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)
(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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment