Have you noticed the word like making its irritating permanence in our vocabulary? It is almost completely synonymous with said. Everybody sounds like a valley girl when they talk. And this bugs the hell out of me.
Among other uses, like can be used informally to indicate dialogue as reported speech, which indicates uncertainty. In this sense, we don't really know what we're quoting, just that something similar was said. Another use of the word is for comparison, and in contrast to the word is, also indicates uncertainty. At best, what we're saying resembles our true intentions.
In our culture's ongoing war over the human mind, we are continually losing. Information comes from everywhere and there is so much to filter out that we often don't. We remember what we must and store the rest as vague memory. It's a stretch to imply that a simple misuse of a single word is the source of all our society's crises, so naturally I'm not implying this at all. I'm identifying a symptom of an overall problem: spreading the resemblance of information is not the same as spreading information.
This minor subconscious gaffe is not a source; it is an indicator. One of many. And it seeps into our society only to soften our foundation of knowledge. So please, watch what you say.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Money
The culture we know is centered around money. Our labour is exchanged for currency, which is in turn exchanged for food, clothes, and shelter. Since we always need these things, our labour is implied as a condition for living. It is what keeps the economy going. Economy is not necessary for individual survival, nor is it necessary for group survival.
The modern world is phasing out actual currency and replacing it with theoretical currency in digital form. This theoretical money only exists as an idea; the idea of debt. Either you owe the bank or the bank owes you.
Banks have the ability to create money based on our implied present labour and expected future labour. The idea of money, then, is the ultimate control. It guarantees submission for everyone that uses it and control for everyone that creates it.
How we view money and the values that we attribute to it only exist in our mind. If one could detach the idea that we need it to survive from our actual instinct to survive, we would take a great weight off our collective conscience.
The modern world is phasing out actual currency and replacing it with theoretical currency in digital form. This theoretical money only exists as an idea; the idea of debt. Either you owe the bank or the bank owes you.
Banks have the ability to create money based on our implied present labour and expected future labour. The idea of money, then, is the ultimate control. It guarantees submission for everyone that uses it and control for everyone that creates it.
How we view money and the values that we attribute to it only exist in our mind. If one could detach the idea that we need it to survive from our actual instinct to survive, we would take a great weight off our collective conscience.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Conspiracy Theories
The problem that conspiracy theories have isn't their substance, it's their context. That's what people find ridiculous.
First, you have to agree with a few general statements: human beings have freedom of thought, freedom of action, and instinct to survive. This means that although you don't think a certain way, that although you wouldn't personally do something, you acknowledge that someone else might in order to survive.
Throughout history, there have been trillions of people that have all tried to survive. But the thing is, surviving is hard. Thinking is hard. Most people don't want to have to focus on all of this at once, which is why we so easily submit to control. Since society began, we have gone through transitions of people having less to focus on. The first forms of government made it easier for people to live. They had food, laws, and protection in exchange for taxes and labour. Next came the tools that made our labour easier, and we didn't have to do as much. Last came the process of not thinking, which is achieved through control over what we do think. In this, we lose that which holds our humanity.
Everybody learns from their surroundings. How we are raised is a large part of how we think until we can think for ourselves. Ideologies, knowledge, and culture are all learned before we even begin formal education. These things are so nested into us that something opposing our understanding seems absurd. However, just seeming absurd doesn't make it impossible; something can be possible despite what you know and understand to be true.
What we understand to be true isn't necessarily what actually is true; it is only what we have learned. Since human beings don't know anything that we haven't learned, knowledge is systemic and subjective. It is passed down through culture and education, a mass of whatever is most commonly agreed upon. This means that whatever is repeated most becomes fact. This has direct and indirect consequences, meaning that history can be adjusted through misinformation or exclusion and by accident or intent. It is therefore upon the individual to evaluate what is presented and decide what is logical.
Consider the following rational arguments:
- Wealth exists as expected labour of the population.
- A small group of people control all the world's wealth.
- Those in power don't want to lose power.
- In order to maintain power, some atrocities can be justified.
This is the substance of conspiracy theories. None of these arguments are ridiculous. However, when we give them context, it is based upon what we have learned, which isn't necessarily correct. So when someone denounces a realistic, rational, and plausible argument, fundamentally, it isn't the argument itself that is the problem, it is the person and their perception of it. And perception is - like knowledge - subjective. This doesn't make the argument true inasmuch as it doesn't make it false; listening to the argument and evaluating its logicality for yourself is what defines truth. Question them, research them, and draw your own conclusions. Exercise your freedom of thought.
The following videos should be evaluated with an open mind:
- John Harris: It's An Illusion
- Kymatica
- Zeitgeist: Addendum
- Why We Fight
First, you have to agree with a few general statements: human beings have freedom of thought, freedom of action, and instinct to survive. This means that although you don't think a certain way, that although you wouldn't personally do something, you acknowledge that someone else might in order to survive.
Throughout history, there have been trillions of people that have all tried to survive. But the thing is, surviving is hard. Thinking is hard. Most people don't want to have to focus on all of this at once, which is why we so easily submit to control. Since society began, we have gone through transitions of people having less to focus on. The first forms of government made it easier for people to live. They had food, laws, and protection in exchange for taxes and labour. Next came the tools that made our labour easier, and we didn't have to do as much. Last came the process of not thinking, which is achieved through control over what we do think. In this, we lose that which holds our humanity.
Everybody learns from their surroundings. How we are raised is a large part of how we think until we can think for ourselves. Ideologies, knowledge, and culture are all learned before we even begin formal education. These things are so nested into us that something opposing our understanding seems absurd. However, just seeming absurd doesn't make it impossible; something can be possible despite what you know and understand to be true.
What we understand to be true isn't necessarily what actually is true; it is only what we have learned. Since human beings don't know anything that we haven't learned, knowledge is systemic and subjective. It is passed down through culture and education, a mass of whatever is most commonly agreed upon. This means that whatever is repeated most becomes fact. This has direct and indirect consequences, meaning that history can be adjusted through misinformation or exclusion and by accident or intent. It is therefore upon the individual to evaluate what is presented and decide what is logical.
Consider the following rational arguments:
- Wealth exists as expected labour of the population.
- A small group of people control all the world's wealth.
- Those in power don't want to lose power.
- In order to maintain power, some atrocities can be justified.
This is the substance of conspiracy theories. None of these arguments are ridiculous. However, when we give them context, it is based upon what we have learned, which isn't necessarily correct. So when someone denounces a realistic, rational, and plausible argument, fundamentally, it isn't the argument itself that is the problem, it is the person and their perception of it. And perception is - like knowledge - subjective. This doesn't make the argument true inasmuch as it doesn't make it false; listening to the argument and evaluating its logicality for yourself is what defines truth. Question them, research them, and draw your own conclusions. Exercise your freedom of thought.
The following videos should be evaluated with an open mind:
- John Harris: It's An Illusion
- Kymatica
- Zeitgeist: Addendum
- Why We Fight
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Hatred
I went for drinks tonight with a friend that was raised largely in Africa by Israeli parents. We experienced a discussion where I argued that the basis for hatred was a learned behaviour. She argued the counterpoint, that humans are
predicated towards hatred, that it is our instinct to judge based on differences. What struck me most in this contrast of opinion wasn't so much our perspectives, but the background of those perspectives.
My childhood was much more normal than hers; and by normal I note the subjectivity involved in its use and comment more on the shock of abnormality. Through her life, she's seen far more hatred first-hand. She's witnessed pure, ignorant, bare-brained conviction. I have witnessed theoretical, emotional hatred, where she has seen it much more physical and real.
Because my life has been so soft, is that why I have more hopefulness for humanity? Is it naive to think that our systemic disposition towards hatred can be unlearned?
No, it's not naive. I don't think that human beings are wired to hate other human beings of different skin tone. I don't think our genes are nearly that competitive. People aren't that willingly ignorant without encouragement through education and culture. My friend is from the Middle-East, I'm from North America. Culture here is a fusion of everything, so in a sense we don't have our own culture at all. If we do, it's vague, fuzzy. The culture she's used to is specific and focused, where people have much firmer beliefs.
Culture is in no way a genetic predisposition; it is a concept created by man. It is a social consciousness, not an individual one, so it has been learned in one way or another. And if something has been learned, it can be unlearned; and if it can't be unlearned, it can not be instructed.
Love is a more rational human predisposition. Love is lazy; hatred takes legitimate effort. Eventually, people are going to stop wasting so much energy needlessly and we'll finally break out of this second-hand shell of division.
predicated towards hatred, that it is our instinct to judge based on differences. What struck me most in this contrast of opinion wasn't so much our perspectives, but the background of those perspectives.
My childhood was much more normal than hers; and by normal I note the subjectivity involved in its use and comment more on the shock of abnormality. Through her life, she's seen far more hatred first-hand. She's witnessed pure, ignorant, bare-brained conviction. I have witnessed theoretical, emotional hatred, where she has seen it much more physical and real.
Because my life has been so soft, is that why I have more hopefulness for humanity? Is it naive to think that our systemic disposition towards hatred can be unlearned?
No, it's not naive. I don't think that human beings are wired to hate other human beings of different skin tone. I don't think our genes are nearly that competitive. People aren't that willingly ignorant without encouragement through education and culture. My friend is from the Middle-East, I'm from North America. Culture here is a fusion of everything, so in a sense we don't have our own culture at all. If we do, it's vague, fuzzy. The culture she's used to is specific and focused, where people have much firmer beliefs.
Culture is in no way a genetic predisposition; it is a concept created by man. It is a social consciousness, not an individual one, so it has been learned in one way or another. And if something has been learned, it can be unlearned; and if it can't be unlearned, it can not be instructed.
Love is a more rational human predisposition. Love is lazy; hatred takes legitimate effort. Eventually, people are going to stop wasting so much energy needlessly and we'll finally break out of this second-hand shell of division.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Financial Irony
There is financial irony that I hope isn't lost on the world when it discusses buying our way out of recession.
Money does not exist in the sense that we have come to understand it. An overwhelming majority of it exists theoretically in the banking system. When a loan is taken out, the money is created out of nothing, which lowers the value of actual money in circulation and dilutes the market. Our banking system does not create and lend this theoretical money to be kind; it expects to make a profit through the interest it collects on the loan. So when our problem is debt, how is compounding more debt on top of it a viable solution?
Some people say that spending money stimulates the economy, and it does. But at the end of the day, it does not stop the problem that money creates in the first place.
The recent G20 meeting in London was met with a large and misguided protest. The people there were largely being as revolutionary as the latest trend demanded. One man died in an alley as medics were assaulted trying to get to him. Some chanted, "abolish money" as if that would do anything productive.
Money is not the problem; its unregulated misuse is the problem. People not understanding what this misuse does is the problem. A country's currency should not be in the hands of private industry, it should be in the hands of the country. Government must distance itself in every sense from private industry and regain its control over corporations. Business owners and shareholders must be limited in their salary to a base percentage that is the same for every company. Taxes must be collected as an equal percentage from everyone; not on the products they purchase - certainly not on food - but on their salary. And most of all, we must end this belief that we can buy our way out of recession. Truly, we can only think our way out.
Money does not exist in the sense that we have come to understand it. An overwhelming majority of it exists theoretically in the banking system. When a loan is taken out, the money is created out of nothing, which lowers the value of actual money in circulation and dilutes the market. Our banking system does not create and lend this theoretical money to be kind; it expects to make a profit through the interest it collects on the loan. So when our problem is debt, how is compounding more debt on top of it a viable solution?
Some people say that spending money stimulates the economy, and it does. But at the end of the day, it does not stop the problem that money creates in the first place.
The recent G20 meeting in London was met with a large and misguided protest. The people there were largely being as revolutionary as the latest trend demanded. One man died in an alley as medics were assaulted trying to get to him. Some chanted, "abolish money" as if that would do anything productive.
Money is not the problem; its unregulated misuse is the problem. People not understanding what this misuse does is the problem. A country's currency should not be in the hands of private industry, it should be in the hands of the country. Government must distance itself in every sense from private industry and regain its control over corporations. Business owners and shareholders must be limited in their salary to a base percentage that is the same for every company. Taxes must be collected as an equal percentage from everyone; not on the products they purchase - certainly not on food - but on their salary. And most of all, we must end this belief that we can buy our way out of recession. Truly, we can only think our way out.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Religion is an Outdated Necessity
In the past, religion served two functions: to explain life and to provide order. Our species has evolved enough to execute these functions with rational means. We can explain the development of our complicated world without simple answers. We have a system of statutes and social expectations that provide peaceful boundaries. Our empirical understanding of the universe has progressed to a level that no longer requires a Creator that must be followed by penalty of damnation.
When considering religion, the dichotomy of doubt and faith emerges. Faith provides useful theoretical benefit. In practice, it offers more meaning in afterlife than in life, which contradicts the instinct to survive. If we exclude the impossibility of an afterlife - especially one as magnificent as Heaven - we become unafraid of death; without this, life becomes devalued. We lose purpose, except to faith itself. Further, when one has an ability to repent their sins, immoral actions become inconsequential. These two factors combined create an environment that can justify war on the basis of faith, especially when faith is twisted from its intention and taken to extremes. In a world where multiple faiths all exist in disharmony, faith allows itself this possibility.
Faith allowed the Romans to conquer Europe. Faith allowed Europeans to commit mass genocide against Native Americans. Faith currently allows the Israeli army to keep Palestine under brutal occupation and faith currently allows the United States to spread its ongoing and unwanted global influence through force. And then faith excuses itself.
In a world where there is so much still unknown, faith remains stationary. It is stubborn to new ideas and savagely enforces old ones. It does not form opinions, its opinions are already formed, and even when conditions change it will already have determined its position. Doubt does the opposite; it says that it does not yet understand, and more importantly, doubt allows for further explanation. Faith is an unproven back-up plan whereas doubt points out the consequences of its failure. And doubt adapts.
Religion is unnatural and must be taught. This is no different than science, except that most science can be proven through repeatable experimentation. (The Big Bang Theory, for example, is a particularly difficult experiment to repeat; however, it is still easier to recreate this than the first few pages of Genesis.) Science is based on empirical data, which is compounded knowledge over thousands of years of observation. Religion, however, is not empirical. It has no evidence, no observation. When presented with this, religious people tend to fall back to it being a matter of faith. But faith cannot survive.
There is an enormous difference between spirituality and religion. Spirituality is a method for living one's life in balance with self, others, and with nature. It is a basis for being good for the sake of goodness, not for fear of eternal punishment. Religion is faith in the certainty of something that is absolutely uncertain. It is a true or false answer to an essay question. I live my life spiritually and believe in what I can see and feel. I do so with the understanding that there is more to this world than I am aware of, more than I could ever perceive. But I do not pretend that I have an answer.
When considering religion, the dichotomy of doubt and faith emerges. Faith provides useful theoretical benefit. In practice, it offers more meaning in afterlife than in life, which contradicts the instinct to survive. If we exclude the impossibility of an afterlife - especially one as magnificent as Heaven - we become unafraid of death; without this, life becomes devalued. We lose purpose, except to faith itself. Further, when one has an ability to repent their sins, immoral actions become inconsequential. These two factors combined create an environment that can justify war on the basis of faith, especially when faith is twisted from its intention and taken to extremes. In a world where multiple faiths all exist in disharmony, faith allows itself this possibility.
Faith allowed the Romans to conquer Europe. Faith allowed Europeans to commit mass genocide against Native Americans. Faith currently allows the Israeli army to keep Palestine under brutal occupation and faith currently allows the United States to spread its ongoing and unwanted global influence through force. And then faith excuses itself.
In a world where there is so much still unknown, faith remains stationary. It is stubborn to new ideas and savagely enforces old ones. It does not form opinions, its opinions are already formed, and even when conditions change it will already have determined its position. Doubt does the opposite; it says that it does not yet understand, and more importantly, doubt allows for further explanation. Faith is an unproven back-up plan whereas doubt points out the consequences of its failure. And doubt adapts.
Religion is unnatural and must be taught. This is no different than science, except that most science can be proven through repeatable experimentation. (The Big Bang Theory, for example, is a particularly difficult experiment to repeat; however, it is still easier to recreate this than the first few pages of Genesis.) Science is based on empirical data, which is compounded knowledge over thousands of years of observation. Religion, however, is not empirical. It has no evidence, no observation. When presented with this, religious people tend to fall back to it being a matter of faith. But faith cannot survive.
There is an enormous difference between spirituality and religion. Spirituality is a method for living one's life in balance with self, others, and with nature. It is a basis for being good for the sake of goodness, not for fear of eternal punishment. Religion is faith in the certainty of something that is absolutely uncertain. It is a true or false answer to an essay question. I live my life spiritually and believe in what I can see and feel. I do so with the understanding that there is more to this world than I am aware of, more than I could ever perceive. But I do not pretend that I have an answer.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Corporations Are Not Greedy
I've been reading and writing odds and ends and tids and bits about the seven sins, and I've come to the conclusion that - contrary to popular belief - corporations are not greedy.
And now you're thinking to yourself, "but Michael! This goes against everything you've written! Have you lost your mind? Has the machine gotten to you?!" Trust me, good friend, the machine has not gotten to me, and I've as much mind as I've ever had.
Corporations are just simply not greedy. They are gluttonous, which is something far worse.
Greed and gluttony are nearly indistinguishable in definition, as they are both a desire for personal gain. The difference is that gluttony takes it to excess.
For example. Someone who is greedy will eat more cookies than anyone else; someone who is gluttonous will eat all of the cookies on the table, then all the cookies in the cupboards, then all of the cookies in the store, and will not stop until they've eaten every cookie possible.
A corporation that is greedy will demand greater profits than its competitors; a corporation that is gluttonous will do whatever it takes to make those profits, including layoffs and dubious production tactics.
And to be perfectly honest, I'm not even totally sure where I stand on this whole capitalism issue. While there is logic behind competition creating better products, in a hypothetical communist and technology-driven society, couldn't products be made better for the simple goal of creating better products? Why does capitalism only function on the premise that some people must lose? And greed and gluttony and inflation aside, how can corporations consider only a marginal profit a loss? This mentality is most certainly not for the benefit of society, it can only be a manufacturer's defect.
In conclusion, because I'm not feeling particularly wordy today: up yours, corporate thugs.
And now you're thinking to yourself, "but Michael! This goes against everything you've written! Have you lost your mind? Has the machine gotten to you?!" Trust me, good friend, the machine has not gotten to me, and I've as much mind as I've ever had.
Corporations are just simply not greedy. They are gluttonous, which is something far worse.
Greed and gluttony are nearly indistinguishable in definition, as they are both a desire for personal gain. The difference is that gluttony takes it to excess.
For example. Someone who is greedy will eat more cookies than anyone else; someone who is gluttonous will eat all of the cookies on the table, then all the cookies in the cupboards, then all of the cookies in the store, and will not stop until they've eaten every cookie possible.
A corporation that is greedy will demand greater profits than its competitors; a corporation that is gluttonous will do whatever it takes to make those profits, including layoffs and dubious production tactics.
And to be perfectly honest, I'm not even totally sure where I stand on this whole capitalism issue. While there is logic behind competition creating better products, in a hypothetical communist and technology-driven society, couldn't products be made better for the simple goal of creating better products? Why does capitalism only function on the premise that some people must lose? And greed and gluttony and inflation aside, how can corporations consider only a marginal profit a loss? This mentality is most certainly not for the benefit of society, it can only be a manufacturer's defect.
In conclusion, because I'm not feeling particularly wordy today: up yours, corporate thugs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
