The War on Democracy: a simple answer

I have a relatively simple thought I want to share about democracy. It’s somewhat in the context of my recent thoughts about Thomas Paine’s vision of America, but it’s directly inspired by my having just watched the John Pilger’s documentary ‘The War on Democracy’.

Democracy is a potential that has yet to fully manifest in American politics and in international politics, partly because the US and other global superpowers have often gone out of their way to crush emerging democracies. Watching Pilger’s documentary, I became aware that it’s not an issue of creating the right political system or the right economic system. Merely having elections doesn’t a democracy make. A political system can’t be free. Only people can be free. This is also why a free market makes no sense. Many systems can be claimed as free, but the measure is whether or not the people are free. A system can’t make people free. Only people can demand their own freedom and they must do it collectively (freedom for all or freedom for none). And only free people can make systems that serve freedom.

This is why partisanship and ideological debate is meaningless. It doesn’t matter what inspiring rhetoric is spewed by a politician even if well-meaning. It doesn’t matter what argument can be made for why any particular system should work better. Everyone has there own arguments that they are convinced by… and yet such debate and ideological posturing hasn’t led to real democracy. What is forgotten is that a system isn’t an abstract model to be enforced onto people. A system is created by people. A system merely represents the way people relate to one another.

Democracy is ultimately more about how an entire society (in all aspects, on all levels) functions and not just about politics. If there isn’t grassroots organization in communities and in workplaces, then there can be no democracy. Grassroots organization directly relates to egalitarianism because such foundations of democracy can’t operate in a class-based society. And a class-based society will always exist where there is inequality of wealth and power, an inequality of opportunities and justice, and inequality of freedom and rights.

In our present global society, we have a class-based society that maintains its power and wealth through constant class war (and often actual war as well, along with coups and propaganda). In America which is the wealthiest nation in the world, a quarter of the population lives in poverty while a small percentage controls most of the government, media, and means of production. It’s corporatism because there is no clear division between the public and private sectors. A revolving door exists between big business and big government. That is the tricky part because no single person or single sector or single anything can be blamed. It’s a whole class of people who are in collusion, whether directly or indirectly, by shared interests. Getting rid of one aspect would just shift the problem to another aspect. Limiting the power of corrupt politicians would just increase the power of corrupt capitalists, and vice versa. It’s a social problem, not a political or economic problem.

Arguing about ideology just ends up helping to perpetuate the problem. We have to look at it on the level of real humans. This means we have to begin with empathy and compassion. We can’t just think what will help me and my own. Rather, we have to consider what will help all. It may seem naive, but it’s the vision that Paine wrote about and it’s the vision that inspired the American Revolution. Paine saw this as not just a battle for Americans gaining national self-control. What Paine hoped for was a global revolution that would spread from country to country until all people were free. When the US government (often with the support of Americans) attack other countries claiming to defend their own freedom, they are actually destroying their own freedom. The greatest insight Paine had was that we can only have the rights we are willing to allow others. Research shows that even the rich are better off in societies that have less economic inequality. The wealthy elite have been waging a class war, but they don’t realize they are destroying the society they are a part of. No walled community will keep them safe forever.

It’s not about just blaming the rich. The elite are able to rule because the majority allows them to. People have to demand freedom which is a hard thing to do in a society whose population is kept ignorant and isolated. All people need to wake up, rich and poor alike. Class war can’t be ended by more class war. We must end the ignorance by increasing the sharing of knowledge. We must end isolation by creating a strong sense of community where people understand that there fate is tied with the fate of all. Changing society is probably a lot easier than it seems. Fear and apathy is what holds us back. If people were to wake up for just a moment, to see clearly with their own eyes, to feel fully with their own hearts, society would transform over night. The problems of society are right in front of us every day. We walk by pretending not to notice, pretending to be mature adults with our cynicism and realpolitik.

We, as a species, are at a critical juncture. We either collectively wake up and embrace democratic values (which simply means caring about other people) or we’ll keep going down this path of collective self-destruction. But few people want to face the obvious, to see the writing on the wall. The answer is simple, assuming people actually want an answer. It’s a choice between caring or not caring… between caring about others, all others or not, between caring about society or not, between caring about the environment or not, between caring about the fate of future generations or not. You can always choose selfishness and greed, you can always choose ideological righteousness or ethnocentrism, but your neighbors and your grandchildren will suffer horribly for your sins… and, depending on how long you live, you might get the opportunity to suffer for your own sins as well. If we don’t change our ways, the inevitable results won’t be desirable even for the richest of the rich. I don’t envy future generations.

39 thoughts on “The War on Democracy: a simple answer

  1. ‘Only people can demand their own freedom and they must do it collectively (freedom for all or freedom for none)’

    One Time, my man!

    Before, I thought I was mad for saying that, that ‘all or none’ business was preposterous. But, making it far-fetched just makes it easier for the villains to justify themselves

    Ei, I’ve forgotten to post the link to my ‘One Time’.

    ‘What is forgotten is that a system isn ’t an abstract model to be enforced onto people. A system is created by people. A system merely represents the way people relate to one another’

    I’ve been wondering where my mind went. Apparently, you picked him up as he was boarding a bus on ya scooter.🙂

    I’m with Paine on the global revolution. But, how spiritual was he? Cos real revolution is total, not some skin-deep thing

    ‘If people were to wake up for just a moment, to see clearly with their own eyes, to feel fully with their own hearts, society would transform over night’

    That is the Revolution.

    • I sometimes feel that the ‘all or none’ business is preposterous, but watching that documentary got me thinking.

      Many different examples were brought up in the documentary. The one that caught my attention was Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. He is a popular president among the average and below average Venezuelans, but very unpopular among the rich ownership class. The wealthy elite with the help of some military leaders, apparently with funding from the US govt, successfuly kidnapped Chavez and declared a new govt.

      It’s an old story of oppression, but with an ending that wasn’t predicted. The people were given a voice on one remaining free radio station. Hearing their own collective voice, the people went out in the streets. The soldiers seeing the power of the people abandoned the military leaders and fought with the people. Chavez was returned to power.

      The rich Venezuelans thought they could have freedom just for themselves. But the people told them ‘No!’. The people didn’t wait for anyone to save them. They took freedom for themselves. They didn’t care how much money and power was against them because the force of an entire population can’t be matched by any other force. When the collective power of the people is awakened, there is nothing they can’t accomplish no matter what the odds are against them.

      I’m not an optimist, but I’m a fan of the underdog. It’s nice to know that sometimes, even if only rarely, the good guys win. It’s those seemingly small and isolated victories that create the progress of society over long periods of time.

      It’s extremely interesting that Paine was proposing global revolution at a time when few people thought in the context of a global society. It seems he was ahead of his time by at least a couple of centuries. We now are in an era where global awareness is becoming a reality. The young generation, following my generation, is the first generation to have a global sense of society.

      How spiritual was Paine? I can’t say for certain. His father was a Quaker which is partly from where he inherited some of his visionary radicalism. In his early writings, he often positively referenced spiritual values and religious notions.

      Did he actually believe in the spiritual or was he just trying to write inspiring rhetoric? His views may have changed over time. In his later writings, he was more openly critical of the problems of religion. But many people are spiritual without being religious.

      It’s a good question. I’ll have to look into it more sometime and see what I can find. I suspect he was genuinely spiritual in some sense. His idealism was so radical that I doubt it could have come from a perspective of mere materialistic atheism.

    • You asked me how spiritual Paine was. I still don’t have an answer to that question, but I came across an interesting quote.

      “The fable of Christ and his twelve apostles…is a parody of the sun and the twelve signs of the Zodiac, copied from the ancient religions of the Eastern world…. Every thing told of Christ has reference to the sun. His reported resurrection is at sunrise, and that on the first day of the week; that is, on the day anciently dedicated to the sun, and from thence called Sunday…”

      Thomas Paine, The Complete Religious and Theological Works of Thomas Paine (382)

      Like some of the other American Founding Fathers, Paine questioned the literalist interpretation of the Bible. So, that seems to confirm his not being traditionally religious which, however, doesn’t say one way or another about whether he was spiritual.

  2. The visions of futurists that machines will come to rule over us showcases the very ill view human takes of human. That, the human is a stagnant being, so that everything remains the same while our artefacts get better and more populous. The only significant difference between their models and what is extant at any time is the fact of machine. Their models always look very much like what is current, in terms of human, except the awe tech

    • I don’t have any strong opinion about futurists’ view of machines. I’m not on either extreme end of being a technophile futurist or a luddite primitivist.

      As human creation changes, so do humans change. Writing on paper (first as scrolls, later as books) was one of the greatest human inventions which allowed for the rise of the great civilizations. So, that particular device changed humans to a great extent, even possibly causing a speeding up of genetic evolution… by way of the mixing of genetics that first happened on a largescale with the early great civilizations.

      There are futurists who are also humanists, who want to transform the human species and broaden human potential. They envision a machine future where machines become entirely integrated with human society, with the human body, and even with the human mind. In such a possible future, machines won’t rule over humans since machines will be an extension of humans… and vice versa.

      Machines of the future won’t look like machines. When a scientist creates a gene that serves some particular purpose, it is essentially a biological machine. Technology in the future will be ‘living’, in some cases possibly capable of self-propagating or even evolving.

      I have no opinion about whether that would be a utopia or a dystopia. I can’t speak for the future. I can say, however, that it will most likely be interesting times to live in.😉

  3. There’s one other thing about this democracy that I failed to mention:

    A certain insidious ideology exists that always seeks to subjugate the individual. What is that? The unspoken, unwrit culture, and it is a domineering, ruthless master. Without that, true freedom is still elusive and illusory.

    The issue is I’ve realised that you guys have rooted in ya society the British classism. You must get rid of it. It’s not overt, you guys say ‘land of opportunity’, but that understated classism exists and I think it’s only ‘land of opportunity’ for foreigners, after all, they don’t feel the pressure of the unspoken culture. Foreigners live in cities too, cosmopolitan and thus more tolerant, so there isn’t much xenophobic injustice. Cultural pressure is like a slavemaster, driving one and driving, without relent, that too is an overbearing ideology that comes to be more important than the people themselves

    • The American Revolution was inspired partly by a hatred of traditional classism based in monarchism and aristocracy. There were many like Thomas Paine who were against all forms of classism.

      But the British elite in the American colonies were the very same people who wrote the constitution after the revolution succeeded. The elite in the American colonies felt they were being treated as lesser than the elite living in Britain. They didn’t want to destroy elitism. They just didn’t want to be second rate elites.

      As such, the US was founded as a country based on a post-Enlightenment version of classism, that of a supposed meritocracy which in reality was just a plutocracy of an educated and landowning elite. America began with indentrued servitude and slavery and developed along with industrialization. Even to this day, racial prejudice and oppression is inseparable from socioeconomic classism.

      America’s one saving grace is the constant influx of immigrants which has undermined the classism from becoming too fixed. There is good reason that only immigrants seem to viscerally understand and still believe in the American Dream. There have been 3 major waves of immigration in US history. The first wave which led to the fight for independence. The second wave which led to the Populist era. The third wave was in recent decades and is leading to whites becoming the new minority. The upper class WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) elite have tried to maintain their power and position in society. They’ve done this by becoming a bit more inclusive over time such as allowing Catholics to become part of the elite. But it will be interesting to see what happens as this WASP demographic becomes ever smaller.

      I might understand what you’re saying about “A certain insidious ideology exists that always seeks to subjugate the individual.”

      There has been two impulses in American society. One impulse is that of the melting pot which ultimately comes down to an oppressive cultural majoritarianism (that has continually been challenged, especially now that demographics are changing). The other impulse is that of cultural independence that allows multiculturalism and also an individual independence that challenges norms. The melting pot ideal has never fully succeeded because the country is too large and diverse.

      American culture can seem monolithic because of the mainstream media and Hollywood. But only someone who has lived here would realize how many differences exist among different demographics and regions.

      It’s odd how foreigners who would have little personal experience of America are the very people who most strongly believe in the American Dream. The reason for this is that, in some ways, the American Dream has always been an advertisement luring immigrants here. Many have discovered that the American Dream is false advertising, but many others refused to accept it as a lie and have attempted to make it a reality.

  4. Hah! Thank God, I thought you had done something crazy and ghastly

    I agree with what you say ‘only someone who has lived here would realize how many differences exist among different demographics and regions’. Also, I did take the one side in looking at the expanded classism – plutocracy. But that is what is overt, a la your media. It’s a permitted connection to say what has wider appeal is what will be attractive to the media. But then, everyone fantasizes and the programming just serves the fantasy, as it’s name says ‘Dream’. And then, the other programming like sitcoms offer normal life (though wacky) and it’s relatable. But they are all relatable cos everyone dreams, everyone lives.

    I’ve been looking at Ne and Se and I must say the difference is hard to catch. As Jung says, the Ne thinks he is about the object although ‘he neglects the soul of the object’. Crucial distinction lies in the Ne’s ‘what else does it offer’. He is more interested in the possibility, no matter how vague it is in his mind, that’s what stimulates him, it carries the most significance. The Se thinks ‘this is nice’ and that is what carries the significance. In fact, both might use the same lingo of ‘nice’ but the Ne’s ‘nice’ is about future potential, whether that potential is really apprehended or not. His ‘nice’ coats the primary ‘what else?’.

    • I can see how Ne probably predisposes someone to being future-oriented. I think it’s related to how liberals tend to be future-oriented, hopeful idealists who envision the future and who are constantly seeking new possibilities and seeking change for the sake of change. This future-orientation makes Ne a bit discontented and unsatisfied with present realities, the limits of the known.

      I was just now wondering how future-oriented I am. I don’t think of myself as being overly future-oriented, but I suppose I’m more future-oriented than the typical Sensation type. It is easy for me to imagine the future, how things might turn out. But, at my core (Fi), I don’t identify with the future. I’m not prone to think about my personal future.

      An INFP is in a different position with Ne. An INFP, if anything, is obsessed with the soul of the object. But that is because of Fi grounding Ne in internal (inter-)subjective knowingness. I can sometimes feel a conflict between Fi and Ne, but they most often work together so closely. Ne is just the means for Fi’s motive. So, even though Ne by itself neglects the soul of the object, Ne in service of Fi is used to imagine and probe the soul of the object.

      I’m not sure about ISFPs. But I’d think ESFPs would be some of the most present-oriented of all the types, most easily immersed in their own direct personal experience of the world, most open to intimately relating to the soul of objects. The ESFP wouldn’t even have the emotional distance of the ESTP. The hippy is the archetypal ESFP.

      Se and Ne, however, aren’t as opposed as Si and Ne. Si is past-oriented to Ne’s future-orientation. That could explain some of the differences between types with dominant Perceiving functions and types with auxiliary Perceiving functions. For an INFP, Ne is auxiliary and Si is tertirary. So, both are to varying degrees within conscious experience.

      In the INFP’s tertiary role, Si gives the past a childlike quality. That reminds me of something about research done on thin boundary types. They supposedly experience less distinction between past and present (because they experience less distinctions in general). This makes the past a present experience such as still maintaining their childhood sense of identity. My sense is that Si types are more thick-boundaried in that they would have a strong sense of the past that is distinct from the present.

  5. Ah, I am more future-oriented than you. When I see a kid, any kid, I don’t see him, I see some distant future where he’s grown and shouldering his way through the world (a la Dickens). And, that’s one of my great temptations, since I can remember, to follow the development, see what’s exactly next. Besides, I’ve always liked to save, it seems it just attracted me cos I’ve been doing it since

    I’ve realised something: a person will pick what is his from a lesson, story etc. That which matches his make-up. So, a dominant Ne will very much pick up the future-oriented things, pick up possibilities just because his make-up attracts him to it and attracts it.

    And, I tell you, when I’m cooking, don’t put any ingredient before me, I’ll add it. Just want to test the possibilities. So far as there’s some unknown, untested spice, oh, it’ll be added. My whole mind is about testing the possibilities. If I do anything, it’s most likely an experiment. But don’t force me to do something or else I won’t do that which I do naturally. Mostly though, nowadays too, I’m mostly in my head, and things have lost their spark, it has to have great psychic energy to stimulate me. Maybe, that’s why I’m so bored

    Jung says dom-Ne’s tend to spread themselves thin, giving life where’er they go (so far as there’s remarkable possibility), but have no life of theirs. I have to say, that strikes my heart deep. Problem too is as perceptive type, the decision is not made by reasoning and tends not to have the conviction of the Fe and Te, but jumps from one remarkable future to the other. Choosing one potential or other. No stability, of course the others can change but being dependent on accident – and accidents abound – these types, perceptives, will be accidental people as well. And, when the future looks to be exhausted, they’ll get restless. Also, the judging types follow the prevailing culture or formula so they’re safe, stable. Ne’s are also amoral by extension, their morality seems to be drowned in possibility.

    • Yeah. I’m kinda mixed about future-orientation.

      I can at times be very future-oriented. However, I’m much less future-oriented when feeling particularly depressed… and I’m always depressed to varying degrees. Depression forces me into a more present state of mind. Dealing with the present is hard enough.

      Also, maybe my style of future-orientation is different than yours. I don’t tend to think about the specific futures of specific people. I’m more of a big picture kinda guy. I see the future on the grandiose terms of collective humanity. My future-orientation is more socially-oriented rather than individually-oriented. I’m not sure why that is.

      When I walk around the town I live in, I sometimes envision what it might be like in the future… but this envisioning usually doesn’t have anything to do with me personally or anyone I know. It’s more general, maybe more abstract and vague. It’s more like feeling out myriad possibilities and underlying patterns, not so much about details. It’s intuiting the future reality already present as seed in the present reality, sensing the ghost of what has yet not become. I don’t know if that makes sense.

      I can and do imagine the futures of individuals, although it’s different than you describe. I’m not sure how often I do this and I’m not sure it exactly applies as being future-oriented. When I envision individual futures, I typically just see sickness, old age, and death. I see all the horrible and suffering ways people will slowly or quickly meet their own personal end. My visions of individuals always come true. I have yet to meet a person who doesn’t eventually die.

      I like your attitude of experimentation. I can be that way to some degree. Although I don’t seek out new and exciting experiences, I’m fairly open to that which is different from the norm. I’ll eat almost anything put before me. I’m not picky. I have a general curiosity and it’s not too hard to convince me to try something at least once.

      I don’t recall that about Jung saying dom-Nes spreading themselves thin. It makes sense. I can do that at times which frustrates me because my Fi wants to contract. Between Ne and Fi, there is this constant push-pull, expansion-contraction. My Ne can offer more data and ideas, more possibilities and patterns than my Fi knows what to do with. My Fi would like to bitch slap my Ne and tell it to shut the fuck up, but my Ne is an ADHD child who can’t sit still for more than two seconds.

      By the way, I’d disagree that “the judging types follow the prevailing culture or formula so they’re safe, stable.” That sounds like more of a description of the Extraverted Judging function-attitudes (Fe, Te). I know that some dom-Fis and dom-Tis can be rather disconnected from the prevailing culture or formulat. INTPs, in particular, can be so disconnected as to almost appear autistic.

      I could agree with Ne being amoral. I think it depends on how morality is defined. Conservatives often like to say liberals are amoral because liberals can see multiple perspectives and are more able to shift their own views. The conservative considers this to be moral relativism which means amoral at best and immoral at worst. I’m not sure that most dom-Nes, like most liberals, perceive themselves as being amoral. I think such amorality would more likely apply to ENTPs than to ENFPs. Nonetheless, I understand what you mean. From the perspective of moral certainty of my Fi, Ne seems rather amoral. But auxil-Ne is of course very different than dom-Ne.

  6. ‘When I walk around the town I live in, I sometimes envision what it might be like in the future … but this envisioning usually doesn ’t have anything to do with me personally or anyone I know’

    I do do that as well, I only meant the individual future as an example of my future orientation.

    ‘By the way, I’d disagree that “the judging types follow the prevailing culture or formula so they ’re safe, stable.” That sounds like more of a description of the Extraverted Judging function-attitudes (Fe, Te)’

    I was speaking about Fe and Te, I think I mentioned them somewhere. If I didn’t directly attach em, sorry, mistake. It did take away the meaning of what I was saying. The extraverted-judgers are the cultural types.

    As for amorality, I was using the ex-judgers view of ex-perceptives. I can see why they say EP’s are amoral, by their own perspective, but me, laws(morality included) don’t particularly resonate with me.

    Good and evil are relative terms to me, what I gravitate toward is expediency and justice, fairness. I used to be very given to revenge but that was a long time ago. That’s an ENTP trait, I learn. Plus, I only know life and death, success and failure(in any given particular activity not general or cultural success) not good and evil. If there’s any general success for me, it’s God Almighty and I mean the ‘Almighty’

    • I’ve often had doubts about the meaning or relevancy of dualistic terms such as good and evil. In particular, evil didn’t make sense to me at all when I was younger. I was raised in a church that didn’t teach about evil and so the idea was foreign to me.

      My understanding has changed a bit in recent years. I still don’t have much opinion about metaphysical evil… simply because I don’t know what such a thing would be. It can seem a bit simplistic. On the other hand, sometimes I feel there is no word like ‘evil’ that can describe the profound sense of moral wrongness.

      Humans are capable of horrific acts which can’t always be explainable in rational terms. I don’t know why sociopaths, narcissists and authoritarians act the way they do. I can point to various research, but it just doesn’t get to the heart of the matter. There are levels of dysfunction and depravity, perversion and inhumanity that seem ‘evil’ to me. Some people are irrepairably broken, assuming they were ever normal, so broken that they spread suffering simply by their continued existence.

      Of course, ‘evil’ is just a word. But it’s a word that expresses something that no other word expresses. Maybe it’s just my Fi speaking. Fi loves grandiose ideas like ‘evil’.

  7. And, my mother seems to think that I am a wicked person. She just doesn’t realize how wicked she can also be. She doesn’t realize that she and all the others who beat me for the sake of the way I am, trying to beat me to submission, were wicked to me, EJ’s don;t realize that (using the general formula to judge, no wonder). But, I’ve realized it’s not only EJ’s who speak that way, disregarding relativism. The actual thing is ‘you have been wicked to me’. Such realizations were my intro to archetypes or Ideas, and that some people stress some Ideas more than others though all are available to them. Perhaps, my experience was limited to EJ’s, that they were the only ones I saw but that led me to make that discovery and theorize. It made sense too but I just wasn’t confident in it. After a life of being vilified, who wouldn’t. But, I won’t be like Derrick Jensen and over-inflate my experience so that it blinds me, that I have been aware of long time

    What I used to do was to give examples like Jesus saying ‘I do my Father’s work’ but they would think I meant I am Jesus, son of God. That’s why I say Einstein, Jesus, Gautama, Blake, Bushido helped me very much, if not for them, I might have committed suicide. Bushido told me to be strong courageous, that became my Honor. I didn’t take to Bushido just for fun for ‘Way of the Warrior’ applies to everyone esp me, cos once you’re born, it’s time to fight

    It was such treatment that led me to finally leave home for a place I knew no one and no one knew me. It had always appealed to me as an experiment and cos of Gautama’s story and also to toughen myself up but the pain was the last straw . Funnily, she cried so much (she says I was wicked for leaving too) when I left and helped me to confirm my theory that it is not a particular love or anything but just a general love. I jump to conclusions uh? My use of scientific method is a bit scanty but I use it nonetheless. But, I was convicted that, should research be carried out, it would be so, cos after all the general saying goes ‘you only know what you got till it’s gone’. I understood it differently not the particular way most use it. Among the Samurai, their enemies are valued very much, that also keeps me a bushi

    Thing too is I have a marked similarity in character to my father (who left the house and really was wicked – my mother’s words – and unjust – mine – to my mother and all of us), even then I can’t be mad at him, my justice is not so much a value in the face of perspectivism, yeah that’s mine. But’ I have morals no matter how tenuous or faint, and I think before I act though sometimes (or most, don’t know, I am judging) I act irreverently though authentically. That’s my bane, being like my dad. And, he is such a talented guy, something I realized when young, but he never used it for anything. Always starting things and stopping. He also had the sickness that Jung says afflicts Ne’s, high sexual appetite, that’s a negative sensual attitude for missing the soul of objects. I always thought the man was misunderstood (why I think his high sex is not morbid), and honestly, I miss him. Not for anything, I simply miss him, like I will miss anybody. Can you believe I tend to mourn all those who are dead, anybody esp Blake, Einstein, Jesus, Gautama? Cos I never got to meet em.

    For the most part, I want to do things just to prove people wrong. Start some completely new product or project, be different (though I am different), run risks. Apart from that, I’m fairly, no, very ok just imagining the possibilities (like I always do) and wandering around and pondering as well as jumping from discipline to discipline accumulating knowledge for on reason and generally experimenting on myself. And, it hasn’t been any egregious offense, just general disregard for procedure, rules, standards, authority, that has always been my offense – disrespect. Respect, a word that has usurped love, the one that I believe in. I am always just being honest unless it’s revenge (which serves my lesson–teaching) or I want to teach a lesson even then it’s for the sake of love cos they won’t understand my theories

    They say ‘right time, right place’. Thing is if I don’t say it at the time, I’ll forget and the psychic energy will be sapped from it

    I’m also aware that it might be my mother’s projection of her pain on me and others but it is just some of it

    I always say I don’t need anybody’s pity, in fact I don’t want it. All of it is training to be better, and fodder for theory

    • Sounds like you’ve had a challenging life. I don’t know that I would have faired as well as you if I had lived a life similar to yours. You identify with the attitude of being a fighter. I’ve never been a fighter.

      I didn’t know that you left home. At what age did you begin to live on your own? Do you still see your family on a regular basis?

  8. I had to fight to be born. Literally, not the metaphorical sperm thing or any other metaphor.

    I still live with em. I came back, I loved the fuckers too much in spite of everything.

    I just came upon one of these biblical movies, maybe ‘Abraham’, on TV and it clicked. In the spiritual problem of modern man, Jung spoke about man having ignored the spiritual and that being the cause of his increasing insecurity. That all the tech and stuff have not given man the safety he craves. That is what was expressed in the bible by God as the Israelites kept being sidetracked by the things that were provided, the gold, the things called ‘material’ and ignoring God.

    The connection is an obvious one just that Jung’s spiritual problem concerns the Self. The exact idea presented at the end of Septem Sermones ad Mortuos. If we still remain in ‘God’, the God that Jung speaks of is a more personal God than the one that has become and the one that was inherited all those years. All this separate God business is an effort to compensate for that spiritual problem, the whole religion business where God is not known but learned like some course in school. In the end, it doesn’t cut it, the problem is not even assuaged to be solved. And, as it appears, this current God comes to be a ‘material thing’ too, a charlatan then.

    My chief concern here is the connection. The others were just added as part of overabundance of intuition

    The general principle is like this: God led the people somewhere or gave them something and then they got sucked into the glint of the gold thereby losing sight of God steadily. That is, with time the spiritual significance of God gets lost as the people get increasingly caught up in the mining of their gold. By then, God has become a religion, a last attempt to maintain communion.

    By the way, long ago, well not too long after hiding for long, when I told my mum of my intention to be a monk, she vehemently opposed the thought. Astounded I was, ere I saw my mama🙂. But, it’s all good, cos it would just have been another institution and I wouldn’t have been loyal to it anyway

    • As a response, I’m just going to give you a quote and a video. The quote is by Quentin S. Crisp from his story ‘Karakasa’ in the collection ‘All God’s Angels, Beware!’ And the video needs no explanation.

      “Often there are those who would like to present the world to us as an ultimatum. You talk of powers, but all powers eventually become the shells of empty idols, removed to a sacrificial fire. This is the meaning of ‘straw dogs’. When they attain to the higher place they become hollow, because the highest place is not what it seems. It is not the controller, but the controlled. Those who give the ultimatum are trapped in this cycle, and will end as straw dogs. The ultimatum is a form of despair. A man says, ‘I cannot live without your love.’ To him there are only two things — love or death. For some people there are always only two things. When you are one of these people, it seems that everyone else is, too, and that the whole universe is a city of two things, and whatever does not know the two things, or is unrelated to them, is like a flea on a rat in some obscure province.
      “However, when you see that the ultimatum is only an acrobat’s hoop, and that either side of it there are not two things, but endless things, then you understand that those who believe in two things are very few indeed, and they do not live in the capital, but are a strange species of beetle that crawls in the mud on the outskirts of one forgotten village.
      “There are more than two things. Look at all that has never been spoken of or mentioned. Do not follow the lines of other’s words. Let yourself be smoke, if that is what you want”

    • My biggest dream as a child?

      I can think of various things I dreamed about, but one dream stands out. I don’t remember what I thought of it at the time. It’s fairly vague in my memory.

      The dream had to do with my love of nature. As a kid, I was always playing around in woods and creeks, always getting muddy and catching creatures. If I found an injured animal, I’d try to nurse it back to health. I would lay in the grass with my cat, Marmalde, and sometimes we would go for walks together in the woods.

      Nature seemed endlessly fascinating. I hated school with a passion. I hated doing homework and practicing my saxophone. One of the few things I loved as a child was nature. In nature, I could be myself. The woods was where a kid could be a kid.

      I remember wanting to be able be to do something in nature when I grew up such as being a naturalist. But there was more to it. I wanted to somehow make the world a better place. Even at a young age, I understood the world was a messed up place.

      I’m sure some of this was influenced by my having watched shows such as Grizzly Adams and movies like My Side of the Mountain and Hatchet. Living in nature seemed like a wonderful dream. It’s a dream that has always stayed with me to an extent. It’s like a life I might have lived in an alternative reality.

      After graduating from high school, there was a period of time when I was severely depressed. I couldn’t stand the way the society was. I didn’t want to be a part of this society. I didn’t want to get a degree and get a career. Human civilization was horrific to me. No person could offer me an answer or solace.

      At one point, I seriously considered going off somewhere to live in the wilderness. I was deadly serious. I moved out to Arizona for a while, I worked at the Grand Canyon, and I studied books on how to survive in nature.

      I eventually returned back home. I was so depressed, so desperate. I was afraid of life and I just felt lonely. I just wanted life to be simple (with the words of Thoreau echoing in my mind). I didn’t know what to do and I felt I was incapable of doing anything. Depression was a kick in the gut.

      There was nothing stopping me from living in the wilderness. I’ve met people who have done it. America is a very big country with much wilderness remaining. If you want to disappear into the wilderness, you can. No one will stop you.

  9. How dare you flaunt such villainous blasphemy in my face?! I’m a God-fearing Christian, infidel!🙂

    What a show! My lil bro and I laughed our heads off on it. It reminded me of my own ability to mimic the sounds of various creatures instinctively. Soon as the sound is heard, I’m able to adjust my larynx and every other apparatus I got to produce it without a thought. I still have it and I’m proud of it as well as gleeful that I lost it not. The eagle and the lion have been my challenge. I pull em off from time to time, I use the eagle’s shriek to scare off vultures and crows. Here in Ghana, we believe they are bad birds, at war with the good ones constantly, and true to their belief they usually are fighting pigeon and sparrow alike while pigeon and sparrow also collaborate to fight off the adversary. There’s a biological explanation for that, I’m sure, but I forgot it.

    I didn’t go into nature like you but I engaged my love for nature through nature shows on TV, where I got to know of the panther and eagle, as well as the zoo. You see, I was skittish as a kid, probably linked to the shyness. I used to engage in conversations with animals that were regarded more as harmless as well as occasional chats with the potentially dangerous cats and dogs. But, for a long time now, I don’t much fear cats and dogs, I actually like cats much now as they’re miniature links to my ‘soul-animal’. It’s mostly cos of fearful encounters with these animals prior that I took then that way before and various stories I heard about em. If you want the nature boy, you gotta see a friend of mine, he did experiments on lizards and stuff, more adventurous than I was, he was a very good friend, good observer and insatiably curious like me but I could say he was more extraverted than I

    Let me give you my own take on what Q S Crisp cracks about (his appearance is rather a weird one ;-))

    Beyond Life and Death 3

    I had many dreams including the naturalist one but I think mine was to be a philosopher, wandering one, perhaps influenced by the stories and depictions of Socrates. Although, there was always a great influence to grow, be better in every way, perhaps that’s why I went to philosophy cos they were jacks-of-all-trades, everywhere, they were there and that has been a defining characteristic of mine, the man who can discuss any subject and will attach himself to anything new like a spy’s listening device. Somehow, encyclopedic knowledge or polymathy has always attracted me. I think it stems from my desire to be balanced to some extent, a desire I have had since a very young age. I just want to know how to do everything

    Jung thinks like I do that the adventure worth man’s endeavor is exploring his own soul. Well, I’ve done that since time immemorial but it’s taken a more earnest coat on as a result of perceiving the ephemerality of the amusement in things esp the course I’m in, something we talked about at the begin of our correspondence. Everything’s boring, that deepens my depression when they want me to be committed to the drab clay around me, thank God for discovering the polished marble within me. I also don’t want to be part of this society, it has too much hypocrisy and hubris (tend to go hand-in-hand, them two)

    I get what you meant that time by Ne getting into other mindstates, I used that to explore my own psyche and other psychologies for instance, the mindstate of a killer (dangerous uh?). That might also explain why I think I’ve had a lot of experiences cos I’ve watched so many movies, read and heard so many stories whose plots and characters I immersed myself into. It’s an interesting and very cherished tool I have, I just now remembered it when I did it again, I forgot about it almost completely cos mostly, the stories just don’t elicit that mind transport anymore

    • The video was amusing, villainous blasphemy notwithstanding. A friend of mine emailed it to me and it seemed appropriate somehow for our little discussion here.

      So you’re good at mimicry. That isn’t one of my best talents. I can sometimes mimic well, but I usually need to be in the right mindset. I’ve always been able to make a dove call and my cat mimicry abilities are top notch. Beyond that, my mimicry talent is meager. On a related note, I remember an interview I heard with a guy who was famous for his singing with animals. He supposedly once live on radio managed to get a bunch of chickens to sing along with him.

      Is there a reason vultures and crows are deemed ‘bad’? Are they supposedly evil in some way? Is there traditional folklore for this belief?

      I can see vultures being unliked. They have a tough job eating carcasses, a job that humans find rather unappealing. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a vulture in the wild. There are some species of vultures in North America, but mostly they live further South. The vultures I’ve seen either were in zoos or in nature shows about Africa.

      As for crows, they are interesting creatures, but also in the US many people don’t like them. Farmers have not liked them for obvious reasons. In the city, crows can be a nuisance since they will roost together and poop on everything below. I know of someone who uses an eagle’s shriek to scare off crows. Also, if you nail a dead crow to a tree, the crows supposedly will stop roosting there. They are an aggressive bird, that is for sure. But they are also immensely intelligent, clever, and curious. Crows can survive almost anywhere. Despite not being physically adapted for severe cold, they can survive even far North by constantly eating to keep their body temperature high enough.

      I was shy as a child which made me skittish toward some humans but never toward animals. One of my brothers was petrified of dogs when he was younger. I’m not a dog person, but I’ve lacked a healthy fear of dogs. When I was a kid, a dog bit me on the head. It apparently didn’t bother me. I think it inoculated me to further dog bites because I haven’t been aggressively bit by a dog since despite my tendency to approach strange dogs. I’ve never had much fear of dogs and cats. I’ve always had a sense of understanding them. It just seems obvious to me how to read an animal’s behavior. I can tell by looking at a dog or cat whether it’s likely to bite or not. Animals don’t generally act randomly. Their behavior, like that of humans, is usually predictable if you know what to look for.

      Crisp’s appearance is weird? I suppose so. The British are known for being odd ducks.

      What inspired your post “Beyond Life and Death”? I liked your conclusion: “The only way to know something is to doubt and feel it at the same time.” I think I know what you mean by that. I get the gist of it, but I was trying to figure out how I’d explain my own experience of this. I’m not sure. It’s a hard thing to put into words, this kind of ‘knowing’. There is a PKD quote which I think relates:

      “I actually had to develop a love of the disordered & puzzling, viewing reality as a vast riddle to be joyfully tackled, not in fear but with tireless fascination. What has been most needed is reality testing, & a willingness to face the possibility of self-negating experiences: i.e., real contradicitons, with something being both true & not true.
      “The enigma is alive, aware of us, & changing. It is partly created by our own minds: we alter it by perceiving it, since we are not outside it. As our views shift, it shifts in a sense it is not there at all (acosmism). In another sense it is a vast intelligence; in another sense it is total harmonia and structure (how logically can it be all three? Well, it is).”
      ~ In Pursuit of VALIS: Selections from the Exegesis
      by Philip K. Dick, edited by Lawrence Sutin, Page 91 (1979)

      You also dreamed of being a naturalist. It wouldn’t surprise me if it were a fairly common dream. Most kids love nature. But your biggest dream was to be a philosopher. Ya know, I don’t recall having ever had that dream. I never thought of philosophizing as a career or lifestyle. I thought philosophical ideas and asked philosophical questions while growing up, but I never consciously identified with that activity until much later.

      You really like Jung, don’t you? Maybe Jung is to you as PKD is to me, but I have high esteem for both of them.

      Could you tell me more about this Ne mindstate ‘tool’ that allows you to immerse yourself in stories? Why is it that stories don’t elicit this as much as they used to? What was it that just now reminded you of this? I think I somewhat recall what I had said about Ne getting into mindstates (I was referring to ENTPs, wasn’t I?), but I was just wondering what this means to you.

  10. I liked the guy before I knew him. Jung is exactly who I’d be if not for the Socratesque lack of initiative I have. That panoptic kind of guy. Did you know? Ta Da! Monarc watched ‘A Scanner Darkly’, nice appearance, excellent dialogue and interpersonal dynamics, most of all for me, exciting ideas. I always thought my imagining of dissociation was dramatic but I see that it’s quite accurate. Or the film’s portrayal was over-the-top? Rob Downey is always playing an NT, seems easy for him.

    When you mentioned that Ne tool, you were referring to yourself and your tribe of INFPs. What happens is I can start to think like the other person, feel what he feels and see the world through his perspective. In that time, I become that person and it can be so so real, it’s like acting but my big bro thinks I can’t be an actor no matter the quality cos I am a melancholic. One wish of mine is to actually enter the person’s mind and experience the complexity of the person cos I’ve always been aware that though I can shift minds, it’s still my mind at the background. Issue is, the stories don’t draw the emotion out but some do, some do. I haven’t yet studied what exactly it is that makes the difference but I think the authenticity and novelty of the experience, my contemporaneous mindstate and how real the narration or dramatisation goes. I still mindshift but now it’s more like some data than something wonderful

    Yeah, I also see crows as very intelligent just annoying for some reason, maybe the remainder of societal influence. Vultures, crows, owls are viewed as witch birds, birds that serve as vehicles of evil spirits and esp owls being witches transformed. I used to somewhat be given to them ideas but even then, they were just interesting animals for study esp the owl, perhaps cos I didn’t get to see it much and cos it has that distinctively mysterious look

    And what reminded me of the mindshifts was a story my lil bro was telling me that stimulated me significantly so that I was aware I was doing it again. Apparently, I’ve been doing it all this time but it hadn’t reached threshold of awareness

    • Cool! You watched A Scanner Darkly. You didn’t think it was too weird? I could understand that the visual style and the subject matter would be a bit much for many people.

      “I always thought my imagining of dissociation was dramatic but I see that it’s quite accurate. Or the film’s portrayal was over-the-top?”

      I don’t think it was over-the-top, at least not more than the novel. Dissociation is the central part of the story. It might seem more extreme in the movie because the visual element allows for a more engrossing portrayal of dissociation. But PKD does a very good job of portraying it in just words.

      I hadn’t thought of Downey’s role in the context of his playing an NT, but that makes sense. Maybe his character would be an extreme and somewhat dysfunctional example of an ENTP, ya know the whole detached socopathic chameleon behavior. Downey’s acting was superb. He had that role down perfectly.

      I see what you mean by the whole Ne ability thing.

      I have some of that ability, but it’s a bit different. I’m not sure how often I do this with stories. I know it happens more with real people.

      My use of this ability is more flavored by Fi, going past story or biographical details in order to feel out the heart/essence of a character or person. I don’t so much enter the character/person’s life or perception of the world. That can seem like just so much distraction to me, superficial to what is really important to what makes someone the way they are. I want to know someone’s ‘truth’, their core value/ideal/dream, their secret, the archetype or ‘god’ that rules their life.

      Maybe you’re similar to this. But a difference might be that I don’t think my ability would make me a good actor. I do admire others who are good at acting.

  11. I’d agree with my bro that I wouldn’t make an actor. But, should I have just one time, I think I can muster enough social courage. My big problems will be mood changes esp when an idea needs investigation, social anxiety, the awareness of the illusion of the whole thing. But, just one performance and I’d be off

    I guess then I’m weirder than you. The kind of things I wish to investigate in mind, you wouldn’t imagine. I want to investigate those things you mention too but I also want more. Mostly, it’s just for experimental purposes, get evidence and to get more data for theory. Usually, I get the kind of information you mention rather easily, I can ask some rather innocuous questions and sum up a person in a jiffy. Then I test with certain questions to confirm my observations. Once a gal asked ‘Is that what you do? Test people to get into their heads?’. Also, I observe the person from a distance to further gather data

    Weird? I didn’t think the movie was weird, that’s my normal. Movies like ‘Minority Report’, ‘Matrix’, ‘Scanner’, ‘Vanilla Sky’ and the others whose titles I don’t know cos I met em in the middle of the stories. The visual style was good, in my opinion. But, I still doubt the dissociation depicted, I’ve seen none before so I just want to be sure it wasn’t over-dramatised

    • Maybe you’re weirder than me. I couldn’t say as my knowledge of you is rather limited. I’m not even sure what ‘weird’ might mean to you in terms of your own experience.

      Actually, I’m not even sure what I consider weird. Life, in general, seems weird. But, more specifically, I’ve had some very weird experiences in my life… which you’ve seen some descriptions of in other posts of mine.

      I might not have communicated my view well enough in my previous comment. Weird, in terms of my daily experience, has more to do with depth. It’s not just about figuring people out. It’s as if seeing the entire world as if from within the world looking within, ever further within, lost in the within, infinite within with no final endpoint. The core/center of a person is merely a doorway, a starting point rather than a final conclusive apprehension.

      Does that make sense?

      I’m not always in that mindset, but depression tends to draw me in that direction. With depression, I psychically contract. When extremely depressed, it brings on a melancholy that makes all the world contract into an introverted reversal where the internal becomes more apparent than what is seen by the outward senses.

      It’s not so much a thing I do. It happens to me, but I can resist it or accept it. I often resist it because it can be a difficult state of mind to be in, especially when in public, even more especially when at work. I can lose myself in that experience. It can be overwhelming. I have some fear of giving into it too much. I sense that it is a complete negation of my personal identity, a cosmic refutation of the comfort of my personal space, my personal reality.

      I did get lost in it once for maybe a year. I don’t know what to make of it. Any explanation I give of it won’t communicate the experience itself. It’s my ‘truth’, my secret. But it comes off sounding melodramatic and stupid when I try to explain it. It can be a rather simple ‘feeling’. It’s just like seeing something very clearly, seeing every detail, seeing it and yet not knowing what you’re seeing. It’s just what it is. In my own personal theology, I like to think that everyone has a seed of this reality within them… but that is just my fanciful way of thinking about it.

      Enough of all that bullshit.

      So, you didn’t think the movie was particularly weird. Well, weird is a relative concept. To me, Scanner was more profoundly weird than those other movies you mention (‘Minority Report’, ‘Matrix’, and ‘Vanilla Sky’). There is just more of a subjective/spiritual depth to Scanner, in my opinion.

      Why do you doubt the dissociation depicted? Over-dramatized? I guess it depends on whose experience you’re comparing it to. PKD had some massively weird experiences in his life. He was writing from personal experience. But, of course, like any story it was dramatized probably more than real life, all drama being dramatized.

      By the way, I see you spell it as ‘dramatise’ with an ‘s’. Ha! I caught you. That is how the British spell it. Americans like to spell such words with a ‘z’ as in ‘dramatize’.

  12. Actually, according to the dictionary, American is -ise while the British is -ize. Ha!

    That’s a fascinating experience. To be exact, I don’t count anything as weird, what I know is that people will think I’m weird or something’s weird. When I’m talking, I guess I have to indicate when I shift perspective. Then again, to be more exact, I think when I’m talking, I talk more as a narrator than anything else, bringing the views of the players in the story (in this case, life) to my audience. I usu don’t particularly have an opinion. My mind is somehow empty like that, all I do are analyses – internal and external – and daydreaming, my nose is always in the future which can be disturbing cos it brings on plenty angst. Mostly, my thinking just leads to more thinking, no endpoint, no objective anything so in the end I’m the distant character, the misunderstood kid, the devil (cos if you stick around long enough, I’ll break everything down, but theoretically)

    You just got interesting my friend

    Check out The Parlotones, they’re an interesting band

    • Which dictionary did you read that in? I remember it being the opposite. I’ve always used the -ize, but I guess I can’t speak for what most Americans do. According to Wikipedia, I seem to be partly correct, although there is a fair amount of variety for different standards:

      -ise, -ize (-isation, -ization)

      American spelling accepts only -ize endings in most cases, such as organize, realize, and recognize.[57] British usage accepts both -ize and -ise (organize / organise, realize / realise, recognize / recognise).[57] British English using -ize is known as Oxford spelling, and is used in publications of the Oxford University Press, most notably the Oxford English Dictionary, as well as other authoritative British sources. The OED lists the -ise form separately, as “a frequent spelling of -IZE…”, and refuses to list the -ise spellings even as alternatives in the individual entries for words such as “realize”.[58] It firmly deprecates usage of “-ise” for words of Greek origin, stating, “[T]he suffix…, whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Greek -ιζειν, Latin -izāre; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling in -iser should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic.” It maintains “… some have used the spelling -ise in English, as in French, for all these words, and some prefer -ise in words formed in French or English from Latin elements, retaining -ize for those of Greek composition.”[59] Noah Webster rejected -ise for the same reasons.[60]
      Other references, including Fowler’s Modern English Usage, now give prominence to the -ise suffix over -ize.[61] The Cambridge University Press has long favoured -ise.[61] Perhaps as a reaction to the ascendancy of American spelling, the -ize spelling is now rarely used in the UK mass media and newspapers, to the extent that it is often incorrectly regarded as an Americanism.[57] The ratio between -ise and -ize stands at 3:2 in the British National Corpus.[62] The -ise form is standard in leading publications such as The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Economist. The Oxford spelling (which can be indicated by the registered IANA language tag en-GB-oed), and thus -ize, is used in many British-based academic publications, such as Nature, the Biochemical Journal and The Times Literary Supplement. In Australia and New Zealand -ise spellings strongly prevail; the Australian Macquarie Dictionary, among other sources, gives the -ise spelling first. The -ise form is preferred in Australian English at a ratio of about 3:1 according to the Macquarie Dictionary. Conversely, Canadian usage is essentially like American.[63]

      Worldwide, -ize endings prevail in scientific writing and are commonly used by many international organizations, such as the ISO and the WHO. The European Union switched from -ize to -ise some years ago in its English language publications, and this resulted in the coexistence of the -ize spelling in older legislative acts and the -ise spelling in more recent ones. Proofreaders at the EU’s Publications Office ensure consistent spelling in official publications such as the Official Journal (where legislation and other official documents are published), but the -ize spelling may be found in other documents.

      The same pattern applies to derivatives and inflections such as colonisation/colonization.
      Some verbs ending in -ize or -ise do not derive from Greek -ιζειν, and their endings are therefore not interchangeable; some words take the -z- form exclusively, for instance capsize, seize (except in the legal phrase to be seised of/to stand seised to), size and prize (only in the “appraise” sense), whereas others take only -s-: advertise, advise, apprise, arise, circumcise, comprise, compromise, demise, despise, devise, disguise, excise, exercise, franchise, guise, improvise, incise, merchandise, revise, rise, supervise, surmise, surprise, televise, and wise. Finally, the verb prise (meaning to force or lever) is spelled prize in the US[64] and prise everywhere else,[65] including Canada,[66] although in North American English it is almost always replaced by pry, a back-formation from or alteration of prise.[67]

      -yse, -yze

      The distribution of -yse and -yze endings, as in analyse / analyze, is different from -ise / -ize: -yse is British and -yze is American. Thus, in British English analyse, catalyse, hydrolyse, and paralyse, but in American English analyze, catalyze, hydrolyze, and paralyze.

      Analyse seems to have been the more common spelling in seventeenth and eighteenth century English, but many of the great dictionaries of that period — John Kersey’s of 1702, Nathan Bailey’s of 1721 and Samuel Johnson’s of 1755—prefer analyze. In Canada, -yze prevails, just as in the United States. In Australia and New Zealand, -yse stands alone.
      English verbs ending in -yse or -yze are not similar to the Greek verb, which is λύω lúō “I release”. Instead they come from the noun form λύσις lysis with the -ise or -ize suffix. For example, analyse comes from French analyser, formed by haplology from the French analysiser,[68] which would be spelled analysise or analysize in English.

    • Why don’t you, to be exact, count anything as weird? I guess I still don’t know what that word means to you.

      I think of ‘weird’ in terms of its etymological origin.

      It supposedly came from the Proto-Indo-European root wert- which means “to turn, rotate”. In Europe, it took on various forms including wyrd which translates as “fate” or “the fates” (who control fate: the Weird Sisters, the three witches of Shakespeare’s Macbeth), as “that which has come to pass” or “what is in the process of happening”.

      It also has a connection with skuld which means “debt, guilt” (Germanic root skul- “to owe”, also root of English shall). So, ‘fate’ would seem to be some kind of karma that we’re born with, the causal force/principle that creates and determines our lives, the entanglement of causation which is difficult or maybe even impossible to escape.

      Wikipedia says, in the article about wyrd:

      “The now most common meaning of weird, “odd, strange”, is first attested in 1815, originally with a connotation of the supernatural or portentuous (especially in the collocation weird and wonderful), but by the early 20th century increasingly applied to everyday situations.”

      I definitely don’t just mean that something is just ‘odd’ when I call something ‘weird’. I like the original connotation of the modern usage: supernatural and portentous. So, to me, weird is that which is beyond, outside, or somehow other than normal reality or rather our normal experience of consensus reality; and that which has or is experienced as having greater import and meaning; but also including that which is strange to the extreme, wondrously incomprehensible to the rational mind.

      My sense of weird simply points to the ‘Other’, the felt but not seen and the seen but not understood.

      • Let me tell you a little more about myself, as some more memories (coherent too, tout ensemble) have been dug up

        I like to discuss and debate a lot but there is a curious thing I do, self-sabotage. I really can’t look at an issue non-objectively. In an issue where I’m involved, I invariably (almost, gotta be self-protective sometimes esp when very danglereux) speak as if I were not a part of it. The others then think I’m, crazy or I’m disloyal esp when I’m by reason of formality part of that group. By that, they take me as a wicked person. Same happens (and it has increased even further with age) when I defend myself – have you read ‘The Apology’ – I’ll speak against myself also (not my fault, I’m being objective – didn’t even understand how an issue could be tackled so singlemindedly the way the masses do), always presenting honestly, like Socrates did. It’s hard being that way in a society, no, world that espouses punishment and upholds law beyond the people. Because I present the different perspectives, I present the legally-framed one too. If I don’t do that, I feel sick, it’s such a suicidal impulse I feel cos though it makes me feel good, it endangers me. Cos of that, I shut up increasingly, even though the urge stays and grows with repression then I grow sick. With that too, I withdraw from social situations to protect myself.

        Normally however, I’m a shy guy, that con trump any reason advanced. It seems that is the starting point for the reasons. Even at a very young age, I was very much aware of the possibilities of social opinion or the other’s being contrary to me. It’s not that I’m a wicked person or all-knowing, I just seek to expose fallacies and bring people back down to earth from their high horses. To mitigate hubris is my portion. Sometimes I whs I’d just been like my Einstein and not like Blake or Socrates (even Blake is better, but nowadays, I’m feeling like all of them and I can shift between the individual lives, scientist, artist and thinker) and been a scientific man but I don’t know how much suffering Mr. Albert also went through as a result of the way he was. I hear he once wore pyjamas to a seminar or so, just to spite the people and their conventions. It reminds me of something I did this semester just to spite the people by refusing to be in ‘formal’ attire and wearing a sweatshirt, it was cold that day too, so I had the perfect alibi, even then they were unreasonable, then I said “O my God! Even in this case they hold this stupid law above my head”).

        This way that I go, it pits me against the world. It is that that I’ve been aware of all my life and I thought that I’d die early cos they’d execute me besides other thoughts. Besides, my mother advised me long ago to not be too argumentative or someone could kill me and she had a handy story to prove it too. But now, I’ve died already (see: Gloom… Doom… Bloom), ain’t nothing I can do but do it, let’s go. There’s something I’ve not said, my mum holds me in high esteem – she thinks I’m older than my age. A friend thinks I’m a reincarnation (so do I). Even the name – whose reason she doesn’t know, says it came to her – mum gave me is very profound. You have permission to ask what name it is

        For the most part, when we discuss some issue, I’m always acutely aware of the big-picture ramifications. But, I came to realise that those big pictures I was aware of were not necessaries, were not natural laws like they were unalterable systems making the big picture possibly deceptive but when one is aware of the big picture as something of an artist’s impression and a waxy mould at that, the big picture becomes a beautiful tool to work with. Because of this, I have come to be even more theoretical cos after all the big picture is a waxy construct. Logic (which was what I primarily used to explore the consistency of propositions) will only destroy things in a society that is natively full of contradictions. And, logic depends on definitions, where definitions are current concepts not natural and eternal laws. It is something that I believed since childhood that the laws were pretty messed up but people put so much faith in them that I decided to explore them properly, perhaps, I still will have done so, it only presesnted itself to me in that way; the process of differentiation is a pretty autonomous program. If you read my cathartic essays, you’ll see that my Hero was a person preoccupied with Socratic method. Those essays are a bit personal, they look like part of my spiritual development and I don’t wish to disclose them even after my declaration ‘to give all my secrets away’. Maybe, some time later cos even now, I’m proofreading all that I’ve discovered up until now to measure if I missed anything, if I was inconsistent myself anywhere. I’m meticulous uh? Honestly, my real attitude, a critical attitude doesn’t come out much.

        In the end, it’s just been a search for Truth symbolised in my post ‘Land of Illusion: Just Like Socrates’. Mostly, I’m myself and healthy at home, outside, I cower and feel sick. I even avoid conceptual discussions outside (but you can only do so for so long cos the urge is strong), but I’m maladroit at the whole small talk bit so why won’t I shut up? All for the sake of self-protection. One reason I have a humane side is because of what has been done to me and what I’ve experienced besides my having been influenced by Jesus and Buddha and realising the potential in myself and proceeding to amplify it. What is done to me I don’t care, what is done to others is what matters to me unless the person would wish for a favorable thing to be done to him while he does this unfavorable thing to me whose inconsistency I would immediately proceed to expose.

        I don’t particularly care much about the big picture anymore even if I’m aware of it, the possibilities are many, what makes me to seriously consider it is the loss that mostly comes with any minute change, I always have used the metaphor of the tower of cards or tower of sticks, Jenga, I think is the game. But why should I be concerned, after all it is the big picture’s fault for being susceptible. Still however, my heart reaches out in a proportionate manner to my reason, feeling for the devastation that could come about. It was at that meeting of the two that my realisation of the Revolution came about but even that one is so difficult.

        Check out Bury Me and the song ‘The Kill’ by 30 Seconds To Mars

        And, you know it’s not really that I was afraid of things and death but when you see things that others only dream about or draw or dream and feel really like the dream is part of you, it really can make you wary. When you’ve felt that feeling where it feels as if you’re lost like matter floating in endless space, I guess, it will make you take the less-than-ordinary things seriously. And, in Africa, the less-than-ordinary (as they call them) stories are plenty

        I understand weird as being outside of normal experience but in my heart of hearts, it is just a part of the normal, I can’t separate them. With experiences I’ve had, you know man, I just can’t

      • Never heard it before, just did. I particularly like ‘Should We Fight Back’, ‘Giant Mistake’, ‘Life Design’ and ‘Disappear Without A Trace’. I don’t believe in much but for this I’ll pray, nice

  13. I can’t seem to post that link but you can search for it at my site (ei, I don’t think there’s a search button, o well)

    Most people mistake the masculine principle of domination for thinking and the feminine principle of relatedness for feeling. It’s esp visible among lions where in spite of all the lion’s laziness, the lionesses share with him while he does and eats his own hunting not bothering the women at all. Had to remember my Nature documentaries for that one

    That’s one thing about single parenthood, it brings out the other side in a person. It’s an interesting phenom which I’ve been interested in for a long, long time but was never satisfied with the basic explanation (actually a description of the state) that the one has to compensate for the other

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s