Reality is more than a static construct we are trying to preserve on our shelves

Only an incredibly small number of people from my generation realize that the difference between our generation and all the other generations is that to us knowledge and information are no longer permanent constructs.

Growing up, working, doing, building, creating, learning, being, they are no longer about persevering a set of ideologies or values or structures of any kind. They are about creating new ones all the time. Imaging more humane, more unifying, more universal ideologies, values and structures. Exploring them. Using digital technologies to explore and design them.

The meaning of our age is derived from our ability—for the first time ever—to abandon all ideologies and intellectual constructs thus becoming information itself.

What does this mean? It means no more tradition. No more fixed values. No more dogma. No more belief systems. No more static logic. No more static methods. No more static systems of perception and cognition. We are the pioneers of the free information flow realm.

Forget the grandpa’s war memorabilia. Forget icons, posters, uniforms, statues, traditions and all signs and symbols of static constructs. Ideologies are ideas that refuse to grow and change. They are the indicators of our mistakes. They are our mistakes. They are the mistakes we have been unable to see, realize, feel, explain, or convey—to ourselves or one another—in any way. The mistakes we have been unable to run away from. They are that aspect of time and of our mind and being that no longer needs to exist in the present. They betray because they divide thus causing conflicts, fear, anger, and hate.

Forget encyclopedias, albums, and reference books. Today information flows. It becomes and becomes and becomes. Always anew. New information means new knowledge. New knowledge means new information. New information and new knowledge create a new self. A new self means a new perception of reality.

New information and new knowledge about what it means to be a human being is coming at every one of us from all directions, from all levels, in all areas, sciences, arts, music, engineering, and most importantly, from the directions we cannot imagine or perceive. They are the new directions. They are the most important discoveries. Look at them. Integrate them into your life. Allow them to reignite imagination.

Reality is much more than a static construct we are trying to preserve on our shelves, in our safes, in our cabinets, and in our bank accounts. It’s moving and changing so fast we are still learning how to perceive it, think about it, describe it—forget about preserving it.

Unimaginable, that is all that the source of information can appear to be, for how else is it going to continue to produce the unimaginable?

What is learned must be unlearned. Let the learning state and the unlearning state become one. Abandon the fear of the unknown information. There is no need to hold on to any idea or structure. This is the age of the ultimate liberation. We are embedding ourselves right into the stream of information.  We are becoming information.

The forbidden information and the invisible new world

Let us be clear. There are no more classes. There are no more nations. There are no more borders. There are no more governments. We exist in the age of information and information cannot be controlled by a single entity. There is an ongoing planet-wide genocide performed by the elite and all those who wish to make money against human and non-human beings and nature—or any entities that are not interested in materialism or money making schemes. So, let us not be taught about humanity by the wealthy, nor the indifferent middle class hiding among us, but by those needing thus knowing humanity firsthand. Let us be taught about humanity by those who are the forbidden thus the unwanted information itself.

The absence (linguistic and practical) of the felt and imagined unity

Higher education institutions and other institutions (government and non-government)—especially communications and technology related institutions—continue to ignore the fact that our present day language is unable to communicate a great deal of what we can imagine and feel. And, more importantly, they continue to ignore the fact that our existence is increasingly becoming defined by our shared sensation that something essential and unifying is missing from our shared human language rather than by what is contained within it.

What is it that is contained within our shared human language and what is it that is missing from it? Fear thus hate and violence are everywhere—as material and immaterial constructs. Unfortunately, they are the building blocks of our civilization. Empathy and love are more recent constructs therefore they are not as concrete. If empathy and love are to rival fear, hate and violence then they will need to be given significantly more concrete forms.

How are we to construct such forms? The first step is that we must acknowledge that empathy and love are important and needed verbal constructs and that they need to be attached to, transferred to, or related to concrete objects and actions, rather allowing them to exist as ‘romantic’ thus pure verbal ideas.

To be continued.

Communication and language as an evolutionary property

What philosophy is trying to express is ‘pure existence’, therefore it cannot be expressed. However, philosophy refuses to accept that it is impossible to summarize or describe or – and this is its most arrogant and immature attempt – explain existence. As the language advances there has to come a point for the individual and for the global human intellect or the civilization to realize that the only way forward is by transcending the human language (by ‘language’ I mean a construct made up of individual [spoken] languages plus all other forms [visual, audio, etc.]. It should be clear that the human language is just an evolutionary property of the human body. Language itself cannot explain or communicate the nature of humane existence (or anything approaching what is needed to accomplish its understanding) and, more importantly, it cannot communicate why it cannot do so. Our ability to explain and communicate the nature of our existence will begin to improve once we transcend the language. Once we become unified in a global, planet wide and perhaps one day universe wide, network of ‘feeling’. Unfortunately, it appears to me that this conclusion is nowhere to be found.

In other words, I propose, or I think it is necessary to begin to imagine, design and construct artificial and natural – by natural I mean within the human body rather than external hardware – a new method of communication. A method that goes beyond basic mouth noises.

I propose: communication and language, as we see them now, are just an evolutionary property. However, we are yet to become aware of this fact. It seems to me that we are so arrogant and so unintelligent that we think that we can use the human language in its present state to summarize, describe and explain the universe itself.

It seems to me that it is impossible for academics to recognize language and philosophy for what they are precisely because they are looking for a theory to promote, a book to publish, and a lecture to present – all of them linguistic constructs that limit empathy and imagination. Why? They are an expression of the ego. The basic human drives still motivate our behavior. Rather than pure intelligence, rather than honesty, rather than truth, integrity, or the ability to recognize what is taking place – that the language is the ultimate limit.

Feeling is the universal human construct. It is what we need to understand and communicate for it is the source of unity. But we need to understand and communicate it not via language but via feelings. We cannot begin to joke about defining life, the universe, beauty, truth and so on until we have achieved some kind of global human unity. It is very clear that no such unity can be achieved through a particular language or through the human language – meaning a construct made up of individual (spoken) languages plus all other forms (visual, audio, etc.).

The answer is, quite physically, within the indescribable. We know it for we feel it. However, we are unwilling to accept it – but only because we are so frustrated by our inability to communicate the indescribable through feelings. We are searching for the answer within the human language and we are trying to communicate it within the human language. However, the indescribable realm that we are exploring through the human language and the answer contained within it are beyond the human language.

We are children pointing at something they do not understand and cannot explain for their arms and hands and fingers are incapable of describing what they have learned and what they feel.

How do we begin to share ‘the state of feeling’ is the question before us.

Technology’s main task is still to communicate the shared human language. Its task is yet to move to a new level. I propose that the new level is to translate the existing human language into emotions, or, at least, into emotional states. A process that requires a radical new understanding of the relationship among words and language and the emotions they create, and the way resulting construct could be encoded (via bio-chem or natural neural network technologies).

The point at which our perception of reality begins to form as a communicable construct is beyond the language, however, that is not the main issue here. We have reached a point where what we know we experience – empathy and love – we cannot understand, share or communicate in ways that would enables us to rise beyond that which limits us.

Or, that which limits us (language) cannot be defined and expressed through that which limits us (language), precisely because its limit is what defines us. We need to imagine, design, and create a point of departure. A point that will separate us from this limiting construct.

To portray violence, in any form, is to fail to see and understand its destructiveness

If anything is to be learned from wars it is that nothing that is to be learned from them is to be communicated through stories about wars. Our mistake – us as a civilization – is that we have not learned this, yet. So anything we learn from wars we continue to convey through stories about wars.

Hemingway understood wars, however, not completely. Not completely for he could not convey his messages about wars without recreating wars. Perhaps because: either A) he could not separate what he had learned (by being in wars) from his personal trauma or B) he felt that he could not convey that which he had learned (by being in wars) without conveying its infinite destructive potential (not doing the justice without conveying it). The very construct that should not be recreated in individuals’ (readers’) minds.

I think Hemingway’s understanding of injustice and inequality – without the war element – had been incomparably better.

The Old Man and the Sea comments on wealth, poverty, justice and inequality without ever referring to any of them – directly or indirectly. The main character’s life is a self contained reality.

The entire novel depicts a brief moment in a life of a human being that is not attempting to do anything else except love that very moment for exactly what it is.

The full reality, which we – the readers – know exists, is not mentioned anywhere in the novel. However, it is what shapes the main character’s life. The absence of the forces that create the seemingly inescapable poverty and inequality dimensions of the novel is what forces us to create them in our own minds. Or, the absence of the forces that shape the main character’s life is what implies them.

A parallel can be drawn between the main character’s life and our own lives.

To realize that most of us lead our lives without ever considering the location or properties of the forces that create our lives is to begin to realize that we are separated from those force by an invisible barrier that we have to identify and destroy.

If we could examine the elements that create wars (fear, hate, greed, control), without getting distracted by acts of violence conveyed through war stories, perhaps we could begin to identify and connect with causes and consequences of wars. And if we could identify and connect with specific causes and consequences within ourselves, rather than acts of violence, perhaps we could begin to connect with them in other people – thus transcending hate and fear.

To portray violence, in any form, is to fail to understand its destructiveness.

Institutionless networked reality

So many individuals who call themselves leaders fail to see, or if they see it they fail to accept, that the concept known as institution is no longer valid. The speed with which information is distributed and used to create new physical constructs and knew knowledge thus new information continues to increase. It is obvious to anyone interested in the nature of our technological reality that information’s permanent acceleration is decreasing the distance that separates imagination, design and manufacturing processes. Consequently, institutions and their old-fashioned policies cannot keep up with let alone control or improve individual imaginations, design, and manufacturing processes.

More and more individuals are exploiting legal loopholes and minimizing their interactions with government departments. Such individuals are creating more and more ways to connect themselves with manufacturers-legally or illegally. As a result all sorts of strange and dangerous new products are being created. Computer hardware and software and weapons are the most obvious. Biochemical research, nanotechnology, cell research, plant research and so on are taking off too. Attempts to bypass government regulations will continue to increase in all sectors and in all directions.

Is it really that hard to see what is happening? It is if your purpose is to preserve your ancient model of existence and operation. Governments continue to exist as our civilization’s ultimate ancient construct because they refuse to accept that new fluid networks are the answer.

You cannot control new dynamic forever changing and forever expanding information networks via an ancient institution. Ancient institutions, like governments, are designed to control other ancient institutions – institutions that cannot change themselves.

The only way to control networks is with other networks. Preferably: simpler, faster, more adaptable.

Is meaning a construct that exists beyond the domain of human languages rather than within it

To understand the nature of human language – thus to understand any human story, written or spoken, regardless of its length or language – is not at all related to trying to understand what a particular story or a particular language are trying to describe. To really begin to understand our human stories is to try to understand what language can and cannot imply. Thus what is absent from stories is just as important as what is contained within them. For one cannot begin to determine our individual thus our civilization’s imaginative, literary, oral and communications limits by treating words and speech as descriptions – no matter how advanced or complex they may appear to be.

Can empathy and the survival instinct/self-destructive instinct coexist

Perhaps our existence is some kind of strange cosmic competition between the search for immortality and the survival/self-destructive #instinct.

The important point here is how I combine the terms ‘survival’ and ‘self-destructive’ and refer to them as the same instinct. I propose that the basic #instinct (to survive) can be applied only to an individual – to a member of a group. However, it cannot be applied to a group of any kind thus it cannot be a viable source of any social order – primitive or advanced, human or animal. If we apply the basic instinct (to survive) to an entire group – especially an “intelligent” group – then it becomes the group’s self-destructive instinct. Why?

An intelligent group, within which each member wants to satisfy only his or her own needs, cannot survive because the product of the group’s action will cause its self-destruction. Why? As the individuals’ intelligence levels increase – as well as their ability to apply them via physical systems – so does their ability to destroy one another.

The answer? Once the group becomes intelligent it is necessary for it begin to collaborate in order to eliminate all traces of competition. If it does not remove the need for competition – or its basic survival instinct – then all new ideas and all new technologies will be used to oppose or counter other members’ ideas and technologies – not to create a global good.

Thus the self-destructive instinct arises out of our inability to overcome the fundamental nature of our shared #human character and not as a result of our inability to overcome our much later and much more sophisticated invented cultural, political, religious and other #stories or #narratives. Such stories are nothing more than our failed attempts to justify or explain the basic survival instinct. By hiding the instinct within cultural, political, religious, and other stories we explain it thus preserve it.

Perhaps it is impossible for us to become humane and practice empathy until we become immortal.

We are so afraid of nonexistence, as individuals and as a civilization, we are willing to destroy ourselves, one another and the planet in order to acquire and control matter. Only because when we own and control matter we feel important and permanent.

We have convinced ourselves that matter carries our image within it and that we carry its image within us but only because we depend on it so much. It is our very dependence on matter – especially our need to own it, to keep it, and to embed ourselves within it (theoretically and physically) – that prevent us from transcending it theoretically and physically.

It is impossible to make matter permanent. Only the energy/data construct is permanent and even the energy/data construct changes its properties and therefore its states thus not even it is a permanent construct.

#Knowledge that refuses to see that it has embedded itself within #matter cannot begin to perceive the need to transcend matter. And, perhaps more importantly, knowledge that attempts to transcend matter by transplanting itself to a different body (or a different type of matter) is unable to begin to grasp the limitations created by matter, let alone transcend them.

What will it take to change our thinking and our actions from treating the material realm as the important one to treating the invisible energy/data realm as the important one?

Why we are not intelligent, yet

What makes us unintelligent?

 

Point 1.

We all know that we don’t know what the mind is – as a psychological, philosophical or spiritual construct.

Point 2.

We all know that we don’t know what the brain is – as a physiological construct.

Point 3.

We all know that we don’t know how much there is to know.

Thus we could say: it seems that we don’t know that we don’t know what intelligence is or how it comes about – precisely because we are so arrogant, precisely because we are so unintelligent.

 

So, how can we say that we are intelligent?

All we can say is that we are aware. We are self-aware entities. However, our awareness or self-awareness is very limited and we are unwilling to expand it. It is because our awareness is so limited and because we are unwilling to expand it that we should be able to conclude that we are not intelligent. Unfortunately we don’t. Yet another proof that we are unintelligent.

We are highly aware animals. We are aware of our own actions and we are aware of our immediate surrounds. However, we are very unintelligent. In fact, we are so unintelligent that despite the fact we agree on the points stated above we are unable to sense our own inability to think, our own inability to imagine and create unique new concepts, our own inability to change and ultimately our own inability to perceive the absence of intelligence and logic in our own behavior.

So, what would make us intelligent?

I think that some of the following prospects could be our starting point.

I propose: if we could become immortal and if we could make the element know as time irrelevant then we could begin to consider our own intelligence in a serious way.

For example: if we were immortal and we were around for so long that we stopped considering time as the most important aspect of our existence and we if witnessed the end and the beginning of the universe so many times that we stopped considering it a significant event then we could begin to talk about intelligence.

I suppose a true intelligence appears to be absolutely illogical and bizarre thus invisible to anyone but itself or someone of equal or greater intelligence. Thus the construct we define as the absolute or total intelligence, our notion of god, is absolutely or totally invisible to anyone but itself and someone of equal or greater intelligence. It is not visible to us.

Thus all we are is an awareness. Specifically: we are a self-aware construct unable to imagine let alone understand, explain and expand its own limitations – its lack of intelligence.

Why do we stop our personal development

Most people stop evolving once they reach ‘a certain level’. What is that ‘certain level’? Why do they stop ‘there’? Why is it different for different people?

People end their personal development when they can no longer perceive any social benefit to their personal development. When their social circle – no matter how small or how large, how educated or how uneducated, how wealthy or how poor it may be – begins to question their personal development they end it in order to preserve their social position. Or we could say people continue to develop only while it is socially acceptable.

If we analyze the above facts we can see that for the majority of people the scope of their personal development is created and controlled by their social circle – thus their personal development never really begins.

To me this suggests that there is a personal self-image and a public self-image. Needless to say, each is an element of one’s personality thus they’re inseparable. Both of them want to evolve but the social self-image seems to be able to control the personal self-image and its development because of the unevolved ego. Currently the public self-image element of the ego seems to be both: created by the dominant social narrative and driven by it. In other words, in our current society the ‘self’ cannot see itself as a success (or as a self-actualized construct) without some external recognition. The ‘self’ needs to be recognized and approved by other external entities (other selves) before it can be satisfied with its own development.

Unfortunately, other external entities (other selves) may not be able to develop in the same direction and with the same speed for a large number of reasons. They might not have given an idea or a direction enough time, they might not have thought about it deeply enough, they might not share the same interests, their genetic makeup might mean they develop different psychological and physiological tendencies and so on and so forth. A large number of physiological and socio-psychological elements shape the members of one’s social circle and any one of them might make it impossible for them to allow themselves to explore a new idea or move in a new direction.

I propose that this occurs mainly because the personal self-image element of one’s ego has not matured enough to recognize that the individual’s full development is that which causes social changes. Or if one does recognize that one’s personal development causes social changes then often one is not strong enough to complete his or her development. One’s complete personal development can force nations, societies, etc. thus our entire civilization to change. A completed personal development – meaning it has not been cut short by the social expectations exerted by the social circle – creates social changes because it forces most other individuals and groups to recognize the same set of ideas, abilities or qualities within themselves.

Unfortunately, most people end their personal development at the smallest hint that they might become isolated and socially unacceptable. However, as we all know, progress begins when one moves beyond the existing theories, ideologies, formulas, systems, etc. thus beyond what is socially acceptable and more importantly beyond the known. Moving beyond the known requires a great amount of courage and more importantly a great deal of learning, skill and experience. One needs to be able to convert personal experiences and personal perceptions of oneself and his or her place in the universe into a valid and useful social construct that can be examined and used by others. Furthermore, one has to be able to talk to others about it – despite their opposition – and to convince them of its value.

Thus we could say: a new personal logic (created by one’s examination of his or her imagination and experiences) thus a new personal self-image can be created and it can transform others but only if the person is strong enough to create a new social self-image and then promote it rather than the accepted social ideas or actions.