Scouts

This is really what it is all about: “I suppose where you and I might be in accord is on the point of not forcing other people to live according to one person or group of persons judgments…” I don’t really see it in the sense of non-attachment. After all, rising up in defense to protect civil liberties is a judgment call to begin with. The problem of judgment comes from the philosophy, not the action—if that makes more sense. Jailing all the drug users because of a reductionist philosophy that all drugs are bad (I hear they do that in some states) is one thing. Standing up to protect people’s rights, because you see people’s rights being violated is another. As Native Americans rediscover their traditional non-divisive, non-judgmental traditions, they have become more militant. AIM (The American Indian Movement) is a good example. This is despite how well we have broken their back bone and destroyed their families, culture, you name it. Today you have the Idle No More Movement that has spread globally almost overnight. On just about every reservation there is a constant struggle between the traditionalists who follow the old ways, and the progressive who have been indoctrinated into greed, Christianity, etc. As the traditionalist side grows there is more of a call to action. Medicine men have gone to the UN to speak, and are constantly speaking out against pollution and in favor of the environment, and other serious issues that confront all mankind.

Thedope of course, appears to be on a different trip too---and that is a good one too. If more people adopted a philosophy that he espouses, there would be a lot less problems, and he may serve as an example of that. But there is more than one way to skin a cat, and he recognizes that your way has its own karmic creations of struggle as you acknowledged in your first post---the risks. The life of an activist is hard, you always have to watch your back---and not everyone wants that. (And of course---he knows he came on argumentatively---I think he wanted to get into a lively debate and get your juices flowing. I guess when all the vibes are good---you have to find another outlet to stir up trouble---am I right Thedope?).

On a side note about the constitution---we are given the constitutional right to freedom of religion---that’s what it says, but it clearly meant freedom of religion as long as they are European defined Judeo-Christian in nature. The witch burnings are a case in point. When we needed the Chinese to come and help build the infrastructure of the West for us, we let them practice their ways generally. But it was illegal for the Indians to practice their spiritual traditions up until the mid 1970’s. In fact there are plenty of tribes or native groups that have lost so much of their traditions that they adopt the Lakota ones---they even have Lakota sweat lodges in Hawaii, complete with some of the Lakota language. The crazy thing is that if a hippy in the 1960’s wanted to set up a sweat lodge or do a sun dance, nobody cared. But if an Indian did that, he potentially faced jail time.

 

The constitution wasn't actually set up that way, just largely interpreted that way by the bigoted puritans that comprised such a large part of the power structure in American culture in the proceeding centuries. As you said, religions are institutions and they grab for power. We see that here today in the form of evangelical Christianity and in the Middle East in the form of militant Islam, and all over the world in many different forms. The drafters of the Bill of Rights and Constitution largely -- this is my opinion -- seemed to understand this danger and this is why they put those clauses in place, to try to protect against it. They were flawed individuals. White land owners and all; but they could see growth would not come from insulation and exclusivity but from variation and individual liberty. Of course, as Dawkins has pointed out about Atheists (and I am extending his point), people who are markedly individual tend to be loners, like cats. It's hard to organize them into groups. They lack the herd mentality.; a blessing and a curse. Again, this reinforces some of the points I was originally trying to make about "scouts".

My whole point in ignoring dope's comments is that more people are not like him, and won't be like him, and can't be like him; so that approach to educating or enlightening people is doomed to fail, and I won't waste time on the mystic dialectic. I fail at least as often as I succeed, but not for lack of trying. And I've been on that mystic road. It taught me well for a time, but after awhile it could only teach me how quick I could get fat and lazy. One might argue that I must not have really been there, but that's not true. People, if you will, are like elements; and of all different sorts. How they become depends on how they react to what they combine with.

The return to paradise meme has become malignant in my opinion, hence why I also refer to it as egregor. I steer clear of it. Malignant things can make people feel good, or think they are in heaven while they waste away in hell and drag everyone down with them. (Of course, heaven and hell are figurative in this sense.) Meth is a great example.

I live in a state where they enforce prohibition in that way. It is wasteful and stupid, just like the whole prohibition movement always has been. The worst part of it, though, is how much and in what invisible ways it's compromised the strength of the human will, both on a collective and individual scale.

It's nice talking to you, sir. I'm glad to hear you are working on your books. I hope they get published and widely read. Some of the things you said about the fluctuation between Appolonian and Dyonisian aspects were very poingant, and might be somewhat derivative or analogous of Nietzsche's doctrine of eternal recurrence? Nonetheless, I have a suspicion that the kind of paradigm shift we're talking about may have to come about as a result of a jolt to the cycle itself, redefining or re-evaluating the terms, or the hub, on which it revolves. Again, I am stuck here with figurative language.

 

Indeed mountain valley wolf, you describe what we experience with great accuracy. I pulled osiris' tail, I meant no harm and it is not evidence of disease. Only if I had disturbed his equalibrium by pointing out it was not so equal, he might gain increased dexterity by trying to right himself and I would point out this is an innocuous format as far as consequences are concerned.

Minds cannot attack other minds, only share their thoughts.

 

As far as there are no people like me, I think osiris has taken too small a sampling. It is not so probable that a person finds what he refuses to look for.

How many does it take to change the world, only one as we share our thoughts, everything arising from conception. How many to experience critical mass? If you wait for that answer, you may never find out.

I'll make a prediction about osiris' venture.

No matter he lived a million lives he would never come to the end of the sorting, good from bad. Meaningful change is fundamental.

 

As far as different ways to torture a cat, I regard that there is a universal curriculum of being that expresses, diversely. Only the time you take to appreciate it is optional.

 

That's definitley true---take a look at Meagain's thread in this same section---I think its called Integral Theory. But it talks about theory that is much Carl Jung's personality types (which tends to be right on the money). It talks about how people match up different aspects of their personality/intelect/psyche (----a rough translation) to become the people they are.

The meme will probably run its course. But the subconscious drive will continue to play out in numerous and various ways. And to simplify it to a simple conclusion that man wants to become primal again is overly simplistic and misleading. On one level it could be a nostalgic desire to return to our own life as an infant---when we were surrounded with love and most of our only desires where quickly satisfied. On another level, it may be a desire or drive to simply reconnect with our subconscious self, and to return to being a whole individual self. And so forth... As old meme's are acted out, the drive finds new ones. And the drive doesn't play with all the memes to begin with anyway.

I live in one of the two states where, as of the last election--weed is atleast ok.

People resist change, and I think that any major social change will not happen over night. There will be fits, and starts, regressions, and turns. Social evolution will play its role, revolution could too. I am optimistic that much change will happen constructively. But I am also aware that change often times has to be forced through calamities and crisis. I see some very dangerous trends in politics, economics, and so forth that could result in a terrible economic crissi, plunging the world into deep global depression. Environmental problems and commodities are another concern. But I am actually fairly optimistic on the future---I just watch the problem areas. By the way, on this subject I really like Alvin Toffler's, The Third Wave. He wrote it several decades ago----but he called many of the changes we are seeing today.

 

You Said:
"The meme will probably run its course. But the subconscious drive will continue to play out in numerous and various ways. And to simplify it to a simple conclusion that man wants to become primal again is overly simplistic and misleading. On one level it could be a nostalgic desire to return to our own life as an infant---when we were surrounded with love and most of our only desires where quickly satisfied. On another level, it may be a desire or drive to simply reconnect with our subconscious self, and to return to being a whole individual self. And so forth... As old meme's are acted out, the drive finds new ones. And the drive doesn't play with all the memes to begin with anyway."

There's an interesting thing here in what you are saying about it being a desire to return to infancy, which is a concept I've mulled over before. Have you ever met anyone whose infancy was horrible? I don't have vast amounts of data to go on here, but there does seem to be a connection between people with abusive childhoods and people who seek out abuse, or become restless and even disturbed by contentment or happiness.

Some psychology books I've read seem to speculate that the connection is a false one, and that such people have a strictly neurological or bio-chemical disorder; but I'm not so sure it isn't a combination of the two at the least. Our childhood conditioning seems to determine so much of what we become. Hence why I advocate less conditioning, and more freedom.

Also, I'm not thinking of it as a regression just because of the idea that it might indicate a desire to return to a primitive state. In fact, I am more concerned with the regression to the idea of some kind of afterlife, or some sort of spiritual panacea that makes the bettering of life at present and for future generations seem to be not worthwhile to the individual.

For instance, there is this repeated idea, which seems to be part of your "essentialist" philosophy, that the world is what we make it. Do you mean this in a metaphysical way, or just in a psychological sense? And in either case, how does this make you view the concept of widespread apocalyptic religious beliefs and the way they might affect this "world is what you make it" point?

Do you feel the world is what we make it individually, like a sort of solipsistic point of view? Or are you referring to the idea that the world is made up of individual influence on collective materialization?

 

Science has long ago proved how important the nurturing of an infant is to its development. Borderline Personality Disorder is a good example of how parenting, and early life experience can affect the psychology of adults. This commonly starts with the loss of or separation from the mother at an early age. But once the dynamic is in place, parents suffering from the disorder can influence their children to play out the same thing when they become adults. There is clearly a result of the parent-child relationship in both cases. The attempt to blame everything on chemical imbalances and what not seems to be part of the recent trend to medicate those with problems through drugs. There is a rising concern that a lot of the violence emerging in today's society is a result of relying too heavily on anti-depressants. I feel that there are cases where anti-depressants are safe to use and warranted. But I would not deny that there are plenty of cases where the anti-depressants lead to violent or self-destructive behavior.

I have certainly known kids from dysfunctional households---and they seemed to carry those dysfunctional traits with them. I don't think I personally know too many kids that were abused or neglected as children, at least as far as I know. I know of them from news reports and what not.

I think that we create our own reality on many different levels. I think that understanding this is a part of taking responsibility for one's actions and decisions. There is some powerful psychology behind that, and all through my life I have seen people get upset, or blow up when bad things happen, and they make things so much worse, I have seen the opposite. The hippies used to always about the vibes, but it has been academically shown that infants and animals pick up on vibes. I can quickly create a fairly negative, and explosive environment within my family, just by coming home angry or upset--and I am talking about with out necessarily expressing it. Several times in my life I have had situations occur where I was with someone, there was a crisis, and I proved to them exactly this point in some very synchronistic (coincidentally weird) ways.

On a metaphysical level, I believe that our ability to shape our reality is based on belief--however it has to be a sincere genuine belief. It is very easy to believe in the negative, because that feeds off of doubts and disappointment. The other problem is that the belief has to be logical to you. If you honestly beilieved that you would win the lottery, and that belief actually did fit into your rational perception of how reality works--I am sure that you would win the lottery. But in reality, we all know the odds, that only a few can win, and so on and so forth, so such a belief would be difficult to rationally hold genuine. The same with cancer--we know what it does, we know how hard it is to get rid of, that if given the chance, it will spread, and that it kills. There are cases of patients with multiple personalities who have gotten cancer, but it was only one personality, I believe usually a dominant one, so that when that person goes to the doctor, they indeed have cancer. But surprisingly when the cancer should kill the patient, it is the personality that dies, and the cancer-free personalities continue to live and the body is cancer-free. Last October, a woman from the rez came to the sweat lodge I usually sweat at with cancer. It had killed her mother when she was the same age, killed her sister at the same age, and the National Indian Health Services doctor wanted to put her on Chemotherapy. We had healing lodge for her, but she was too sick to attend, by the next weekend, she felt well enough to go so we had a second one. The following week she went back into the doctor insisting she was all better. The doctor's confirmed that she was mysteriosuly cancer-free. She believed she would be healed, as did everyone in the lodge, and she was.

I believe that consciousness is inter-dimensional. Who we are as individuals spreads across more than just the physical dimensions. Our material body consists only of the physical dimensions, and Jung's concept of the ego explains very clearly how it filters out everything else. There is certainly an element of solipsism in that concept. And I certainly believe that each of us can only know what we individually can experience—most of which is shared empirical phenomena that we can agree on as reality. But I also believe that our individuality is very important, and do not see value in philosophies or beliefs that focus on mind as everything, and that all else does not exist.

Regardless of how one believes in terms of how likely (powerful) a person is to shape their own reality, the evangelical apocalyptic crap is a negative and dangerous force in today’s world. They are negatively shaping American politics, and are certainly having an impact on the Middle East. Fortunately this is a world of individuals, and a lot of belief in what the future is at play. There are many people who seek a constructive future. Perhaps the uncertainty principal and how it applies to multiple universes in quantum physics, means that the hell these crazy people are trying to create will end up in a divergent alternate universe.

The points you raise about living for an after-life, or a religious panacea that reduces the emphasis on improving the condition of the individual is all part of that control of institutional religion. When the Aryan tribes swooped down into India, overran the peaceful Goddess cultures, and incorporated the beliefs of these darker skinned people into their own Sky Father cult for purposes of controlling them, they created one of the most powerful and enduring institutions ever in the history of the world, to politically and racially control the Indian subcontinent and its surrounding regions: Hinduism. Long after the caste system has disappeared from the other descendants of the Indo-European tribes, they still have a huge stranglehold over India. ‘Why make waves and struggle today, when if you work hard for the lighter skinned leaders, you will be reborn at the next level and have it so much better…’

The Romans too, realized that it would be much easier to control their people if they all believed in one religion, especially if it was a religion that could be used to control the people. I think it is no coincidence that the story of Jesus, 1.) uses very clear Indo-European concepts in connection to the World Tree Motif, which are a little different from those of the Middle East; and 2.) despite the strong shift to the masculine in the Middle East, there was still no Middle Eastern precedence leading up to a Male God who sacrifices himself to himself to be reborn of himself (therefore doing entirely away with the Goddess), yet this was already long ago built into Indo-European myth. But what to do with all those Goddess worshippers? The answer was easy---use Mother Mary as an ideal surrogate Goddess. (Just listen to the rosary prayers—“Holy Mary, Mother of God…”). Not only did Christianity enable the Romans to effectively control their own people, it enabled centuries of conquest and control.

Christians swept across Europe, the America’s, into the Philippines and Indochina. For centuries they continued to use the same game that the Aryan tribes used when they swept into India---they incorporated elements of the local beliefs—demonizing parts of it and incorporating other parts as their own. The Catholic Madonna figure in the South Western US and Central America, used for Mother Mary, is in fact the Aztec Corn Maiden. In the Philippines there is a strong attachment to the Baby Jesus. When I lived there, our own maids would see him doing mischievous things around our house—but before the Spanish, he was the child-sized rice God.

The institutional manipulation of people through the afterlife and paradise--is this same method of control.

I certainly see now where you have a problem with the back-to-the-garden meme. After all if paradise is going to return, then why worry about destroying the world around us today? The actual archetype itself, though, plays out in a drive to reconnect somehow with that paradise. Therefore it is hedonistic, and one of individual action—reconnecting to the earth. In the song ‘Woodstock,’ there is a call out to go back to the garden—but not in a passive role of withdrawing and waiting for it to happen. The Hippy movement was activist about rediscovering planting and the ecology, cleaning up the earth, and living healthy. Likewise, the spirituality of the hunter gatherer is not about sitting back, praying, and hoping for a better tomorrow—it is about, when it is time to eat, or be healed, or whatever, it is time for action—it has to happen, now.

Martin Heidegger believed that it is the finitude of this life—our mortality—that makes life so significant. However, I think a concept of the afterlife for most people provides comfort and solace. It is the loss of this, and the anxiety it creates that is a big part of the nihilism that Nietzsche foretells. It is the dynamic of this that is the existential crisis. It is a part of today’s Post-Modern crisis, and is a force driving people into the evangelical, and fundamentalist masses. The dualistic nature of the institutional control of religion then plays into the fears with the threat of eternal damnation, and missing out on paradise.

This is probably the biggest problem for the materialist schools of philosophy when it comes to resolving the Post-Modern crisis—how to resolve the anxiety around one’s mortality—a fear of nothingness. Even Nietzsche has trouble with this and tries, in a God-less manner, to resolve it through eternal recurrence.

On the other hand, the essentialist schools of philosophy need to resolve the problem that plays out on the other side of the mortality issue. I would say it is evil to use the afterlife, eternal damnation, a future paradise, and other like methods of institutional control to manipulate people.

 

I would say those kind of considerations are not practically relevant to this moment. We could also say anyone who claims to speak about the afterlife does so on the basis of hearsay. But, if we in fact constitute the tenor of our own experience it seems to me a depreciation of that understanding to say some are manipulated.

It seems to me more consistent to suggest that we don't know our own strengths and weaknesses although some believe they do.

We could ask the question of this determination of evil if it is any different to offer the threat of incarceration or penalty in an attempt to moderate behavior.
Is our criminal justice system a necessary evil then?

 

I'm not so sure about the peaceful Goddesses, but the institution of the sky-father God and the sorceries of Roman Catholicism and all its subsidiaries are things with which I am familiar. I suspect that the peaceful Goddess religions were probably just as bloody, dissociative and neurotic in practice as their conquerers, and I suspect this because the mask of altruism is almost a necessity for any institution or ideology of that magnitude to take control anywhere at any time. There are even Buddhist cults that engage in terrorist practices, from what I understand.

I don't buy the vibe thing, in terms of constantly exuding only positivity. I think we have such a multiplicity of forces interacting that the real trick has to be matching the right force to the right force at the right time. Maybe you were hinting at this? It seems to me that constantly reinforced positivity inevitably builds into a -- forgive this figurative language, sorry, sorry, sorry -- sort of sonic boom which is just as destructive in its swelling and exploding as negativity is in its sucking and dragging down. Likewise, a completely neutral, or non-attached, person has to be either an idle observer or a master of knowing what energies to match at any one moment, almost like an instinct.

Furthermore, in a world with so many cycling constants, a stray variable must be thrown in occasionally to prevent stagnation -- as they say, come hell or high water.

You said:
"This is probably the biggest problem for the materialist schools of philosophy when it comes to resolving the Post-Modern crisis—how to resolve the anxiety around one’s mortality—a fear of nothingness. Even Nietzsche has trouble with this and tries, in a God-less manner, to resolve it through eternal recurrence.

On the other hand, the essentialist schools of philosophy need to resolve the problem that plays out on the other side of the mortality issue. I would say it is evil to use the afterlife, eternal damnation, a future paradise, and other like methods of institutional control to manipulate people."

This brings me to two points on which I depart from Nietzsche: eternal recurrence and will to power.

I recognize the existence of the will to power just as he does, but not as the base drive. I would say it is the biological territorial instinct, and I would conjecture that it has developed as an extension of a deeper will. I think of the big bang exploding, and, again, though I know this is figurative language, I wonder in what way I can: did that infinitesimal kernal not wish to be free? Is that will which drives the will to power not a will to freedom, which can only be realized through being? And that being, in order to extend its powers, doesn't it have to exercise its powers? And doesn't the matching of positive and negative leave one in a null state, therefore demanding a buildup of certain energies to grander scales, and then the matching of those energies? When two equally powerful things collide and destroy each other, isn't the stardust that remains the very building block of which being is comprised? It would be like a sort of spiritual resistance training. Again, figurative attempts to see grandiose truths always feel like trying to catch the sight of spirits out of the corner of one's eyes.

And so far as eternal recurrence, it is not a very satisfying explanation, is it? Unless that which eternally recurs is something essential -- you should like this -- which only wears the personalities and physical bodies of its constituents like costumes. There may in this be something of a modified theory of reincarnation. It's a conjectural part of my philosophy that I'm still working on, and which I may ultimately have to discard, but it occurs.

 

As to the vibe thing.

Emotionally charged thoughts are emotive, inspiring action. Thoughts become emotionally charged through cultivation by mental association. Mental associations are cultivated thoughts. The spirit, emotional/mental interface, must be cultivated through frequency and duration in order to produce observable effects. That is you must apply yourself consistently to a desired aim, concentrate your energies.

Most men have no consistent aim, thinking at large that their lives are segmented blocks of time subject only to the concerns of those particular moments and those separate segments are often in essential conflict with each other. Take for example the man who says of his time at his workplace, "I can't wait to get home to my real life." A person oriented in such a way is concerned more or less with his life and thus becomes inattentive at times and with a lack of practiced attention, looses the strength of concentration.

The man who says that men cannot achieve a consistent vibe, are much too tolerant of daydreaming or mind wandering to even attempt it.

 

I'm sorry, but could you repeat that? I must have been distracted . . . Thanks in advance; I had a feeling you'd understand.

 

Okay. And yes i understand.

Most men have no permanent or consistent level of identification and it is the level of identification that determines the extent of our natural protections. These different I's do not know or recognize each other. An I of one moments concern complete with it's attendant personality is replaced in an instant with another I of different substance and inclinations, all together on the strength of an apparently unmonitored string of mental associations.

A peaceable sort in one venue can be vicious in another and had you not seen them both in the same body would not have recognized them as the same person. A person who is constantly in the throws of deciding how to invest himself fritters away the power of his attention.

All lies in jest till a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

There is man as he has come to be and man as he may become.
What he is at large is an amalgam of varied affections with no real association
with each other and therefor not mindful of one another. His different voices always vying each for it's own ascendancy, develop no staying power as one seems to legitimately replace the other.

Conscious effort toward a desired aim creates friction which in turn causes these separate affections to become alloyed into a more durable substance.

 

Yes---evil was a harsh statement. I might have momentarily gotten confused with my first wife... ;-).

Seriously though, using the afterlife, and other good things to happen later as a means of socialization, like the threat of incarceration for doing bad, has its purpose. That is the whole reason for having institutions: to maintain, sustain, protect, and hopefully enrich the society it serves. We would not have come this far as a human race if it wasn't for organized religion and the evolution of human thought and philosophy through time.

I also should add that religion did not start with a bunch of evil landholders hiding in secret saying, "...then if we tell them this, they will all be afraid to..." The belief in an after life is about as old as spiritual thought--even the Neanderthal set up altars of cave bear bones at their own gravesites.

If one believes in going to heaven and does good things in this life in accordance with that (or in whichever way his beliefs cause him to act) we could argue that he is not manipulated. On the other hand, we could also argue that a preacher getting excited about fire and brimstone is manipulating his audience, even if he is sincerely trying to save their souls. The apocalyptic movement that is trying to shape American politics, Middle Eastern relations, and global politics is definitely manipulatory. A good example is their goodwill efforts to Israel, which are often poised as an effort to help Israel, but in fact are implementing the ideology of a soon-to-be realized future where many Jews will convert to Christianity, and all the others, along with all the Muslims will perish and Christ's temple will stand where the Muslim Dome of the Rock is now.

For the individual Christian, or anyone of any organized religion, it may be hard to define where they are actually manipulated, or simply acting out of, or adhering to, their beliefs. Again---everyone is on their own trip, and it is not my place to tell them that they are wrong, or they should be different, or whatever. So my comments on this issue are more general and for society as a whole---they apply to the institution itself.

When the church was the unifying truth of Western culture, then such beliefs and the actions they created were part of our cultural make up. In the Modern Age, where objectivistic rationalism rules our culture and how we view, and act towards, the world--such reductionistic thinking becomes far more dangerous. World War II was a primary lesson over the power of such reductionist thinking when carried to rationalist extremes. But even at the level Osiris is talking about, where it is an issue of being complacent with the current conditions (like the lower caste Hindu women (the bottom wrungs of the bottom wrung) who continuously put up with discrimination, subjugation, and misery because it is her lot in life, and if she handles it sincerely and good, in her next life maybe she will have a better life) it is a matter of institutional manipulation from society’s standpoint.

Spirituality has a very different understanding of the afterlife and how it applies to everyday life, especially the less that institutional influence and dogma plays into it. Native Americans and other indigenous people have more direct experience per se’ of the afterlife than Westerners. (I don’t know if I discussed the situation with my step-daughter and the death of her biological father, and the shaman that healed them too much in the thread on ‘consciousness as emergent.’ It was a very crazy experience and I had no cultural context to begin to fathom it, but my wife and others took it matter-of-factly in stride). This understanding is more like a fact of life, and typically doesn’t involve drastically changing one’s lifestyle to accommodate something that will happen in the distant future or after death.

Institutions do change. The crucifixion altered the blood sacrifice that more easily fit into the rationalism the Romans inherited from the Greeks. In turn it helped promote subsequent social changes. Protestantism was a change from Catholicism to make Christianity a better fit in the rising age of industrialism. Protestantism helped support subsequent changes there too, and had an impact on the evolution of philosophy. In part we could say this is a dynamic of manipulation, or we could say it is a dynamic of evolution---but it is definitely a dynamic of the institution itself.

And I think Osiris makes a good point to see it as deconstructive in his concept of social change.

 

Well, thedope, it certainly appears that you have found yourself. However, I think you're being hard on, and judgemental of, your past self.

And you got the words of the song wrong.

 

It would appear the purpose in any instance is coercion.

It is hard to say definitively what might not have happened, if not for.
It is organization simply that makes society function as a group.

We have come to where we are as a civilization as much through the European proprietary model as anything else. The need or desire to secure resources becomes motivating common cause. Religious propagation rode the back of economic adventurism.

As far as advancements in civilization, the Native American group of cultures were much wealthier and vitally dynamic before the advent of what Jared Diamond called guns, germs, and steel on the continent.

I am taken back continually to my creaturehood and aware that the condition of my environs is irrelevant if I am throwing up. It is our inherent adaptability
that allows us to flourish, not any particular cultural affectation as we see civilizations rise and fall over extended time.

Our current quality of life is driven by technology. However mans ingenuity is ingenuous, that is artless in the light of biological evolution. Even if all his modern machinations should crumble, some resourceful in themselves would carry on still. But as far as civilization as we know it, for every new habit developed, a skill begins to atrophy. Tradition is a trading away natures experiment of the individual for some individuals experiment. In the case of serious biological catastrophe, it is likely the meek, the microbial, will inherit the earth.

Practical is what we practice at.

As far as life after death. The only point of power regardless, is now, so having and being are the same truth. It is enough for me to observe that life yields only to more life. The future is a mental projection based on memory and memory is living tissue.

I will come back to this in a while.

 

It would be overly reductionist to say that all Goddess cultures are peaceful. The Jungian psychologist, Edward Whitmont, wrote the book, ‘Return of the Goddess,’ which deals with the issue of violence and sexual gratification, which he says are related in nature within the psyche. They are archetypical and if they are not acted in some form of ritual or release, they come out in more violent and destructive ways. (It is no surprise that World War I and II came right out of the repressed nature of Victorian Europe). Violence is a part of life. Add into this the fact that land and property took on a whole new meaning when people began to move into villages and the planter culture began. Their fields were their property and as they worked and lived off the fields together, seeing life through a new group ethic, they formed their in-group, and everyone else was an out-group. In the case of the Fertile Crescent and the Middle East, it was about this time that the early Goddess beliefs of the cattle herders, evolved into a religion (institution). Certainly at some point or another violence and war came into play.

However, the psyche that embraces the feminine, embraces those elements of the psyche that are labeled as feminine—empathy, intuition, subjectivism, irrationalism (i.e. of the subconscious), as opposed to the cultures embracing the masculine, which are more objectivistic, rationalistic, and conscious mind focused. Under the Goddess life was less dualistic, and shadow development was not as significant, allowing for a less divisive way of dealing with others. The Goddess cults were far more sexual than the male-dominated ones, which may have also defused their instinct towards violence.

In fact, excavations of the Goddess sites in India, and other places such as South Eastern Europe, and Turkey, show very little in the way of weapons, and evidence of warfare.

That is the problem—we put out all kinds of vibes—emotions are emotions. It really takes a lot of discipline to be able to control your environment in that way---and belief. However I think that someone who is always repeating, “…sorry, sorry, sorry,…” and so afraid of doing anything wrong has confidence issues. Gandhi is a good example of someone who tries to create goodness in the world in this way. Someone who is creeping around trying not to step on anyone’s shoes could never become a Gandhi. They would never be able to stand up in silent peaceful defiance while British soldiers threaten to shoot them down. They would never break colonial law as an open protest by making their own salt at the beach (My memory is getting hazy here---I think that was one of the acts of civil disobedience…)
.

I have always had trouble with these too. The Will to Power is both a constructive, deconstructive, and outright destructive thing. It seems in some ways to almost go against other areas of his philosophy, and it makes reading Nietzsche sometimes like an exercise in reading strict Germanic soulless commentary on the incompetence of man as perceived by an old man who is a cross between Werner Herzog and the Commandant of a Jewish Concentration Camp. (But then that might just be me…). But I think there is a lot of wisdom there, and it is certainly a part of life in both its positive and rosy aspects and its negative and even violent sides.

Eternal recurrence is an interesting one---but I guess the universe keeps its mechanical clockwork feeling for the sake if materialism. Though from a materialist perspective, it is just as lacking of empirical evidence (probably more-so) than a concept of life after death, and is therefore at least as far-fetched.

If you want to explore the concept of reincarnation, check out Dr Stanislav Grof’s work. This is only one of numerous things that has come out of his work, but it is fascinating. He has something like 4,000 case studies of work done with LSD that both he and colleagues conducted over many years, both here and in Europe. After it became illegal to use LSD then he developed a breathing technique that recreates some of the same therapeutic effects. He came across all kinds of different situations, including those of past lives. He used did his best to scientifically demonstrate that the knowledge, experience, or memories imparted could not have been known by the patient other than by something seen or known firsthand. He then uses this information to heal the patient.

But if you go down that rabbit hole, you will venture across the materialist line into essentialism. I don’t think there is any materialist construct that would allow memories to pass beyond the grave, from dead matter to live matter.

 

I'm not strictly a materialist. I only claim to be an individual.

As for the sorries, I just don't want anyone to mistake the letter for the spirit. Words are so multi-faceted, and I don't think a little circumspection in the process of using them is a sign of an insecurity; but, hey, whatever. People are bound to psychoanalyze. It's part of what we do.

Thinking further on "vibes": there may be a benefit to the individual in developing greater autonomy: to fine-tune the self to imperturbability. Which is to say, your being angry doesn't have to affect others unless you act against them, and you wouldn't have to act on it. This could go for any other emotion.

This would make it easier for people to work through their emotions -- really, their compulsions -- on their own and bring to their loved ones that which they would intend instead of that which the willy-nilly atmosphere of emotion would compel. It is a struggle to overcome compulsion, or at least guide it, through intention -- this seems to me to be the real crisis we are experiencing. The efforts of institutions to police people with regard to the decisions they make for themselves would seem to me to be detrimental to this. Hence my maxim: everyone has the right to do with themselves as they will, with the provision that if they violate another's right they abdicate their own.

How does this work in a complex example? Say someone drives while intoxicated. Now, their getting intoxicated is a choice they made for themselves. No matter how foolish it may be, that right should not be taken away; but when they choose to drive they have made a decision that may endanger others. Here's a fine line situation.

Of course, some will argue that the state of intoxication engenders the poor decision making, and therefore is the cause of the problem; yet people are in sorry states all the time that engender poor decision-making, but may not have anything to do with intoxication: fatigue, anxiety, rage, etc. What faculty needs to be developed to make people capable of making better judgements in these cases? The will. How can one develop will in adverse situations if they are prohibited by law to test their own limits?

So if someone is driving while intoxicated, and are swerving all over the road and gets pulled over, by all means it's time for the tank, and let's hope they don't do it again; but if they are just intoxicated and sitting on their porch or strolling along the avenue and bothering no one, then what does it benifit us to punish them? And what does it benifit them?

Also, I've explored the concept of reincarnation pretty heavily in my own experiments, but I will check out your suggestions at the library when done with Nietzsche.

 

I agree, and I think this also relates to our beliefs and our ability to change our reality. As I said, we cannot pretend to believe, or try to believe, to make things happen. But we can cultivate belief through the dynamics you discuss here. Professional athletes develop a way that they always hit the mark, for example---it is more than just practice, it is mental focus of their being succesful and creating a subconscious belief that they can control hitting the mark. I really think that this is what the parable about Jesus about faith the size of a mustard seed moving mountains.

There is an old story---I don't know its source---maybe Siberian, of a young man who received his spirit calling and went to live with an old Shaman to learn the ways. As the shaman had just started to teach this young man about the spirits, a villager came up to them and asked for help. He said that his horses had been taken, and without them, he would have no way to support himself and his family, he really needed help to get back his horses. The shaman replied, 'Tomorrow, at sunrise, go up to the top of that ridge over there and look down the other side, you will see the horses you need." The villager thanked him and happily left. The next morning he went up to the top of the ridge and found 3 horses. On his way home he visited the old shaman and thanked him for saving him and his family.

A few days later, as the old shaman was teaching the young man, another villager came up to them distraught. He said that he lost his horses, and that he really needed them because he surely could not support his family without his horses. The shaman replied, 'Tomorrow, at sunrise, go up to the top of that ridge over there and look down the other side, you will see the horses you need." The villager thanked him and happily left. The next morning he went up to the top of the ridge and found 40 head of horses. On his way home he visited the old shaman and thanked him for saving him and his family.

The young man was troubled by this and asked the Shaman why he favored one villager over the other. The old Shaman said, 'What do you mean favored one over the other?' The young man answered that the first villager only got three horses, while the second one got 40. The old Shaman answered, "I had nothing to do with that. The first villager went up expecting to find only 3 horses."

 

My mistake for making the assumption. Right before reading your thread, I was on another thread about whether consciousness was emergent or a priori. (i.e. materialist vs essentialist).

As an idealistic hippy teenager, I was an anarchist at heart---along the theories of Prince Pyotr Kropotkin. His anarchism was one that we would evolve into by relearning nature's principal of Mutual Aid. That might be an extreme progression from your ideas, but I like freedom and thepromotion of individual rights...

Dr. Grof has written quite a few books, and everyone that I have read is really good---some psychologists can get dry and sleep-inducing. But some of Dr. Grof's books deal more with reincarnation and other such things that he has uncovered, than others. In his earlier years especially I think he was afraid of being professionally ostracized over such matters. I have a very extensive library, and I have probably 6 - 8 books of his buried in it somewhere. I will see if I can suggest a good title for you.