.
Well, it's been about sixteen months or so, and I think it's about time to shut this blog down as well (see previous post). And I apologize again for the lack of content of late. It's just that I've come to realize, frankly, that I may have no idea what I'm talking about. Of course, I think I do, but I don't really know that, do I? One thing I am pretty sure about, however, is that ignorance and misinformation are among the most dangerous things on the planet. Dr. David R. Hawkins (www.veritaspub.com) says that about half of all content on the internet is fallacious. That's a huge number, and I think he's right. When possible, I would rather not be a party to untruth.
I think it's safe to assume, though, that this blog was written under the purview of political and psychological opinion. So, I reserve the right to editorialize, occasionally, in other venues. If I think I have something cool to say, I'll probably just post it on Myspace and/or Facebook, as usual.
I appreciate your readership. It is now time to save a little space in cyberspace. If anyone happens to want a look at past articles after this blog closes, feel free to ask; but the gist of the whole blog can basically be derived from my last two articles of substance: "The Fall of Government, The Fall Of Mind" and "What Fall Of Mind?"
So, thanks again for reading. And in the words of legendary futures investor Ken Roberts, "Onward & Upward!"
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Other Blog Removed
.
Folks, due to a lack of content (and a lack of interest on my part), I have decided to delete the other blog, Solutions Revolutions, which I had only barely started writing for anyway. So, if checked, you would find that all of the content at http://solutions-revolutions.blogspot.com/ is no longer there. More updates to follow...
Folks, due to a lack of content (and a lack of interest on my part), I have decided to delete the other blog, Solutions Revolutions, which I had only barely started writing for anyway. So, if checked, you would find that all of the content at http://solutions-revolutions.blogspot.com/ is no longer there. More updates to follow...
Sunday, November 9, 2008
What Fall Of Mind?
As a belated follow-up to my last post, I would just like to point out that, when I say, "fall of mind," I'm actually referring to the collapse of its hardened structures, i.e. belief systems. There is nothing inherently wrong with the human mind or thinking. Insistant clinging to thoughts and beliefs, however, prevents us from experiencing enlightenment. Enlightenment, or an expansion of awareness, gives us a larger perspective from which to view ourselves and the happenings of the world. By seeing things more clearly from this heightened perspective, we can (A) become more aware of any way in which we, ourselves, were creating problems, and (B) make better choices with regard to our thoughts, emotions, and actions.
That's why consciousness-raising will be so important in the years to come, not only to expand the possibilities for living in a freer world, but to help people weather the coming (deflationary) economic storm. And, although we cannot raise other people's consciousness for them, we can raise our own. Our own enlightenment is the space in which it becomes more possible for others to raise their own levels of consciousness, should they so choose.
That's why consciousness-raising will be so important in the years to come, not only to expand the possibilities for living in a freer world, but to help people weather the coming (deflationary) economic storm. And, although we cannot raise other people's consciousness for them, we can raise our own. Our own enlightenment is the space in which it becomes more possible for others to raise their own levels of consciousness, should they so choose.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The Fall Of Government, The Fall Of Mind
--------------------
This article (slightly edited) is in response to "You say you want a revolution?" by Aimee Allen about the prospects for a violent revolution. Her blog can be found here.
--------------------
As dire as the situation seems to be right now, with the destructive activities of government coupled with the ongoing credit crisis in the United States, our experience of the world will always have more to do with what we think about it than what's actually happening. While there is no doubt that the powers are, indeed, unjust and ignorant about what they are doing, we would be better off paying more attention to how we think about their actions than just dwelling on the negative nature of the actions themselves. Our frustration is that we seem to have little control over the political and economic events that impact our lives. But we always have a choice about how we interpret and respond to such events. Everything we see is affected by our pre-established models of reality, the filters through which we view the world. Through the filters of our minds, it may look like the government is about to destroy the world. And if we don't question this interpretation of reality, we may react prematurely in violent protest, and further the world's destruction.
Force and fraud, violence and theft, international warfare, are all products of the same thing, a mind at war. (Or, you could call it the unconscious mind.) A mind at war is a mind that feels threatened, and so attacks. A mind could only feel this way if it thought it was not at one with everything else, if it thought that it was inherently separate from the same universe that produced it.
The Ron Paul Revolution, I think, and the advancement of the modern libertarian movement in recent years, are a reflection of a shift in collective consciousness. To continue the trend, I believe there are three basic things we can do/be: 1. Continue to tell the truth about the inherent wealth of free markets and the inherent peace of free people. 2. Raise our own levels of consciousness by being unbiased observers of our own thoughts and/or emotions. (Don't become an emotion, just observe it when it happens.) 3. Provide a non-reactive space for others in which aggressive thoughts and actions are not resisted. That does not mean that those actions are condoned. In mentally resisting people and positions, we give them a reality that they don't need. Don't give reality to the threatening nature of those you would oppose by resisting them. They teach in martial arts to roll with the punches, and there is power in that. If you resist, it's like 'forcing' the issue, which has little power. Resistance merely recreates what you wish to avoid.
Our outer reality is nothing but a reflection of our inner reality. Likewise, our collective social structures, including the government, are nothing but a reflection of the collective (aggregate) consciousness. When the collective consciousness of the people rises high enough, the government will fall (or change form) automatically. No one needs to start a war. The most important revolution is the revolution within.
"There is no spoon." - The Matrix
This article (slightly edited) is in response to "You say you want a revolution?" by Aimee Allen about the prospects for a violent revolution. Her blog can be found here.
--------------------
As dire as the situation seems to be right now, with the destructive activities of government coupled with the ongoing credit crisis in the United States, our experience of the world will always have more to do with what we think about it than what's actually happening. While there is no doubt that the powers are, indeed, unjust and ignorant about what they are doing, we would be better off paying more attention to how we think about their actions than just dwelling on the negative nature of the actions themselves. Our frustration is that we seem to have little control over the political and economic events that impact our lives. But we always have a choice about how we interpret and respond to such events. Everything we see is affected by our pre-established models of reality, the filters through which we view the world. Through the filters of our minds, it may look like the government is about to destroy the world. And if we don't question this interpretation of reality, we may react prematurely in violent protest, and further the world's destruction.
Force and fraud, violence and theft, international warfare, are all products of the same thing, a mind at war. (Or, you could call it the unconscious mind.) A mind at war is a mind that feels threatened, and so attacks. A mind could only feel this way if it thought it was not at one with everything else, if it thought that it was inherently separate from the same universe that produced it.
The Ron Paul Revolution, I think, and the advancement of the modern libertarian movement in recent years, are a reflection of a shift in collective consciousness. To continue the trend, I believe there are three basic things we can do/be: 1. Continue to tell the truth about the inherent wealth of free markets and the inherent peace of free people. 2. Raise our own levels of consciousness by being unbiased observers of our own thoughts and/or emotions. (Don't become an emotion, just observe it when it happens.) 3. Provide a non-reactive space for others in which aggressive thoughts and actions are not resisted. That does not mean that those actions are condoned. In mentally resisting people and positions, we give them a reality that they don't need. Don't give reality to the threatening nature of those you would oppose by resisting them. They teach in martial arts to roll with the punches, and there is power in that. If you resist, it's like 'forcing' the issue, which has little power. Resistance merely recreates what you wish to avoid.
Our outer reality is nothing but a reflection of our inner reality. Likewise, our collective social structures, including the government, are nothing but a reflection of the collective (aggregate) consciousness. When the collective consciousness of the people rises high enough, the government will fall (or change form) automatically. No one needs to start a war. The most important revolution is the revolution within.
"There is no spoon." - The Matrix
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Define Freedom
Did you ever notice how difficult it is to define freedom without using a negative description, i.e., by describing what it is not? For instance, if someone asked me, "What is freedom?," my automatic response might be something like, "Well, freedom means: no repression, without restrictions, zero limits, removal of barriers, no enslavement, a lack of restraint, no detention," and so on. Let's look at that again: no, lack, zero, without, removal -- all negative descriptors.
Okay, so we know what freedom isn't, but what is it? The closest positive definition I can come up with is "ability." If you are truly free, you can be, do, or have anything, and nothing is in your way. Oh, wait, there's a negative descriptor again: "nothing." All right, so maybe we can leave that part out; yet, that makes my "ability" definition seem incomplete, somehow. Why is that...?
The problem, here, is that to describe something as "ability," one has to bring "disability" into one's awareness. If you are able to do something, then there would be no point in saying so (or thinking so) unless the possibility of not being able to do that "something" simultaneously existed. So, you guessed it, even my positive "ability" definition turned out to have some unavoidable, negative undercurrents.
As it turns out, we can't really define what freedom is unless we know what it is not. Thus, a definition requires a description of lack.... That's what a definition requires because that's what the mind requires. The mind operates in the dualistic, limited, time-space environment we call reality. In this environment, the mind breaks up the whole of its awareness into different parts, which is the same as saying that the mind defines things.
The reason we can't define freedom without stating what it is not, is because definitions are of the mind, and freedom is not. True freedom is beyond the understanding of the mind, and thus, undefinable in its totality. It is a description, if you will, of the unified, unlimited, no-time/no-space, un-manifested, one-life, reality that we may call pure consciousness. On any occasion that we feel free, we have gotten a glimpse of that reality. We can experience freedom, we can know it, but we can't define what it really is.
Okay, so we know what freedom isn't, but what is it? The closest positive definition I can come up with is "ability." If you are truly free, you can be, do, or have anything, and nothing is in your way. Oh, wait, there's a negative descriptor again: "nothing." All right, so maybe we can leave that part out; yet, that makes my "ability" definition seem incomplete, somehow. Why is that...?
The problem, here, is that to describe something as "ability," one has to bring "disability" into one's awareness. If you are able to do something, then there would be no point in saying so (or thinking so) unless the possibility of not being able to do that "something" simultaneously existed. So, you guessed it, even my positive "ability" definition turned out to have some unavoidable, negative undercurrents.
As it turns out, we can't really define what freedom is unless we know what it is not. Thus, a definition requires a description of lack.... That's what a definition requires because that's what the mind requires. The mind operates in the dualistic, limited, time-space environment we call reality. In this environment, the mind breaks up the whole of its awareness into different parts, which is the same as saying that the mind defines things.
The reason we can't define freedom without stating what it is not, is because definitions are of the mind, and freedom is not. True freedom is beyond the understanding of the mind, and thus, undefinable in its totality. It is a description, if you will, of the unified, unlimited, no-time/no-space, un-manifested, one-life, reality that we may call pure consciousness. On any occasion that we feel free, we have gotten a glimpse of that reality. We can experience freedom, we can know it, but we can't define what it really is.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Voting Fear
There has been a lot in the news lately regarding the potential spoiler effect of the Barr Campaign to the benefit of Barack Obama. Even if that particular effect was real, you would have to assume that one of the two status quo candidates was somehow entitled to win the election, or that they owned their votes, from which the third party candidates were steeling. But, of course, neither in a democracy, nor in a representative republic, are candidates of a certain type entitled to particular votes.
If the idea of one major party candidate winning the White House over another concerns us, then we are practicing the politics of fear. If we feel inclined to vote for the lesser of two evils, then our primary focus is actually on the candidate we don't like, as we vote for the candidate we dislike just a little bit less.
But fear won't get us to where we want to go. Courage will. To be free is to be courageous. If we have a favorite candidate, then we must "be the change" we wish to see, and act how we want others to act. Would we prefer it if everyone else voted for "our" candidate? Then, we must do that ourselves. We must lead the way.
Still not convinced? As I write this, the dynamics of this particular election point to nearly even polling of Bob Barr (L) and Ralph Nader (I). Even within the context of the "stealing votes" myth, if Barr became a spoiler for McCain, then it would be just as likely that Nader (no longer Green), along with the other candidates on the left -- the Green Party nominee (to be decided the weekend of July 12) and Brian Moore of the Socialist Party -- would become spoilers for Obama. If, on the other hand, Barr started polling in the double digits, then something else entirely would be going on, and pundits would have to find some other explanation besides the notion of defecting McCain supporters.
If the idea of one major party candidate winning the White House over another concerns us, then we are practicing the politics of fear. If we feel inclined to vote for the lesser of two evils, then our primary focus is actually on the candidate we don't like, as we vote for the candidate we dislike just a little bit less.
But fear won't get us to where we want to go. Courage will. To be free is to be courageous. If we have a favorite candidate, then we must "be the change" we wish to see, and act how we want others to act. Would we prefer it if everyone else voted for "our" candidate? Then, we must do that ourselves. We must lead the way.
Still not convinced? As I write this, the dynamics of this particular election point to nearly even polling of Bob Barr (L) and Ralph Nader (I). Even within the context of the "stealing votes" myth, if Barr became a spoiler for McCain, then it would be just as likely that Nader (no longer Green), along with the other candidates on the left -- the Green Party nominee (to be decided the weekend of July 12) and Brian Moore of the Socialist Party -- would become spoilers for Obama. If, on the other hand, Barr started polling in the double digits, then something else entirely would be going on, and pundits would have to find some other explanation besides the notion of defecting McCain supporters.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Solutions Revolutions
One thing I have come to realize about the libertarian movement is that we often have to convince people how bad things are in order to persuade them to accept libertarian positions.... It's interesting. We have to sound the alarm and point out everything that's wrong with the way things are. We have to tell people how free we aren't.
While pointing out the problems does have its place, we need to be careful not to dwell on them. The problems should be informative, but the solutions should be our focus. In addition to solutions, our attention must be placed on how free we are. In the context of human history, common folk have more freedom now than ever before. Part of our duty as libertarians, I think, is to remember that and to appreciate that. We must focus on what we choose, liberty, and any examples of it that we find in our daily lives.
Somewhat relatedly, since I can't seem to stop thinking about policy solutions to today's problems, I started a new blog called "Solutions Revolutions." This will probably pertain in large part to economics, but we'll see how it goes.
While pointing out the problems does have its place, we need to be careful not to dwell on them. The problems should be informative, but the solutions should be our focus. In addition to solutions, our attention must be placed on how free we are. In the context of human history, common folk have more freedom now than ever before. Part of our duty as libertarians, I think, is to remember that and to appreciate that. We must focus on what we choose, liberty, and any examples of it that we find in our daily lives.
Somewhat relatedly, since I can't seem to stop thinking about policy solutions to today's problems, I started a new blog called "Solutions Revolutions." This will probably pertain in large part to economics, but we'll see how it goes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
