Why shared and anonymous organization of the people by the people is the way to create equality

True revolutionaries don’t promote themselves or the ideologies they have developed because they know that they are an extension of their own ego.

True revolutionaries promote only and only the actions that would, when performed by the people, enable the people to lift themselves out of poverty and create equality for all people, worldwide.

The consequence of the people’s collective actions creates the new ideology.

Forcing the people (who are not ready and who therefore do not understand that they need to create new systems of behavior in order to improve their lives, lift themselves out of poverty and create equality for all) to perform the actions necessary to create a revolution and give the new ideology a physical form is dictatorship.

The ideology that can unite humanity cannot be enforced, because it is HUMANITY itself.

If an ideology needs to be enforced, it cannot create universal, worldwide peace and equality, regardless of how peaceful its intent may be.

Shared, anonymous and decentralized control and distribution of ideas and then resources is the only way to create egoless and therefore leaderless society (or to try to get as close as we can to it). Any preferences assigned to any individual or any group of individuals will create inequality.

Any ideology that promotes or associates the individual behind it with the ideology is just another form of the ego driven system of control. The individuals behind such ideologies demonstrate that they have not evolved beyond the need to satisfy their own ego.

We, the people, do not need to be controlled. We the people, need to be organized. CONTROL and ORGANIZATION are two different concepts.

The key point is: we, the people, do not need leaders in order to organize ourselves. We, the people, can organize ourselves.

The leaders who are not interested in growing and who therefore cannot overcome their ego, and therefore the need to control others, would have us believe that we should equate CONTROL with ORGANIZATION.

We need to change how we imagine, design and create new technologies and then how we use them do manage the sources of social powers.

New technologies must be used to transfer control from the leaders’ hands to the hands of the people who create such new technologies, not to remove it from the people’s hands.

We, the people, do not need leaders, we the people need organizers who do not crave power.

We, the people, need to become the people who want to, and, more importantly, know how to share our own humanity and who are willing to embed that humanity in technologies we create.

We do not need another technological revolution. We need a revolution of the human mind, in order to reimagine how the existing technologies can be applied in order to help more people increase their sense of empathy and learn how to love themselves, other people and the planet that is trying to keep them alive despite their subconscious attempts to destroy it.



Plug into the natural world via technology, rather than attempt to recreate it

I suppose what I will never understand is why didn’t people find it obvious to imagine and create technologies that would ‘plug into’ the natural world and work with it rather than destroy it?

Doesn’t it seem like a logical thing?

Maybe it’s not fair to say that now, at this point in time? After so many mistakes.

Technology is still an obstacle between human beings and nature.

We are starting to crate technologies that might be able to enable us to plug ourselves into the natural world, but only if we continue in a very specific direction.

Will it happen?

I suppose the problem originates somewhere within our perception of the natural world.

The initial thought had been: if it’s natural it’s primitive.

However, it turns out the natural processes are so complex it’s impossible to simulate them or recreate them. We create approximations. How can we ever account for all the variables that exist in nature.

So the natural systems are far more complicated than any of the artificial technologies we can crate, but they seem simple.

We must attempt to plug into the natural world via new technologies, rather than try to recreate the natural world.

The self and the psyche as a consequence of the need to maintain the system

The world is made up of sets of systems and  all of them had been designed as subconscious responses to all the other existing systems. Not a single physical object made by human beings is a random piece of invention. Whether their designers had been aware of the source of their inspirations and anxieties at the time of their creation is not important. The fact is that such anxieties and inspiration have had to exist and they had been responsible for every creative process.

Anything you see around you, every single thing (except the natural world), has had its start as a fragment of a human being’s imagination. The consequences of this are so massive we are lost within them. The consequence, I think, is that we are being carried along, on and on, throughout our lives, by the currents of the river that could be defined as ‘civilization’. Its most defining features being the eastern and western schools of thought, as well as the different religions.  

What troubles me is the extent to which our creative responses arise out of the need to perpetuate some aspect of the world that surrounds us by creating a new component of it, or by maintaining it, or by contributing to some of the existing components of that system, without being aware that we are doing it. Without being aware that we are not attempting to examine a unique property of our own individual psyche (by unique I do not mean unseen or unimagined before, by unique I  mean our own interpretation of an element of our own psyche, rather than an accepted notion).

For example: should, can, or do paintings and photographs start as ideas that are expressed through their corresponding media or are they expressed through that particular media because artists know they can be hanged in various buildings and spaces. Or, because the need to express one’s feelings through that particular media is in fact a genuine need to express oneself in that particular way.

Or, psychologically speaking, how many artists are aware of: if it is a genuine need to communicate their feelings through that particular media that compels them to use it; how many are willing to admit it to themselves (that it is or that it isn’t); and are they aware of the extent to which their subconscious drives their ambitions and habits and how and when and where and why it interacts with the conscious and what exactly are the effects of the interaction on their definition of ambition, on their definition of the self. Especially the self as projected in their work. To me, any artist that chooses to ignore such crucial aspects of the self and more importantly the self’s conscious and subconscious interpretation of its driving force (that is the ego or more generally the psyche) is no more than a thoughtless commercial designer churning out products, a la Henry Ford. Long live Henry Ford and the industrial complex and all, but then, we are not talking about art.

The artificial/human made portion of the world (as opposed to the natural world) consists of a specific number of elements. It’s a large number, however it is a finite number. While we can agree that its represented through a finite number of languages, geometric shapes, formulas, numbers, etc. our experience of it is unique. More importantly, I think, it is our unique interpretations of the natural world that enable us to create new discoveries. If every artist and every scientist had been seeing every shape and every number, etc. only for what they had been told those concepts could be there would not be any inventions of interpretative disagreements.

Anyway, we must exist within a world that is a combination of concepts and physical objects. It’s inevitable. However, our psychological definitions and perceptions of the need for their balance (imagined vs. physical) as well as their relationship to each other has been changing. We continue to favor the physical world and physical objects. What is not discussed and publicized is how their balance and relationship shape us and then how we reshape it.

Like stated earlier, not a single item made by human beings is a random piece of invention. Every building, every car and every line and every nut and bolt contained within it, street, chair, park, pen, glass, shoe, table, toothbrush, curtain, sock, shoe, shirt, airplane, poster, billboard, weapon, anything and everything you see (past, present or future) has had its start as an act of imagination designed to oppose or support (consciously or subconsciously) some other physical object or idea.

Most individuals would ask what use is it knowing everything has had to have its origins deep within some crazy designer’s mind when it doesn’t help me change the world and its structures.

But the point is we can change the world with our responses.



All of it very obvious. Unfortunately, the true purpose of our actions remains concealed by the nature of the reality created by our actions.

It seems that the above problem is impossible to solve on a global scale. Many individuals realize the nature of their responses to the world that surrounds them. However, it seems impossible to create any kind of serious global change.

This will be a grand, arrogant, ego driven statement but I think that the fields we know as ‘social sciences’, ‘social psychology’ and ‘philosophy have failed to enable our civilization to accept its potential for self destruction (especially as expressed by Freud and Fromm, in terms of sadism and masochism and destructiveness, and as revised by more recent works) and therefore have failed to reduce its need for self destruction.

To put it simply, the modern global village remains completely unaware of its tendency for self destruction. Unfortunately, this means the global digital media is permitted to continue to rationalize violence, hate and weapons use. Indeed, the global media continues to succeed in rationalizing them because so many individuals remain unaware of the basic socio psychological concepts that drive their personalities, such as destructiveness and sadomasochism.

The irony is, university and government departments that should be publicizing latest social psychology findings to the masses (and demonstrating how to apply them), especially the under and working class, are unable to do so because the economic interest factor defines their agendas. It defines their existence.

So the economic interest factor has invaded all areas of all institutions whose primary aim used to be to: investigate the nature of what it means to be a human being and then record, create and disseminate any materials that would further an individual’s understanding of its humanity. The economic factor has changed their purpose. It is no longer appropriate for such institutions to invest in such matters and distribute such materials for they contradict the notion of profit. HELLO. Such institutions were never meant to create any profit, in any sense of the word, for anybody. Their primary concern was HUMANITY. Needless to say, humanity is not a profitable term to begin with.

Why do we derive a sense of security (I suppose coupled with a sense of pleasure which might be invoked by the sensation of security) from any act that requires us to acquire physical objects? Precisely because we refuse to address the underlying psychological anxieties. The need to acquire and maintain physical objects will continue to exist until the majority learns how to acknowledge and address their anxieties.

Needless to say, we require some basic objects in order to survive, and our existence is becoming increasingly complicated, however our existence has turned into a ritualistic wealth acquisition and wealth management quests where everything else is less important.

The psychological explanation is ignored precisely because it deters us from acquiring more wealth. It is why it is so difficult TO BEGIN to solve the above mentioned problem on A GLOBAL scale. 

The solutions that would eradicate our social problems (violence, poverty, hate, etc.) are not advertised by the global media because the global media moguls (owners) know that their target audiences’ behaviors would change and the companies they run would lose money. Therefore, in their own eyes, they would become insignificant and poor. They never stop to examine how they could transform their current positions. They never considering new possibilities because new possibilities are considered a waste of time precisely because the economic system is seen as the only valid way to self actualize and make their meaning.

So the global media establishment continues its self destructive sadomasochistic game play. It claims it wants to save ‘the people’ and relate to them, yet its true nature, concealed within the apathetic sadomasochistic psyches of its owners, is to perpetuate the existing socio economic order in order to extract money from the working class, which it sees as inferior.

So the trap remains, even in psychology and psychoanalysis: we exist within a physical world therefore our responses must be entirely physical in nature.

I believe that is not an entirely accurate understanding of the problem.

So I wonder if the nature of the solutions offered by psychoanalysis could be deepened. Inevitably this would require one to discuss many different aspects of psychoanalysis. For example the nature of one of the greatest battles in the field of psychology, and it exists to this day: Personality psychology vs. environmental psychology (is a person determined by its genes and is its psyche unalterable, etc.; or, do environments determine and transform the psyche, etc., etc., etc.). A complex, inconclusive battle. So could we say that while psychoanalysis offers a number of methods that can be used to deal with many different problems, overall it does not attempt to shift the psyche to a different state of being? (Although, some scientists have tried to do that. So my statement that it does not could take another ten pages to explain.  Jung and many others have attempted to shift their subjects perceptions of themselves, etc., etc., etc., and they had been successful with some of them, but I must limit myself here.)

What troubles me is: shouldn’t the nature of our response (to life; that is to live, to create, to communicate etc.) be such that majority of it is to do with changing our mental capacities (psyche, emotions, etc.). Shouldn’t the physical world be seen as a tool with which to change our mental abilities, (imagination, desire, drives, ambitions, etc.,) and our sense of empathy. Especially our sense of empathy because without we cannot begin to change how we relate to people and environments.

Currently all we do is create objects that will satisfy the mind’s desires, without considering the true underlying nature of our desires. For example: we continue to create products which promote nationalism without knowing anything about the nature of the desire to do so (for example if it’s really necessary). Hence most of our actions contradict one another and thus creating further conflicts. We invest billions in nationalism (weapons, borders, logos, flags, propaganda, intelligence grids, promoting governments, etc.). Then, we invest billions in negotiations and ‘peace tactics’ (peace talks, peace forces, ‘humanitarian aid’, free technology for the disadvantaged, etc.) none of which would be required had we decided not to alienate, oppress, enslave and exterminate our fellow human beings. Laughable, yet sad.

Should we not use the physical world and its resources to change our psyche so we can reduce our attachment to the physical world itself. Unfortunately, we use our psyche to design objects that takes further are away from our psyche?

Shouldn’t the ultimate objective of psychology be to connect the individual not simply to his or her family, race or culture but to the universal human being, the universal family, to his or her true source of humanity?

This is not a critique, however it seems to me that quite a few of Freud, Fromm and Jung’s (as well as others’) including present day strategies deal with physical substitutions. For example Fromm will talk about an unhappy 22 year old medical student who is not sure why he is unhappy with his wealthy life and even though he wants to be a doctor he thinks he would not be a ‘good’ doctor. After many lengthy sessions, Fromm learns that the student wants to be an architect. He has been dreaming about buildings and as a child had expressed interest in architecture but which had had to have been suppressed, by the father, etc. Furthermore, he dreams of leaping out of tall buildings then being approached by a doctor that doesn’t carry his equipment thus is unable to save him, and on so on. The solution is pretty radical. The young man is controlled by the father who wants him to be a doctor and maintain the family fortune etc. So the answer is to be an architect and to communicate his desires, etc. Other examples include Freud and Jung discussing young women and their relationships, etc. and the need to assert themselves, etc. to replace one kind of thing with another, one kind of person with another, etc. All good solutions, especially considering the era.

But why not expand.  Again, of course, I am aware that one behavior cannot be removed, it needs to replaced with a different behavior, or changed over an extended period of time, yet another area of discussion.

But why not go deeper. The point of psychoanalysis is: to reveal any repressed thoughts or driving forces; to force the subject to face his or her true motivations. Once determined that the subject wants to be an architect. Why not ask why be anything? Why work? Why maintain the family empire? Not in order to destabilize the subject but to get him closer to the core of what it means to be a human being. Needless to say, we could say it could be too dangerous, too confusing (yet another area of deeper discussion, treatment, etc.). But isn’t telling somebody that their father had been manipulating them their entire life, that they should change their career and their life, and that they should tell their father how they feel about him a pretty disturbing set of actions anyway?

I think we should try to get as close as we can to what it means to be a (the) universal human being. Rather than a being that is a product of a particular class, group, and nationality.

Why not try to help one express oneself through his or her work in a way that would assist other human beings and not in a way that would perpetuate their personal family empire.

My true motivation here, psychoanalytically speaking, is why not get to the core of the patient’s ego? Why not force the patient to rationalize himself or herself as the most basic unit of motivation, that is to see himself or herself, as a human being that exists in order to relate to and assist and all other human being. Rather than leave the patient at the level of his particular class, national identity, etc. This could be yet another debate, of course. But I have to wonder about it.

Wouldn’t it be healthier to go deeper?

How many people would want to see a psychologist who is ready to tell them that they need to become a more humane human being by finding a more humane way to utilize their potential? Rather than how to be a more efficient at perpetuating the existing socio economic environment.

They are very uncomfortable suggestions yet, I believe, they are exactly what our civilizations requires if it is to survive.

I suppose all responses have to be materialistic, at least to some extent, but shouldn’t we try to continue to reduce the extent to which the solutions need to manifest themselves as physical constructs?

I think, the necessary question, which goes much deeper, is: what does it mean to be a human being?

In order to be a human being do I have to work? What kind of work does it have to be? Can my existence valid only if I work towards my own well being? Do I have to acquire material wealth in order to be perceived as a valid human being? Could my existence be expressed in terms of what I do for other people? Gandhi would say that as we get older we should acquire fewer things and give more and more, of ourselves and of what we have acquired and prepare for departure. We seem to have developed policies that contradict his proposal because we refuse to acknowledge our mortality. As we get older we get greedier, more cynical, more skeptical, more cut off from the word we don’t understand. For we have never had the time to learn how to understand it, thus we have never had the time to learn how to see its true shape and its true potential.

It is my belief that it should be psychology’s, especially social psychology’s, primary task to try to go beyond any cultural and social constraints imposed on it by the economic/material system. It should seek solutions that reside at the core of the universal human being and then promote them rather than culture specific, nation specific, class specific solutions.

Psychology must grow and evolve in order to go beyond trying to fix the individual to fit into the existing economic system.

Psychology must rise to the challenge. The person is disturbed precisely because the entire system is unhealthy is disturbing its process. Therefore, as unlikely as it seems, the entire system needs to be adjusted, by ‘retuning’ each and every individual, one person at a time. Yes, by making them more aware of their sense of empathy and by teaching them how to relate to other people so that together they can create a more stable and more empathic world. It’s a demanding task, but anything less is not going to be good enough. I am talking about saving humanity from itself, from the side of itself it fails to acknowledge.

Psychology, if it is to try to save humanity from itself, must rise itself (for there is no other area of human endeavor willing to assist it, that I can see) above its current constraints that define its levels of acceptable empathic solutions. What I mean is ‘empathy’ is ‘total’, without any qualifiers. You are an empathic person thus nothing else in the world could be more valuable than another person’s life and wellbeing. Endless debates of moral and ethical principles have not solved any of our problems. Not now, not at any other point in history. Human beings have been waging wars since the dawn of humanity. There has not been a single day, in the entire human history, without a conflict. If that not a clear indicator that our definitions of ethics, morality and empathy are not working, I don’t know what is. Every single day, since our earliest recorded history, there had been large segments of population which had been, are now, and if we continue on the same path, will, no doubt, be able to justify hatred, violence, wars, and ultimately murder, and worse, massacres and genocide.

The point of all this, I suppose, is:  as long as the agenda is to preserve the existing socio psychological materialistic economic structure humanity and human development cannot be our primary concern.

In other words, the physical structure of the world must be shaped around any new revelations about the universal human psyche (as exposed by psychology, sociology, etc.).

It is very hard to do this because it seems that our notion of what it means to be a civilized human being derives from our definitions of our interactions with the material world and not from our definitions of the way in which we exercise our sense of empathy for the living world.

Unfortunately, like stated earlier, the message is lost because universities and health and welfare institutions are becoming funded by the corporate elite whose only aim is to oppose any ideologies or forces that threaten to free the universal human spirit and reveal the power of love and peace.

Any educational institution that reviews new theories, technologies or any new proposals of any kind based on their ability to earn incomes and become an ongoing source of profit for its funding bodies, rather than their ability to interpret humanity and contribute to its many dimensions,  does not deserve to be called an educational institution. It’s just another investment tool.


Conflict as the foundation of the main systems of knowledge

Our inability to combine spirituality, religion, science, etc., into a grand theory of existence only illustrates our inability to think and exist outside the system chosen for us by our immediate environment (not that any one of them is invalid, not even that any one of them exists).

Could this be the ultimate tragedy of our existence? Our inability to see that we invent an intellectual border in order to try to go beyond it. Simply because the process of trying to go beyond it is what gives a sense of purpose.

The concepts (that each system proposes) and that prevent us from uniting them cannot be proved by any external evidence that each system claims they could used to prove them. Thus no system can prove its existence within another system. This is so obvious, why am I writing this? If all the evidence is invented within one system what possible relevance could we expect it to have in a different system?

In fact, the only reason why the different systems exist and the only reason why each system searches for a piece of evidence to sustain its interpretation of reality is not in order to preserve itself but in order to deny the other system.
The meaningless of our attempts to intellectualize the need to exist as separate entities within the different systems is beyond my ability to comprehend it. I would venture a guess that it comes from our inability to create our existence any other way except through conflict.

There is no reason not to unite all the systems of knowledge other than that they derive their meaning from existing as separate entities that continue to try to disprove one another.

Is it safe to say that there is no definitive system or method or way of existence or of knowledge only that they derive their definitiveness and therefore their infiniteness by continuing to try to exist as separate entities rather than a single entity that is spread across the different intellectual stages that is the different system of existence.

Certain people are ready to define themselves through science, others through religion but none of them are definitive nor do they need to be the dominant system. The belief that they do is our inability to grasp the need for diversity, etc., etc., etc.

So indicative of our psyche. Whenever we oppose others in their attempts to be happy we create conflicts that make it impossible for us to be happy, and vice versa.



Friendship: a force that gives us meaning or a place to hide

I’ll finish this later.

The problem with resisting the forces of corruption and hate is this:

Once people realize the extent of corruption or hate that is present within their environment or expressed through an individual they know they begin to feel so powerless that they completely surrender to the feeling of insignificance. They allow it to consume them. The feeling of insignificance manifests itself as state of mental and physical inaction.

When people feel insignificant and therefore powerless they don’t think they can trust other people and because they are not familiar with any other coping mechanism they believe that what they have witnessed has not affected them and will not affect them if they try to ignore it. Unfortunately, it does affect them in many different ways (immediately and long term).

People need a place where they can express their fears and then learn how to restore and refocus their energy.

What is needed is a support group that would share the very injustices they have witnessed and then use them to instigate action.

Do you think I am talking about a professional institution?

I am talking about friendship.

Two people coming together and trusting each other as well as larger groups of friends that organize different activities.

In order to change people’s responses it is necessary to change people’s perceptions of their own abilities.

Friends without any benefits are the only true friends for the only thing they care about is the only thing that matters, each other. Everything else is expendable.

It’s necessary to instill in people a new default state of mind: when they witness anything negative, there is a place to go to. A place where you can express yourself and then find people who are willing to organize and do something about it. A new culture needs to be born.

Groups of people that feel empowered by injustices because they know there are other people who have experienced something similar and who are willing to come together.

The very thing that separates people is their own fear that if they reveal anything, anything at all, what little they have managed to acquire might be lost.

So they continue on their own, hating the world and everyone and everything in it and subconsciously hating themselves for, hence depending on drugs (stimulants and tranquilizers) to get them through depression and anger.

The default state of mind must change.

Furthermore, another far more sinister dimension of the problem is that people come together in order to ignore the forces of corruption and hate by focusing on the trivial thus enabling the forces to grow stronger and oppress them even more.

A stable psyche cannot arise until it learns how to regard itself in entirety.

Thus we must admit why we are coming together and what we are doing once we are together.

What is the purpose of friendships?

Is it to reinforce what we know? Is it to forget what we have witnessed?

Is it to be

What is the nature of our friendships?


The origins of contemporary imagination

It is possible that contemporary pieces of art, especially abstract paintings and abstract photographs, reveal our detachment from ‘nature’, the natural world?

Are they foreshadowing the end of the natural world and an unknown form of evolution? A world without nature? Digital projections, new materials with unknown properties, unpredictable and changeable architecture, previously unseen shapes and patterns? Instead of nature, animals, parks?

It seems cityscapes, as well as interiors of the future will not contain many natural objects?

It is fair to say that contemporary art seems to suggest very high levels of instability and unpredictability?

It seems to me that nobody knows what ‘the now’ is, or what it might become. I could be wrong of course.

It seems that in contemporary art, the now, is not expressed as anything in particular?

It seems to me that most other pieces of art from all the other periods, regardless of how abstract they might have been, have managed to maintain some kind of connection with the natural world. The natural meaning the external world that surrounds the artist as well as the artist’s internal worlds (dreams, imagination, etc.).

Today’s ‘art’ seems to demonstrate complete separation or detachment from ‘nature’ and fellow human beings.

It strikes me how few human or human like shapes are present in contemporary art (again, paintings, photographs, etc.), and especially in abstract pieces.

I need to look at more paintings, photographs, etc.

Does this occur because so many artists live in big cities? Furthermore, even small cities are becoming increasingly modernized? Kids growing up in some of the largest cities in the world have never seen farm animals, forests, rivers, unusual plants, etc. All they see is artificial environments.

Could it be that artists are withdrawing, losing themselves within their inner worlds, which seem to be influenced by ‘the global inner city’ architecture.

If you live in cities like New York, London, Sydney, Paris, Hong Kong, etc., you don’t just hop on your bike and escape to a beautiful rainforest.

I suppose I am wondering about the origins (the subconscious places) of contemporary imagination?

I suppose it’s obvious that if you live in an era in which there are no forests then they are not going to appear in your work or they might but they won’t be the dominant feature.

But why our preoccupation with the abstract concept.

Is the self so uncertain of its ability to create a stable future?

Turning individuality into celebrity and celebrity into a product

Turning individuality into celebrity and celebrity into a product

The idea of ‘celebrities’ and ‘ordinary people’ continues to amaze me because it’s so ironic and self referential. So many are so ignorant regarding the origins of the concept it’s incredible.

The quest should be: how to be your truest, happiest self, not a desired public construct? Right? Once upon a time that had been the case.

Indeed, the irony is that’s how it all started.

Creative individuals would become celebrated because ‘the people’ adored the creative individuals’ ability to project their own individualities and embed them into their creative practice (their art or their performances). This had been the case precisely because ‘the people’s (read the working and under class) individuality had to be sacrificed in order to build, maintain and expand the elite’s industrial/economic system.

The system that would become the celebrities’ main vehicle of success.

It is impossible for ‘the people’ to determine, establish, grow and exchange their individualities because the industrial/economic system needs to continue to create and increase a profit margin for its owners by using the ‘people’s’ time and converting it into a usable unit of effort that is then applied across the industrial/economic system.

The tragedy is that ‘the celebrities’ invest in and therefore help expand the industrial/economic system because it’s a safe way to increase their wealth and solidify their celebrity status.

Unfortunately, the ‘celebrity industrial/economic’ relationship has marked the beginning of the end of culture and humanity.

It is because ‘the celebrities’ have learned that they can make money by turning their bodies, body parts, property, talents and so on into merchandise (that is then advertised and distributed via the industrial/economic system to the underclass, working class, middle class and even the elite) that they have come to realize that the quality and quantity of their talents are not as important as the body image created by the advertising machine. Therefore the quality and quantity of their talents or ‘creative abilities’ continue to decrease because the industrial/economic system’s ability to advertise their body image as a product continues to increase.

The advertising focus has shifted from creative abilities and character originality to character originality alone and then to ‘a celebrity’ as a product.

The industrial/economic advertising machine has become so sophisticated that is has managed to enter our most private spaces (our homes) and alter our sense of empathy (without our awareness) thus distorting our definitions of our shared reality so much that any sufficiently rich celebrities, of any kind, including bankers and businessmen, can commit murders, rape women and children, lie, or perform any other crime, and we accept them as publicity stunts.

The average person’s psyche has been conditioned so much that it has come to accept any celebrity as a non human entity.

The relationship between ‘the people’ and ‘the celebrities’ exists only as an artificial construct, not as a personal experience. The key elements of the relationship have been filtered so much that the average individual perceives ‘the celebrities’ first as ‘the unique product’ and then as a fellow human being, never as a unique human being.

Therefore ‘the people’ continue to support the very construct that contributes to their oppression and prevents them from accessing their own individualities thus further deteriorating their social skills and their ability to relate to different human beings.

This works well for the industrial/economic system because the average citizen has never been further away from his or her experience of his or her self.

An original individuality is the very thing ‘the people’ hope to get a glimpse of by admiring and supporting their favorite celebrities. Unfortunately, the very thing they hope to see, continues to disappear and is harder and harder to see precisely because ‘the people’ have to work harder and harder and are willing to pay more and more in order to feed the growing ego of the disappearing. The beast that understands the depths of ‘the people’s’ despair for it participates in their creation and which therefore knows that they would pay any price in order to escape from their own individualities, even for brief moments .The individualities which are perceived as inadequate precisely because of the celebrity complex (see the mechanisms of escape).

The beast that’s been using the advertising machine to conceal the fact that its humanity and originality have disappeared a long, long time ago. That is the only reason why it is willing to continue to claim that it is better than its audiences, yet it is willing to take their hard earned money.

Revealing the self to oneself through his or her creative decisions

I think that without creating a piece of ‘art’ (and I don’t like the word ‘art’, I prefer to say ‘being creative’, but I suppose using the word ‘art’ is far more convenient than saying ‘being creative’ every time), whatever shape or form it might take, an individual an individual’s ability to reflect on his or her humanity is limited.

Needless to say, reflecting on one’s humanity is a complex process. It requires an institution that would teach people how to reflect on their individual creative process as well as the finished piece.

I think it’s very difficult to reflect on one’s work without assessing it, without comparing it to similar pieces created by other people, and without  relating it to commercial products that are defined as ‘art’.

All individuals want to invent themselves in every way. However the problem is that we have become convinced that we need to impress ourselves with our inventions.

The economic system requires all human beings in all areas of human endeavour (arts and sciences) to define and rate the importance of their actions, their creativity, that is of their meaning, by assigning a specific monetary value to if.  Thus many people never examine their creativity, in any sense, in any way (from picking what to wear to other more complex tasks). Again, the need to compare one’s creative choices (with random commercial versions) rather than examine them in the context of one’s psyche removes and possibility of serious personal preferences that reveal one’s deeper inner motivations. Furthermore, it suggests that any individual choices that do not participate in the economic system (by using it as a reference point) will be disregarded. Therefore leaving the individual completely unaware of the creative well that resides within them.



Changing the storytelling model

Why do we need to change the way we tell stories?

We need to change the way tell stories because our current ‘story telling model’ does not allow us to reflect on the consequences of our actions.

The hero and villain model means that peace is unachievable.


As long one side has to win the other side will be oppressed, which means that permanent peace unachievable. This simple deduction is so painfully obvious that I am forced to think that most leaders ignore it. There does not seem to be any other explanation.

So the structure of our shared perception must change at the most basic level. The way perceive, record and communicate our observations of the world.

I propose that we have to reinvent the process during which we encode our observations of the world. Only when we stop polarizing the world and separating it into ‘good’ and ‘bad’, ‘hero’ and ‘villain’, ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ will we be able to realize that there are no enemies and that all of us are an element of the natural world, just like everything else is.

I suppose children, babies, babies should be surrounded by physically fluid objects (toys, digital animations, projections) that change their shapes, sizes, structures, etc., and thus imply that neither the self, which exists within the fluid environment, nor the environment itself, are solid, unchanging structures. Rather they are the same thing.

It’s necessary to create a new narrative structure that can provide a creative space within which to create fluid characters.


Digital art, digital entertainment or an extension of the psyche projected in cyberspace

Can we deduce that the amount of creativity decreases as the amount of entertainment increases?

It is a paradox, or is it a paradox?

If every single individual becomes creative does that mean there would be so much entertainment that no person would get any free time to create anything of their own for there would be so much content they would be tempted to consume it ad infinitum?

But if everyone is consuming ‘entertainment’ then who is creating it?

I suppose each one of us is creating something and consuming, I suppose consuming far more, therefore the overall amount of digital content is continuing to increase.

I suppose the key process that remains unacknowledged is that we are inspire one another to create content.

Perhaps we should redefine the purpose of ‘entertainment’, or, should we redefine our understanding of the term ‘entertainment’.

When does entertainment stop being entertainment? How frequently do we view things simply in order to determine what they are? Not because we want to be entertained? I mean we view things but don’t expect to be entertained.

I think to comprehend that what I would call ‘the viewing process as an exchange of ideas’ occurs and then formulating it or giving it a structure could present us with a new, undiscovered backdoor to the individual as well collective psyche.

Are everyday people creating ‘digital art’ in order to create ‘art’, that is do they see themselves as ‘creative individuals’, as artists? Or, is ‘digital art’, especially ‘digital online presentations’, a new unrecognized process of creating a new form of identity? An additional dimension of personality?

Perhaps we are creating a new psychoanalytical tool? Perhaps digital art, because it is so easy to create, has turned itself into a useful socio psychological tool of psycho analysis. Furthermore, it is precisely because so many people remain unaware of how much they are revealing about their psyche that they are willing to make their art public.

If psychoanalysis teaches us anything, it’s that we should consider any source of information that gets us closer to the subconscious.

Should we redefine the meaning of the term ‘art’ as it applies to digital, especially online, content?