Tag Archives: money

Educating the human – but where is reality?

Figure 1. Graphical depiction of the dynamics involved in the production of human progress.
I recently found myself queuing at a counter of a business where in the background directly behind and above the counter a TV lurked from the ceiling, facing the customers as they entred through the front door. The TV set was muted and unrelated music was playing.I was standing there watching the screen, and immediately absorbed into the imagery, which was composed from typical “modern” editing techniques. You know, the ones that originated with the MTV culture, where the editing is mimicking the way we see. Brief snippets of the scene from a number of perspectives are broadcasted, simulating our eyes jumping around the scene. The image is never fixed, always in motion just like in reality where we are barely aware of our eye movement, or the manner in which we direct our “lenses”. In the present situation I was being fed images from a live show, as I choose to look there instead of elsewhere. I saw a transmitted reality, where a few man were standing around on a stage, sleeves rolled up, awkwardly milking a goat. The goat was feeding itself and seemingly unaffected by all the hustle and bustle she was causing with her appearance on a TV set. The audience, mostly middle-aged middle-class women were clapping in delight to see such a ‘natural act’ being televised. On the other hand, these men’s reality had been injected with this goat, they were away from their desks, their fast cars, their ‘online’ lifestyle and so forth. The women were clapping because a bit of nature was put back into our lives.Meanwhile back in my scene, in my reality, another techno-reality where I was surrounded by tough surfaces, steel frames, and hard-hitting house music, my first glance after moving my eyes away from the TV screen fell onto the clerk. He was nodding his head to the music – to the rhythm of his reality. Behind me other customers were lining up. I was asking myself how can it be that each one of us was experiencing a different reality on the same planet? How is it that we see reality? How are we are taught to create our reality?

In the reality described in the scene above, we notice that each person brings their singular viewpoint to the scene. I am there because I need something that is very specific, that something stems from my desires and interests, and is unrelated to those of the clerk, let alone to the man in the TV show. Already, it is clear that I am only considering a limited number of aspects of the reality that I am surrounded by – the ones that support the fulfillment of what I want. Therefore, I make decisions about reality on the basis of my viewpoint which is underpinned by my desires and interests – these are my personal economics. The way ‘personal’ economics work if a 1:1 reflection of our global capitalism. On a global scale, we are in a similar position we don’t really engage with the direction that things take in the world, we are focussed on working in the service of free enterprise, even if this means working a menial job in a corporation. The rest of the world we leave up to our elected ‘body’, the government of the people. The common thread between our personal lives and the global population is that in either case, only aspects that promote our interests, or the interests of a group, are addressed. We institutionalise “proxies”, such as elected politicians. It is their task to stand in for us so that we don’t have to concern ourselves with the world-at-large. Yet, we create this world together through our participation in decisions that form and shape policies, laws, as well as the financial backbone of our system.

From this standpoint, we can define personal desires and interest as “personal gain”. Thus, in its basic structure personal economics are equivalent to the profits that drive the world’s financial system. Through this selection of focus that everyone pursues we inadvertently must break down what is whole, we must zoom in to create order. This allows us to select whatever it is that we need, want or desire. We create order in the sense of creating categories of objects and services by separating the whole into neat little divisions. What I mean by the ‘whole’ is our environment, other beings – all that surrounds and sustains us. A Chinese proverb states: The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. Even if this proverb lends itself to multiple interpretations, we can easily see how we put forth the naming of these neat little divisions, the concepts we devise to describe our world, as a worthwhile human achievement.

We believe that by creating categories and divisions we are able to specify communication. We even state that through this order, which we make by and through the use of language we can rise above all other creatures, we become rational thinkers. Yet, when we look closely we see that this specification of objects and services does not sharpen our communication, rather, it is used to create an alternative reality – one we call by the name of progress, our modern world. A world, that is created by our minds on the premise of abstract thinking – we abstract, mine, and extract from the whole that which we have categorised and labelled for our purposes. We strip it from and off the physical world by the use of language. From language we create beliefs, ideas, concepts and rituals – we conceive of mental states. Through mental processes we form new relationships that no longer reference the physical world but favour our conclusions of what we understand progress to be.

We can easily see this on a basic example. In Western cultures we eat pigs. When we slaughter a pig and process the meat, we call it pork. When we process the meat so that we can eat it in a sandwich we call it ham. Neither pork nor ham refer to the animal itself. The relationship to the animal, as a being in the physical world we live in, is severed and reconnected to our ritual or cultural pattern that is composed from our mental states. The pig is now disembodied. We want to indicate that the pig is dead and edible and this is how we rationalise these naming conventions. Our purpose, to be able to eat the pig, is fulfilled and within this process the pig itself as living being has no role, no meaning, no relevance. We have used language to abstract reality, namely ‘the pig is dead’ and we can now talk about the pig-meat in two ways, as ham or pork. This procedure of abstract thinking in relation to our surroundings is culture-specific in that it depends on the patterns a culture has created for itself. Other cultures have constructed other patterns that are used in the ‘eating’ rituals. In Guangzhou, China where dog meat is sold at the market the linguistic break-down, or mental abstraction of “the dog is dead, it is an edible item” will have similar descriptors that in their essence reflect those of the Western pig.

“Abstracting” from the physical as we do, with the use of our minds, is however a multidimensional approach. Another dimension is to take the know-how of the physical world and selectively apply it to the things we make. I can’t really say we create because at the most we reconfigure the existing relationships through a mental filter. For this example, all we have to do is look to the sky were we see birds and airplanes flying around. Airplanes are modelled after birds. The study of bird-flight led to the design of aircrafts that we use to travel around the world. In other words, those who have studied bird-flight have selectively ‘abstracted’ that which could be useful for humans to build mechanical birds that fly and carry cargo. Birds are only one example in this, most of our tools are created by imitating the physical world around us. We even have a word for selectively-putting-the-physical-world-back-into-our-thinking in the drive for human progress. We call it biomimicry.

Our highly-praised act of creativity, considered a human capital, is nothing more but our ability to apply our mind to devise proxies to the physical reality we live in. We do this actively by classifying and ordering what we perceive with our senses. We then reconfigure the identified relationships to always and forever do one thing: to suit our purpose. What we call progress is the sum of our efforts to create this alternate, or in essence virtual reality. The process of virtualisation is not a new one and certainly not limited to the digital realm. The binary code we generate is yet another manifestation in support of virtualisation. Virtualisation may even be called the spearhead of how we apply mental processes to divide and conquer the physical world, and how we exist in our relationships to each other.

How do we relate to each other? Here we follow the same pattern, we ‘select’ those who we believe are worthwhile of our attention. Generally, relationships are categorised and described as: family members, friends, colleagues and acquaintances. The rest of the world – again, the whole – is therefore of no or marginal interest to us. Let’s face it, if it were any other way, there would be no starving person in this world. It is therefore no coincidence that we are now living in an age where virtualisation, the alternate reality we call into being, has solidified through the use of digital machines. We now operate in and from the shared virtual space we have called into being. We have created the internet so that we can connect with anyone who is willing and able to make it their focus to ‘connect’. We may have hundreds of so-called friends on Facebook, representing the various human-relation categories I have mentioned above. More than ever, virtualisation is blatantly staring us in the face when we compare the spatial reality we live in with the reality of our shared virtual space. The majority of us will have trouble naming a decent number of people who we know and communicate with intimately in a spatial radius of 50 square miles. It may be that you come from a small village where relationships are more local and intimate, this  however will only proof that those types of environments function within the classification of human-relations, and that they can hardly be called progressive – these are places we leave behind in the pursuit of progress. We do not consider indigenous cultures, such as the Amondawa tribe in Brazil, who live in close-knit communities, as the cutting edge of our progress.

As creatures of pure self-interest, we loose the reference of the dimensionality of our actions that are guided by our way of thinking. In the process of breaking down the physical world into mental categories and devising order so that we can be selective, we keep no link to the whole. The whole, the physical world as a whole, has become obsolete in this process. We easily discard it, as we discard rubbish in a bin. The result is that we are fragmenting and dividing the physical reality to a point where we are unable to sustain ourselves because, as you might have guessed, division as the starting point is inherently destructive. We destruct to abstract, you might say.

Before I move on to give you some examples in how we teach children to be ‘abstractors’ via the use of their mind, I will briefly explain Figure1 you can see above. In an attempt to visualise this two-fold dynamic that I described above, Figure 1 is meant to illustrate the looming and inevitable consequence, if we were to continue along this path. Here, the human is at the centre because the human is the initiator as well as the receiver of this process of progress. The dollar sign in the centre symbolises all currencies because all money or currencies are used to promote selection, abstraction, production and consumption. The brown-coloured field represents the physical reality we live in, or the planet we call earth. We use our mind to endorse abstract thinking. We ‘virtualise’ our reality and in this process we use up the ingredients, as we exploit the physical world because no matter how virtual we become the building blocks of human life are located in the physical world. This is to the detriment of all beings that do not change, modify, and ultimately destroy the habitat of all other beings on the planet – the human is the sole perpetrator in this endeavour. Mankind fails to preserve the world for those who do not operate from mental states, such as animals, and therefore causes extinction of living beings. The graphic indicates this selection process, the steady reduction of supplies in the production of materialised mental states: this is where we perpetuate virtualisation by constructing tools and environments in support of what we think. The graphic further notes that we identify and fetishise the specialness of nature, it becomes food for thought, we study the hell out of it to see what’s in it for us. I previously illustrated this point with the mechanism of biomimicry. We then feed the ‘fruits’ of our studies back into the process of progress – we close the loop.

Children come into this world and are systematically taught to adhere to a process of becoming abstract thinkers. Virtualisation is introduced by creating an alternate world where humans and other creatures battle good and evil. The Harry Potters of this world have been around as long as there have been stories. We teach our new generations to be of the magical mind instead of the earth. We teach them by providing an alternative to life by proposing stories and fairytales on all kinds of virtual media, such as an ipod, TV, and laptop. Neatly encoded they make for perfect carriers of our beliefs, ideas and concepts in how we see this world. We groom our youngest to use their imagination and dream up virtual relationships that can be expressed through language and representation. Instead of bringing the world to our children, we insert a bunch proxies. What else are stuffed animals and franchised toys? We teach children to stay away from the biological substances we are also made of. We call it dangerous and dirty and we don’t even stop with our own body. Or are we past the stage where we are ashamed of our physical bodies for producing shit?

Consider the option. Join the forum and ask questions: www.desteni.org

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under All

Sex in death and the Equal Money System

In April 2012 Egyptian Islamists have caused a stir in the world by proposing several new laws that focus on a man’s ‘live’ property – the woman. From the Western perspective most proposals concentrate on what might be considered conventional or habitual aspects of a typical extremist religious orientation towards husband and wife, such as the bride’s age, the right to seek divorce, and the female’s circumcision. These proposals went rather unnoticed in the Western Press except the one that would grant husbands permission to have sex with their wives within 6 hours of death. It’s the ‘farewell fuck’, so to speak. Other sources, for example Isalmists in London, deny that such a ‘farewell fuck’ law could come into being in Egypt. They argue that it may be a proposal but that it would never make it into parliament.

Whether we look at ‘farewell-fucking’, Clitoridectomy or foot-binding as examples for practices that are formed from religious beliefs,  and when we look beyond the male-female dynamic, what comes to the forefront it the notion of self-interest. This self-interest is not only that of men as it would initially seem to be, because many of these practices are directed towards women, who are compliant for their own reasons within the trap of self-interest. (to be cared for, to be protected, for example). Obviously in most cases it is the mothers who are implicated because they are the ones who are allowing the mutilations on their children.

These types of practices demonstrate our ways of existing in self-interest:  as long as we can find others who share the subject of our self-interest the more likely we can find ways to pursue it through public institution e.g. law, customs. The ‘carrier’ of self-interest in these cases is religious belief, and holds more true for countries who have rather homogenous religious teachings established over centuries. Other countries, mostly Western-oriented countries, utilise cultural focusses such as beauty & fashion. Prominent examples here are anorexia, or the wearing of very high heels which represents in its effects a milder version of foot-binding, otherwise we see liposuction, breast implants, and so forth.

What all of these abusive practices have in common is that they disable the physical body in some way, or on the minimal scale, shape it through abuse. But then how does farewell fucking differ when it’s no longer about the living body and the dead body has only x amount of hours before it definitely becomes unusable because it decomposes?

The first point is that the woman’s role is that of property and not of an equal being, or the recognition of beingness, of aliveness. Therefore if a man can have sex with a dead women it is not because both are sharing their beingness or aliveness with each other, but that this is a matter of him enacting a picture he prefers, his memories, and his sexual urges – and so in that moment he represents all that we have done in the name of sex collectively: pornography, masturbation, sex slaves, sex trade, pedophilia and so forth.  The man might be the catalyst of the situation but there is a fundamental factor here which implicates men and women alike:  the sexual engagement is a solo mental pursuit, it is the mental pursuit in search of self-gratification, and the physical body of another is the object by which this pursuit is achieved – thus other bodies functions as a vehicle which can be discarded after use.  Now that we have established it as a mental pursuit there is more to say about the mind.

Another view of the dead body’s farewell fuck is that it is a really a ‘fearwell’ fuck. It is the desperateness of the mind that fears of having no more access to the physical body ( the one the man is married to, the one he considers his property). It is thus the same fear we have losing objects, or a house, a car – the fear is about losing access to the living flesh as provider for the mind – in the mental pursuit of self-gratification.  Thus it is not difficult to see that the living flesh is a resource, like the earth, we try to hold on to as long as we can, entirely oblivious of the effects. This is also evident in other ways when we look at how we handle the resources that come from the living earth, the pattern of behaviour is identical. We act in self-interest and are oblivious to the effects e.g. Fukushima.

Yet, at the same time, the mind realises that it cannot exist without the physical body, and because there is no control over the physical body (i.e. the dying body) the aliveness of the body slips away without the mind having any way of stopping it e.g. medical research. Therefore the control that the mind wants to experience is of course imaginary, but is through social and cultural mechanisms of domination that it believes it can do so. We have thus arrived in this beginning of the article.

However,  obvious cultural mechanisms such as collective religious beliefs can be matched by more subtle versions – from which no nation or country is exempt. An example is our pursuit for education because we value intellectual thought over physical labor. That is why jobs with more education are paid more, or why we look down on people with less education. Those with the better paid jobs are in the position to campaign for their self-interest, for example in form of laws as the death-fuck case illustrates. Yet, the death fuck is actually revealing to us that the mind fears losing the body because it cannot survive without physicality. The mind is the ultimate ‘co-dependent’ aspect of us, in all its one dimensionality, as it exists in separation from the body which is the one component that guarantees its survival.

Lastly, why many seem outraged about the death-fuck is because on some level everyone knows that it reveals the true nature of the mind. The death-fuck, may or may not become law in Egypt. However, it vividly demonstrates our disposition is self-interest and from here all else unfolds, all the way to death. The implementation of the change we want is thus simple

1) stop all self-interest > start interest in all equally

2) apply this to all that we consider resources, e.g. raw materials,
food, people, etc – in short, money as a proxy to resources

3) Implement the solution: the Equal Money System

Some of us have made a head start in stating what they see to be best for all, check out the topics for an equal money system!

Participate, join, change, and share your beingness with all equally!

2 Comments

Filed under Equal Money