How and why the universal language

Consider this a science fiction essay.

We talk about mathematics as the universal language. The language of the universe.

I wonder if that is taking it too far?

What is the reasoning behind this?

The model we use (the spacetime continuum) to describe the universe that contains us is a product of our senses.

Our senses had been created by what we define as gravity.

More to the point, the linear relationship between the term space and the term time is due to the nature of the senses which have been created by gravity.

The problem is, and this is very obvious: everything we perceive appears to be what it is simply because of the nature of our senses.

More specifically, the nature of our senses had been determined by our location within what we now perceive as or refer to as the gravitational field.

I believe that it should be possible for us to imagine a species (and I am not talking about an intelligent spaceship flying Klingon like humanoid) existing within what we perceive as the gravitation field.

Imagine a quantum/particle like bacteria, virus or something similar floating within the region of space we are unable to perceive.

A species whose perception of space time would be so vastly different from ours that it could never begin to perceive, interpret and describe the spacetime continuum the way we do.

What if it were unable to perceive or separate the terms space and time.

What if it were never born and it could never die.

What if its life cycle cannot be described in terms of linear spacetime.

What if it regarded its relationship with the universe in a different way.

Isn’t mathematics no more than a product of our observations of what we think of as spatial relations caused by gravity.

What is the extent of gravity?

Are there structures not affected by gravity?

I am being very unreasonable, playful and imaginative and am trying to imagine what kind of anomaly it would take to create a separate spacetime dimension.


The comfort zones of inaction

I have come to realize, mostly from working with other people and from trying to collaborate in order to create something meaningful that could help other people, that it is not the elite, not the system or governments, not military or police that are controlling us. We control ourselves.

We have created comfort zones of existence. My favorite writers, like George Orwell, got it wrong, at least a significant part of it. I mean they touched on the subject, especially George Orwell, who acknowledges that we control one another. However, ultimately they hold governments and military responsible. That is their mistake.

I have seen it again and again, worldwide, in every country of the world. All the classes do it. The underclass or the unemployed who live from their governments’ assistance or the unemployed who live from crime or the group that receives government assistance and participates in criminal activities, all of them form their own comfort zones. The working poor group forms its own comfort zones. The working group that manages to save a tiny amount of money is a group of its own. Then of course there is the middle class. More notable is the upper middle class that is doing anything it can, criminal or not, to join the upper class. There is the upper class that is constantly refining its corruption and criminal practices until they become invisible. When they master their criminal activities meaning when they become completely invisible which is known as ‘legal’ that’s when they can join the elite class. They exist within their own comfort zone. Then there is the elite. A class of its own. So corrupt it trades in nothing less than human lives. It can exterminate anyone or anything that gets in the way of its profit making practices. In fact, it does, for at the top, the only way you can maintain your power is if you exterminate anyone or anything interfering with your profit making practices.

It’s especially painful to see the fake ‘activists’ communities’ made up of the working middle class “independent” academia “intelligencia” (without any emotional intelligence) , small business owners, medical doctors who invest more in their clinics and mansions that happen to be in the most affluent suburbs in the country than they do in helping the most disadvantaged  patients from the most disadvantaged suburbs, etc. forming their own groups, subgroups, and subsubgroups. It’s especially sad to realize that their “communities” are based around and focused on their hobbies, which happen to be music, photography, painting, poetry etc. It sad because they call such hobbies ‘activism’ but the fact is they do nothing to alleviate the unbearable subhuman conditions experienced by their unemployed, working poor neighbors. But such neighbors don’t smell nice and are not educate enough to discuss intelligent hobbies. It is useful to revisit the definition of the words like ‘act’ and especially ‘activism’ as offered by the Greek, Russian, Irish and certain German rebels. The consequences of activism are visible actions or more specifically, specific structural changes resulting from them. But the inactive self declared working middle class ‘activists’ are nothing special. Such delusional groups exist within each class level. I focused on them because they call themselves activists. For example, the elite members who do not want to be perceived as money grabbing scam call themselves celebrities and sometimes artists and they come together and ‘work to change the world’ via their ‘charities’ but at least they call themselves activists and they don’t talk about the results of their inaction, primarily because there aren’t any.

But let me return to the original problem of the comfort zone.

The people at the bottom would rather continue to commit crimes or live off government assistance than explore new possibilities. The middle class would rather continue to struggle in order to join the upper class than look around see how much more fortunate it is than its working class neighbors. Why is that?

It’s because we are sensitive creatures. We are afraid of being criticized so we do not criticize. Furthermore, we are highly illogical creatures and we are creatures of habit. Combined they mean we are focused on not losing what we’ve got, regardless of how insignificant it might be and how damaging it might be, the IT is our world and that is all we permit ourselves to care about. Our possessions, or the IT, is our comfort zone, and all we want to do is associate with others who can help us protect it.

We unconsciously disempower one another in order to preserve our own individual status quo, because it’s our form of security. Once we achieve a certain level of security within our comfort zone, regardless of how damaging it is, we look at it and examine it. Though this time consciously, and so we realize how insignificant and damaging it is, and then we look for somebody to blame. We blame the ones whose comfort zones are more comfortable than our own because we perceive them as more powerful.

We do so because we know, unconsciously, because of the nature of the narrative and communications system we use, that our attempts to mobilize our fellow comfort zones members will fail because deep, deep, deep down we know that if they were to try to mobilize us we would not help them. Primarily because we know ourselves and we know our nature but do not wish to acknowledge it.

So, unconsciously we come together and form ear bashing groups of inaction. Local communes, Youtube channel, radio channels, etc.

Unfortunately, the real motivation behind them , just like with the individual or group/social psyche, is not what the individual or group thinks it is. The true motivation that motivates most individual and group activists is their subconscious need to preserve what they perceive as their ideal system. Therefore their efforts are never about uniting all beings. Their efforts amount to blaming the ones above them and criticizing those who do not agree with them. It’s why none of them can leave their own and all other systems in order to accentuate humanity.

The difference between the activists who act to UNITE ALL HUMAN BEINGS and the ones who do not actor act in order to blame the higher social order is this very realization I am explaining here, as derived from the social/group psychoanalysis.

That is, one becomes an activist once one begins to serve humanity rather than an individual group whose only purpose is to criticize the group above it, rather than focusing on creating a new system.

From Jo to Russell Brand

Jo from Northern Ireland

Dear Russell,

Hi. I’m Jo. You may remember me. You may even have filmed me. On Friday, you staged a publicity stunt at an RBS office, inconveniencing a hundred or so people. I was the lanky slouched guy with a lot less hair than you but (I flatter myself) a slightly better beard who complained to you that you, a multimillionaire, had caused my lunch to get cold. You started going on at me about public money and bankers’ bonuses, but look, Russell, anyone who knows me will tell you that my food is important to me, and I hadn’t had breakfast that morning, and I’d been standing in the freezing cold for half an hour on your whim. What mattered to me at the time wasn’t bonuses; it was my lunch, so I said so.

Which is a great shame, because I’d usually be well up for a proper barney with you, and the points you made do actually deserve answers. Although not — and I really can’t emphasise this enough, Russell — not as much as I deserve lunch.

Before I go any further, I should stress that I don’t speak for RBS. I’m not even an RBS employee, though I do currently work for them. What follows is not any sort of official statement from RBS, or even from the wider banking industry. It is merely the voice of a man whose lunch on Friday was unfairly delayed and too damn cold.

So, firstly, for the people who weren’t there, let’s describe the kerfuffle. I didn’t see your arrival; I just got back from buying my lunch to discover the building’s doors were locked, a film crew were racing around outside trying to find a good angle to point their camera through the windows, and you were in reception, poncing around like you were Russell bleeding Brand. From what I can gather, you’d gone in and security had locked the doors to stop your film crew following you. Which left us — the people who were supposed to be in the building, who had work to do — standing around in the cold.

My first question is, what were you hoping to achieve? Did you think a pack of traders might gallop through reception, laughing maniacally as they threw burning banknotes in the air, quaffing champagne, and brutally thrashing the ornamental paupers that they keep on diamante leashes — and you, Russell, would damningly catch them in the act? But that’s on Tuesdays. I get it, Russell, I do: footage of being asked to leave by security is good footage. It looks like you’re challenging the system and the powers that be want your voice suppressed. Or something. But all it really means, behind the manipulative media bullshit, is that you don’t have an appointment.

Russell Brand’s Most Controversial Quips
1 of 20

On changing the world:


On changing the world:
On being strong:
On grammar:
On manners in England:
On junkie v vegetarian:
On the future:
On sex addiction:
On life:
On happiness:
On drug addiction:
On sitcoms:
On life motivation:
On puberty:
On love:
On threesomes:
On Conservatives:
On surfing:
On Demi Moore:
On success:
On family:

Of course, Russell, I have no idea whether you could get an appointment. Maybe RBS top brass would rather not talk to you. That’s their call — and, you know, some of your behaviour might make them a tad wary. Reputations are very important in banking, and, reputation-wise, hanging out with a guy who was once fired for broadcasting hardcore pornography while off his head on crack is not ideal. But surely a man who can get invited onto Question Time to discuss the issues of the day with our Lords & Masters is establishment enough to talk to a mere banker. And it would be great if you could. Have you tried, Russell? Maybe you could do an interview with one of them. An expert could answer your questions and rebut your points, and you could rebut right back at them. I might even watch that. (By the way, Russell, if you do, and it makes money, I would like a cut for the idea, please. And I’m sure it would. Most things you do make money.)

But instead of doing something potentially educational, Russell, you staged a completely futile publicity stunt. You turned up and weren’t allowed in. Big wow. You know what would have happened if a rabid capitalist had just turned up unannounced? They wouldn’t have been allowed in either. You know what I have in my pocket? A security pass. Unauthorised people aren’t allowed in. Obviously. That’s not a global conspiracy, Russell; it’s basic security. Breweries have security too, and that’s not because they’re conspiring to steal beer from the poor. And security really matters: banks are simply crawling with highly sensitive information. Letting you in because you’re a celebrity and You Demand Answers could in fact see the bank hauled in front of the FCA. That would be a scandal. Turning you away is not. I’m sorry, Russell, but it’s just not.

Your response to my complaint that a multimillionaire was causing my lunch to get cold was… well, frankly, it was to completely miss the point, choosing to talk about your millions instead of addressing the real issue, namely my fucking lunch. But that’s a forgivable mistake. We all have our priorities, Russell, and I can understand why a man as obsessed with money as I am with food would assume that’s what every conversation is about. Anyway, you said that all your money has been made privately, not through taxation. Now, that, Russell, is actually a fair point. Well done.

Although I can’t help but notice that you have no qualms about appearing on the BBC in return for money raised through one of the most regressive taxes in the country, a tax which leads to crippling fines and even jail time for thousands of poor people and zero rich people. But never mind. I appreciate that it’s difficult for a celeb to avoid the BBC, even if they’re already a multimillionaire and can totally afford to turn the work down. Ah, the sacrifices we make to our principles for filthy lucre, eh, Russell? The condoms and hairspray won’t buy themselves. Or, in my case, the pasta.

And then there is that film you’re working on, isn’t there, for which I understand your production company is benefitting from the Enterprise Investment Scheme, allowing the City investors funding your film to avoid tax. Was that the film you were making on Friday, Russell, when you indignantly pointed out to me that none of your money comes from the taxpayer? Perhaps it had slipped your mind.

And, of course, you’ve been in a few Hollywood films now, haven’t you, Russell? I take it you’ve heard of Hollywood Accounting? Of course you have, Russell; you produced Arthur. So you are well aware that Hollywood studios routinely cook their books to make sure their films never go into taxable profit — for instance, Return Of The Jedi has never, on paper, made a profit. Return Of The fucking Jedi, Russell. As an actor, and even more so as the producer of a (officially) loss-making film, you’ve taken part in that, you’ve benefitted from it. (While we’re on the subject, I hear great things about Hollywood’s catering. I hope you enjoyed it. Expensive, delicious, and served (at least when I dream about it) nice and hot.)

But still, you’re broadly right. Leaving aside the money you make from one of the most regressive of the UK’s taxes, and the tax exemptions your company uses to encourage rich City investors to give you more money, and the huge fees you’ve accepted from one of the planet’s most notorious and successful tax avoidance schemes, you, Russell, have come by your riches without any effect on taxpayers. Whereas RBS got bailed out. Fair point.

Here’s the thing about the bailout of RBS, Russell: it’s temporary. The plan was never to bail out a bank so that it could then go bust anyway. That would be too asinine even for Gordon Brown. The idea was to buy the bank with public money, wait until it became profitable again, then resell it, as Alastair Darling clearly explained at the time. And that is still the plan, and it does appear to be on course. Not only that, but it looks as if the government will eventually sell RBS for more than they bought it for. In other words, the taxpayer will make a profit on this deal.

Of all the profligate pissing away of public money that goes on in this country, the only instance where the public are actually going to get their money back seems an odd target for your ire. What other government spending can you say that about, Russell? What other schemes do they sink taxpayers’ money into and get it all back, with interest? And how many people have you met who have actually been right in the middle of working to make a profit for the taxpayer when you’ve interrupted them to cause their lunch to get cold?

As for bonuses, well, I’ll be honest: I get an annual bonus. I’m not allowed to tell you exactly how much it is, but I will say it’s four or five orders of magnitude smaller than the ones that make the headlines. It’s very nice — helps pay off a bit of credit card debt (remember debt, Russell?) — but, to put it in terms you can understand, I’d need to work for several tens of thousands of years before my bonuses added up to close to what you’re worth.

But here’s the key thing you need to know about bonuses, Russell: they come with conditions attached. My salary is mine to do with as I will (I like to spend a chunk of it on good hot food). My bonus my employer can take back off me under certain conditions. Again, I do not speak for RBS, so cannot say anything about the recent FX trading scandal or PPI or any of that shit. But, in general terms, bonuses have conditions attached, such as “And we’ll claw back every penny if we discover you were breaking the rules.” And yes, it does happen. The only bonuses that make the news are the ones that get paid. But, every year, bonuses either don’t get paid or are even taken back off staff for various reasons, including misconduct. I’d’ve thought, Russell, that anyone who wanted bankers to be accountable would approve of the scheme.

And now, if I may, a word about your manner.

Much as I disagree with most of your politics, I’ve always rather liked you. You do a good job of coming across as someone who might be fun to be around. Turns out, that’s an illusion.

Because, you see, Russell, when you accosted me, you started speaking to me with your nose about two inches from mine. That’s pretty fucking aggressive, Russell. I’m sure you’re aware of the effect. Putting one’s face that close to someone else’s and staring into their eyes is how primates square off for a fight. Regardless of our veneer of civilisation, when someone does that to us, it causes instinctive physical responses: adrenaline, nervousness… back down or lash out. (Or, apparently, in the case of the celebrity bikes you like to hang out with, swoon.) I’m sure that, like turning up with a megaphone instead of an appointment, such an aggressive invasion of personal space makes for great footage: you keep talking to someone in that chatty reasonable affable tone of yours, and they react with anger. Makes them look unreasonable. Makes it look like they’re the aggressive ones. Makes it look like people get flustered in the face of your incisive argument. When in fact they’re just getting flustered in the face of your face.

I’ve been thinking about this the last couple of days, Russell, and I can honestly say that the only other people ever to talk to me the way you did were school bullies. It’s been nearly a quarter of a century since I had to deal with such bastards, so I was caught quite off my guard. Nice company you’re keeping. Now I think about it, they used to ruin my lunchtimes too.

One last thing, Russell. Who did you inconvenience on Friday? Let’s say that you’re right, and that the likes of Fred Goodwin need to pay. OK, so how much trouble do you think Fred faced last Friday as a result of your antics? Do you think any of his food got cold, Russell? Even just his tea? I somehow doubt it. How about some of the millionaire traders you despise so much (some of whom are nearly as rich as you, Russell)? Well, no, because you got the wrong fucking building. (Might want to have a word with your researchers about that.) Which brings us back to where we came in: a bunch of admittedly fairly well paid but still quite ordinary working people, admin staff mostly, having their lives inconvenienced and, in at least one case, their lunches quite disastrously cooled, in order to accommodate the puerile self-aggrandising antics of a prancing multimillionaire. If you had any self-awareness beyond agonising over how often to straighten your fucking chest-hair, you’d be ashamed.

It was paella, by the way. From Fernando’s in Devonshire Row. I highly recommend them: their food is frankly just fantastic.

When it’s hot.

My messge for Peter Joseph

I always urge all those who know what to do to do it. The best way to demonstrate anything is by doing it.

Robert M Pirsig in his book Lila says (and there is another great book of his called Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) something like this.

‘The idea that biological crimes can be ended by intellect alone, that

you can talk crime to death, doesn’t work. Intellectual patterns cannot

directly control biological patterns. Only social patterns can control

biological patterns, and the instrument of conversation between society

and biology is not words. The instrument of conversation between

society and biology has always been a policeman or a soldier and his

gun. All the laws of history, all the arguments, all the Constitutions and

the Bills of Rights and Declarations of Independence are nothing more

then instructions to the military and police. If the military and police

can’t or don’t follow these instructions properly they might as well have

never been written. Part of our paralysis was commitment to the twentieth century

intellectual doctrines.’

In other words Peter, what we need to do is to stop talking. We need to change the way we act, that is, we need to stop being inactive and we need to begin to act in a new way. In a way that brings us together.

They are the greatest books of the 20th and 21st centuries because they have completely destroyed the entire fields of philosophy and communications as they exist now (had existed). The dual nature of the thought; the philosophical subject and object foundation (determining the cognitive/perceptive processes) of all sciences, especially mathematics and physics. The entire system of aesthetics as it applies to linguistics and visual language. All of it is history Peter. All of it. The entire academic system of the world has completely ignored Pirsig’s books because if they were to listen to him all they could do is shut it all down, walk out and begin to plan a new more humane system of perception, cognition and therefore education and action. Nobody is ready to do it. No leader wants to reset the system. It’s too great of a job. Human lives are not worth that much. They would rather continue in the Matrix. I admire your ideology but it needs a plan with which to transform it into an organized, concentrated, worldwide action that can begin to reset the system. You must understand this Peter. The working poor (class) and the unemployed (underclass) cannot, despite your and my best intentions and instructions, I repeat, cannot begin to create changes. They cannot do so because the very nature of their existence is what prevents them from doing so. They are the WORKING POOR and the UNEMPLOYED precisely because the system is designed so that they cannot make their living in the time they have been given to live. Do you understand this fundamental truth? They work seven days a week or look for jobs seven days a week and cannot make a living. How in the hell are they going to dedicate their time to anything else? Do you see what I am talking about? Do you understand? Perhaps the better question is do you care? Do you really care? But I will not go there. It is very necessary for all activists to understand that fundamental truth because that fundamental truth, whose origins are in ‘practice’, is what must drive their planning and their actions. Not the desire to establish theoretical frameworks. I do not propose violence but I do propose a revolution. A peaceful revolution. A revolution requires actions, not theoretical frameworks that nobody wants to turn into actions.

Technological evolution beyond the known or imaginable

Technological evolution beyond the known or imaginable

Artificial environments mimic natural environments and all technologies are trying become sophisticated replicas natural, organic, animal origins.

We extract and extrapolate from the natural world and then combine our creations in order to create technologies that simulate the natural world.

Examples are countless. From super solid wings found on the early aircraft model to incredibly flexible wings. From super hard suspensions, axels, steering systems, etc. to incredibly soft, movable, flexible, shock resistant systems. From separate system components to nanotechnology. What is nanotechnology but an attempt to create an artificial DNA.

Or at least it’s an attempt to create a piece of technology that can modify, reprogram and redesign itself in order to integrate itself into its current environment, whatever it might be.

Or what strikes me even more as a potential ultimate goal for nanotechnology or for any other form of bio chem tech based technology is the need to move from any given environment to any

The problem is the stage where we add our improvements to bio chem tech nature based technology. Natural products are in some ways perfect for the moment in which they exist.

That is they have been existing for millions of years and have managed to survive for so long because they have been improving the invisible formula according to which their structure operates.

Our improvements are forced and we have no idea how effective they are.

Perhaps that is the best reason why we shod stick with the natural progression.

In fact, we have been so ignorant that quite a bit of our research, I mean most of it, has not considered future consequences.

Given the nature of the alleged scientific thought it is truly amazing that we create and test things if know that we will not be able to detect the full consequences of their results.

Is that not the most unethical, unscientific, illogical and therefore dangerous form of ignorance there is? Not to mention the most inhumane?

So we know nothing about consequences of experiments required to create new technologies, we know nothing about new technologies, nor do we know anything about consequences of our new uses for new technologies yet we continue to create them.

Is that not the most unethical, unscientific, illogical and therefore dangerous form of ignorance there is? Not to mention the most inhumane?

The self as a nonexistent dimension of love

It seems that our initial fears of others, or our instinct, had caused us to suppress our feelings and express them through physical objects.

To give away the self is to risk everything. Thus we transfer the meaning of the self onto objects and give them away. We trade with assigned meanings for we are too afraid to express our feelings.

That’s why there is so little love. We express love through physical objects.

If we want to punish people we use the environment and objects. If we want to reward people we use the environment and objects.

What is gone is the self. The presence of the self. We do not know how to find, acknowledge and give ourselves. That is our problem.

It’s not that we are not capable of loving it’s that we have misinterpreted and misrepresented our own needs and had taught ourselves to express love through physical objects.

So if we continue with this we can say that we are ignoring ourselves for all that we are and perceiving ourselves only as a physical object.

But, and this is the important part, not as any physical object, but a physical object whose purpose is to develop and then demonstrate only a set of properties that can be exploited by the economic system.

Thus we have created a system that enables us to exist in a permanent state of selfdenial and selfsuppression because of the ancient fear (the instinct).

To begin to change the external that is the physical world we must begin to change the definition of love and empathy and the way they are expressed.

How to begin to divorce the idea of love from any and all physical concepts.

Thus the self is a dimension of love. That much is evident. The self must find a way to express love. Now, needless to say, a hardcore scientist will question my understanding of love. A scientist might not call it love. It might be seen as an instinct.

The self contains a dimension that could be called either love or instinct but its expression is determined by the intellect’s interpretation of the highest level of threat within the environment that houses the self.

That we still view one another with so much fear and that we not ready to express higher levels of love is quite unusual given our overall level of intelligence.

It is because love is not allowed to be expressed as a universal constant, because we have created so many types social groups and subgroups (religions, classes, occupations), that love is not seen as a unifying factor.

It is not a unifying factor because we do not love those who differ from us precisely because their difference makes us restrict our love.

It is necessary for us to force ourselves to refuse to see others as simple physical objects because others presence forces us within us, completely unconsciously, racists and other filters to become active.

We operate with internal filters whose nature we do not understand, because we refuse to acknowledge it, that make us restrict our ability to love all people and beings.

The frontier male and the sadomasochistic relationship as a norm

A qualitative summary pending a quantitative evidence.

Most women give themselves to men, over and over and over again and get very little in return.

Not because men are bad but because men, or more accurately, most men don’t know how to love themselves or others.

Men don’t know how to love themselves because they never discover and accept their true selves therefore  they never become their true selves so there is nothing to share with women or others.

What men share with women is ‘the absorbed character’ not their own individuality. It is why men are afraid of intimacy and love.

Men do not understand intimacy and love because they have not been taught how to understand and share them.

Because men don’t know how to be themselves they assemble what they think is their original character. However, ‘the absorbed character’ is a collection of others’ habits.

Men gather information from many different sources. From their fathers (who don’t know how to be themselves), from characters they see in films, books, comic books, papers, etc. (who don’t know how to be themselves), from advertising materials and from many other unscientific sources whose effects on the psyche had not been investigated yet have been accepted as normal.

Men don’t know how to discover, accept and love their true selves because they do not learn it from their parents. Most men’s parents had not learned it from their parents. The problem is a historical dilemma and could be traced to the origins of the instinct which could be traced to the chemical structure of the DNA, etc.

Unfortunately, most men are unable to admit that their parents do not love them the way they would like to be loved because it’s an insult to everything they are so most accept whatever is given and ignore their childhood problems.

All of us should accept our parents’ love for what it is and learn how to love them for whatever amount of love they can give us. It is one of the most difficult things to do. It’s why most people, not just men, never resolve their family conflicts. Most family relationships are ongoing battles.

However, all of us should be willing to acknowledge that ways in which our parents love us might not be what we need. It might be inadequate, it might be in appropriate, we might need them to demonstrate it in different ways and so on. We need to acknowledge it, discuss it with our parents, and use the information to improve ourselves.

Unfortunately, most men never consider such possibilities because they are too ashamed to discuss concepts like love, empathy and care, precisely because they have not been made aware of their own sensations and interpretations of love, empathy and care while they were children.

Men’s tendency to absorb habits is particularly observable in certain regions of The United States, Canada and Australia. The countries colonized by the European settlers.

I believe that is the case because certain regions (within the above mentioned countries) are located in particularly harsh environments where men had been forced to focus on survival. In such regions men have had little time to focus on their internal (emotional) states. Most of their time had to be focused on controlling and reshaping the environment.

Even though the environments have changed and living is no longer a risky business, habits do not disappear overnight. Many aggressive and violent behaviors are perpetuated because the nature of the social structure, or more specifically, the nature of the psyche of the men living in the above mentioned regions, has not changed.

The reason why men’s behaviors in such regions do not change is complex but it is directly related to the behavior itself. They perpetuate such behaviors by reinforcing one another. By absorbing and therefore exchanging aggressive and violent patterns of behavior they work together to ensure that any new ideas suppressed or eliminated.

The aggressive and violent behavior pattern exhibited by the men has had a significant impact on men’s intimate relationships with women.

Women’s natural desires for love and empathy have been suppressed by the macho male’s aggressive and violent tendencies.

Women in such regions have become submissive and expect violence, aggression and intimidation. Furthermore, I propose that women have replaced their own desires for love (as expressed through deep intimacy with men) with the macho male’s expectations.

Women have not become masochistic/submissive (I refer to emotional and sexual masochism and submission) because of their own natural desires but because of  the nature of the environment and their social position. In the above mentioned regions women have unconsciously internalized the macho male’s set of sexual expectations and practices (as enforced by the male) and pushed their own desires so deep that they have become invisible.

Women have had to do it because it was the only way to form relationships with men and experience intimacy, even though it’s a degrading and therefore damaging form of intimacy.

There are many different levels of submission and domination and that is a field in itself. They range from open violence to very mild spanking. However a possible range behavior is not the purpose of this enquiry. Though this writer is troubled by all of them because all of them, even the smallest traces of them, suggest that the woman’s own desire has been suppressed.

So it is the macho male’s inability to recognize, accept and share its own true nature that has created a cascading social effect that reinforces itself (via its interaction with other men) and that has created a very aggressive, violent and competitive society, in which we are forced to live today.

Such aggression, violence, and competition extend beyond rural areas. Indeed, they occur in all major cities. However, the nature of aggression, violence, and competition in big cities is different, primarily because it is replaced by seemingly more civilized acts and activities. Work, business management practices, sports, various forms of ‘civilized competition’, none of them are our individual expressions of humanity, which is love. They are the plan we follow in order to participate in the male instinct driven game of competition.

Women who refuse to participate and who express their own individuality through decisions as well as through their sexuality are labeled as feminists, lesbians or are ignored.

Love as the unifying and cutting edging of existence

A deep and permanent sensation of peace comes from knowing and accepting the fact that most people cannot understand or accept your unwillingness to submit to the existing but outdated and therefore destructive modes of existence.

It’s a form of peace that is created within a place that understands that the only thing that matters in the universe is to learn how to love everyone and everything. Regardless of their feelings towards you.

When the objective becomes to love all beings and things, one can ignore others’ fears and hate because one does not focus on analyzing other beings and environments and their fears and hate.

One focuses on appreciating them, on loving them. One does not analyze them in order to use them, manipulate them, change them or destroy them. One does not even analyze them. One appreciates their existence.

Actually, it’s simpler than that. One observes them and becomes them. By observing so deeply, thus by not analyzing, one becomes them.

When this very process of knowing and accepting that all other human beings cannot understand and accept our current, personal need to grow and change and become more loving every day, because that is the best thing we can do with our lives, and that we cannot hate them because of their failure to understand and accept our need to exist in this state of peace, is experienced by all, that is when all fears and hate will disappear. Because that moment not one of us will hate or fear any other.

In that moment, the very need or desire or instinct (depending on your theoretical preference) to regard one another as anything other than loving beings or love itself will disappear.

Sadly, the only thing that stands in our ways is ourselves. No other being can force any one of us to hate or to love but ourselves.

The state I am talking about is not in sight but it if it does not occur it seems that destruction is the only possible alternative.

Regardless of any technological developments, the lines of division, theoretical and practical, can be erased only with love, which must manifest itself as theoretical and practical elements.

Yet this is our greatest theoretical problem.

We have convinced ourselves that we can experience love as some random fragments. A nice pair of socks, a nice car, a nice meal.

Love does not fragment the universe.

Love is the unity we fail to observer precisely because we continue to divide and fragment our very own perception and interpretation of our very own senses and therefore any sensations derived from them.

Particles don’t oppose one another. They exist in balance. As soon as one particle is removed another one takes its place and the entire universe is rebalanced. They are not trying to destroy one another they coexist with one another. One could say the entire universe shifts in order to compensate for one tiny disturbance.

Unfortunately we define the universe in terms of our own fears that’s why most never begin to see and appreciate its non violent state.

Antagonists and protagonists do not really exist.

It’s our desire to create our meaning through the self actualization process that causes us to use the environment and other beings in the way we think is the fastest way to self actualize .

The logic of difference and violence

What causes conflicts and therefore violence to arise.

Differences in perception.

Why differences in perception.

Differences in perception occur because of the difference in the way we perceive, interpret, encode and communicate the world.

Why the difference in the way we interpret the world.

Because of the different intellectual and other habits. Patterns of behaviour.

Why the difference in habits (patterns of behaviour).

Because of ‘the natural difference’ in environments.

Different environments shape their occupants and their habits in different ways.

So could we say all differences are caused by the environment.

Scientifically speaking we could.

But then religions and spirituality are invoked.

Suddenly certain groups and their environments are created by gods or mystical beings and ‘their’ existence is more valid and therefore more valuable than some other existence.

Could we say that because we lacked science and scientific methods, modes of observation and models, to interpret the natural differences we had created, formulated and established imaginary ideologies (religion, spirituality, mysticism, etc.) in order to the observed differences. Physical that environmental differences and therefore the resultant ideological differences.

The problem is that the original non scientific explanation of the difference had been unscientific.

Because it is unscientific it cannot be disproved.

Each new  generation refreshed the religious, spiritual and mystical explanations into alleged up to date constructs.

The fact that such construct have not done a thing to end the violence since the day they had been created does not seem to bother anyone.

How could they end violence when they had separated humans into regional groups and therefore had created division therefore fear, hate, violence and ultimately destruction.

Technology and large scale self actualization leading to observable environmental destruction

Nothing can and nothing will suppress human beings’ sense of curiosity.

We have reached the pinnacle of the technological achievement and at the same time the pinnacle of the individual and social oppression (for this particular period). Just like so many artists and scientists had in the past, when their empires had reached their technological and economic pinnacles.

The individual and social oppression systems occur at the same time as the technological peaks because the empires expand by supporting only those willing to ‘produce’ ‘products’ that promote the dominant ideologies that shape the given era.

Once again, in our current period, we are talking about the economic system and the value factor as its driving principle.

The need to digitize, publish, distribute, or make popular are the ideas that shape art and science ‘products’ of the day.

Individuals that refuse to concern themselves with the above are labeled as anti mainstream, anti social, but only because they are anti economic or against defining ‘humanities’ in terms of ‘economics’.

Humanity and, more importantly, its primary source, empathy, exist apart from the dominant ideological and practical system (the system) of the period.

Our collective failure to realize that humanity and empathy must exist apart from the dominant ideology or practice (the system) of any given period proves that the area entitled humanities is failing to perform its task.

Fear, hate, violence, wars and many other forms of primitive behaviors will continue to be perpetuated until humanities, that is art and sciences, become ‘a system’ rather than an element within a system (economic, religious, mystic, etc.).

ART that promotes religious experiences is not ART. ART that promotes economic experiences is not ART.

ART does not need to be executed, defined, or interpreted in terms of any known experience or systems. Why should it be?

As soon as its aim is to promote a particular pre existing construct, experience or idea, it stops being a record of an experience of the universe and becomes a design construct.

Similarly, particle physics formulas derived in order to create nuclear weapons cannot begin to perceive the complexity and randomness of the universe. Their objective is to avoid randomness and contain themselves within a specific quantity of space time in order manipulate it, thereby limiting our view of the universe.

Could we say that our existing narrative model (written, oral and visual) has been suppressing the violent instinct and turning into what we think is a constructive system of self actualization?

Could I say that the economic system is a product of a suppressed psyche. Is the economic system an acceptable way to release one’s tensions.

It had seemed like the economic solution could have worked.

Unfortunately, the economic system is not able to allow everyone to self actualize. Thus the original Id tensions, that is the instinct drives, remain, plus, now we have added the frustrations caused by the inability to self actualize via the economic model.

I believe that the true nature of the problem has been concealed for so long because the ratio of the number of people vs the amount of resources had been fairly positive. Not great but with an upward trend.

However, suddenly, within the last twenty five years, a number of events have occurred to reveal the true difficulties caused by the economic system.

I will focus on three of them.

Digital technology especially as it applies to data gathering, transport and logistics especially as it applies to people and infrastructure transportation, and the disappearance of the natural environment therefore natural resources.

The  three elements have been selected because they affect one another and create a compound effect.

Our improved ability to gather data, especially live data, that is live feeds rather than out of date information, revel how quickly infrastructure and population and are moving and expanding, which reveals the third factor that is the destruction of the natural environment.

It is very difficult for us to accept that our existing population and resource management practices are destroying our environments.

More specifically, it is possible for us, for the first time ever, to witness how technology, population, infrastructure, etc. affect the environment.

It should be easy to see how and why the economic system is not a viable way for an individual to self actualize.

I could summarize it by saying that there are not enough resources to construct enough products and environments to enable all to achieve what we have come to accept as an acceptable standard of living.

Naturally, scarcity must occur, therefore the only way to maintain the existing system is by perpetuating and increasing inequality, which increases stress and violence.