The ego of the white people, myself being a white person, is way too big to acknowledge that the only way to save the planet is to begin to coexist with the natural world by continuing the ideologies and practices established by the world’s indigenous populations and which dictate that humans are not separate from other human beings, other non human beings and the natural world, and which require no economy or politics. Furthermore the white people, us, we are way too arrogant to acknowledge that the conquest was the wrong approach. Had we based our technologies on the systems established by the indigenous cultures and extrapolated from there and used technologies to deepen our relationships with ourselves and with the natural world we would have created equality, peace and balance and would have been able to travel to stars and other galaxies by now. Instead we are becoming more and more individual, separate, disconnected, detached and ready to do anything in order to preserve ourselves precisely because our ideologies and actions are reducing the amount of natural resources available to all of us therefore all of us have to become more and more selfish, cunning, violent and evil until we begin to exterminate one another and there is nothing left. After all, all resources are finite.
The era of physical intellectualism is nearly over. Physical intellectuals focused on materialism have nearly destroyed our planet’s resources and constructed countless objects that serve no purpose. It is time to begin an era of emotional intellectualism. It is time to design a world that considers the needs of all of its beings.
To continue to use names for new movements or ideas is to continue to perpetuate elitism and inequality. I call it the intellectual elitism problem (instead of the economic elitism). We must stop forming named entities of any kind because: A) groups require leaders and B) groups divide people. If we do not stop forming groups we will not be able to transform the world because we will continue to perpetuate elitism and therefore inequality.
As long as we promote names of corporations, institutions, movements or individuals we are implying, albeit unintentionally, that a particular view or an idea or a process is more important or more valid than any other views, ideas or processes thereby devaluing the target audience we wish to change. Therefore making the audience feel the need to defend their current mode of existence, thus making it impossible for them to accept our new ideas. We are perpetuating the conflict by attempting to end it because we are creating a new form of elitism and therefore inequality in order to end another form of elitism and inequality. Total equality cannot be achieved if we perpetuate names of concepts or institution or any other tools that are enabling people to see themselves as different and ‘to differentiate’.
As long as we use names we are forcing people to see themselves as ‘different’ from other people because it is impossible for all human beings to accept the same concept at the same time. In order to remove ‘the intellectual lag’ (between those who are aware of certain things and those who are not aware of them) we must remove the notion that there is a concept that needs to be perceived or accepted. We must promote the natural state of existence which is not something with finite begging or end points.
The idea is this: All of us are capable of peace and love. There is no party, club, movement, institution or any other entity that one needs to join to in order to access them. Peace and love are within all of us. Right now. The problem is we don’t know how to access them. We don’t know how to relate to people because we have been taught how to create and perpetuate a permanent form of ‘difference’. We continue to perpetuate that difference when we create named entities that promote peace and love, because, like stated above, all people cannot accept the same concept at the same time regardless of how positive the concept is. One could argue that all people do not have to accept the same concept at the same time. Unfortunately, I do not think it’s wise to continue to perpetuate the divide, that is the intellectual elitism (by forming organizations with specific names), because we are running out of time. Perhaps if we had millions of years we could say : we will create our peace or love or equality group and perpetuate it and promote its name despite any opposition we may encounter. Unfortunately, we do not have millions of years. We are running out of resources. By promoting named institutions or concepts we are creating new opposition whenever we promote our institutions of concepts. Thus we are perpetuating the battle. We are recruiting ‘friendly’ and ‘enemies’ at the same time.
The individuals who want to change the world must realize that: NO MOVEMENT IS REQUIRED BECAUSE OUR EXISTENCE IS THE BIGGEST MOVEMENT.
It is this concept that most people cannot begin to grasp and that is why movements always get in their own way. Movement leaders should not aspire to disappear nor should they aspire to win.
I THINK MOVEMENT LEADERS MUST LEARN HOW BLEND IN WITH HUMANITY.
If I HAD TO, ABSOLUTELY HAD TO name a movement, I would call it NO MOVEMENT and its motto would be THERE IS NO MOVEMENT BECAUSE YOU ARE THE MOVEMENT.
WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT IS CREATING A NEW DIMENSION OF COMMUNICATION BY CREATING A NEW LEVEL OF EMOTIONAL CONNECTION. I AM TALKING ABOUT REDESIGNING OUR LANGUAGE IN ORDER TO COMMUNICATE IN A WAY THAT WOULD ENABLES US TO COMMUNICATE MORE EMOTIONS. I am writing a book about this. It is sixty percent complete. In order to achieve the above mentioned task we need to create a new kind of environment.
We must create a linguistic environment where we could work to remove as many ideological or physical obstacles that suggest that one should see himself or herself as different (from other individuals, including environments) as possible (from our language).
Note, this does not mean erasing personal differences, personal freedoms or personal expression. On the contrary, it means learning to use the language in order to create minds that would be ready to see the external as an extension of themselves thus reducing (and perhaps one day eliminating) the need to categorize and differentiate. We would be learning to expect differences and to see them as ‘a normality or a routine’ and not as an obstacle thus creating a new form of emotional connection that would transform how we perceive one another and how we interact.
I am talking about using latest digital technologies and digital environments to change our psyche and our behavior in order to remove certain socio psychological anxieties by changing how we teach children to speak and interact in order to remove thinking patterns that create stereotypes, clichés, sexism and so on.
This would require major redesigning of all digital devices and how we interact with them but it would change how our brains gather and interpret information and that would change how we perceive one another and that I hope would change how we treat one another. A total bio chemical digital revolution that would change how we interact with ourselves, with our digital devices and environments, and I hope with other people. Bring up the sense of empathy to the foreground and learning how to embed it first into our thinking then into our language then into our relationships and digital devices and environments thus transforming our reality.
Human beings do not need celebrities or corporations or institutions or organizations or units or movements or media companies in order to exist. Human beings need one another in order to exist. It is my belief that human beings can come together without forming any of the above mentioned entities.
Technology can enable us to do so. However in order for us to begin to use it in the right manner we must dissolve the ego and realize the following:
Your life’s greatest achievement is not what you say or how you say it and it is not what you create or how you create it. Your life’s greatest achievement is how you live your life because how you live your life determines who you really are and who you really are is what shapes the world.
It is why we do not need celebrities, corporations, institutions, organization, units, movements and media companies.
Anonymity means not existing as a celebrity or a corporation or an institution or an organization or a unit or a movement or a media company yet it means always being present because the capacity to help your fellow human beings is contained within each and every one of you.
Whether you are willing to help others, or not, is up to you.
Whoever you are, if you truly want to help others, then abandon the notion of the ego, that is abandon anything that makes you feel more important or better than others, and become anonymous.
Fellow human beings do not need anybody else but you and you do not need anybody else but them.
My open letter to Mr. Russell Brand. Sent to him and posted on his Facebook page.
Dear Mr. Brand, after visiting your website, and seeing you are comparing yourself to Jesus Christ, Gandhi, Che Guevara, Malcolm X and so on, albeit jokingly, I must say that actions speak louder than words and while what you are saying can be seen as positive I will start believing it when you donate say 90% of your wealth and relate to the working and underclass, to which you are preaching, through more than just your colorful presentations. For none of those people said I am wealthy BUT LET ME TELL YOU WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO IMPROVE THE WORLD. What you are doing could be seen as far more dangerous than hypocrisy. What you are really saying is you need to accept the wealthy and don’t expect them to change anything but you should go make your living the way you do, working the impossible hours and supporting your family, and not only that but you should fight to transform the world. Anyone who proposes what you propose, if they are wealthy as you are, must A ) use their wealth to help people and B ) must address other wealthy individuals and demand from them to dissolve their wealth and practice simpler lives. Telling middle aged mothers from some of the poorest areas of the UK to meditate and change is easy. Go and talk to Richard Branson and tell him to get rid of his islands and space programs, to mediate and to donate 90% of his wealth. Saying oh I am rich and that’s what it is but you need to fight to change the world is using the awareness and activism movement to justify your wealth. Gandhi owned less than ten items. Shoes, glasses, a bowl for food, and his clothes. No need for extremism but it puts things into some kind of perspective. Are you Mr. Brand one of the new kids on the block who are using the independent media and activism to build your audience and create more wealth, that remains to be seen, and will be confirmed by your actions.
There is quite a bit of talk about redesigning the environment. Yes, it needs to be changed. However, most people, especially the wealthy people, will not abandon the processes and systems which enable them to create their meaning because they have become emotionally dependent on them. They don’t see them as the system with which to create wealth. They see them as the system with which to create and perpetuate their meaning.
People, especially the wealthy people, will not begin to redesign the environment until specific emotional and psychological states and processes are changed and or replaced with other more compassionate states and processes.
The reasoning processes about wealth acquisition, just like any other form of reasoning or thinking or decision making, are influenced by logic and emotions and must produce outcomes that guarantee emotional and physical security (power, weapons, control, military, etc.)
It’s never going to be enough to present an architectural drawing or a working formula or detailed plan, because to those in power there is no clear reason why they should endanger the mechanism that is enabling them to create a stable state. The truly wealthy to do not live unstable lives. The wealthy do not view the world with as much uncertainty. The wealthy are not concerned with creating stability. For them it’s already there. They worry about perpetuating their meaning. Not about inventing it. The not so wealthy worry about inventing their meaning. Getting on the map so to speak. The wealthy can place themselves anywhere on the map.
This is a permanent source of conflict because it’s a state that cannot be changed. Not with current modes of discussion.
It does not mean the presentation is not clear of valid. The problem is that regardless of how viable the proposed project or system is, it is never going to be enough to force the elite to remove something which is perceived as an extension of their personality and which is performing the necessary function (making meaning).
We need to alter the elite’s psychological and emotional states in order to enable them to realize the error of their psychological and emotional states. Then , and only then will we be able to cause them to create physical changes to the world.
Yes, we must change how we educate people. I think, we must reverse the educational trend. We teach children how to master social and logical and economic concepts first and then we teach them about emotions and empathy. We equate emotions and empathy to philosophy and psychology and arts and say they are complex and not as essential. We continue to perpetuate the idea that we need to equip people with ‘the useful skills’ hence produce a class made up of individuals who are incapable of detecting their own emotions and desires and instincts, let alone assessing them or changing them. A working class. Trades and industrial skills. The notion that arts and psychology are not as important is creating catastrophic results.
It’s a problem whose origins can be traced to the prehistory period when we had to organize resources in order to survive and when it was not a mistake to do so because it enabled us to survive. However it is no longer relevant.
We have to develop a person’s emotional state first and then proceed to logic and then to social skills development. We stress ‘social skills’ and ‘logic skills’, perhaps that would not be a problem if they were not based on self preservation. Unfortunately they are and that is one of the reasons why we have created a world where it’s ‘every person for himself or herself’ and therefore we are going to continue to produce markets and competition based society. Of course I am making great linguistic and social science abbreviations here. Reducing the complex.
In short, I think, we cannot change what and how people think about the environment that is the world itself and cause them to change it without changing how they perceive themselves and other people.
My greatest worry is the new independent media outlets and small businesses who are using the awareness movement in order to acquire wealth. Kind of like making money by selling the snow to the Eskimos. They claim to want to extinguish the economic system yet they want their piece of the pie and plan to get it by creating a new form of false mass media
Marriage/monogamy and promiscuity seem to be the extremes. The term promiscuity seems to be used by the marriage/monogamy extremists to define the group they disagree with and the term marriage/monogamy seems to be used by the promiscuity extremists to define the group they disagree with. Loveless and passionate marriages or attempts to find the ideal partner are as meaningless as having sex for the sake of saying that one is capable of performing the act. Maybe, like with anything else, the extreme becomes meaningless. It’s nice to try different kinds of chocolate, but eating them for breakfast, lunch and dinner every single day, seven days a week, would not help one appreciate their flavors or make one aware of new sensations. It would dull the senses and it would become impossible to notice new flavors. Similarly, if one has never tried any chocolate one could not determine what flavor one likes or if one likes chocolate at all.
As long as we don’t act out of fear, anxiety or peer pressure but because of our own true volition then then hey each to his own. The problem, I think, like I said about some other topic, don’t remember what it was, is that it seems it’s impossible for humans to create their meaning without opposing some other meaning.
We seem to invent and develop ourselves and our entire existence in order to oppose sets of signs, symbols, and systems we cannot accept (there are many different reasons why we are unable to accept them and why we are unable to determine that we are creating our meaning by opposing that which we cannot accept but that would take a couple of chapters), rather than inventing and developing ourselves in order to experience life and our true selves. (The self that is not designed to exist in order to oppose everything that exists outside of it.) This seems to be a big problem our civilizations does not seem to be able to resolve because it refuses to create a more universal form of language precisely because nations and their members (people) are afraid they would lose their identity precisely because they are unaware they cannot lose it because it is universal (I am talking about humanity of course). A catch twenty two.
The marriage/monogamy and promiscuity terms seem to be the extremes of the language promoted by the extremist parties struggling to disprove one another rather than definitions of natural human desires or behaviors or needs or wants or urges or whatever you want to call them. I guess the question is why marriage/monogamy and why promiscuity.
The true purpose of ‘war’, the desire to conquer in order to steal resources, has never changed. What has changed is the nature of the mass media and the leaders’ ability to use it to mask the true purpose of ‘war’. Our true nature has not changed as much as we think. We are more violent than we realize. The danger is that governments and military will become more and more violent because they will continue to mask their intentions more and more successfully, by diverting our collective attention to the digital realm. Digital social networks being a good example. The economic military control has translated well into the digital realm. The notion of a ‘user’ and a ‘programmer’ blows my mind. Most users think they are free. But unless you can manipulate the information, unless you are the programmer, you are never going to be free. What most fail to see is that a seismic separation of reality is starting to occur. The average computer user is being transported into the digital realm and is being asked to abandon physical actions. We are asked to do so indirectly and subconsciously and secretly, of course. Not that it is a conspiracy but rather a useful side effect which certain parties have realized can be exploited. We are asked to spend more and more and more of our time in the digital realm. A place where the average user is completely powerless unless willing to organize and then transfer his or her plan into the real world or unless able to manipulate information to an extraordinary degree. And the fact is the average user is unlikely to become a highly skilled programmer or to develop and plan a social movement and execute it in the real world. Thus what is being created is an awake dream state of the mind. A place where dreams, imaginations and desires are not as separate as they have to be in the physical world, hence many derive a great deal of pleasure from that. Browsing, shopping and so on. What this means is that when the average user leaves the digital world he or she is unwilling to do much else.
With all this in mind, any form of activism, if it is to become more effective MUST ENCOURAGE THE USER TO CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT BY CHANGING THE NATURE OF HER OR HIS PARTICIPATION, AND MUST ENCOURAGE THE USER TO MONITOR THE EXTENT OF HER OR HIS DISASSOCIATION WITH THE PHYSICAL WORLD.
Most are told they are free to roam the cyber space. But it turns out you your freedom is defined by Facebook policy and Twitter policy and Youtube policy and Google policy which happen to be related and so on. Once you decide to play outside the corporate government landscape you can find your self in deep shit in zero time. That is not freedom. That is an illusion of freedom. If we are to change it, we have to expose the true nature of the digital landscape. The landscape that mimics the physical world. The internet is becoming corporate space. The entire internet is starting to resemble a massive fucking digital billboard. People are asked to see this and that, to sign up for this and that, to buy or sell this service and that product, to donate to this cause or that cause. Some of it is understandable, but the overall picture is starting to get in the way of PEOPLE COMMUNICATING WHAT MAKES THEM HUMAN. PEOPLE USING THE INTERNET TO PRESERVE HUMANITY.
One of the most beautiful and the most troubling things about life is that most people never realize, let alone negotiate, that what is contained within each one of us is so unique and so beautiful that it cannot be understood by others until it is converted into understandable and acceptable clichés thereby rendering the beauty of its source (the person) irrelevant, and reducing the original vision into a culturally acceptable cliché.
Therefore we remain unaware of one another’s true beauty and fail to realize that we should be accepted for our originality and not for our ability to fit in.
Then the truly powerful pieces of art or science seem to be created by the individuals who refuse to communicate themselves and their visions through clichés and invent their own systems.
Their systems are analyzed and interpreted by academics and critics and then fed to the rest of the population. Once people can understand the new ideas they realize their value and social and cultural changes occur.
We will not begin to be able to read one another’s deeper internal states of being or states of mind, what makes us unique, until we abandon the idea that we must categorize and group ourselves according to those categories.
We must change the purpose of ‘language’, meaning any language, in order to change the purpose of ‘communication’.
We must stop using the language, again meaning any language, in order to shape a person into a particular regionally acceptable citizen, instead, we must use the language to communicate that person’s originality.
In other words we must stop teaching people how to communicate in order to fit in and we must start teaching people how to communicate their originality and therefore to expect to encounter originality wherever they look.
I am talking about transforming our society from a ‘social groups system’ to a collective made up of unique individuals that do not need to form or belong to any particular group because the fear of not being accepted would be neutralized precisely because the expectation to fit in would be removed from all languages and replaced with the notion of ‘endless diversity’ thus rendering the notion of ‘grouping’ impossible.