The Real Environmental Crisis
“If you want to know where you are at, look around you.” JDR.
By definition, there is nothing we can “do” about living in the end-times.
But we can do something with this awareness. Paranoia becomes paranoid awareness, which eventually grows into self-awareness.
The apparent environmental crisis. First, we learn that the Earth is under threat and our future is in jeopardy. Paranoia. Then, we discover that there are secret agendas manipulating (and even fabricating) this crisis for other, more mysterious ends. Paranoid awareness.
The final step, that of self-awareness, is when we begin to see that the crisis is our own creation: a way of waking ourselves up to our lost identity as primal beings dependent upon the organic matrix of life itself. In our slumber, we are rebelling against the program: our unconscious minds are calling forth the memory, the spirit, of Nature, in all its terrible glory.
From this perspective, the ecological crisis is not a threat to survival but a means to a greater awakening, the collective unconscious becoming conscious of itself. As conditions within our false-construct world become increasingly intolerable, the pressure from the unconscious mounts. We begin to stir in our slumber and to doubt the validity (and durability) of the program. Consensus reality cannot hold up.
One major manifestation of this collective unease is the apparent environmental crisis.
Garbage Man
Information is what ‘in-forms’ us, i.e., forms us from within. An organism is shaped and defined not merely by its physical and biological make-up, its external form, but also by its inner experience. If we are defined not so much by what we eat as what we contain—our programming—then humans, having supplanted their natural, genetic program for the social program, are the garbage cans of the cosmos.
This is our function, and this is why we, as individuals, can only ever experience living in the end-times. So far as this information in-forms us and becomes true knowing ~ that we are worthless garbage in the process of being recycled ~ we then have the option of transformation into a new state.
So-called “evolution” is the journey of the caterpillar into the chrysalis. It is a process of putrefaction. History, as such, is the chrysalis, a rigid, confining structure that serves not as an end but as an intermediary phase between two states of being, that of the animal and the “god” ~ the information entity, holographic man.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Convictions Make Convicts
There are three kinds of belief.
There is belief that we insist is fact that becomes opinion/conviction.
There is belief that we assume dispassionately, to try it out (the spirit in which Lucid View was written, and which my alternate creation theory of tulpas was presented).
A conviction is a belief that we insist is a fact, while to believe something without insisting it is fact can be effective as a thought experiment.
The third kind of belief is one that is sourced in what we know.
To believe what you know means to turn a knowing into a feeling and a way of being or action. In the coarsest way this comes out as principles, but of course principles usually fit squarely in the first class: beliefs that are convictions. Sometimes a warrior dies for what he believes without being a fanatic, i.e., warmly and tenderly. Then he is dying for what he knows.
A belief that stems from a knowing is warm and open and doesn't ever need to be defended, or even communicated. The only reason to share it at all would be out of enjoyment, as when we wish to communicate to a beloved our belief in our knowing that we are in love with them. Or as when a prophet walks the earth and spreads the gospel.
To the intellect, it's an absolute that we cannot know anything. Yet we know, if we are honest, that it is only the intellect that cannot have an absolute knowing about anything, including this statement!
Anyone who has ever been in what they know, even for a moment, knows this.
When we know something, no one can tell us that we only "think we know." All they will succeed in communicating is that they don't know, and perhaps that they feel threatened by our knowing, or by our knowing something they do not.
Put differently: we may not know "what Truth is"; but we do know it when we see it, provided we are being honest.
If we try to persuade another of our POV, we must come out of what we know, close and harden and cease to really communicate; we then oblige the other person to oppose or dismiss our arguments, in order to hold fast to their belief. They match our own closing and hardening.
The mistaken assumption is that two POVs cannot co-exist in harmony, even while being opposed.
Yet this is precisely how the Universe functions: as a polarity of male and female, yin & yang, black to white.
It is only when the moral criteria of good and evil, right and wrong are superimposed over this natural, cosmic polarity, that war supplants love as the ruling principal of existence.
There are three kinds of belief.
There is belief that we insist is fact that becomes opinion/conviction.
There is belief that we assume dispassionately, to try it out (the spirit in which Lucid View was written, and which my alternate creation theory of tulpas was presented).
A conviction is a belief that we insist is a fact, while to believe something without insisting it is fact can be effective as a thought experiment.
The third kind of belief is one that is sourced in what we know.
To believe what you know means to turn a knowing into a feeling and a way of being or action. In the coarsest way this comes out as principles, but of course principles usually fit squarely in the first class: beliefs that are convictions. Sometimes a warrior dies for what he believes without being a fanatic, i.e., warmly and tenderly. Then he is dying for what he knows.
A belief that stems from a knowing is warm and open and doesn't ever need to be defended, or even communicated. The only reason to share it at all would be out of enjoyment, as when we wish to communicate to a beloved our belief in our knowing that we are in love with them. Or as when a prophet walks the earth and spreads the gospel.
To the intellect, it's an absolute that we cannot know anything. Yet we know, if we are honest, that it is only the intellect that cannot have an absolute knowing about anything, including this statement!
Anyone who has ever been in what they know, even for a moment, knows this.
When we know something, no one can tell us that we only "think we know." All they will succeed in communicating is that they don't know, and perhaps that they feel threatened by our knowing, or by our knowing something they do not.
Put differently: we may not know "what Truth is"; but we do know it when we see it, provided we are being honest.
If we try to persuade another of our POV, we must come out of what we know, close and harden and cease to really communicate; we then oblige the other person to oppose or dismiss our arguments, in order to hold fast to their belief. They match our own closing and hardening.
The mistaken assumption is that two POVs cannot co-exist in harmony, even while being opposed.
Yet this is precisely how the Universe functions: as a polarity of male and female, yin & yang, black to white.
It is only when the moral criteria of good and evil, right and wrong are superimposed over this natural, cosmic polarity, that war supplants love as the ruling principal of existence.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Fingers & Farts, and the Limits of Free Will
Picking up where the above post left off, and coming back to Lion Attacks:
When faced with a hungry lion, zero intellectual interpretation of the situation is needed, so far as "do I run or do I make a stand?" goes. The body would simply know what to do and do it; the adrenalin rush would ensure that there was no hanging about making conscious "decisions" about it. ("Lemme see now....")
In a way, this is always the situation: every act is a life and death act.
This is what surrender comes down to, IMO: reducing the element of intellectual decision-making until all that is left is pure response. And pure response is always an opening and softening, no matter what is happening on the outside. (One can run or fight to the death while opening and softening.)
Granted, in many circumstances less extreme, we do have to make a conscious decision to act upon a response, to embody a subtler movement of being and turn it into real action. This is one more paradox of self-awareness: the more we assume responsibility for our thoughts and actions, the more we come to see that we have almost no say in them, save at the most wonderfully shallow level.
The fingers do not move the hand, much less the body.
An easy analogy would be a passenger on a train: he has lots of freedom of movement so far as where he wanders on the train, who he interacts with, and even possibly where he sits; and most of all, on where his attention goes ~ whether inside or outside the train. Yet the traveler has absolutely no say about where the train is going or what stops it makes. He could choose to jump off while it's in motion, but (besides pulling the emergency chord) that's the only real way he can override the train's trajectory: by self-destructing.
If a starving baby (or in my case, a tiny black kitten) is placed in our path, this is the conscious Universe doing its thing (i.e., it's a grand circumstance that was presumably beyond the conscious control of any of the players). Whether we attend to that baby or not in no way depends on whether we have personal sovereignty, but simply on whether we allow ourselves to respond to a movement of being (assuming there is one). Such movement is the Universe gently nudging us into that baby's path (and it into ours), in order for some exchange to occur.
It may be no more than noticing and connecting to that baby, or it may be taking that baby home and adopting it. That decision, however, isn't ours. Personal sovereignty is the illusion (and insistence) that we ever get to determine the outcome of something on that scale. It may seem like our decision, but that doesn't mean it is. I'd say it only means we aren't sufficiently sensitive to movements of being, even when they are moving us. And so we take credit for our actions, and blame ourselves when we act wrongly. Credit and blame (the whip and carrot) are the business of sovereignty, but have no meaning to the Universe.
We are only responsible if we are able to respond. If we simply act on our own volition, from a place of personal sovereignty, based on our beliefs and opinions about what is the right thing, etc, etc, although we are still accountable, we are not responsible. We are simply being used as an unconscious tool. Our actions then will always be unclean, because only conscious action can be clean.
The only way to be out of alignment with the Universe would be to attempt to serve our personal agenda, including (or especially) the personal agenda of "serving the Universe." It doesn't matter what it is: if we really think that we are doing it, then we are holding onto our sovereignty and acting unconsciously, which means we are being driven by unconscious wounds and patterns. (And dark entities.)
Those who aren't the Universe's fingers are merely its farts.
Picking up where the above post left off, and coming back to Lion Attacks:
When faced with a hungry lion, zero intellectual interpretation of the situation is needed, so far as "do I run or do I make a stand?" goes. The body would simply know what to do and do it; the adrenalin rush would ensure that there was no hanging about making conscious "decisions" about it. ("Lemme see now....")
In a way, this is always the situation: every act is a life and death act.
This is what surrender comes down to, IMO: reducing the element of intellectual decision-making until all that is left is pure response. And pure response is always an opening and softening, no matter what is happening on the outside. (One can run or fight to the death while opening and softening.)
Granted, in many circumstances less extreme, we do have to make a conscious decision to act upon a response, to embody a subtler movement of being and turn it into real action. This is one more paradox of self-awareness: the more we assume responsibility for our thoughts and actions, the more we come to see that we have almost no say in them, save at the most wonderfully shallow level.
The fingers do not move the hand, much less the body.
An easy analogy would be a passenger on a train: he has lots of freedom of movement so far as where he wanders on the train, who he interacts with, and even possibly where he sits; and most of all, on where his attention goes ~ whether inside or outside the train. Yet the traveler has absolutely no say about where the train is going or what stops it makes. He could choose to jump off while it's in motion, but (besides pulling the emergency chord) that's the only real way he can override the train's trajectory: by self-destructing.
If a starving baby (or in my case, a tiny black kitten) is placed in our path, this is the conscious Universe doing its thing (i.e., it's a grand circumstance that was presumably beyond the conscious control of any of the players). Whether we attend to that baby or not in no way depends on whether we have personal sovereignty, but simply on whether we allow ourselves to respond to a movement of being (assuming there is one). Such movement is the Universe gently nudging us into that baby's path (and it into ours), in order for some exchange to occur.
It may be no more than noticing and connecting to that baby, or it may be taking that baby home and adopting it. That decision, however, isn't ours. Personal sovereignty is the illusion (and insistence) that we ever get to determine the outcome of something on that scale. It may seem like our decision, but that doesn't mean it is. I'd say it only means we aren't sufficiently sensitive to movements of being, even when they are moving us. And so we take credit for our actions, and blame ourselves when we act wrongly. Credit and blame (the whip and carrot) are the business of sovereignty, but have no meaning to the Universe.
We are only responsible if we are able to respond. If we simply act on our own volition, from a place of personal sovereignty, based on our beliefs and opinions about what is the right thing, etc, etc, although we are still accountable, we are not responsible. We are simply being used as an unconscious tool. Our actions then will always be unclean, because only conscious action can be clean.
The only way to be out of alignment with the Universe would be to attempt to serve our personal agenda, including (or especially) the personal agenda of "serving the Universe." It doesn't matter what it is: if we really think that we are doing it, then we are holding onto our sovereignty and acting unconsciously, which means we are being driven by unconscious wounds and patterns. (And dark entities.)
Those who aren't the Universe's fingers are merely its farts.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Some thoughts on Lion Attacks, Global Warming, & Personal Sovereignty.
If a lion is attacking you, do you need someone to tell you you have the "right" to run?
The whole idea of rights is predicated on the idea of personal sovereignty, manifest destiny, democracy, and an unholy mess of MiST-created memes meant to nudge us ever further out of what-we-know, and into a morass of empty theory and polemics.
Global warming isn't directly threatening either ourselves or our families. The only thing it is threatening, maybe, is civilization, and so what? Living in a stinky, polluted city is a real drag. But no one has to live there. It's a choice.
I live in a relative paradise, free of visible or smellable pollution, while still on the grid (I shop at a grocer's store, go to the sauna, and download movies on my PC), and on an income of around $500 a month. That's my reality. So from my POV, I know the environmental crisis is a scam. At least for today.
It's true that I think our current way of life is messed up, but I'm OK with it and I don't pretend to have any solutions. Nor do I think a solution is required. The urge to create "solutions" and improve upon the way things are is at the root of any and all problems you could care to name.
The real disease is personal sovereignty, and one of its leading symptoms is the desire to want to fix or change things.
The Universe is taking care of everything, and absolutely nothing happens that isn't a direct result of its mysterious movements.
All we get to do is look after our own: our bodies and those under our protection. It's not a right, either; it's a delight.
There's nothing else to this life, once we let go of our personal sovereignty (and the arrogance that thinks we have control over anything outside our own actions), besides that sheer delight of being.
The world may appear to be in a quandary; but that's only because the world (like our constructed identities) is a false edifice blocking the flow of being.
If a snake identified with the skin he was shedding, that snake would perceive itself to be in a quandary. But snakes are not that dumb.
The Universe is not in a quandary; how could it ever be? The idea's a joke.
Does anyone here really think that we-as-a-species are more responsible for global warming, or anything else, than the Universe?
We are just the fingers and farts of the Universe anyway. Anything we do, the Universe is doing through us. Might as well get used to it. Fun and frolics for the Universe is a living Hell for sovereign beings.
If a lion is attacking you, do you need someone to tell you you have the "right" to run?
The whole idea of rights is predicated on the idea of personal sovereignty, manifest destiny, democracy, and an unholy mess of MiST-created memes meant to nudge us ever further out of what-we-know, and into a morass of empty theory and polemics.
Global warming isn't directly threatening either ourselves or our families. The only thing it is threatening, maybe, is civilization, and so what? Living in a stinky, polluted city is a real drag. But no one has to live there. It's a choice.
I live in a relative paradise, free of visible or smellable pollution, while still on the grid (I shop at a grocer's store, go to the sauna, and download movies on my PC), and on an income of around $500 a month. That's my reality. So from my POV, I know the environmental crisis is a scam. At least for today.
It's true that I think our current way of life is messed up, but I'm OK with it and I don't pretend to have any solutions. Nor do I think a solution is required. The urge to create "solutions" and improve upon the way things are is at the root of any and all problems you could care to name.
The real disease is personal sovereignty, and one of its leading symptoms is the desire to want to fix or change things.
The Universe is taking care of everything, and absolutely nothing happens that isn't a direct result of its mysterious movements.
All we get to do is look after our own: our bodies and those under our protection. It's not a right, either; it's a delight.
There's nothing else to this life, once we let go of our personal sovereignty (and the arrogance that thinks we have control over anything outside our own actions), besides that sheer delight of being.
The world may appear to be in a quandary; but that's only because the world (like our constructed identities) is a false edifice blocking the flow of being.
If a snake identified with the skin he was shedding, that snake would perceive itself to be in a quandary. But snakes are not that dumb.
The Universe is not in a quandary; how could it ever be? The idea's a joke.
Does anyone here really think that we-as-a-species are more responsible for global warming, or anything else, than the Universe?
We are just the fingers and farts of the Universe anyway. Anything we do, the Universe is doing through us. Might as well get used to it. Fun and frolics for the Universe is a living Hell for sovereign beings.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Molecular Showtime
OK, I have started a new podcast site (see over there ->) and recorded the first audio for my awesome, unknown amorphous audience...
The first episode is called A Conglomeration of Molecules and is a free-associative discussion on living beyond struggle, grotty sorcerers, the effects of I-phones on our chances of survival in the end-times, attachment theory, people-connections as the means to connect to Earth, love as the only engine of survival, and the incalculable cost of freedom.
The woman I mention who discusses attachment theory, Sue Johnson, can be heard here.
The first episode is called A Conglomeration of Molecules and is a free-associative discussion on living beyond struggle, grotty sorcerers, the effects of I-phones on our chances of survival in the end-times, attachment theory, people-connections as the means to connect to Earth, love as the only engine of survival, and the incalculable cost of freedom.
The woman I mention who discusses attachment theory, Sue Johnson, can be heard here.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Maintaining two blogs, a podcast, a forum, running an Existential Detective Agency, and putting together a new website is not easy ~ lemme tell you!
The best solution seems to be to think less about what i am doing and just let whatever comes, come. Hence this post, which is the beginning of an attempt to keep this blog chugging along rather than let it slide away into non-existance, which seems like it would be a shame, since, however silent my readership may be, they do seem to be out there.
The Aeolus blog will be focusing on mythic narratives as a warm-up to the unveiling of the new website, and the all-new SWEDA courses. This blog, then, will be a place for me to air everyday personal thoughts about stuff. I may even start up a new, sporadic podcast, if i can do it without any fancy editing or packaging, for the same end. We'll see.
So what's new? Just read David Byrne's Bicycle Diaries (Viking Pernguin, 2009), which is a collection of David's blog posts (here), accounts of his visits to various cities which he traverses with his trusty folding bicycle, inc. London, Istanbul, New York, & Buenos Aires. It's an enjoyable read, a mixture of historical detail and eccentric obvervation, with somewhat less of the expected irony that has been DB's trademark for most of his career. There is also some borderline paranoid-awareness commentary on self-censorship, thought control, and the like, and some suitably visionary theories about organic architecture and morphic fields and the like.
By the end, however, I felt a tad disappointed at how "pedestrian" (ha ha) DB's view of the world is, not compared to your average human, of course, but compared to what i have grown used to, here in the alt. perceptions community where I currently quite happily fraternize.
It's all too easy to take for granted being among folk who take it as a given that all politics is theater, that reality is being manipulated by hidden non-human forces, and that the end is nigh, etc, etc. I forget that plenty of otherwise sophisticated folk still seem to harbor the illusion that humans have a future that has anything to do with what we understand from our present POV. Not to say that we don't, because who really knows? It's just that - well, much of my own apocalyptic bent comes from Byrne's lyrics having shaped my consciousness from teenage years on, so it's a bit odd to find that he doesn't necessarily see things that way, after all. Or maybe he is just keeping it under his hat, and letting his music speak for him?
Speaking of the APC, I noticed yesterday (checking to see what Chris Knowles had to say about Avatar, the trailer of which was enough to ensure I stay well away from), that CK has removed the link to Aeolus' blog from his site; Kotze did the same a while ago, which was no big surprise; but I wonder what caused Knowles to withdraw his support like that? Was it something I said?
The best solution seems to be to think less about what i am doing and just let whatever comes, come. Hence this post, which is the beginning of an attempt to keep this blog chugging along rather than let it slide away into non-existance, which seems like it would be a shame, since, however silent my readership may be, they do seem to be out there.
The Aeolus blog will be focusing on mythic narratives as a warm-up to the unveiling of the new website, and the all-new SWEDA courses. This blog, then, will be a place for me to air everyday personal thoughts about stuff. I may even start up a new, sporadic podcast, if i can do it without any fancy editing or packaging, for the same end. We'll see.
So what's new? Just read David Byrne's Bicycle Diaries (Viking Pernguin, 2009), which is a collection of David's blog posts (here), accounts of his visits to various cities which he traverses with his trusty folding bicycle, inc. London, Istanbul, New York, & Buenos Aires. It's an enjoyable read, a mixture of historical detail and eccentric obvervation, with somewhat less of the expected irony that has been DB's trademark for most of his career. There is also some borderline paranoid-awareness commentary on self-censorship, thought control, and the like, and some suitably visionary theories about organic architecture and morphic fields and the like.
By the end, however, I felt a tad disappointed at how "pedestrian" (ha ha) DB's view of the world is, not compared to your average human, of course, but compared to what i have grown used to, here in the alt. perceptions community where I currently quite happily fraternize.
It's all too easy to take for granted being among folk who take it as a given that all politics is theater, that reality is being manipulated by hidden non-human forces, and that the end is nigh, etc, etc. I forget that plenty of otherwise sophisticated folk still seem to harbor the illusion that humans have a future that has anything to do with what we understand from our present POV. Not to say that we don't, because who really knows? It's just that - well, much of my own apocalyptic bent comes from Byrne's lyrics having shaped my consciousness from teenage years on, so it's a bit odd to find that he doesn't necessarily see things that way, after all. Or maybe he is just keeping it under his hat, and letting his music speak for him?
Speaking of the APC, I noticed yesterday (checking to see what Chris Knowles had to say about Avatar, the trailer of which was enough to ensure I stay well away from), that CK has removed the link to Aeolus' blog from his site; Kotze did the same a while ago, which was no big surprise; but I wonder what caused Knowles to withdraw his support like that? Was it something I said?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
