Subject I disagree on the meta level
Hi Rachel,
I wrote between the ***
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:24:30 +0000,
You're not crazy, Ed. And even if you are there are a lot of people experiencing the same kind of crazy right now. You know, whatever you're working on it sounds like you should meet a couple friends of mine, they're engineering students at MIT who also happen to be the sort of people you'd expect to grow up to be high priests of something or other. That was my gut reaction when I read about the 14 computers, wow, this guy has to meet Daniel-san and Elmo. Like maybe you'd all come up with some cool brainstorm 20 years from now or something. Personally I'm fascinated by science but stymied by the math. It's probably why I hang around with science people so much.
*******************************************************************************************
I'll tell you one thing. Maybe I'm better at math than you but if you could whip off that email in just a few hours you got me beat in all the other forms of thinking! I have to read it & reread it. I remember when I was talking with you I had to concentrate hard to follow all the aspects of what you were saying. I mean with most people I can be daydreaming at the same time as I talk with them. Anyway just a compliment-but a warning too-some people do not like it when someone is smarter than them. I kind of think that's why Bush won. (Beside election fraud)
But anyway. Yes I would love to meet other people who are as deep and as quick as you. The only thing is that I, umm, well I guess I am a solo scientist. I sort of do things my own way. I've always avoided other scientist types - like the plague -Especially if they are going to do "tech talk". It drains me in a way. I'm not looking for new ideas at this point, just trying to crank out the old. But if we could talk about other stuff I'd love to meet them. Oh, yeah, there's one other thing as well. The friend of friend thing doesn't always work that well with me. I mean if it happens great but to intentionally put me with this other person I'm suppose like, I don't know it's like I feel that pressure of the expectations & stuff and it doesn't help. Now that I said that though, I guess the expectations are now sort of gone, so yeah, maybe.
I'm more known as a musician / poet. I write songs and play to random people on the street. I like that sort of interaction much more. Love the eye contact, the high, I get from it. It gives me valuable life energy that I need. Did I have my guitar with me when we met?? I forget. Anyway, it's that feeling of connection that I desire.
Are you an Aquarius by any chance? Maybe an early Aquarius?? Just by the way and how fast you think. (I'm a Gemini)
I am sorry but I was very cryptic about my project, It's not so much a way or a solution in itself but more a way to implement solutions. I actually think that coming up with solutions is the easy part, I'll probably end up leaving that to others.
Nevertheless, I love the things your mind comes up with. And I'd love to delve into it....
*******************************************************************************************
So about the Nagasaki-Hiroshima thing... A tool only amplifies the capabilities of humans to do what they will...the real issue is this whole problem of human hatreds, which is a tough nut to crack. I had this real strong breakthrough maybe 2 weeks ago, I think it was the sum result of excessive amounts each of: social science reading, zen practice, studying postmodernism, and grieving a friend's death. It all managed to shake me out of my usual normative patterns, out of "logic" and "common sense."
*******************************************************************************************
It is through these "shakes" that most discoveries are ever made. Like Newton & the apple.
*******************************************************************************************
I'm looking at the past 1000 years or so and what I'm seeing is a couple things:
1. Our dominant world religions are handed down, more focused on dogma than on individual spiritual revelations. Thus the methods of worship are less likely to hold the creation of a truly ecstatic experience for the adherents as a high priority. Dogmatic religions are also likely to take themselves far too seriously for any one's good--taking things too seriously also impedes ecstatic experience.
******************************************************************************************
You say a lot here. Yes, I feel hurt by that, dogmatic religions taking themselves way too seriously and totally suppressing the real spiritual experience. I mean there are some small exceptions, but they are small and few. But even they could become larger and after several generations become dogmatic ... etc etc. I mean Jesus was so radical that his own church nailed him to a cross!!! They couldn't deal with the fact that someone was shaking up their set of beliefs. I mean check it out: They got him on "healing on the Sabbath" and for calling himself one with God. Big whoopee shit! If they killed everyone who made this minor of a perturbation from their doctrines they would of genocided themselves!. They knew he wasn't worthy of death. However they would rather kill him than deal with they fact that what they have learned all their life, and all their parents life would not be true anymore. This is a key point. I suppose part of the reason for wars and the killing of other people could be because of the need for resources. I don't applaud that but understand how societies could be pushed between a rock and a hard place and have no other option. Trouble is that that's not really the main reason for wars in general, is it? It is usually because of attachment to ideologies. People would rather kill than believe that what they and their dead ancestors have learned all their life is wrong. The same reason Jesus was killed by his Jewish siblings.
I choose the example of Jesus of course 'cause look at the Christian church today! The total antithesis of the founder! OK, below, you are right there are no opposites but I use the phrase "total antithesis" to make my point. OK so what I pointing out is that, even though I agree with you, I am trying to brainstorm and find a higher truth here. The more root issue is that all religions will follow this path of eventually becoming dogmatic. I think the reason for that is attachment. It also has to do with the fear of loss. And I hate to say it also has to do with that same death fetish and honoring the dead. I see this in my own life. In the passing of time and our reactions to it. In small things. In people I know....
See, as one lives their life, things come up, decisions are made, sacrifices are made etc etc. This is life. People have spent precious life years doing "A" as opposed to "B" because of decisions they have made based on beliefs they had at the time. Who knows maybe they really would of rather been doing "B" but they made that decision years ago. They have sacrificed so much of their life because of their belief system of the past, that to change their belief system now would mean that all those years past were in vain.
Now, people value their life even more than money - and that's saying a lot but most would trade all their money to save their life. Right? Now whether your life was a glowing success or a bitter failure is all a matter of opinion. It all depends on the belief system. Some systems would validate "A" much more that "B" or vice a versa. So check it out, the value of that which is more precious than all the money the person has is dependent on the resident belief system. Kind of like the dog biting it's tail or I am my own Grandpa, circular, infinite loopyness. The science of this infinite loop type stuff is unknown but chances are that most of these human systems will develop some internal mechanism to prevent their belief structures from changing too much. The ones that do not will experience the incredible pain that their life was a waste -that could lead to depression which can be debilitating.
See what I mean. People have an investment in their past. I mean for an instance..... OK, I met this crazy guy at a rainbow gathering once that had invented his own "religion" and he cut off his balls as somehow part of his religious celebration. OK. Now, someone is going to have a harder time convincing him that his religion is full of shit than a recently converted jesus freak or something. Do you know why? BECAUSE HE HAS A LOT INVESTED IN IT. If he were to believe that he was wrong all that time, then he would have to believe that he cut off his balls for nothing. It's one thing to make a major sacrifice for a noble reason. IT IS INCREDIBLY INTOLERABLE TO BELIEVE THAT A MAJOR SACRIFICE THAT YOU FREELY MADE BECAUSE OF BELIEFS IN THE PAST WAS A MISTAKE. It is easier to discount the new belief set.
It is because of people's investment in or attachment to their own past actions. Now, add in this death fetish thing and honoring the dead. So you got the current living generation 'stuck' with upholding the beliefs of their dead ancestors. For if they do not adhere they make their ancestors completed life's vain. The pain of this is intolerable. The guilt trips are worse! They would rather die or inflict death.
*******************************************************************************************
2. The inner logic of our spiritual faiths in many ways reflects our culture's idea of "common sense"...a notion that is built from daily experience. Thus, a dogmatic faith is a reflection of a dogmatic nation-state/empire governmental system. A dogmatic faith implies certain power relations are "normal" within your society, either in a marriage, in a family, in a company, in a nation (with its government and police force), in a global economy.
*******************************************************************************************
You are so right on! I love the way that you can see to the core of things. Trouble is it is actually hard to unweave this in our own heads. I mean there is no point to stand. What then IS normal?? What IS true?? I mean so much of what we are raised on and made of comes from this so how can we come up with some totally independent initial assumptions?? This is how we see the world, it is true -there is so much that is assumed and we are sort of forced to follow suit to at least some extent. To make any changes here they would have to be slow and incremental. But then again -change to what? We ourselves are part of this! We have the problem of the infinite loop again here, and I don't know how to get out of it so I would suggest bad as it may be, to leave well enough alone here - unless YOU have some insight...?..
So continue with your Zen. I went down to this very progressive church I sometimes go to. Yes it's a little too "churchy". Jazz service & I'm the only one dancing... Nevertheless, they try.. refer to God in the feminine sometimes ( they alternate pronouns or something - for a Christian church that's something) Party I went to last night was also religious in a sense, and not in another sense. Just the seeing people I know & don't know is something. Drum circles can be awesome. All these things have a part of the divine and a part of the deadness (below). But in different ways. I can only suggest all of them in the way each person is drawn to and feels right to them. I can't suggest more than Baby steps here but I am open to your input.
For me actually this "religious ecstasy" happens often when by myself - maybe on a walk. It is a feeling of incredible love and I shoot it to the divine, sometimes to others that just happen to be there & I see some genuine human characteristic of them, sometimes, more intentionally, to ones I know who are not there at the time....
*******************************************************************************************
3. Religious ecstasy is a fundamental need of the human heart...even if you're flashing the stage at Rocky Horror Picture Show, or dancing in a club, you can be reaching those peaks of ecstasy that your emotional well-being periodically requires. Because handed down (non-revelatory) religions tend to have crappier methods of inspiring ecstasy (choosing homilies over sweat lodges, for instance) and tend to impede visionary experiences further by taking themselves too damn seriously, they rely on other methods for creating loyalty and emotional attachment among their constituents. These other methods basically involve spinning some form of cosmic drama, which inspires not only fear and guilt but also ecstatic moments of feeling forgiven and unconditionally loved. Basically you end up creating a logic of diametrically opposed opposites: good and evil, heaven and hell, salvation and damnation, civilization and savagery, high and
low, beginning and end, life and death, mercy and wrath, love and hate, reward and punishment. Opposites are moving. They're dramatic. They will snag your audience. Realizing God loves you unconditionally is only really dramatic if you believed at some point that God was ready to smote you into the nether reaches of hell. Hero stories and victim stories are particularly popular, even when there is no real-world basis for victim stories (look at what Christian Europe did with the Jesus story, spinning a victim hood story that's plagued us for centuries now, even though Christians haven't been oppressed since the council of Nicaea). This is also part of the death fetish thing we talked about the first time we met. Thus a logic of opposites is attractive both to "the masses," and to the religious and political power structures that can use opposites-thinking to inspire the loyalty of these masses.
*******************************************************************************************
Like I heard the men getting the free food at the mission. They got to take an earful in to get a belly full later. But, yeah, that churchyness is sort of a feeling of deadness more than aliveness. So it may very well be the case that you get that pseudo-ecstasy feeling once in a great while when there is a tiny hole in the deadness. Too much aliveness and they'll throw you out, of course, but those are exactly the ones that they would best be like. (I have an opposing thought come up in my mind that maybe this apparent "deadness" is so that we will be less distracted to see the god within.)
Hmmm, I also believe that it is ecstasy or bliss that is union with God. (Well there are, of course two kinds, I mean,of course, the one that doesn't come from ego.) It seems that the whole system is against it. I mean if you are just plain happy the police are watching you carefully to make sure you're not up to something. OK, if you are happy 'cause you won the lottery that's applauded but the divine ecstasy seems to be controlled in society. I think it is because it IS real power. And the system needs to control it the same way an antibody fights a germ.
There is something else going on here as well. I call it systems theory. Any system that exists in the world - be it a microorganism, a city, a galaxy, whatever, anything that exists as a unit for a period of time I call a system and there are some basic truths related to them. One basic axiom of all systems that actually exist for a period of time is that they all have some mechanism to maintain themselves. The proof is simple. Any "system" that does not have such a mechanism will dissolve, it will cease to exist because there is nothing keeping it together. There is no way to experience this "system" because it exists only for a flash. The only systems that we could actually experience have this self - maintenance mechanism. Now there's a lot of energy in "opposites" or edges. It could very well be that these necessary self maintaining mechanisms evolve to utilize the concept of opposites only because by perhaps trial and error it found out that that was the most effective mechanism of self maintenance.
So my quick response is that, OK this ecstasy thing is like from a totally different universe (the divine sphere) than the system is in. The system recognizes it as a foreign body and attacks it.
Point two is that this deception of the concept of opposites is just and only a very powerful tool. Most systems have evolved to utilize powerful tools in there arena to do their work. So chances are this deception of opposites is used to control divine ecstasy. I of course agree that you observation is correct but I guess I am disagreeing with you on the meta level.
Of course this phenomena does exist. That is the phenomena of the false concept of opposites used to control true divine expression.
I really could be wrong, you may be right. I feel like I need to give it more thought. I just see that there are 4 more points below and I sort of want to get this letter off today. So let's say. To be continued but I disagree for now.
*******************************************************************************************
4. Opposites don't really exist in the real world. A tree does not have an opposite. I do not have an opposite. I may think of my brother as being my opposite, but this is only possible by creating a conceptualized "self" and a conceptualized "little brother," and then setting them up as polarized figures in the mind. But the conceptual versions of things are not those things. Imposing opposites-thinking on the real world teaches us to see the concept of something rather than that thing itself. Thus it makes us more likely to project our own issues onto external realities. Our relationships with other people (and our planet too) become altered and shaded by the concepts we have confused the actual people with. We interact with concepts instead of people.
*******************************************************************************************
Actually you are right. I was thinking of just pure logic & set theory. You must know that basic stuff where you got a circle with an A in the middle and they call that set A and there is a square box around it and they call that U (for the universe). So everything is in U. Set A is a subset of U. OK, so, very simple thinking. A is everything inside the circle and then "not-A" would be everything outside the circle. Right? Set theory 101. OK so A and "not-A" would be opposites right??? Wrong! It all depends on how we define our terms. One thing, both A and "not-A" are both sets. So that is one way in which they are similar. So to find the opposite of set A we would need to find everything that is not A AND ALSO is not a set! Good luck! (by "good luck" I mean it ain't gonna happen - so yes I agree with this point that there are no true opposites)
It all has to do with how we define our terms.
*******************************************************************************************
5. Opposites thinking also creates a tendency within individuals and cultures to amputate and repress that which does not fit into the preconceived mold. For instance, if I am a Catholic and also gay, one or the other must be given up. Often when we try to dissociate ourselves from a quality our worldview can't accommodate, we become more likely to project that particular quality onto an "enemy." I am not savage, that Injun is...I am not decadent and vain, that American infidel is. And then people try to burn those elements of themselves in effigy by acting with aggression towards this "enemy." It's attempting to practice a form of sympathetic magic, like poking a voodoo doll...by killing Injuns, Spanish conquistadors were trying to both kill their own "barbarism" and prove their loyalty to a certain "civilized" worldview. But this whole system relies on seeing the concept rather than the person, "savagery" rather than an indigenous group of swiddenists.
*******************************************************************************************
SHIT!! I am victim of my own syndrome I mentioned above!! I just spent all this time thinking about the opposites thing, made my assessment of it and so now I do not want to take this in!!! I am attached to my own thoughts - to my own hour or two I spent thinking about it.... OK, let it go again....
I very very much agree with what you are saying here - as well as above I am just wondering about the meta level of all this. I actually use this whole vehement denial thing to lie detect.
Check it out sometime.
Observe people when they talk. There is a change of energy when they say something they know not to be true. I mean they may have convinced themselves that it is true but somewhere inside they really know. I say change of energy - If they KNOW that they are lying their energy sort of increases. If they don't know - or have deceived themselves it sort of decreases. Check it out with friends & stuff but if you do, watch out, people will hate it and will even reject you if you tell them that they are lying to you. (especially if they really are)
The use of exaggerations like "definitely" is more likely to flag a false statement than the humble "I think so". Again from your opposites theory, an exaggeration comes from an emotion. The emotion comes from that self denial shit. Or rather this self hatred shit. Hating the part of themselves that keeps them apart from their dead ancestors whose lives they do not want to have been in vain. So to digress, perhaps hatred is just & only caring for something else more.
They care more for the honor of their dead elders than they care for themselves. So they hate the part of themselves that keeps them separate from what they are too attached to let go of. Well if you are studying Zen you must know Budda's Nobel truths. Isn't one of them that the root of all suffering is attachment??? Well here we go. The real root appears to me to be attachment.
OK so I postulate that the deeper root of the problem is attachment. At some point, the person or system stumbles upon some misconception that allows it to keep it's attachment and so deeply absorbs that misconception into itself. Since the misconception of opposites is everywhere, it is very likely to be the misconception absorbed.
So I guess I a sticking to my guns about how the real core problem is not opposites but now I see it as attachment. The misconception of opposites are just a convenient tools that are everywhere. I mean even in the yin-yang symbol.... Wait a minute! YES The misconception of opposites is the FIRST misconception. It is the very first thing encountered in metaphysics when going from the formless to form. It is the author of form, the author of the veil. The veil is the entire universe that we see but it is a misconcept. In reality it does not exist. In reality there is just and only God. OK, if I push buttons by the name God swap in the word you would use but that's what I use.
OK, sorry to express my main disagreement with you in a digression but I really want to point out stuff that you can use from all this. To continue from when I digressed: This lie - detection technique is also a way to check what politicians are really up to. They usually throw out a decoy.
They say something that they don't mean - or at least it is not their core plan.
.... The concept rather than the person... Did you hear the story of Christmas 1914??? In the trenches of WWI, there was a Christmas day truce starting Christmas eve. Into the silence of the night a single German solder sang Stille Nacht ( Silent Night a Christmas Song translated into many languages) Soon all the soldier were singing together from both sides. the next day, Christmas day, the soldiers from both sides met each other right in the combat zone. They showed each other pictures of their families and stuff. There was a real connection between then. On the 26th the war must go on, as it always must. But for 3 days the soldiers from both sides fired their guns only into the air. They could not kill each other now that they met and saw the humanness of one another. Eventually the higher ups got involved, a commanding officer was court-marshaled for fraternizing with the enemy and the soldiers were commanded to shoot AT the enemy.
*******************************************************************************************
6. Especially when societies, elites, and special interest groups want to take something (labor, resources, commodities, etc.), this whole process helps a society and individual soldiers, etc. to rationalize what they're doing to get said resources, commodities, etc. People fight over ideas and over stuff, but usually both.
*******************************************************************************************
"Carthage must be destroyed" That is what Rome had to say about the last matriarchal society on earth. They were bad, says the old Roman writers and poets. They scarified children. The Romans were good. Of course there is no way to know what the Carthinians thought of Rome for Carthage was so totally destroyed. Yes the utilization of the misconcept of polarities is a powerful technique. "Us" & "them", Seems to me that the "rulers" of "nations" actually use these concepts quite consciously to deceive the masses to do their bidding. Lets see if I can think of other techniques.
Didn't Machiavelli come up with a set of rules for political leaders to gain control both from other manipulators of political "power" and from the masses?? They are basically a set of deceptions and they make me want to puke. One big one is like you say this play on opposites: to set up this "us" - "them" dynamic. Another, for instance, is to set yourself up as some sort of cult hero, make unachievable promises and use vague catchy phrases. Another, is to play sort of dumb- A game Bush is good at. Anyway the list goes on.
*******************************************************************************************
7. Once a "war" of sorts has started and there is a history of aggression, violence on both sides, the process of making conceptual enemies out of actual people is aggravated, especially if you are the attacked party. Of course, both groups usually claim to be the threatened/attacked party, even if it's a perfectly ridiculous claim (see the parts above about the hero/victim stories). The emotional quality of the interaction is intensified, and religious and political loyalties are deepened and personalized. Religions and governments actually gain a lot of power by sacrificing some of their citizens in a conflict.
8. Right now the war system is the only game in town, kind of like global capitalism. This gives it a lot of power in and of itself (consider the military-industrial complex, most neo-conservative doctrine, and the "Realist" school of international relations). At the end of the day it's what backs up most international politics--the power of guns and the power of politics.
So what I'm suggesting, in the long run, is an overhaul of our logic and our aesthetics. I think such an overhaul would eventually change the nature of our language, our family life, our religion, our political system, our consumer culture and economic system, our environmental relations, and our international systems. Because even if these things don't objectively change, don't lose objective power, people would stop taking them seriously. They'd be bullies with guns, without any frilly meanings or dramas to pretty up the picture. And maybe that's a place to start. At the same time, it's hard to change the inner topography of your logic when you're constantly swimming in power structures that justify themselves through opposites thinking. Like if fish spoke to you, they'd have no word for water, all that kind of thing. So I don't really know how much hope there is for the project. But then again maybe an aesthetic revolution could slip in under the radar in a way a political revolution couldn't. I'm also starting to think that any form of revolution that does not overhaul the logic of opposites is pretty much doomed to failure. Anyway I'm still trying to work it out in my head. Tell me what you think of this. I'm trying to understand this whole hatred thing. It doesn't particularly make sense. All hatred of others is essentially a hatred of self. If I could I'd help build a peaceful world. I'm trying to find something with a chance of success.
Roasted Chickpeas,
Rachel
*******************************************************************************************
OK, so if I stay in line with myself above I will stay in disagreement, say that, yes if you take away the teeth of the dragon it would make it weaker but then 1) it would use it's claws. It will find some other way to fight. I will also point out that this misconception of opposites is so basic that it is the actual author of form and as such it would be pretty unlikely that it could be successfully removed while staying in the world of form. Yes, maybe the present misconceptions could be replaced but since it is so key new ones will crop up. So I guess to transcend the misconception of opposites we must transcend the world of form, itself.
2) My assessment then is that the problem is a spiritual one, it has to do with people being too attached. That a spiritual revolution is in order and that people need to evolve to the next level of unattachment.
Sorry to disagree Rachel. Hope you are not mad. I will say that I could be wrong but if you think so I'd like to you to shoot holes in my arguments in a way that I can understand. I didn't plan on disagreeing when I started this - I actually thought it made sense at first. But this is what I came up with. I really like the way that you can deeply go into things. There really are not many people I know who are willing and capable to do this.
PLEASE,PLEASE, PLEASE, continue. Please stay in touch. I guess I am scared that I will lose you by disagreeing. Please stay my friend. Like I say I could be wrong. I could probably try to think about it some more but I would like to hear from you first. Please don't feel you have to accept my disagreement for me for any reason. I'd just like to brainstorm it out with you until we both feel about the same. Do write back.
*******************************************************************************************
By the way, thanks for talking to me about suicides and whatnot...it's been really hard to find somebody to talk to. So thanks.
*******************************************************************************************
Of course of course of course of course of course. And thank you for acknowledging it and for validating my support. And anytime, please...
Hail Rocky Horror,
Ed
Mon, 17 Jan 2005 4:21 PM
Subject RE: I disagree on the meta level
Holy shit. I read what you said about systems theory and my heart started thumping right out of my ribcage. Ed, I really think you've got something here...I'm getting that feeling like when I've just found a missing piece to a jigsaw puzzle under the couch cushion. The idea of systems intentionally wielding edges, definitions, boundaries, and opposites as part of their normal self-maintenance systems...wow. Do you have any other information/thoughts/revelations/theories about systems theory? I really feel driven to try to dig up more on this subject...it feels important somehow. Anyway I'm still digesting everything you've said, I'll email you again about this, but I couldn't read any further without telling you how excited I was by your comments about systems theory. I also wanted to tell you I'm thinking about writing a monologue from your voice-perspective, and I wanted to ask your permission first. Said monologues will probably never see the light of day but even so, I wanted to ask.
Anyways I'll talk to you soon,
pickles and onions!
Rachel
doubly commented at: http://rachelletterssystemtheory.blogspot.com/2009/07/jan-18-171615-2005.html
original reply: http://rachelletterssystemtheory.blogspot.com/2009/07/subject-wowdate-fri-14-jan-2005-123357.html
