Posts Tagged ‘Philosophy’

I would be a Republican

Saturday, September 20th, 2008

If I were not a voluntaryist I would be a republican. This is something that I concluded after watching an excellent documentary called Overview of America. It clarifies the political spectrums by putting total government control as the true far left and no government whatsoever as the far right. It then defines capital as “means of production” therefore concluding that every economic system is fundamentally capitalist (because every uses the means of production). The only difference is that in far left systems the government owns and/or controls the capital (means of production) fully (fascism, nazism, socialism and communism) whereas the far right systems leave the government out of the ownership and control of capital and serve at the most to enforce rights to life, liberty and property.

The documentary however attacks anarchy as an unsustainable bubble between collapses of governments and unfortunately there may even be quite a bit of evidence supporting that conclusion IF you would look at how many people calling themselves “anarchists” act. Most anarchists in the world appear to be “socialists” at the same time which is a contradiction in terms from where I stand because socialism implies collective rather than individual control of capital. Clearly, such anarchists cannot form a sustainable anarchy that wouldn’t just end up creating a new socialist government.

The documentary puts a republic at the balancing point which is limited government, a view which largely corresponds to what some today call “minarchism”. Considering that the USA prospered for quite a while under this system and people have rarely objected to government so long as it was kept limited only to law enforcement (law being entirely The Constitution and Bill of Rights (also dubbed by the doc “Bill of Government Limitations”), this system seems to have worked. And from my perspective today I would love to live in such a system today, compared to where I live now. I can understand why people en masse wanted to move to USA to build their dreams.

So why am I not a republican?

In principle, it comes down to a single fundamental reason: coercion. Even a limited government which only enforces the law which is only a provision for life, liberty and property is a coercive monopoly. It does not allow anyone else but itself to act as a third party in disputes or as an enforcer of contracts or defenders against violations of life, liberty and property. And frankly, I don’t see a good reason why it should have this kind of monopoly.

If the free market could efficiently handle everything else, as it did in the USA while it was still truly republican, why can it not handle law as well?

The documentary fails to make a connection that is rather obvious to me, between a free market and anarchy, both at the farthest right you can go – indeed for me The Right Way. :) It is exactly the free market which provides anarchy with stability it lacks when anarchy is attempted in a socialistic way. The perfect system as I see it, thus, is free market anarchy, anarcho-capitalism.

The reason why even a republican or minarchist limited government is so problematic is simple. By being the only entity allowed to operate in the market of law enforcement it becomes a magnet to all who would otherwise be legitimate competitors. Since they cannot compete with it they try to take it over. And since it is coercive by nature it can use this coercion, slowly but surely, to grow its monopoly into markets beyond law enforcement, which is exactly what happened each time a limited government was instituted (and the documentary covers Rome and America).

In a nutshell, government is the loophole of the republican system. They had a great idea, but they screwed that one up. The free market which they credit with creating the abundance that made america great, was the answer all along – they just had to let it be free of government 100%, not 99%. There is no such thing as “properly limited government”. It always grows.

There is also a question of morals, which the documentary briefly tackled. Apparently the founding fathers of the USA believed that the republic they created can only work so long as people are moral, and this had religious (biblical christian) connotations. In a sense I agree, but unsurprisingly for christianity, morality here seems to be expanded a bit too far. The documentary, for instance, shows pictures of people watching porn in the context of immorality, whereas this may merely be a subjective view.

The core morality, in my view, comes from non-coercion. No matter what another person does, so long as (s)he doesn’t harm you in doing it (initiate force on you) (s)he should be free to do so. It seems pretty clear that if people lost this moral principle they would likely deteriorate their society into one that calls for greater government and thus more tyrany. It perfectly aligns with the concept of violence breeding violence. Even a mere loss of the non-coercion moral is enough to start the vicious circle, as it will lead to the first violent act which will lead to all the more of the violence until we live in a totalitarian system where violence and the threat of violence is constantly present.

And I think in most countries today we are nearly or already living in such a system, even in countries which have a “republic” in its name like the Republic of Croatia (which is not a republic at all).

I only wished, now, that there was a place where a true republic really still existed. At least there a chance of inducing that last moral step towards a pure free market society would be feasible while the oppression would be 99% absent. Unortunately, not even New Hampshire in USA, the designated future “Free State” fits the bill.

Tags: ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

Liberty, Life, Science and Spirit

Tuesday, September 2nd, 2008

At this point in time my whole being is centered around these two concepts: self liberation and self growth. Self liberation is about personal liberty and self growth is about my life – making it what I want it to be. Making it great.

Self Liberation – Liberty

In a nutshell, this is why I am a voluntaryist. As such I am liberating myself from fear of coercion and from a desire to coerce. I am coming to a full understanding of myself as an individual human being with a self aware mind and a nature which requires liberty and property, as one and the same, to be. Through my senses I receive information. With my mind I process and feel it. Processing it is ideally consisted of applying a scientific process to it and feeling it is assigning personal values to it (good vs. bad = desirable vs. undesirable). This process is what creates my sub-reality, my world – built on the foundation of the absolute real world around me that I perceived, processed and felt.

Being aware of the fact that my world is MY world, MY sub-reality, and nobody elses, because it is MY senses, MY mind and MY feelings which created it, I cannot believe in the right to impose it on somebody else nor can I believe in the right of somebody else to impose his own sub-reality on me. This is not isolation. It is liberty. I can interact with another by cooperating based on what we do have in common – which is how trade happens and why free market works.

From these fundamental grounds I perceive the social world much differently than most people. I see wrongs where other people see rights. I see unnecessary evil where others see necessary evil, or even “good”. I see fear and corruption where others see virtue. But since I do not fear them, nor believe with them, I am free.

Self growth – Life

Now that I am free, what do I want to do with my life? This is where I largely adopted a strategy, as talked about before, by Napoleon Hill, presented in “Think and Grow Rich”. I found sufficient evidence to support his strategy to consider it factual and I am thus basing my self growth plan on it.

This however does not make me an automatic follower of everyone who claims to preach self growth and self help. It does not by far make me a follower of propaganda like “The Secret”. I think such propaganda is pseudoscience, something you get when you collide self-growth facts with some sort of a yet unsubstantiated and unproven religion, like New Age. It’s same as the movie “Expelled” by creationists, which is what you get by colliding science with fundamentalist christianity.

I am, however, much more interested in explaining “spirituality” by science. I’ve seen many people say they’ve changed their life by “finding god” and I don’t have to tell you about the amount of people who actually did somehow manage to change their life based on New Age as well (per The Secret). Spirituality seems to be this state of mind which automatically induces just the right kind of actions on your part to make you feel fulfilled and successful. It’s sort of a short-cut. I believe such a short cut exists, but I will not believe in that it is not something that can’t be achieved by science alone.

In fact, I think that the ultimate spiritual enlightenment WILL be achieved by science. We will simply discover as facts a way in which we can put our mind in that blissful state. I think Napoleon Hill came dangerously close to that, but he branched it off to “infinite intelligence” and that’s where my doubts begin. I need more evidence and I am interested to discuss this with really scientifically minded people.

After my research for the last days on this topic I can therefore say this:

Science is the only religion you will ever need. Hence, you will need no religion.

So all these people who “found god” may have just accidentally stumbled upon a yet not entirely scientifically discovered or explained process which made them feel like “they found god”, feel utterly enlightened etc. I doubt they really “found god” though. They just found the yet undefined process. :)

This makes further sense when you consider that many people from many different religions have similar claims. They can’t all be the “one true religion”, so there must be something deeper involved – a process.

We will probably discover it soon.

But, I’m sticking with science above all else. I want to emphasize that because it may have seemed like I’ve ran off to some strange New Age and pseudoscience waters in my previous posts. No. I stick to science. I have three categories in which I will put the ideas and theories I encounter.

1. Accept.
2. Reject.
3. Neither. Keep looking, whenever motivated.

I accept as factual truth only those ideas which I or enough of other people have reproducibly tested and proven right. I reject those that have been beyond doubt proven wrong.

The “neither” category are all the rest, and there’s quite a bit of stuff here. ;) It’s all of the ideas which I can neither definitely prove nor disprove, but are interesting enough for me to keep my mind open to more information about them. I have a scale in this category, from “almost accepted” to “almost rejected”. For instance, the idea of infinite intelligence would be closer to “almost accepted” (but never accepted until I can fully prove it) and the idea of ancient alien race (sun gods) seeding human life on Earth would be near “almost rejected”. :P

You can imagine that I definitely reject very little. Today there’s just too much information out there. I find it hard to reject things off hand. I suppose I can call the third category as “I don’t know.. yet”. I like that category, not because I like not knowing of course, but in a contrary because it encourages me to know more. Too many people just reject or accept and thus everything that they really don’t know must either be rejected or accepted. Just think of the “god of the gaps” or a new one I heard about New Agers, “consciousness of the gaps”. :D

Cheers

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 12 Comments »

The Secret is not a secret

Friday, August 29th, 2008

A movie “The Secret” is quite inspirational, but also quite controversial. The controversy comes from its claim that the secret in question is the so called “Law of Attraction” and the underlying implication of that term: that what you think about will just come to you, like a magnet attracting metals.

The problem with this is that it oversimplifies what is really going on and as a result tarnishes the credibility of this great philosophy, because I indeed do believe it is a great philosophy. “The Secret” is not and should not be termed “The Law of Attraction”. Just as eloquently as they describe the fact that everything in the universe is actually fundamentally energy should they have described the true law behind the so called “secret” – causality – action and reaction – an ongoing infinite process that this energy fuels.

What I feel and think is going to affect my actions and my actions are inevitably gonna cause reactions in the universe which I am inevitably a part of. This continuous process is the sequence which brings people with definite desires, consequent natural faith in their ability to get it and consequent natural plans and actions constituting achievement to the final fullfillment of their goals.

That’s all there is to it. We don’t need to invent a new hot air law to explain this process, as is the “law of attraction”. The “attraction” is not what really happens. It is instead action, our action, directed by our thoughts, which is actually a stream of energy which is everywhere and bound to everything, including, thus, thoughts of others in the universe – constituting intelligence of the whole universe. That intelligence seems to be what many call god.

I did not made up my mind 100% about whether energy of thoughts, as “infinite intelligence” really is the god many describe, but what has been repeatedly happening in my mind lately is a continuous discovery of incredible parallels between what I remember from the bible, for instance, and what I learned in my pursuit of liberty (voluntaryism) and self growth through reading Napoleon Hill’s Think and Grow Rich and other material.

I don’t remember the last time it all made as much sense. I don’t remember ever having flashes of such clear context to everything that it even includes things I’ve usually pushed out of my mind – that being spiritual things and religions. What I am learning seems to form a context that spans all philosophies and all religions, marking a clear way forward in the evolution of human species as we continue to discover more about our minds.

The secret is in fact not a secret. It was with us from the day we were born. “The secret” is not suppressed, merely rarely discovered. The secret is what Napoleon Hill wrote about more than half a century ago. The secret is thus out there for a long time. Nobody hid it from us. We just never bothered to look. It’s simply our mind and its ability to transform thoughts to actions and actions to the material equivalent of what we were thinking.

Tags:
Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

I can do anything.

Wednesday, August 13th, 2008

For a second day in a row I feel “all-powerful”. It is the effect of reading that book, “Think and Grow Rich” by Napoleon Hill, which I mentioned earlier, and beating on the ideas I discovered there by following through the “Hidden Secret in Think and Grow Rich” by Brian Kim. It is easy for me to just say that I feel like I can do anything or that it is possible for you to feel like you can do anything, but it is a feeling and thus escapes words.

You have to read the book and if you don’t understand, try the Hidden Secret book I mentioned as well, since it clarifies a lot of the core ideas in “Think and Grow Rich”. The book is so deep and so profound that it is hard to just classify it as a “success” book or let alone “how to get rich” book. The ideas it presents are like a recipe for succesful happy living not just in a material, but even in a spiritual sense, but WITHOUT what is commonly know as religion, yet also WITHOUT contradicting those who do believe in some religion.

It is therefore entirely universal and universally applicable. To give you just a peak into how powerful it is, I will say that the book made me actually believe in the possibility of humans having telepathic abilities, in the legitimacy of prayer that involves no gods and in the power of thought as more than mere imagination – as a creative power which can truly be transformed into real matter. I think and therefore I am. I think and therefore I create. I think and therefore I make reality around me bow to my desire, my burning desire.

I would say that the ideas presented form more than a religion, because it spans religions, being more fundamental, more open ended and more logical and scientific.

I can do anything I set my mind to. I can because now I know I can, because I know how is it that I can set my mind to something, because I know more about thinking, feeling, imagining. I can almost understand fully what is meant by this verse from the bible:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Word. What is it but an outcome of an idea, a thought? What bible further describes is that it is with his word that god created everything. Indeed. Perhaps it may come as a surprise to some to realize, however, that you too can create with words. But it is not enough to just spell out “create me a second moon orbiting Earth”.

You first have to have a genuine burning desire for something, not just a shallow “wish”. Then you have to have absolute and utter confidence, that is faith in your ability to realize what you desire, then decide that you WILL indeed realize it just as you decide to go and get something to eat and then without thinking and doubting your ability to eat, just do it. You have to write your desire in words where you can read them in order to inject yourself with the same kind of exactness and feeling you had when you first uttered the words. You’re essentially renewing your vow with yourself and your power to do it.

The subsequent steps will come naturally – the creation of a plan of action, of how to achieve it, the total persistence even through so called (by others) “failures” (failure doesn’t exist, it’s merely a piece of information that helps you succeed). In the end you WILL create what you desired.

So you might say this is an ardous process and how can I possibly compare that with the instantaneous creation by word of god. But bible doesn’t quite specify that he created everything instantaneously. Maybe it was indeed an ardous process, or maybe he could do all of the above in a fraction of the time we need because he was of such an advanced species. Or maybe christians are just taking the verses too literally.

Napoleon Hill talks about something he terms “Infinite Intelligence” which is essentially a common pool of all intelligence in the universe, I presume. Because right down to it thoughs are actually nothing more than streams of energy and the whole universe is consisted of nothing but space, time, matter and energy. Energy is the one which uses matter and time to create. If thoughts are energy you can see how thoughts can create. And you might also begin to see the logic behind the proposition of “infinite intelligence”. If thoughts are energy and energy is everywhere then our thoughts are essentially binded to the thoughts of all other thinking beings on this planet, but also of thoughts of all other thinking beings in the universe.

We’re just not as evolved mentally to practice the ability of receiving from this stream of thought, but such thing has and does happen. Napoleon Hill calls such things as “hunches” and flashes of incredibly brilliant creative ideas as possibly having come from this “infinite intelligence”. Incidentally, such hunches and flashes come when the mind is in a rather peculiar state (extremely active, energized by special emotional mixtures etc.) which suggests that in those states the mind actually “switches on” the receptor of information from the inifinite intelligence or “tunes in”.

Perhaps it is this “infinite intelligence” that people call “god”, but obviously being still under-evolved and therefore unable to understand it they personify it and they treat such great men, great thinkers indeed, who managed to evolve to a point of using this power (Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha etc.) as prophets and emmisaries of “god”.

Yet they may simply be humans who have come to learn how to use their minds better than anyone else, and “tune in” to the universal streams of thought. It’s a darn intriguing thought! :D

I wont say I fully believe all this. At this point I merely take it as a plausible theory. I know one thing however, one thing Napoleon Hill managed to convinced me pretty strongly off – thoughts are much much much more powerful than most people believe. We might just have seemingly “godly” power beneath our skulls, yet just seldom learn how to use it.

So you can imagine the thrill I feel as I am discovering all this. I feel like I’m beginning to revive this incredibly powerful tool beneath my skull, like the energy is building up, the fire is starting to burn and my personal power rises.

It feels so good that I could scream of happiness.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

–> In the beginning there is a thought, and the thought is from infinite intelligence, and the thought IS a part of infinite intelligence.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

I could be wrong, so how can I believe in government?

Sunday, August 10th, 2008

Among the reading material I saved for myself was a paper called “Heads I win, tails you lose”: A Foray Into the Psychology of Philosophy” which mostly focuses on the “psychological phenomenon of irrational persistence of belief”, when people hold “pro-attitudes” about their beliefs and rather seek evidence that supports their beliefs more so than evidence that challenges it and sometimes even go so far to strenghten their belief once they’ve been exposed to evidence that clearly refutes it (which is explained as beliefs based predominantly on emotion rather than reason).

I wont delve too deeply on the subject. If you’re interested, read the paper. :) I wanted to point out one interesting realization that I draw from this.

In the paper, while commenting a described study it is stated:

“Baron dryly notes: “This study is disturbing, because it suggests that evidence is
useless in settling controversial social questions” (p.288)—a conclusion one might well
have reached independently, observing current debates such as whether certain drugs
should be legalised.”

What immediately sprung into my mind was that, well, why then do we have those kinds of debates in the first place? Isn’t this a pretty compelling reason why people should let each other be and live as they want so long as they don’t force anyone else to follow their lead?

Considering the prevalence of the irrational persistence of belief phenomenon and a much more simple realization that every thinker should sooner or later come to – that we can all be wrong about our beliefs, that nobody has the absolute truth, how can we ever condone forcing other people to follow any set of rules forged by others?

There really hardly is an alternative choice. Either you believe you’re right to force your beliefs, your moral standards and your culture on others or you don’t.

If you do then you are likely to support coercive governments. If you don’t then you can’t be in support of coercive governments without at the same time contradicting your own moral judgment.

Decide for yourself and face the consequences of your choice, because you are what you think and you can’t escape that.

I for one can confidently say that I don’t believe in coercive governments EXACTLY because I believe I could be wrong about whatever I believe is true. If I at the same time believed that I could be wrong and believed in coercive governments then I would essentially believe that either I should be oppressed by others or that I should oppress others. I can’t do that.

Tags:
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

You are what you think.

Sunday, August 10th, 2008

I’ve just read a very short book, only 22 pages long, called “As a Man Thinketh” by James Allen which almost seems like a condensed inspirational version of “Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill which is actually given through AsAManThinketh.net.

It is an excellent book and considering how short it is I’d mark it as a must read. It’s not much longer than some longer articles found commonly on the web. The only criticisms I have for the book is that the author sometimes seems to imply or is at least unclear about the existence of absolute “right” and “wrong”, or “good” or “bad” and thus judges certain thoughts as good or bad, pure or impure etc.

I believe that such valuations are really in the eyes of the beholder because reality outside of thinking and feeling beings does not think and feel and therefore cannot perceive nor contain inherent “good” or “bad”. It is only an individual human which asigns such values to things. That said, however, all sentences in the book which encourage “good” thoughts against “bad” thoughts can be read as suggesting you to nourish what you believe to be good thoughts.

Another critique I would add is against his use of words such as “selfish” in a negative way even while describing a philosophy which is essentially about pursuing ones own dreams and desires (which is essentially selfish). But this may merely be my misunderstanding of the context from which he was writing or a flaw of english language where even words like “selfish” can have dual and contradictory meanings. For instance “selfish” could at the same time describe “individual pursuit of happiness and self-responsibility” and “pursuit of power over others out of lack of self-responsibility”.

That said, the book is a jewel. It artfully expresses the idea that an individual’s character is a sum of his thoughts, that thoughts lead to acts which shape our circumstances and therefore our entire destiny. It certainly fits well with the belief I’ve already been developing. Every act is met by a reaction from the reality around us. We then judge this reaction, this consequence, as either good or bad for us and based on that, if we are thinking and keeping ourselves aware, we can adjust our acts to get better consequences. And to do that we have to adjust our thoughts and by that our character.

So indeed, what we think is what we are. Our thoughts and ideas are the sum of who we are. And this largely affects our circumstances in life. This is why there is nobody but yourself to blame if your circumstances are bad to you and why there is much less of such things people call “bad luck” or “good luck” than is commonly thought.

Here is a quote that particularly stuck with me:

“It has been usual for men to think and to say, “Many men are slaves because one is an oppressor; let us hate the oppressor!” But there is amongst an increasing few a tendency to reverse this judgment and to say, “One man is an oppressor because many are slaves; let us despise the slaves.”
The truth is that oppressor and slaves are cooperators in ignorance, and, while
seeming to afflict each other, are in reality, afflicting themselves. “

This actually reminded me of a thought I had after watching “V for Vendetta” movie, that rulers in seeking power over others lose power over themselves whereas those being ruled let themselves to be ruled only because they could not rule themselves. Essentially, both the rulers and the ruled are playing the same exact game and inflicting on themselves the same exact poison, and all end up losers. And they are both consumed by fear.

So what can the few of people who know and understand this do in face of the masses who administer this poison to themselves? Should we despair as we see them wallowing in the pain and chaos (endless war, between governments and between rulers and ruled) they created for themselves fearing that we will be caught in their cross fires?
It wont do us any good, obviously. The best thing we can do is live free and be an example while conveying our ideas to those who are actually willing to listen. We can’t hope to send a more powerful message and more greatly influence the world any other way.

And in line with that, here is another quote:

“Dream lofty dreams, and as you dream, so shall you become. Your vision is the promise of what you shall one day be; your ideal is the prophecy of what you shall at last unveil.
The greatest achievement was at first and for a time a dream. The oak sleeps in the acorn; the bird waits in the egg. And in the highest vision of a soul a waking angle stirs. Dreams are the seedlings of realities.
Your circumstances may be uncongenial, but they shall not remain so if you only perceive an ideal and strive to reach it. You can’t travel within and stand still without.”

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments »

Reality, Humans, Fascism and Anarchy

Tuesday, August 5th, 2008

First there is reality. It simply exists and it is true and absolute. Existence is its defining nature. And everything that exists is a part of it. Things that exist are the way they are and operate the way they do.

Within reality there is a planet and on that planet there exist a variety of life forms. Among them there is a form of life which calls itself human. A human has an apparently rare quality on this planet. It consciously perceives itself and the reality around it (awareness) and is capable of processing the perceived information (thinking), assigning values to it (feeling) and choosing a manner in which it will partake in the processes of reality (acting).

When a human combines awareness (perception of reality) with thinking (processing the perceived), it learns. When it combines the learned with feeling (assigning of values) it forms choices and acts.

So a human is constantly, like everything else in reality, answerable to reality itself. Absolute reality is the backdrop of its existence. However, uniquely, and because of the ability to perceive differently, process the perceived (think) differently and assign values to the processed information (feel) differently every human individual creates a sub-reality of its own. How successfully a human is to pursue any particular goal involving reality depends on how much overlap there is between the individual sub-reality and the absolute reality on which it is based.

This is because this sub-reality, this combination of perceived and processed information mended by feelings, is what individual’s actions really come from. And individual’s actions are always applied to the backdrop of his existence, the external absolute reality itself.

There exists many of human individuals. Currently more than 6 billion (and growing). They all, being human, perceive the same reality and then process it (think), value it (feel), and act upon it. However, since they are not all exactly the same, the information they perceive, processing programs they employ and the values they assign are different. Every human perceives, thinks, feels and acts differently.

When humans perceive, think about and feel about other humans they create human communities in which they share thinking programs, feeling programs (values) and even acts to create human cultures.

These thinking programs as well as the information that results are what humans often call “ideas”, “concepts”, “beliefs” and “knowledge”. And those feeling programs (values) are what humans often call “morals”, “ethics”, “right”, “wrong”, “good”, “bad”, “love”, “hate” etc.

Thinking programs affect feeling programs and vice versa. Together they are, after all, what creates the sub-reality of an individual.

These cultures inevitably contain shared ideas on how should humans interact with each other in any of their pursuits. There are two fundamental ideas.

1. My sub-reality must override yours at any cost.

An individual may feel so strongly about its sub-reality or any of its subsets and believe its overlap with absolute reality to be 100% without compromise. This may lead it to believe that every other human within a given community or the entire planet should share that same reality.

Such humans call for unity and believe that unity is strength. Indeed, such a human believes that the more people believe his own sub-reality to be the only true result of the whole perceiving-thinking-feeling the stronger that idea becomes for he sees legitimacy in numbers.

Many times, other humans who do not necessarily share that same exact sub-reality, because in truth, they cannot, believe in the idea of unity in hope that they could get their own sub-reality be the one under which to unite. So they too believe that unity means strength.

Basically, human individuals approach the idea of unity in hope that unitedness will happen under the premise that they individually carry.

The result of this is perpetual war. Individuals whose minds carry one sub-reality fight those who carry another. They represent these subrealities with different flags, logos, slogans or just desires and acts. A war between those who believe they must rule and those who believe they shouldn’t be ruled. A war between classes, cultures, nations. The extreme result is what humans commonly call fascism.

2. My sub-reality is my own. Yours is your own. Be and let me be.

While an individual may feel strongly about his sub-reality being 100% overlapped with absolute reality, it may also realize that it is not the only one believing so and that it is therefore less harmful, to its own sake, to let others learn for themselves why what they believe is wrong than for it to force this belief to others and end up in a state of war.

Such an individual leads himself or herself only, and nobody else unless asked. Such an individual sees the war things others have created as illusory (borders, countries, governments) and unnecessary.

They find strength in diversity rather than unity.

Such individuals are, on this planet today, still a rarity and often potentially or actually oppressed.

Such individuals are commonly called anarchists.

Ever since they have existed, humans have been tumbling between these two fundamental ideas on social organization: fascism and anarchy and consequently the two states of mutual affairs respectively: war and peace, chaos and order.

I wrote this post in a cold tone, as if observed by an alien who has been studying humans for a long time, deliberately, in order to present things “as is”, and polute with emotional exclamations and statements as little as possible. My hope was to express a little bit of an epiphany that I had tonight on the relation between reality and human affairs. What inspired thinking that led to this post is this interview with Alan Moore

I’m not sure if I succeeded in terms of clarity, but I let it out.. and now it’s on the record and I can build on it. Feel free to comment.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »