutionary paradigm, there will still be systems, there will still be technology, so to say, what changes are to what these Tools serve. These tools are not, by themselves, a value, they are value neutral, how they are used and what they are used for are the determinants of its virtue or not. Revolutionary practices are focused on the determinants of the value/virtue of the system.

Choosing:

I would identify myself a revolutionary/radical driven person but have spent lots of my life in a reform model. I can say that the reason being is that the Time I have been in was not ripe to blossom the revolutionary practice. This does not mean I did not work on it, I did, long hours studying, reading, trying to write, and also bringing this understanding within a reform model. I also stood with many people in their acts of radical defiance, from people experiencing homelessness, to resistance against globalization from the lens of it being to serve the wealthiest (I believe that globalization is a necessary outcome of the development of the human species but it does not have to look like it does now). But there was not enough populous momentum to push through these measures in whatever means there was. I believe there is now and is why this writing is becoming more public, it is a small avenue of mine to materialized this aspect of my own revolutionary practices (I have others too, such as the founding of the movement to creating a Worker’s Cooperative).

It is also important for those that might believe they have to ‘choose’ to know that any good that I have been able to accomplish in the school(s) I have had the blessing to support, has been because of a radical lens. The thought that the fundamental nature of being is Ineffable, that this demands humility and confidence, in the face of the responsibility to serve limitlessly is radical in the juxtaposition of dominant cultural systems (specifically the public school system). This lens I brought allowed me to practice to the limits of a reform model and to push against the walls of the dominant system. In this way I was able to outline the nature of the threat of dominance and then to do ‘out of work’ work that was targeted at changing these catalytic principles and practices, in fact, one will in an authentic reform model see where it must then include a radical revolutionary model. Dominating systems will always oppress, we can only reform so far within its halls, the one’s that are left out are those that the system will not serve and, frankly, cannot with its structure as it is. Only a revolutionary model can include them.

Only human lead reform models have kept oppressive systems from being, in total, oppressive, and only revolutionary models will be able to keep these oppressive systems in agonistic positions rather than the creative protagonists.

The Sorrows of Economics

We are so infatuated with the measure

That we forget that a measure is a representative

In this draught of irremembrance
We build upon a sandy ground

This is a short blog post on a longer essay I have done on this subject.

I am often called a socialist, a communist, I have even been called a capitalist and an anarchist. I have and do rejected all of these labels. These are labels for the People to decide for themselves, I cannot call myself any of these things in any real way without the acceptance of enough people. That I can participate or not within any of these designations is true, and I shall, but it is a duty, important to be sure, but no more than making sure that I eat, or drink, or make sure my body is healthy enough to engage. I will always resist any of these designations or permutations as they actively resist me in my efforts to support human beings and the world in which we inhabit in humane, self-determined ways. I deny any and all designations that foist upon us the belief that we cannot do this, that it is impossible, or a fool’s errand, I counter that any non-humane, non-compassionate, authentically benevolent centered system or structure is the Fool’s Errand because what is produced has everything to do with what was planted, the initial and subsequently supported premises; and finally, why would we wish to produce something other than this? The resistance I speak of in the last sentence will occur in any socio/economic/political system that does oppress. I am Tibetan, so I have lived experience that, for example, communist systems can and do oppress and marginalize, but also, in all of these systems perfect system, I have no disagreement, in their perfect sense they must center Humanes and that which supports them, and if this is done I don’t care if I vote for a president, party leader, or the Great Mother.

Now that I have stated, perhaps too vociferously, the above, I will state also that economic/political systems will occur, they are a natural arising of the gathering of humans, perhaps in more detail and complexity as the society grows, but even in simple ones (not simple in value, simple because necessity hasn’t lead to complexity of Systems), this occurs-what is valued, how this is exchanged, how power is shared (or not), etc. There is the ‘in’ group and the ‘out’ group, and these are designations of Value in the society. What is often left out, in most economic studies, is this break down. Take, for example, the separation of Labor and Capital. This is a gross level separation of a purely economic level but it does not take into account the separation of Labor too, this is the social aspects of separation. I will not go into detail here because of brevity sake in the distinctions but just to highlight them.

The first separation of Labor and Capital, before I look into Labor, is not only economic either. Economics are the, in a gross sense as I have identified, only 1 of the prerequisites for inhabiting the role of the Masters in the system, those that Own access to the mechanisms that produce participation in society; shelter, food, healthcare, education, and banking. Access is granted, like a toll, to those that do have access, and if it is a toll they can restrict and deny access as well. The gross level pre-requisites are of a particular social hierarchy (race, gender, class, etc) and quasi-religious/transcendental hierarchy (Protestant, etc.), and of course-economic stati of wealth. From these three the mandate and means to accumulate military etc. power arises.. There are exceptions etc. this is not a physical law, though it operates almost as closely.

The separation of Labor follows along with the social stratification but the social stratification is how far away one is from each of the ‘pinnacles’ of the social etc. prerequisites of Capital. Labor is kept in check because of its stratification. From one side they are held by their privilege in regards to the lower strati, the belief that one can lose this privilege and fall into the illustrated lower position, and they are kept in place by their marginalization which are the forces that collude to keep one in the lower positions. The second of these are the systemic practices used by dominant culture to oppress. One can look at any large system and if they see disproportionate outcomes based on demographic factors then these are systems in collusion with oppression. It is important to note that the vast majority of us hold both privilege and marginalization in our lives, and both are forces that are used to keep dominant structures in operation. The higher one achieves privilege, typically, the more these pets align with the dominant culture, not that they Own access but because the access they are granted is wide and seemingly limitless (though it is not). They too are held hostage for their consent although for this strati it is more freely given.

The system is complex in its operation but is relatively simple in its construction. It follows along the tyrannical playbook that uses hostaging necessities for consent, it uses bribery for consent, and violence (whether overt physical violence or the violence of reducing or eliminating access to necessities) for acquiescence. That this has been practiced by particular humans in all regions of the human world is true, but that it must always be this is also untrue, we must remember that we have won uncountable times, that we have set up guild towns (Hansa League and the various democratic thrusts within this), protected the planet (DDT Ban, Ozone protection, Clean Water/Air act), etc. That these were not the completion of the Perfect is true (that we even often aligned with our own destruction is true too), but it is not less true that the powers of Oppression have not also produced their perfect, the barrier between them has been Us. That we have continuously have had to be in the agonist position is true too, even with the language-resistance-but it is my hope that once we realize the structure, we can dismantle it, to attack it strategically,  and move the powers of Annihilation into the position of resistance and us into that of the protagonist.