It's all around you, like smog. This train isn't bound for glory.
Background by Deak Ferrand, who pwnz.
If you were referred here by Technorati, please note that the entry you are looking for is probably the one PRIOR TO the one you were actually referred to, due to a bug in their indexing process. Please see previous entry.
Courtesy of bOINGbOING, Posthuman Blues, and other worthy blogs, some referenced to the left, here is something we all need occasionally: a question without an answer. In this case, the question is: What were they thinking?
I have nothing useful to offer in the resolution of this issue, and leave it to the younger generation to work these things out for themselves.
In my defense, I've just relocated two states and perhaps a thousand miles away from where I made my last post, and I'm starting a new job tomorrow, which should be quite a thing, as things go.
A few scattered observations for now, until I am collected enough to make a "proper" post:
I'd rather lose a limb than lose perspective.
Every woman is Penelope, and every man is Ulysses - she's wating for him to sort it out and return homeward, to himself - and therefore, to her.
Per "Soleil": "I don't like my lip gloss to be talking to me while I'm wearing it."
You are here.
The aforementioned "proper" post should be up tomorrow night...
The following is a composite essay made up entirely of unvarnished quotes from my students' "work", from back when I slung philosophy for a living. Oddly enough, I still feel great affection for these people, and I appreciate the effort they were making and such progress as they made.
To define reality is ever so difficult. Really there is and I that thins. There is a certain underlined "I". Just loking at thisat this is would be something hard to look at. Many people would agree with me when I say that philosophy is a very broad topic. Philosophy allows your brain to work not only with others but with yourself as well. You could also define philosophy as a belief that your brain and body assumes to have. Philosophical question to find the correct answer should be the logical. It is always better to know with questioning. It is said that the actual definition of truth is not the whole truth itself. In fact it is not always fact. That makes know difference.
Philosophical contemplated every enlargement not self. Hence impairs the union but universal knowledge do not interfere private knowledge. The object of our action make us citizen on the universe. In the end, your faith is what leads you to believe what you believe if that is what you really believe. Something very fictitious can become so unreal. Whether you believe in life after death reincarnation or just abbliviation. Yes, as individuals we speculate how some thing or someone occured or become to exist. When I was taught as a young girl I was told that plants were created by the big bomb. The minerals from the asteroids fell to earth & create our trees & plants. At any rate, those things happen regardless of weather we thing about them or not. Aquinas basically just states that the purposes of material things are in the fate of an end. Augustine suggested that God is all dandy and everything. Augustinus seems confused again. I think this suck ass really bad. Some people get off on the most stupidest things.
The inspiration of Socrates has inspired men and women for over two thousand years. The vocation of Socrates in a very general sense was to annoy people
and piss them off. Socrates said even if he was exhaled he would still
ask questions. The kids began to intrepid him and do as he would. This was one of Socrates thoughts, he had to let Socrates know to chances of other things to be possible. The law of nature may be a mayor factor since Socrates' establishments of opposites produce opposites theory. The story of Socrates' defense is an interesting historical thing. But when having an opportunity of being able to evade is something so immense. Anarchy just seems a little radical. Socrates was more of a lets have a war kind of person and would probably not want to talk or try to negotiate. War reflects on freedom, conquer, and power. I am all for WAR. War is one of the most happening things right now. War is, in a sense, an opinionated situation. We decided to go to war with the French because we were tired of being under their government. The United States has empty out all of its diamond minds.
No matter what I try, I am still unable to answer those questions "all" in "one".
They don't love themselves, So they can love noöne else. - Peter Tosh, "No Sympathy"
To love any particular person may not require loving everything about them - otherwise we wouldn't single out unconditional love as a particular kind of love. However, even a more restricted form of love, if it is genuinely love of that person, must at least amount to loving what is most essential about that person; one loves another for what they most centrally are. If this is so, then this love must encompass their most defining qualities. Let us suppose that this person is a human being, and either a woman or a man. (I do not deny that other cases may very well exist; in fact I am quite confident that they do.) In such a case, then, we must love their humanity, and their womanhood or manhood. Or, to put it plainly: We cannot love a human man or woman unless we love human beings as such and men or women as such. A universal love of our fellow humans, therefore, and of our preferred sex in particular, are preconditions to romantic love.
Like everything else in the messy, ambiguous Real World(TM), this admits degrees and shadings of all kinds, so I suppose we may say that someone who has a semi-developed sense of humanitarian love may be able to form semi-developed romantic bonds. And while a man (for example) who is a genuine misogynist can never truly love a woman (except, perhaps, by seeing her as too good to be thought of as a woman), most misogynists are incompletely such, and presumably form romantic relationships of complementary incompleteness. (Who would suspect that Cupid works through inverse proportions?)
And while complete misanthropes can never love anyone, the garden variety retain some gruff affection for humans, and are often simply disappointed that humans do not live up to what is best in them - which, ipso facto, reveals that this missed potential is something human which the misanthrope loves. But the deeper the misanthropy, the more impoverished the misanthrope's relationships with other human beings.
And not just with other human beings.
The misanthrope, being human, must to some degree harbor a self-hatred whose depth equals that of their hatred of humans generally, though this self-hatred may not have attained full consciousness. Of course, there is the third alternative of relative indifference to humans. This still amounts to not placing any particular value on them - again, necessarily including oneself. Neglect of one's own well-being may result. The opposite condition of self-love (generally regarded as desirable!) - which I believe is connected with self-knowledge - would seem naturally to require possession or cultivation of love for the humanity found in oneself, and, of course, in others.
(The one possible work-around is Yeti love, which may comfortably exclude love of humans lacking the crucial Yeti heritage. But perhaps even Yeti must acknowledge their status as mammals, and love humans as fellow mammals... but no further!)
Why self-knowledge? It is easier to esteem what you actual contact, and still easier if you perceive what it is, and can thus understand what is appealing about it.
For all of these reasons (and leaving the derivation as an exercise for the reader), I claim that the present social order depends crucially on making all of this (including profound romantic love) close to impossible, which is accomplished primarily through the derangement of the family, and especially through the perversion of the art of parenting. (I am not referring to the decline in "family values", but rather to the decline in the actual family value.) The spiritual results? Alienation from oneself, from those around one, and from humanity at large. The practical results? War, slavery, exploitation, crime... and the routine acceptance that conformity, obedience, surly seriousness, brutality, and drudgery are virtues, but self-expression, freedom, joy, gentleness, and play are vices. Why? Because they/we/I don't deserve anything better.
(Also, mota is illegal. What the fuck's up with that?)
Normally, I favor gradual measures. The most realistic approach would be to encourage everyone to examine human nature as such, particularly as found in their selves, and attend to its appealing qualities, and so on - and thus, by degrees, to heal. A general campaign in favor of niceness might be a useful supplement, along with some relevant marketing to the effect that:
It's okay to be a human being.
Human beings are great!
There is nothing wrong with you, and
It is not necessary to dislike yourself.
Sadly, we are in a state of emergency, and I fear Plan A may be too slow. Given that we are in Threat Level: RED!!! I am forced to advise radical countermeasures - shock therapy, if you will: Worship all human beings. Attribute Godhood to each and every one of them. Don't forget to include yourself. Those who enter the Kingdom of Heaven must first become the Children of God - that is to say, each is a Son or Daughter thereof. But, of course, you'd rather nail them up...
This is just a quick note to remind all wrong-thinking folks that if you are in a major urban area in the US, most of Europe, and many other spots around the globe, you ought to note February 10, 11 AM in your FSU dayplanner. There is very likely going to be an action-packed anti-Scientology demonstration at the nearest Scientology Church or Org, full of unusual and interesting people (and also some protestors). Face-covering is encouraged by some to protect, well, anonymity. Details (locations, times, gathering spots, guidelines for not failing at protesting, local laws concerning masks, etc.) may be found through the links in my earlier post on the Anonymous-driven anti-Scientology movement. If one link is down, try another - start with this link to the Project Chanology wiki for details on the actual protests. If it all gets DDoS'd, Google remains your friend - protest information is stored and mirrored pretty well fucking everywhere....
I've heard and read bits and pieces by Bill Hicks over the years, and I was always intrigued, but I never could be bothered to follow up. Now, thanks to a recent post by the perdurable Episkopos Cain, I have finally got the thorough indoctrination I have so richly deserved. I hereby submit unto you that Bill Hicks roolz OK.
Here is the remark of Cain, featuring ample performance footage and goodness.
Hackers on Steroids versus Clams with Daddy Issues
So... Anonymous has apparently declared war against the Church of Scientology. For those out of the loop, "Anonymous" is the nom de guerre of, well, anyone who wants to act aggressively online. Contrary to popular belief, Anonymous is generally not a hacker, and certainly not often a very good one, but much more often than not, Anonymous is a Troll. The widespread belief that trolls are evil comes from Scandinavian folklore, and from a widespread epidemic of thin skin and cranio-rectal inversion. Frankly, nothing that involves the manipulation of symbols should be taken seriously - doing so is a disease that must be cured by any means necessary. Here, especially, Anonymousalways delivers.
More deeply, the "theory of anonymous", if you will, is that Anonymous is who we all become as more of us act anonymously online - we ourselves don't necessarily change, but Anonymous emerges as a collective personality that averages out individual moral reservations and individual limitations. "None of us is as cruel as all of us", for example, sums up a fairly clear consequence of the axiom that many people act anonymously online. Anonymous is not necessarily our enemy, and can sometimes be our ally, but, fundamentally, Anonymous is anyone and everyone - and noöne - and, as such, is amoral, ruthless, and lawless. Anonymous made a name for anonself in a notable assault on MySpace, and was promptly demonized by Fox News, who represented Anonymous as "Hackers on Steroids" - much, we may assume, to Anonymous' gratification. Needless to say, there was, briefly, retaliation. Was Anonymous the good guy in this? Of course not. That's not what Anonymous does.
And yet... In ongoing pursuit of Epic Lulz and Great Justice, the Internet Hate Machine next turned its attention to Scientology. After the first salvo (linked in the previous sentence), there was, indeed, epic win by way of DDoS attacks, followed by additional win through the grabbing of the public's attention with artful media trolling and high-tech memetic engineering. There has been a rapid widening and maturation of the movement, greatly enriched by increased communication with older and wiser anti-Scientology activists, such as Mark Bunker, a.k.a. "Wise Beard Man" of Xenu TV. The next phase is to be played out at worldwide demonstrations on February 10, in front of most major Scientology centers. Follow-through may come in coördinated attacks on Scientology's tax-exempt status in the U.S., which would go a long way toward ending them. Anonymous has inadvertently ended up stimulating a mass movement, 99% staffed by neophytes, which has accidentally acquired a moral compass due to being averaged over a larger sample of the general population. But, it could never have happened without the earlier phase of glamorous lawbreaking and the rhetoric of destruction. The paradoxes are, themselves, quite lulzy.
For myself, I have to say that, yes, some Anonymous - particularly OG Anonymous - are assholes. And yes, some innocent bystanders have been harassed (though once the error was detected, apologies were forthcoming). And yes, the whole thing is riddled with violations of law, propriety, good (yawn) taste, and even ethics. But, for Christ's sake, it's Scientology, and what we have here is a rare opportunity to wallow in schadenfreude without feeling at all bad about it. And, in the process, a minor, but still real force for evil may very well be crushed, or at least humbled. And, as a bonus, young troublemakers are getting the opportunity to learn from older troublemakers, which may come in handy if the country actually goes the rest of the way down the shitter.
(Fun tip for the kidz: Mix flour and water. Apply to wall with broad paintbrush. Slap flyer on wall. Paint a thin coat of flour solution over flyer and wall. The flyer will still be visible through the top coat of flour paste if you didn't overdo it. High-contrast B&W always wins. With practice, can be done in under 5 seconds. Takes a fucking chisel to remove it. You're welcome.)
And always remember, the art of the Troll is to always appear more dangerous and irrational than one actually is - I have no fear at all of these tactics being turned against, say, the Latter-Day Saints or other "mostly harmless" groups. At the very least, no equivalent mass support would be forthcoming.
I do worry a bit, though. Between the recent agitprop in favor of the Republic of Lakotah, which elicited predictably militant sentiments from many, and this action, which glamourizes tactics which the gummint is bound to see as terroristic, there seems to be a lot going around to encourage the young, pissed-off, and impulsive to move toward getting their asses busted by the DHS. (And this as we decide on our next President.) The tiny part of me that remains paranoid (I call it my brain) is slightly worried that there may be an element of provocateurism here - let's scare out anyone who might be "militant", so we can identify and monitor them before they turn their attention to anti-government activism. That may be silly of me, but I do urge any and all Anonymous who may read this to think seriously about staying within the law, avoiding honeypot sites that promise to teach you secret skillz of doubtful legality, and regarding as a probable enemy anyone who encourages you to Fuck Shit Up in illegal ways. The recent Anthrax scare - generally suspected to be false-flag black propaganda by the Co$ itself - is an indication of the level to which such things can go...
Well, I have said my part - now, I will let the movement speak for itself.
It's been a few days since my last posting because I've been packing my body into a series of metal cans and arranging for others to throw those cans vast distances, toward the general goal of changing the world as I know it.
Or: I was flying to another state and back in order to prepare to take a new job in a new city. More on this later. In the meanwhile, I've fallen perilously behind the pace of events.
So - I would like to draw your attention to the ongoing, and soon to escalate war between Anonymous and Scientology, and to what's most important about it: My opinion. Allow me to gather my notes, and return here later tonight for epic lulz....
My Flaws Offered in Support of Your God-Realization
To be a "know-it-all" is a very unfortunate thing, and I should know, as this is a flaw which I have on many occasions exhibited. This should come as no surprise to regular readers of this blog, if there are any. What is harmful in this? Many things! I would like to draw particular attention to its role as an obstacle to overcoming ignorance - that is, to learning and growth. One must empty a cup of water before one pours tea into it, or one ends up, at best, with very weak tea, which is rather nasty.
Let us consider prejudice, for example. Racial prejudice, for example (leaving aside racism, which is a partially separate issue, involving emotional as well as cognitive features) prevents one from seeing the actuality of the person before one because of knowledge one supposedly already has about what that person is like. Here, not only learning and personal growith, but also meaningful relations with this actual person are prevented. "Knowing it all" about a person prevents one from aproaching the person from a stance of open ignorance and curiosity, and thereby learning who and what they really are.
Or, suppose one has many firmly fixed notions about economics - say, that unregulated free markets always lead to optimal results, due to the operations of the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith. Believing this may cause one to be uninterested in looking at the actual evidence available of how economic processes work, which may cause one to fail to observe mechanisms (such as the formation of monopolies, or the role of government in the national economy) which would be useful to understand, and ignorance of which may cause one to do great damage to the nation's political and economic life. "Knowing it all" about the economy prevents one from having the constructive sense of ignorance that would compel one to observe, to investigate, and in this way to determine what is actually going on. Even if the final result is that Adam Smith was right after all, one can hardly compare the position of one who knows this from independent and skeptical research to that of one who accepts it on faith and a priori argument. And one is bound to have learned something useful along the way.
Or, consider the notion of God. If one has a firmly fixed notion of what this word means, then one will never enjoy the privilege of undergoing the process of longing, questing, uncertainty, and doubt whereby one interrogates the world and the self to find out what the nature of the Ultimate Ground of Being actually is. One has to be able to ask, from one's blood and marrow, "What the Hell is going on?" before an answer like "God" can have any meaning. If, as some have suggested, the UGB is beyond the categories of human thought, and therefore directly contradicted by any definite characterization, then having a fixed conception of God would actually prevent one from ever coming to grips with God in any meaningful way. (Head small; world big!) And God help us if the notion of an UGB is, itself, incoherent!
Looking at most folks, it appears that God could knock at their door, and all they would say would be "Ah, yes, God - I know all about you!" And from such an encounter, nothing good can come - or at least, not without great trauma.
But whether God (or the UGB) turns out to be matter/energy, or a transcendent triphanic personal spirit, or a red herring after all, the significance of the answer is much deeper and much more richly understood for not having been held tightly - and in the form of a crude cartoon! - prior to the inquiry. And of course, if one was wrong to begin with...
And so, one might say that belief in God is the greatest imaginable obstacle to coming to know God. In the meanwhile, we can only agree that the end of our pursuits - the final answer to the final question - remains the Greatest of all Mysteries.
subscribe to my feed
