The duty of Academia and Human Condition

The academic establishment had greatly misinterpreted and then later on misunderstood its own misinterpretation of the term humanity. Then, it had overcomplicated it, and finally ignored it and sided with ‘inhumanity’. The processes had been unconscious and unintentional.

The academic establishment has sided with ‘inhumanity’ by changing its own purpose from studying nature in order to create knowledge and tools that improve the human condition to studying nature in order to create knowledge and tools that enable it to collaborate with those who destroy nature.

It was not a purposeful decision. In its own eyes, and in eyes of many others, the academic establishment has done nothing wrong. Its decisions and actions appear to be in line with the requirements of its immediate economic environment. The academic establishment has had to act in a manner that would enable it to acquire funding. However, this very act is a failure of the system of logic the academic establishment had had to create to turn human beings into allegedly civilized entities. The system is failing to use its own operating principle. Specifically, if the academic establishment needs to ignore, suppress or sacrifice ‘humanity’ (thus human needs, whatever they may be) by placing anything else above it in order to acquire funding, then whatever research it performs it is less than ‘humane’ for the human condition had been sacrificed.

The very act of failing to prioritize human needs (yes, above everything else) means that its purpose has become destructive thus inhumane. This very, very simple logic should have kept the academic establishment in charge of our civilization’s understanding and treatment of the term ‘humanityThe academic establishment cannot stay away from military, private and banking institutions because they provide resources it needs to transform theoretical research into practical actions and systems that benefit all human beings. The question is why has the academic establishment failed to stay in charge of the term ‘humanity’. More importantly, why has the academic establishment failed to ‘humanize’ our civilization by first reducing the size of the military, private and banking sectors and then by removing the need for them altogether? How and why have the military, private and banking sectors been allowed to turn ‘humanity’ and the academic establishment into its own profit driven tool?

The academic establishment has abandoned ‘humanity’ as its guiding principle and sided with ‘inhumanity’ because the individuals in charge of its departments remain disconnected from what matters: nature. Their own inner nature and the natural world that surrounds them. Consequently, they had not been driven by the need to preserve and improve nature by creating technologies that use nature as their foundation so that when we improve and expand technologies we improve and expand nature and vice versa. On the contrary, academic leaders’ agendas are made up of private wars caused by the need to create and maintain reputations. Their own and their institutions’ reputations.

It is becoming increasingly difficult for academic leaders to compete with leaders from private sectors because the birth of the global market means that the private sector’s potential for growth is infinite. It will continue to increase as the birth rate increases. The academic leaders had failed to realize that the race is a mistake and should not have been allowed to occur. The very fact that it had occurred is a proof that they have neglected their duty to preserve humanity.

The end result means the academic establishment, like all other institutions, including our governments, has become an element of the economic system. Consequently, the academic system’s attempt to use logic to humanize our civilization (and remove the need for the self destructive economic system) has failed.


Why eastern theories and practices are failing to transform the western body and mind and how creativity could help

Most eastern and western teachers of eastern self-development theories and practices believe that westerners’ interest in self-development is their true intention. Consequently, they assume that whatever eastern theory or practice they offer the western mind will be able to use it to transform itself thus its selfish actions into actions that are in line with the fundamentals of the eastern philosophy: selflessness thus empathy and collaboration. Unfortunately, most western minds have not reached the level of maturity required to use eastern theories and practices or any other theories or practices to change themselves from selfish minds (or selves) to selfless minds (or selves). Therefore the selfish self remains selfish and uses selfless theories and practices to advance its own selfish agenda.

The problem continues to occur because our, westerners’, true intent is still ‘selfish’ thus ‘selfishness’ defines our actions. However, it is a new kind of ‘selfishness’. ‘Selfishness’ presented as ‘selflessness’. The selfish self has convinced itself that it can become selfless by pretending that it desires selflessness but its very desire to appear selfless is not a true and genuine attempt to exist as a selfless being, it’s just a new form of selfishness.

It is not that our western intention is not genuine, it is genuine, we do wish to improve ourselves. However, it is genuine only to the extent to which we are aware of our true unconscious intention thus to the extent to which we are aware of its ability to be genuine. Or, more specifically, our intent is genuine to the extent to which we are aware of elements (mental properties) that limit its genuineness. Unfortunately, most of us, are not aware of our true, unconscious intention, and of the elements (mental properties) that limit its genuineness. We refer to our rationalizations instead of our true unconscious intentions. Our rationalizations of our desires, for example: ‘we want to improve ourselves’, do not examine thus cannot explain our true, unconscious intentions, thus are not our true intentions. As a result, eastern theories and practices fail to create and individual and collective inner peace thus fail to unite us.

The problem becomes serious when one realizes that most eastern and western teachers think that our immature and unexamined western rationalizations are true, mature and examined intentions to change ourselves. The problem is serious because our western minds turn peaceful and compassionate theories and practices of the East (or any other region) into yet another selfish, self-serving western product. Hence quick fix yoga and meditation studios and associated merchandise.

The deep selfishness problem occurs because we, westerners, are not aware that we are not interested in letting go of ourselves in order to connect with other living beings (people, animals, and environments). We want to let go of ourselves only in order to feel better about ourselves, not because other living beings and the environment would benefit from our egolessness thus from our unity with them. Unity and peace we think we are seeking cannot occur because egolessness is not our true intention.

The western mind has completely misinterpreted the term enlightenment. Enlightenment is not an attempt to attain anything. It is not an attempt to become anything. It is not an attempt to experience anything. On the contrary, enlightenment means letting go of everything. It is not another award to be won. It is not something to acquire, it is not something to feel, it is not something to experience. It is not something to chat about after your yoga or mediation classes. When enlightenment does happen it is impossible to communicate it because the event itself is marked by the absence of everything so there is nothing to share. It is always there, it is always within us. It is us. It is not it, ‘enlightenment’, that we need to focus on, it is everything else. Only when we remove everything (or most things) from our lives does it become obvious to us that we are it. As long as there is something else to talk about we have not been able to let go of the things that we think we need to hold onto in order to ascertain our identity. Similarly, after it is over, there will be no need to talk about it. It will be clear how to lead one’s life, and, more importantly, one realizes that ‘enlightenment’ is not something that can be taught or forced upon a person.

True cooperation with nature does not require one to do anything to oneself, to others, or to nature. All that one needs to do is exist as one is, to be natural, not as nature, but to be nature. Letting go of everything means not trying to imagine any kind of attachment to anything. Even to say that we need to ‘become’ an element of nature is to imagine a level of complexity that does not need to exist for we are ‘nature’ precisely then when we are not trying to be nature, or anything else.

We are nature when we are not trying to be anything. We are being the most powerful form of love we can be when we are not trying to overcome anything in order to be become more loving. By trying to overcome anything, we become less than peace thus less than love.

So, how can one decrease one’s selfishness. The answer is in childhood. We need to change the foundation of human language in order to change the nature of the child’s relationship with itself and nature. We need to change the child’s cognitive and perceptive processes but that is a new article.

When it comes to adults, the best we can hope to do is to  teach an adult human being how to live in a moment without trying to control that moment thus without being attached to the moment in any way whatsoever.

The only tool I know of that can help us with this task is creativity. Being in the moment and creating without trying to control the moment or the self thus without being attached to the moment, to the self or to anything else, internal or external, just communicating the experience of the moment through art, seems to be the least selfish way to exist as a human being.