Sunday, December 23, 2012

Sandy Hook, Mass Shootings, and Societal Insanity

I don't really have much to say about the horrific massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary or the recent plague of mass shootings – I just don't. Actions like these are horrible and really are beyond words, but it seems everyone has something to say and some sort of quick fix.

Everyone in our American society is asking “how could this happen?” and they all have their answers and solutions. Well, I don't have a quick fix and I am certainly not gullible enough to place the blame on any one thing. If you ask me the problem is our society and our society, like any society, is complex.

I don't think the problem is guns and I don't think the solution is to ban them – I just don't. Banning all firearms or placing tighter controls on them might stop mass shootings, but in my opinion, you are nuts if you think it will stop mass killings, which is the real problem here. We need to ask what drives individuals to violently lash out against seemingly random individuals?

One might say they are nuts or mentally ill, but what causes that? In my opinion it is our society and its underlying idealogical driving force of strict materialistic efficiency. It is also my opinion that these individuals target random people because they all, and we all, represent and support the organism of our society which is destroying individuals everywhere, ripping their humanity from them, and raping the environment. They are attacking the only physical part of the very thing which is already attacking them every day.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying “we” are the problem, I am saying “it” is the problem – the idea, the invisible organism, the hidden idealogical driving force behind “progress”, and our perspective on what “progress” is. “We” allow “it”, and I would venture to argue that we don't even allow “it” any longer, but are driven by, create by, and created for “it”. And when “it” let's some of “us” down, some individuals either can't cope or they react violently because they lack the very human tool of interdependency which grants them self-respect, integrity, appreciation for all life, and hope, unlike the system of dependency which our society has created and nearly forced all of us into.

I think the problem is our society, in fact, my belief in that is so strong that I prefer to say that I know the problem is our society (and I would venture to say that most are at least suspicious of that fact), and its strict materialistic efficiency is just one of the main roots holding the entire tree in the very bloody ground upon which it stands. Just how to get enough people to see that is the largest problem on my mind...

It is very difficult to love and respect a system that you depend on which does not even recognize your value as any more than a number or statistic – period. Given that very human fact, is it any wonder we have the violence and problems we do within our society? How can you be expected to act human and have emotions and care for others within society if society, of which we are all a part, does not treat you as a human being with emotions and care for what you think and feel? Simply having some “shrink” to talk too and some pills to take is not enough! Actions speak louder than words – we must SHOW we give a damn, and a society based on dependency is, in my opinion, incapable of such.

Now, so far as guns are concerned, this may not sound very “hippie-ish” of me or meet your ideas of “progress”, but I am not against them, which is by the way, very individualist of me (only individuals can have interdependence). It is true that guns are tools designed to kill, but it is not true that all killing is wrong. As the Hidden Song on the Tool album Undertow says, “life feeds on life.” - you must kill to live; therefore, tools designed to do that job quickly, painlessly, and efficiently (particularly with a spiritual approach to efficiency which likely includes care for pain) are not necessarily wicked tools. Personally, if a lion decided to have me for dinner I fear the pain of how it is going to do it more than the idea of being dinner itself.

And the necessity of killing for food is not the only reason tools designed for such purposes should be around – self defense is another very valid reason. The world is dangerous and not simply because of humans! Its a jungle out there and we all know this, unless we are living in la-la land.
Even if you live your life as a strict pacificist and live on nuts and berries you must still destroy what might have been in order to preserve your own life. The only difference when it comes to life under such circumstances is much like the definition of a fetus versus a living human – it is mere semantics. Should your teeth be plucked out and your hands be cut off because they are designed to acquire and consume organic material? Of course not! In other words, we all agree that it is necessary for life to feed on life, but we disagree on what the definition of life (or various levels of life) is, often merely because it makes us “feel” better about ourselves.

My point is that tools designed for taking life are not necessarily evil in themselves, it is how they are used and what ideology is driving the individual who uses it. Most “progressives” (I use that term in quotes because I consider myself a classic liberal who sees nothing “progressive” about our society whatsoever) have no problem with a peace officer carrying a firearm, but they suddenly have a problem when it is an ordinary citizen. Why is that? Where is the interdependency when only the authoritarians are permitted to efficiently and effectively do what we are all entitled (and often required) by nature to do in the first place?

I'm not trying to defend the Second Amendment here or Article 1 Section 21 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but rather I am trying to make my point. That point is that it is the body, mind, and spirit of the people using tools, not the tools themselves which are the problem. Blaming the tools is a far too simple and potentially hazardous answer. We are far too willing to give up our rights or even give an inch on them, when our inquiry and understanding of both the problem and the accused right should be examined inside out and upside down if any of our “societal rights” mean anything to us in the first place. Such an inquiry and understanding always begins with a full understanding of life, necessity, society, and a thorough analysis of what “progress” truly is.

I am confident that if people look deeper than the wound (the object) and the causation (the action) they will find both the underlying human condition (the adjective) and the causal force (the noun) which is all predicated on various epistemological assumptions (the philosophical ideology), which is ultimately founded upon metaphysical ideologies (dualism, physicalism, idealism or panpsychism), which is finally founded upon metaphysical assumptions (physicalism versus some sort of theism), which all works its way on down into society, its individual members and its ultimate underlying ideological drive.

In my opinion society has gone mad because it makes insane assumptions which it has twisted around in such a manner as to make the other equally valid assumption (by logic) sound somehow less likely and self-evident. Humanity needs deity (no matter what it believes deity to be) because humanity needs something which transcends it and its condition, and it needs this flowing through every level of its society, lest human greed and selfishness (individual or collective) become humanity's purpose. If you honestly believe nothing transcends your physical make-up and condition (regardless of what some claim) what do you rationally have to turn to as your guiding light besides YOU?

An interdependent society provides what is needed because it makes its deity among many lesser deities “Love” - something which cannot be perceived directly but only inferred (thus it transcends). Of course, then there are metaphysical assumptions concerning the definition of “love”, but then again, that assumes that the only valid criteria of truth is visual, auditory, or “scientifically” observable (as the criteria of materialistic science currently stands) and not the criterion of “feeling”.

As a panpsychist I must say that God is not dead, we only kill God/dess when we kill without necessity, for that is the only true death – to die without being the reason for the continuation of life.

For that matter, a last philosophical note... What of entropy and the expansion of life despite its need to feed on life?

Peace. Alraune

Monday, December 17, 2012

How Do We Win Our Country, Civilization, Society, and Lives?

I can't tell you how to win any of these, but I can tell you it is up to no individual man or woman, but up to each of us to do our own thing after understanding the problem fully.

First off, you must ask yourself a very simple question: “What are we trying to do with this grand experiment called civilization and society?” Are we succeeding? If not, what is wrong? What are the fundamentals of a civilization, society, and culture? What is “progress” and does it emit “regress” under all circumstances; is there never a point which is too far or wrong? Who gives me my ideas on these matters, and do I truly agree or have I never really thought about them independently? What are my feelings about independence and individuality (to the core and at all levels) and where do I ultimately stand? Do I think too shallow and only attack areas and points or am I truly going to the root of the problem? Am I thinking these things or am I using someone else's ideas, words, or thoughts in such a way that I have not actually felt I thought for myself?

I cannot answer your questions, but I can answer my own and tell you what I think and what I intend to do. I intend to pulverize the jerks that have enslaved us by first learning about, understanding, and hearing the people (the ones who truly wish freedom), then formulating an intellectual argument in “common” lay terms (through my gifts and also studying of various things which includes philosophy), and spreading it far and wide. I intend to be no leader, but only a messenger of an idea, which cannot be killed. I am not sure exactly how I intend to do this, but I do know I shall do it in a method not yet used (nonviolent, as always), so that there is no current method against it and it therefore has the maximum impact.

I guess the biggest advantage I have in my intentions is that even I do not know what I will do next, and I cannot therefore be predicted by the machine, but I can probably predict I will use the machine's NECESSARY weaknesses against it so that it has the most difficulty adapting and suppressing what we ALL truly want – individual liberty.

I may one day ask for your help, but I will not ask now, as I am not ready. I may one day die or be killed, but then all you need do is be yourself and continue in the work for individual liberty. I believe in the human spirit!

All you need know is the following:

  1. Be yourself (break free and find out if you are really you or the product of something else)
  2. Know yourself (are you a product of culture and tradition or really free and independent?)
  3. Know what you want (do you love society/civilization/culture or not?)
  4. Know your environment (all parts of it, especially locally, humans and human minds included)
  5. Know your society (how does it work and what are its foundational pillars, etc.?)
  6. Know how to survive (can you live independent of society and in a natural state?)
  7. Know your logic (what drives the minds of culture/society/civilization? What is in their minds?)
  8. Know what is right and what is wrong (find a solid ground you can stand on and live by)
  9. Know your direction (what is your plan? What makes you happy?)

From there you should develop the rest. I believe in the human spirit, so I really do not think much more need be said, other than, you need not agree with everyone on every point, only the ROOT – the rest will sort itself out from there.

What do you believe of the human spirit now and after you have learned all you need too?

I am not out of this hideous matrix yet, this I will freely admit, but in the meantime I would recommend those who wish to escape should most definitely commit to reading Jacques Ellul's 450 page book, The Technological Society, for it is a very very good start. You will not need all I think you should know, but you will gain quite a bit of the knowledge I think you seek from it, and also from Will Durant's The Story of Civilization, particularly all that can be inferred from volume 1.

It will all depend on your “base” as to how you take these texts, but they are, in my opinion, good starts all around, which is why I must emphatically state that we need not all agree on all things, just the root.

Begin educating yourself and asking the important questions like “What are we trying to do?” and the rest will follow. Freedom is merely a state of mind – you are literally the manager of your own future.