The Sly Man Game

Dizzy and Postmodernist

2007-03-23T08:42:00.000-07:00

If you follow the news, read blogs, maybe even hang out it is hard to avoid being dizzy. There's so much out there--so much info to process--what can we do?

Those that know me know that I believe we are in a transition period that is completely unprecedented in human history due to the modernist/postmodernist project. That is, modernism which started with Descartes' Discourse on Method, questions tradition and received opinion and searches for a more solid basis for knowledge than tradition. But modernism is really unprecedented in human history (even for the Greeks)--nearly all civilizations believed in some kind of mythical golden age that occurred in the past. In contrast, the modernist movement stated that there was no golden age, quite the opposite, the ancients were, in a profound way, retarded--the golden age was real but it was in the future, a future that we need to run to catch.

Modernism is unsustainable and is already leading to a move away from the very virtues that created modernism. Principally, these virtues are: 1) the use of reason to govern life on an individual and collective level; 2) creating institutions that can maintain a continuous narrative of the various findings of the inquiry into the world using reason; and 3) the exclusion or diminution of anomalous or unmeasurable information from creating the narrative. Postmodernism is kind of the evil-twin of modernism and developed very gradually in the "underground" and then bloomed in the bohemian art movements starting in pre-WWI Europe. Postmodernism is really a kind of a tendency towards creative confusion and openess to emotional experimentation--a postmodernist is one who makes his or her life the experiment, i.e. it is not just an intellectual exercise as it was with Descartes. In a wasy that attitude has permeated our world and really brought us to this period when the findings of modern science and technology have created an dramatically hedonistic world-culture (consumerism is really hedonism by another name) that has caused us to overheat the globe both literally and figuratively.

I think the methods pioneered by modernism and science just ain't cutting it today--massive amounts of information is just lying around unprocessed and undigested and its beginning to stink and create a very toxic situation on both a physical and psychic level.

Postmodernism has the virtue of not only being confused but ridiculous and impossible to maintain. It forces us to move towards finding some profound basis for our existence that is far more than intellectual but combines emotional, spiritual, and intellectual aspects of who we are. Postmodernism forces us into the timeless and the universal for sustenance. The alternative is to search backwards and go towards fundamentalisms of all kinds. The growth and maintenance of Christian, Islamic, Judaic and Hindu fundamentalisms is one of the striking aspects of our age. I don't believe these fundamentalism go very deep--they may be holding patterns because they guarantee at least temporary sanity. You limit the information you process you forbid what you can't understand and can get on with life. There are also all kinds of other sects including sexual-orientation sects, age-group sects (peer group identity movements is kind of irrational if you think about it), intellectual sects including the reductionism, scientism, political ideology as a basis for a kind tribalism (we see this in blogs like Daily Kos), feminism and so on. Almost any kind of grouping has a tendency to develop as a kind of half-hearted cult that provides meaning--usually the allegiances are not very strong and people will shift and try to find belongingness where they can. John Lennon wrote, "whatever gets you through the night is all right" and that observation really makes sense for our age.

Where are we headed? What do I mean by being forced to find a timeless basis for the meaning of life etc. Well, obviously I mean that we need to dig deeper, very deep beyond our current understanding of self and of consciousness. Science itself, though often stuck in institutional scholasticism and endless attempts to enforce orthodoxy, gives us all we need to move on. The implication of modern research into physics, biology, psychology, information science (or at least that part strongly based on systems theory) and so on can provide the basis of a new intellectual framework we can build on. The right questions are being asked and sometimes answered by scientists of all kinds. But it is not enough, in fact, science can only be partially helpful in dealing with the postmodernist dilemma. We need to move towards a re-valuing of experience and consciousness not as a matter for scientific research but a field we explore by ourselves with the aid of teachers who are adept in that area and texts that relate to the inner search. Nothing can work until we learn to trust ourselves and our perception--no intellectual framework can heal our emotional and spiritual pain. No science can deal with a love-affair gone wrong. No science can help us in understanding ourselves from the inside out--that can only be done by direct experience and direct spiritual work. Briefly, I will say to you that in order to find that spiritual work but the idea in your head and let it bounce around that there is a path that works for you out there that may come entirely from inside you or from others you meet. Asset to yourself that this is possible--that healing your hurts and confusion is possible--that the universe has something like gravity that moves us towards clarity of mind and bliss. The reason we aren't falling up to it is that we are holding on with various tentacles to a number of false ideas and material things that once we understand and can locate we can unwind the tentacle and begin to break free. The confusion of postmodernism allows us to come to this.

Looking Up the Skirts of Power

2006-12-13T05:13:00.000-08:00

I have a need to address those of you out there who are trying to find ways to create social/political change. To you I say to just forget it. It's not going to happen. I have been looking up the skirts of power for a long time and I know that not many people in the power structure believe anything they say do in other words the whole thing is far too slippery. The Washington power game is one you either play by the rules (they are very strict) or you have to get off the court. "Reality" has no bearing in American politics, reason or analysis of "problems" and "issues" has no bearing--what is all important is to weave a web of cover stories called "conventional wisdom" which you must bow to completely before you can even begin to have a real effect. We have a very complex corporate/state-imperial arrangement which more complex and riddled with factions and micro-factions and shifting alliances the Byzantine Imperial Court--this town (I live within the Beltway) is a miracle of complexity and ambiguity with a wink-wink-nudge-nudge mentality that you have to experience to understand fully, where absolutely nothing is as it seems.

The set up, by its chaotic emergent nature, is extremely stable and robust and becomes more so every day. Thus when the absurd policies of the Bush administration come to light in the media (after the media did everything it could to put a "good" face on it) it has very little effect on the structure; if anything it strengthens it as yet another layer of cover stories are woven into the quilt of the narrative.

Washington thrives on the willingness of normal everyday people to believe the most astonishing lies and fables about the world. This combination makes revolution or radical change impossible because there are no substantial social movements, like the old Labor movement, that offer alternative communities that mean anything. Online "communities" mean very little since everything is done at a distance and real face-to-face community is avoided (largely to avoid losing your cover story--hey Washington completely reflects our individual and collective psyches) largely to avoid real commitment. All is, except for a small cadre of the half-mad, talk and fundraising to lobby Washington to be part of the Byzantine show. The various anti-establishment "movements" have been discounted or are easily co-opted by the power elite. This is why, rightly, the anti-War "movement" was ignored by the media and the powerful. They said, in effect, so what? Did the movement shut anything down, did it have any teeth? No, it was just an opportunity for people to pose and then go back home and sit in front of the computer or the TV afterwards and move on to some serious shopping and vacation planning.

The Revolution ain't going to happen barring major disasters and, in that case, it will be made by those on the right who at least have the sense to own guns.

As I've said many times, it is now time to practice truth and being in the present. This comes through a fearless look at the truth of our own nature and being and the discipline to keep looking. From that fundamental stance strength both personal and collective will emerge and society will change dramatically and easily like a cool wind off the Ocean after a scorching summer day.

U.S. Government Policies and the Subconscious

2006-10-28T07:20:00.000-07:00

There has been, for some time, evidence that key elites in Washington and Israel are what was once called criminally insane--I believe that Hitler/Stalin/Mao who created the standard for depravity and evil in the world are the models for these people. I know this sounds like hyperbole to you but I believe it is true. Look at this honest quote that shows the Washington mentality when Secretary Albright was interviewed by Leslie Stahl:

"We have heard that a half million children have died," Stahl said. "I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and you know, is the price worth it?" Albright replied, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."

Think of it!!! And think of the result. The result was that people died and suffered only to die and suffer even more a decade later. Why did she conclude it was worth it? Not because she necessarily thought it would, eventually, improve the life of Iraqis, but because it was an assertive and forceful expression (the policy) or U.S. power and might. It is akin to the headmaster of an orphanage beating to death one of the children and asserting that it is right because it severs the use of intimidating the others to stay in line. If you carefully analyze what U.S. policy has become, on a bi-partisan basis, you have to come to the conclusion that the dominant goal of that policy is to intimidate other countries. Now, this is not unusual of a great power in the European tradition and it wouldn't be particularly noteworthy except for a couple of problems. First, and most obvious, it runs directly counter to the stated intentions of U.S. policy, public opinion, and the stated intentions of the Founders; second, it has proven to be clumsily and stupidly applied in a cowardly and half-assed manner (by historical standards); and third, it runs counter to any rational analysis of the actual world situation and future needs of the United States as a government and a people.

Given the opportunity, this government (I include all of the Washington elite and media) would commit almost any atrocity--I believe the "decency" of American policy makers so much talked about by the media, by Washington insiders is a misreading of human nature in general and the individuals in particular. I've met some very violent characters who are very personable and sympatico--but when you cross a certain line something else happens. I remember Norman Mailer once noting that one of the most remarkable traits of Americans is their claim to wanting to do the "right thing". This may be changing now as the population is increasingly brutalized. This notion of being virtuous and right, despite the evidence, is very interesting. Nowhere, in the mainsteam media, have I seen an expression of regret and shame over the possibility of 400,000 to 900,.000 deaths in Iraq or the complete destruction of Iraqi civil society that the U.S. has brought to one of the oldest continuous civilizations in the world. And nowhere do I see a clear-headed analysis of the underlying reasons why the U.S. blundered (again on a bipartisan basis) into this insanity of a war. The irony is, and I can't emphasize this too much, is that the criticisms written about U.S. policy during Vietnam and after by alternative scholars and writers were just as valid today as they were then--if fact, the analysis was deeper then that it is now, as I recall, by that same community which now tends to demonize Bush/Cheney and imagines that a change of regime will change the fundamental policy.

I say Bush/Cheney attitudes (force first, intimidation second, and diplomacy to make it look good) symbolize and personify the subconscious attitudes of most Americans. We like to think we are civilized because we put on a veneer of smiles and optimism and cooperative attitudes but the subconscious contains other kinds of creatures. In some forms of psychoanalysis the things lying in the subconscious are not necessarily "repressed" urges but, "undeveloped" personality fragments that never were able to find full expression--thus in certain situations we may each act in very immature and undeveloped ways. Sometimes this comes out in sexual expression, particularly in the whole army of paraphylias that are well-represented on the Internet, and also in situations of intimate relationships, someone saying something insulting, cutting you off on the road, and so on. These situation will all evoke a relatively unsophisticated response because whatever aspects of the personality these things represented were not brought out (educare) in our upbringing. This is why I say that in order for things to improve we need to understand our psychic make-up individually and collectively. This is hard at first but one gets the knack of it if one is supported by others--otherwise we just fall back into our habitual patterns.

I say all this because I think it is important to understand that the Israeli tendency towards ever-increasing brutality tells us something. They use the Holocaust as a justification for whatever they do. We use both 9/11 and the fact we believe that we are the saviors of the world to justify whatever we do. This is a collective psychological illness of both these societies--it is an illness because if anyone rationally pursued the statement: "Past actions made against us and "good" intentions justify any action and any sort of brutality even in situations that may have nothing to do with those past actions" there is no way that any rational person could justify that--yet, rational people in the press, in government do actually justify that statement every day.

The Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11. The Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust. Think of the madness of it! Joe beat me up last week, so that justifies the fact that I beat the crap out of Jane because she insulted me and refused my kind offer to make love to her (and everyone knows what a privilege that is).

Islamic Radicalism and Us

2006-09-21T06:31:00.000-07:00

I believe that there are three fonts of radical Islamism/Islamic Fascism today. One is the Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt, two is the Saudi regime in Saudi Arabia and, three is in Pakistan. I believe all three states are deeply involved in funding, supporting and manipulating Islamic movements throughout the world. I think there is plenty of evidence connecting, for example, the Saudia Arabia and Pakistan to Al-Qaida both in creating it in the first place and nurturing, aiding, directing it to perform terrorist acts in the West. Though this opinion is somewhat controversial plenty of analysts have connected those two countries to Al-Qaida. Bin Laden, if he is still alive, and his top people are in Pakistan as are the Taliban they were allowed to escape, from Afghanistan, through a deal with ISI who are largely calling the shots in Afghanistan as they have for a couple of decades.

If it were not for nations supporting terrorism I doubt it would get very far--there would be a different kind of radical Islam akin to Hamas and Hezbollah which are not, in my view, terrorist organizations primarily but rather organizations that use so-called terrorism as a military weapon because they face overwhelming Israeli military superiority. Hezbollah and Hamas have no choice as full spectrum organizations whose main function is to create a convivial society in the face of massive corruption on the part of "respectable" officials (Government of Lebanon and PLO) and, at the same time, military opposition by the Israeli government who want corrupt politicians in countries around them that they can bribe and threaten.

Al-Qaida in contrast only exists to carry out terrorist acts, which is why I believe they are largely directed by intelligence services of the above-mentioned countries. The U.S. and possibly European and certainly Israeli intelligence also support the existence of Al-Qaida (though I do not believe they "guide" it) because it gives them and enemy that will never go away (since they are, largely, agents of "friendly" countries). This explains the notion of permanent war the very state of social reality that Orwell warned us about. Permanent war is the perfect situation for the institutionalization of a permanent international oligarchy. Since this "War on Terror" is so unpredictable it cannot suffer from the disease of diplomacy as the Cold War ultimately did--it seemed logical to the public that, after a while, to negotiate with the enemy rather than risk planetary extinction. There are no such pressures on the War on Terror--there are no real consequences to continuing the war other than a permanent financial drain and, as long as there are bread and circuses, no one will care in the short and medium term.

I would refer, ultimately, to many statements made after 9/11 by news commentators and politicians on all parts of the political spectrum welcoming a "sense of unity" in the American people like it was some kind of Godsend; furthermore, commentators were almost giddy at the idea that the struggle against terrorism eliminated moral ambiguity and enabled us to think in terms of "good guys" and "bad guys" which is a huge psychological relief to the problems of post-modernism. Newscasters were ready to present themselves as soldiers for the cause, many young people volunteered to join the military. Prison camps in Afghanistan had cell-blocks named after countries wherein terrorist incidents had been inflicted on Americans, people urged the military to have the names of loved ones inscribed on bombs destined to slaughter Iraqis, people were rounded up simply for looking Islamic and so on. War offers society a relief from internal contradictions both politically and socially and it is my belief from reading the writings of neo-cons with great interest in the 90's that they believed that the survival of the West was in danger not through external threat but through a "loss of nerve", through a descent into sensualism and moral depravity, through a loss of respect for authority, through the loss of a collective sense of purpose. They believed and still believe that the West needs to find its discipline and virtue through struggle. At the time I agreed with their analysis to some degree; I differed from the neo-cons in that I did not believe such a return to virtue should occur through warfare but through spiritual and religious renewal through religious experiences as described by William James in Varieties of Religious Experience. I thought that when faced with the emptiness of consumerism people would begin to peel away from it as an ideology. Because the neo-cons are essentially atheists it is clear they would not want what I wanted.

At the time (the 90's) I believed there would be a smooth transition to spiritual values through the meeting of the great external threat I believed we faced: global warming and environmental degradation. I felt the struggle to create a convivial life in the face of these threats would be a creative struggle that would, in the end, demand a return to the extolling of a virtuous life and social cohesion through more communal activities in place of the current "cocooning" that is occurring in the McMansions and on-line activities that keep people from truly interacting. I was wrong and naive. The reason why global warming is and was and will be largely ignored in the U.S. is that the current rulers need to have the public massively consume and afraid in order to keep their incomes coming in. "It's the economy, stupid" is the mantra--if doing something about global warming would lower the income of the rich by 5% this would be intolerable.

So, I finally came to the conclusion that the problems of our world are largely about the lack of virtue and social responsibility by the elites and the rich. Societies have always been dependent on the condition and culture of the elites--what "the people" think and do is, historically speaking, largely irrelevant--it is clear they can be manipulated today perhaps even better than in days of yore. Most people like and require authority and a mythical framework within which they can live--making public policy does not fit. Making public policy is up to the elites--how they feel and think about these issues will determine our futures. Before you jump on me on the elites, I don't mean they are a secret organization I just mean that they are those who are most powerful and rich. I pretty much got my POV on the state of modern elites from the book The Revolt of the Elites.

On the Other Hand

2006-09-06T10:11:00.000-07:00

If we really look carefully at the situations we live in can we really see anything wrong or untrue? All around us is correct and precisely what we need. This POV is radical. Most people when confronted with this talk about violence, abuse etc. and then say that if we are not pissed off about the state of the world we will do nothing to benefit it. Not so, say the sages. In fact, being pissed off wastes energy, clouds up the mind and takes on an endless trip to precisely the same place we started from as was demonstrated by George Orwell in his book Animal Farm. As Peter Townsend wrote

"Meet the new boss,
Same as the old boss"

The same mentality of anger and need to be right will create the same situation with cosmetic changes whether coming from the left, right or anywhere in-between. Something deeper has to change. Unless we confront the underlying problem we face as a civilization we are trapped. We are the enemy--inside of us, at this point in history, is where the real problem lies. It seems we have no choice at this time but face ourselves--it is the only ground that we can act on. There are some obvious reasons for that at the moment. The current political/economic/cultural forces at work are so powerful, so overwhelming, and so totalitarian in their scope that conventional political or even military opposition is impossible without damaging things further. Technically the current regime in power is illegitimate because it lacks moral grounding. It seems obvious that no morality seems to be recognized except as propaganda to fool the masses. We live in a Machiavellian world with plenty of cushioning for those higher up on the hierarchy to pretend everything is "normal".

There is a great moral vacuum at the center of everyone's life that is covered up by an ever increasing stream of amusement and noise. This is, by the way, true of all classes of society and POVs--those that listen to Rush Limbaugh, Al Gore, Fox News, NPR, Noam Chomsky and even the Dalai Lama or any other spiritual leader. We fill our selves with way more information than we can possibly assimilate and that creates internal noise. The internal noise, in turn, masks the fundamental instability of our cultural situation or positive (dharmic) role.

The first step is to realize that the emperor has no clothes. There is no fundamental basis for our ethical life that we can know for certain unless we have been strictly brought up in a traditional society--even then the contradictions of modernism will drop on you like a fog by just going on the internet.

The second step is to realize, by necessity, that since there is no external or cultural basis for morality that we have to find it in our being since our awareness of being alive is the only certainty we really have. From that point we can then realize that all that really exists when we are quiet and not creating and recreating the stories that whirl around our heads (since the very essence of our current culture is to be surrounded by a whirlwind of stories sometimes deemed information) is the present moment and our witnessing of this moment right now.

The third step is to find, on the basis of our direct perception of this moment those cultural artifacts that make sense in terms of the essential being we experience in this moment. These artifacts can be the basis of a new emergent human culture. On a realistic level we know that this process is bound to be error-filled because we are used to using internal narratives to establish being rather than direct experience.

Having said all that I can only say that some kind of yoga or spiritual practice is the only thing that can contain and nurture these steps thought we may have to remind ourselves that any spiritual path and scriptures are only signs. Religion has debased itself by making the signs into gods and often removing any sense of divinity from its practice. Christianity seems to have attempted and succeeded in that very well but the others have done fairly well as well particularly Islam and Judaism. Yet this situation is entirely correct and perfect for us right now. If things were not as they were it is pretty clear the increasing focus on spiritual growth and yoga would not be there.

Today is the Only Day--the View From Here

2006-09-03T10:21:00.000-07:00

I ignored this blog for most of this year while I adjusted my life in ways I didn't understand very well while I was making these changes. I was trying, usually unsuccessfully, to be in the moment but I was in the moment enough to make the changes I needed to make and faced my fears. I look forward to facing them everyday now--if that happens. If not, then I have a day of joy or moments of joy interspersed with confusion, with battling thoughts with impulses to do this or that. Today, I realized that I had a lot of thoughts about all the things I should be doing; also, about what I didn't do that I should have. I should have not allowed my thoughts to distract me doing quite so many moments during meditation. I should have gotten up earlier and, in fact, had no right to feel joyful today I mean I hadn't accomplished anything, in fact, I never accomplish anything etc. You get the drift. Our minds, often become possessed by these urges to experience pain in all its variety--Eckhart Tolle calls it the "pain body", a very useful concept. This "being" is very clever, as all beings are when it comes to survival, and seeks out pain and then "handles" the pain. It causes the problem then takes the credit for "solving" the problem. I may think I "wasted" my day and feel pain but then my pain body turns around and dresses up like a sexy woman and pulls out a bag of comforts and asks me to choose one. I get the "comfort" as a reward for having allowed the pain body to live in my suffering and rather than wait for me to get fed up with it, I am offered something or other that will cause me to turn off my discriminating intelligence that would normally appear and short circuit the problem by turning myself down and/or off with escapes which would have the seeds of future suffering. I would, when the pain body had an opening the next day, become upset that I had done something escapist rather than either face my pain directly using the discriminating intelligence or hand not accomplished something "useful" instead.

We all knot ourselves up sometimes in very intricate and complex ways sometimes in very straightforward ways. Really the knots are not so hard to unravel or avoid. We need not suffer so much--it is that pain-body that seeks to come out at those times it has nothing to do with anything real. The pain-body can disappear and even die. It is not real--it is a self-perpetuating virtual being completely dependent on our attention. The more attention we give to our pain and suffering the worse it is. That doesn't mean, for example, that if we experienced suffering that we have to "forget" about it. It happened and it shaped us to some degree but it is past and gone--it is, essentially, a story or history--an interesting subject not unlike some battle in WWII but nothing that ought to involve our attention beyond that. Here right now, it might be good to give an account of that suffering, as an illustration, again as a story mental to enhance this moment we are, after all, artists of our own life. For us in the West we are blessed with this notion of "the artist" which is sometimes just full of shit but in it's essence has some great spiritual power--I leave it to you to ponder that.

There is personal suffering then there is the large stage of history. All of us are involved and the story is very hard to easily follow--we live in a deep reality that has depth in every direction. Existence itself only appears shallow because we are shallow in our awareness. I sometimes lose myself in the contemplation and in researching all kinds of things that are going on in the world--it is so rich, so astonishing, there are so many threads, tendencies, possibilities, conflicts, opportunities and, above all, paradoxes to put to shame the full collection of imaginative stories ever published or told by any human beings and it is all happening right now at this moment! To not be excited about all this is seemingly impossible.

There are some trends that appear from my vantage point to be dominant. This George Carlin routine may have it right. To be sure, Carlin is pissed off but his goal is to destroy illusions and illusions are what America is all about, i.e., "the American Dream--you have to be asleep to believe it". Carlin never was a genuine hippie in the sense that of "hipness". Hippies later came to mean spaced out and incompetent weaklings who just took drugs--that isn't what hippies were about before they became a weird kind of symbol for rebellioius youth. In fact, hippies were street smart (they had to be) and were searching for truth (in all the wrong places) but at least searching for truth and authenticity and *not* escapism. Drugs were recreational or something that was meant to open up heterfore unacknowledged states of consciousness. That some ended up addicted or using to escape was not the initial impulse.

To digress, there are two issues that show that our civilization has become highly toxic and beginning to display serious behavior problems such that almost any condemnation of it has merit:

Issue number 1 is the ongoing environmental degradation. It is irrelevant whether or not global climate changes or other looming ecological disasters will come sooner or later or will be severe or less severe--the point is that there is a strong possibility that within a generation that serious disasters could occur which could or could have been averted had there been a small adjustment in priorities and life-style. In fact the changes that could have been made would have made life more elegant perhaps slower paced and probably more interesting as attention would have shifter from large scale industrial enterprises to more knowledge intensive and creativity-intensive operations. The change could have been gradual and led by people that knew something about the world other than how to manipulate the public to buy ever increasingly mass quantities of whatever can make the highest profit. I have a reason to believe that alternative energy sources have been discouraged and deliberately suppressed in order to enrich the current people at the top.

Issue number 2 is the so-called "War on Terrorism". When there is a war usually a bunch of soldiers invade a country and conquer the land often times doing a little looting and worse (sorry kids but all soldiers do that) and it is very obvious when it happens. Not so our new "War". There is absolutely no proof that I've seen that anyone that the government claims is an enemy is an enemy. It's all based on assertions by people I know for a fact mean me no good and, in fact, hate everything about me (if they bothered with me at all) and if things continue as they have will put me in a concentration camp if I'm lucky. From my point of view as an old hipster the whole thing is a scam from beginning to end. There is little truth in it. It is like the street. Police get pressure to crack down on drugs so the cops go to the big dealers and ask them to rat on some poor patsy who all of a sudden finds out that the big-boys want to cut him into a big-time drug deal. Naturally he gets caught and the cops relish in their big bust, the dealers lay low for a few weeks and then are back in business as are the cops (I should say "some cops" or the powerful in the Department because most cops are not on the take) taking the kick-backs. That's the way it works. In the same way "terrorists" are usually intelligence assets deployed to some cut-out organization who recurit genuine "believers" who are clearly either demented or somewhat retarded like Richard Reed or Zacarias Moussaoui. Also there are the traditional patsies like Mohammed Atta and most of the other alleged 9/11 hijackers who, in fact, are intelligence assets who wander around from place to place following orders they don't understand while being supplied with lots of money for parties and whatever vices they have (they are usually required to be suggestible and morally weak) only a step above the Richard Reeds.

The tragedy of 9/11 is not only that nearly 3,000 people perished but that the American people fell for the official story. Almost everything about the official story is pathetically weak and uninspired--sort of like "my dog ate my homework" kind of story. While I believe that Jack Kennedy was not killed by a lone assassin, I also believe that a cursory look at the evidence would show that a somewhat far-fetched case could be made for Oswald being the lone-gunman (if you ignore motivation). In 9/11 there is no case at all to be made for the government's story--the story is utterly impossible because there is no there there--in short, no evidence.

I have no interest here in convincing anyone that the government is lying--you can believe the government but if you look at the evidence or lack of evidence I believe you will not longer be able to do that. I don't talk about it and avoid writing about it because it seems you are either the sort of person that believes authority or you're not. I personally wish that we could believe authority--I believe we ought to live in a social structure wherein authority and wisdom can co-exist but it just is not the case today. What saddens me most out of all this is the phenomenal lack of critical thinking that is not only in the masses but, more tragically, in the "educated" classes particularly those that identify as leftists.

Hey, it's hopeless and that's a good thing

2006-02-14T17:49:00.000-08:00

Well, I certainly didn't stay back. In a way I have nothing much to say--in another way I have a lot to say and have been saying it elsewhere.

I see two things that are more obvious today than they were a few months ago: 1) a dramatic increase in what I call "radical unconsciousness" which is a kind of deliberate and unrelenting quest for less information and less understanding; 2) among those who care about urgents social, political and ecological issues there is a noticeable sense of hopelessness--while activists continue to work (it is their lives) I see little evidence that anyone seriously thinks there is any chance for anything resembling a compassionate agenda, let alone a non-corrupt agenda.

Most people literally can't see that the emperor has no clothes and are arguing with great passion about whether the clothes are flamboyant or conservative. Those that see the truth are falling into despair. I'm sorry to say this but the situation is indeed completely hopeless. In reality this is a good thing. Sometimes hope and aspiration for some "better" future keeps us from seeing the truth of this very moment. When you have no hope you don't look forward you have no choice but to be in the present. While I think that this may be good for each of us as individuals socially it may be a good thing as well. Primarily because as people will begin to lose interest in rather abstract issues that don't directly involve us (the Iraq War, for example, will not effect most of us in a direct way) so that we can start to free ourselves up for more interesting social interaction with people we feel drawn to (assuming we can de-hypnotize ourselves from the mass-media).

I am not saying that we need to ignore what is going on around us, rather we need to accept the reality of what we see which is that the rich and powerful own the world and are not accountable to us. Democraacy is dead if elections cannot be honest and political parties don't represent the interests of the people since Congressional districts are so gerrymandered that almost every seat is safe with returns equivalent to the old Soviet system with about as much difference in the candidates as in the Soviet system. I am making this broad statement without offering much proof because I don't have time to do that--you can check it out for yourselves. Small groups are what we need to emphasize--national action is pointless since the system is rigged and the information most people receive is so widely at odds with reality that most people are so deeply confused that speaking to them or providing information to them is a meaningless act. Get your family and friends together and enjoy.

I'm Back

2005-09-28T18:59:00.000-07:00

I took off the month of August as I planned and then ended up taking off the month of September too.

I plead shock. The events surrounding Katrina were very surprising and unexpected. People outside of Washington tend not to appreciate what it means to do something like creating a new bureaucracy like Homeland Security out of many others--it simply cannot work. Just to put two agencies together would take a few years of careful and gradual work (there are many reasons for this that have to do with peculiarities of the Federal bureaucracy that I don't want to get into at this time).

The lesson of Katrina is that we are largely on our own. Large federal bureaucracies simply don't care about any of us and aren't equipped to "care". They lumber on and often make matters worse or better depending on the phase of the Moon. The notion that we will be taken care of by a caring government really doesn't hold up unless we are, for whatever reason, in an economical and political position of power. Sadly state and local bureaucracies are often as bad or worse, though in different ways peculiar to local politics--though in agencies closer to home there is a better chance of knowing someone who knows someone, in short they are a little more flexible. But something infects all of them--this notion that there are rules and regulations first and people second. It seems insitutions in our society want to turn off our hearts and replace it with "systems" thinking. It doesn't work. Only people with open hearts can help anyone. People who give with closed hearts always do more harm than good. With that in mind, one of the saddest aspect of the whole Katrina debacle was that members of local, state and federal governments all tried to discourage individuals or community leaders from stepping in with their open hearts and desire to help. To the bureaucracies of 'help" such action is seen as nearly criminal. We must close our hearts, grit our teeth and administer pain others. The fact the bureaucracies do some good is entirely due to the few (and there are always the few in any organization, even places like Guantanomo).

Clearly we have a problem with our culture. In fact, as time passes I'm convinced that most Americans seem largely content with gradually morphing out of the whole enterprise of civilization. While there are negative aspects to civilization, within each one there are seeds that lead to beauty, truth, spirituality and conviviality. We should not turn our backs on what we have inherited simply for the pleasure of one more fulfilled fantasy, one more trip, one more kick, one larger house or SUV.

Somehow we need to see what is easily the truth: such pleasures are temporary and ultimately not satisfying--as a pragmatic matter, our greatest happiness comes from being here in the moment, smiling at our friends, and working for the sake of others.

News, Politics and Terror

2005-07-21T15:16:00.000-07:00

It is important for people to understand that the "news" as reported in the major media organs is not a compendium of the most notable events of the day. Rather, it is an ongoing narrative based on specially selected events and happenings whose significance is that they are part of the ongoing propaganda narrative. Propaganda is seen as necessary for social cohesion, though it is not called that, by the media barons. They see themselves as being the upholders of civilization. They are in fact courtiers.

I am always amazed that people spend so much time and interest in “the news”. It is interesting, to be sure, but it bears little relation to reality and that seems very obvious to me. I’ve traveled and “hung out” in a variety of milieus and know that there are a lot of very interesting things going on and great stories out there that no one will write about because they don’t fit the current mythos. Not that there is anything really wrong with that. We need some kind of guardian class to keep our stories and myths straight. Mankind, to paraphrase T.S. Eliot, cannot bear very much reality. Having said that we should ask the guardians to a) admit that is what they do and that they are researchers into truth; and b) realize that they are taking on a public responsibility, they can dissemble to be sure, but there must be some sense of responsibility for the well-being of people in general not just the rulers.

So whatever the media is it is not s source of great truths but shows us the political reality of our time. One aspect of this reality is the need for enemies and conflict. “Terror” fits that category. The term “terror” means a very particular thing in the media that has nothing to do with its dictionary meaning. Terror is, in short, something “they” do. “They” are inhuman monsters who do things for no sane reason—they are mad-dogs and we should not even attempt to understand them; rather, they should be exterminated. While the press generally doesn’t put it that crudely, essentially that is the conclusion one has to come to after reading accounts of these fanatics who are very much a “them”. “We” never indulge in anything like that except sort-of by accident perhaps by a few over-zealous “bad apples” who will be punished at some point after everyone but the lower-class types are exonerated.

The news is deeply political and as I’ve implied deeply a part of governance and we need to keep that in mind. Those that govern, I hate to break it to you, have no need or interest in what you and I may consider truth. They have no interest in what you or I consider decency either, that is not their job. Political power is tough to come by and only the tough get to the top and there are no, I repeat, no exceptions. Pols (and I include mainstream journalists in this) will do whatever they have to do to win, to get ahead and to maintain their power because that is the milieu they live in and that is the currency of their social life. Like athletes they need to win or they are out of there. It wasn’t always quite that way and even today the whole political world is filled with elaborate politeness rituals but their bottom line is beginning to blur the old (and I believe very commendable) manners and traditions. Today, particularly with the current administration in Washington, the rules of the game of politics are a kind of hyper-Machiavellian set of rules and practices. That does not mean that the people playing that game of power are “bad”; they are like anyone else a mixture of moral qualities. They are creatures that are shaped by the game they play and it’s getting rougher as the rules are bent and laws, traditions, are thrown into the air.

I believe terror is just politics. I don’t even know who the terrorist are and I suggest there is no way of knowing for sure besides the so-called civilized countries use it all the time but call it something else. Try as I might, I see little evidence that the media story on who and what terrorism is holds much water. I’d be glad to agree with them but the evidence is not there. We simply have to understand that terror is an attitude and a tactic that is used, we can safely say, by all people who seek power. I believe there are politicians, corporate officers, fixers, bag-men, assassins, terror experts, special/black/ops personnel, religious fanatics, drug dealers, slave traders, gambler, arms dealers, addicts, diamond smugglers, industrial spies, hackers, prostitutes, gun men, thugs, pornographers, organ-dealers, flim-flam men and women all thriving in the contemporary global marketplace. At the same time there is no commonly accepted moral imperative operating in this system other than profit so it’s quite logical that “terror” would profit certain people. Therefore to understand terror or anything else in the contemporary world we need to find out who benefits (qui bono) and follow the money. Ignore the conclusions claimed by the politicians and media people unless they actually show who benefits and that they have followed the money (it would be interesting if reporters began to actually follow the principles I just mentioned because they rarely do).

Peace

2005-07-16T17:38:00.000-07:00

I spent the past week or so preparing for and participating in the annual event of Mata Amritandamayi (Amma) here in the Washington, D.C. area (for more about her). I can't begin to do her justice in describing her or what she has done for me and many others I know.

Oh peacemaker, before trying to make peace throughout the world, first make peace within thyself.

—Hazrat Inayat Khan

We cannot "fight for peace". Fighting is what we do when we feel threatened and insecure. Are we really so threatened? I don't think most of us are. I think many of us in U.S. society are addicted to violence. We frame so much of our identity in violence and its symbols. In the past war was seen as a way not only to defend one's tribe but also to learn the manly virtues of loyalty, courage, self-sacrifice and so on. In ancient time war was also a means for material gain (pillage) and a way to enjoy certain amorous delights (rape) that was normally frowned upon in polite society. The cult of violence is very much about maleness and about domination/submission.

In this advanced post-modern world where we have removed ourselves from nature (our own and as well as the natural world) violence and sex have become very compelling and glamorous. It is so interesting. It is also very convenient to those who enrich themselves by catering to the weakness of others. It is very convenient to create a psychic space wherein it is “ok” to control the world through threats, intimidation, domination, abuse, torture, cruel slaughter of innocence and these methods seem to be preferred whether or not they, as practical techniques for domination, actually do the job.

The leadership class in the United States appears to love violence for its own sake and this is clearly not a good thing for a world in need of peace and cooperation. These people seem to think that spreading fear and dread will encourage “freedom”. I prefer the old fashioned raping and pillaging idea, at least it is honest. But before we waste energy in hating the ruling class let's take a bit of time to look around at ourselves and the culture we contribute to every day in so many ways. Look at violence in movies, music and sports. Look at our fondness for watching others be humiliated in public.

Dominance/submission is the sexual sense has become a very big deal in Western culture not only in the sexual sense but obviously in the political sense. Let me make it very clear that leaders don’t go around wearing black leather and a carrying a whip but, in America at least, the personality that is considered “strong” and a “leader” is aggressive, loud, and not necessarily very intelligent. It is interesting how scientists and scholars are very much out of fashion these days.

May people believe the urge towards dominating others through force is healthy and a sign of vigor and virtue. Certainly in societies that need that mentality to survive an argument could be made for that ethic. But we are in a very different world than our ancestors where wars and follies passed into history very quickly. The problem is not just the violence we inflict on each other, but the violence we inflict on everything we touch and nearly everything we do involves tearing resources out of the earth in ways that deeply affect the commons and the future. We no longer go quietly into history—we have grown up as species we now have ultimate power over the planet we live on and there is little evidence that our minds have grown up alongside our power.

Peace is, I think, the absence of agitation. The peaceful person possesses a certain quietness that does not signify a lack of vigor but rather watchfulness, a willingness to take in what is around and what is. The agitated person is prone to violence for nothing seems quite right—everything needs adjustment or “improvement” or, more commonly there is not enough food, status or sex so more must be gotten. To work towards peace demands a sense of inner satisfaction and completeness that does not need anything added. Truly peaceful people can be very lively and produce extraordinary even prodigious works since they don’t waste their time worrying about their own “needs” since those are already fulfilled. He or she only sees others who may be in pain or in need and seeks to aid these others in ways that are obvious, i.e. feed the hungry, comfort the afflicted, hug those without love, bring enlightenment to the seekers.

When we look at an outer world dominated by the dominator model what do we do? Do we “fight” the power? My answer is both yes and no. Those of us who prefer non-violence are under a certain obligation to make non-violence “strong”, i.e., cultivate the good side of the force so that even if “violent” activity may become necessary it will exhibit itself in a playful and non-hateful manner. Evil in the world has become far too developed to be defeated by naturally peaceful people adopting anger and hatred as a motivation to fight for the earth, for the poor, for peace. We have to work much harder to develop ourselves and, as importantly, our communities (however we define them) in living a peaceful yet vigorous life so that others can see non-violence, love, gentleness, love of nature, love of our fellows as an indication of true virtue and strength.

Mysteries of the Midway

2005-07-06T19:03:00.000-07:00

We all underestimate the confusion brought on to us by the variety of truth claims and "information" that we swim in perhaps because we getting used a certain amount of inner confusion. We like to say we live in the information age but we really live in propaganda age. I've been reading Jacques Ellul's Propaganda which was published in the U.S. in 1965 but must have been written several years earlier. Ellul showed that propaganda is not very effective if it is occasional it is effective when it works all the time and he shows that modern societies are really propaganda societies.

Some quotes:

"... a modern state even if it be liberal, democratic, and humanist, finds itself objectively and sociologically in a situation in which is must use propaganda as a means of governing. It cannot do otherwise."

"The secret of propaganda success or failure is this: Has it or has it not satisfied the unconscious need of the individual whom it is addressed?"

There are two issues here: 1) the modern state cannot survive without propaganda, or to put it another way, useful lies and deceptions intended to manipulate the public towards state control; and 2) individuals have inner needs that must be addressed by any society--in the past these needs were fulfilled through time-honored and effective (because they came about through evolution) means, i.e., spiritual, religious, mythical, and magical--since modern society depends on disrupting the natural and organic ways of life that on the surface may appear very limiting (generally what the traditional ways of life lack in "excitement" they make up in breadth of experience)--these needs must be met somehow and propaganda is the way. Ellul is very insistent that propaganda is a two-way street. A good illustration of this is in public and media reaction to 9-11 and the so called "War on Terror". Suddenly reasoned consideration of the facts even reason itself was jettisoned in favor of a fervor of hate mixed with fear mixed with patriotism, not just because so many members of the media were elated at being let out of their cages to express their longing for deeper connections and thereby serve the oligarchy with unthinking fervor but the masses of ordinary people wanted to kill, destroy, feel the power of being part of a massive powerful force that would rid the world of Evil itself. Well, if people had really sat down and analyzed the situation they would have rejected such notions even if they accepted the common run of facts as to what occurred on 9/11.

Thoughts on Spiritual Practice

2005-07-04T15:13:00.000-07:00

In some fundamental ways we are sick due to historical forces we as individuals have no control over. We don't know how to locate ourselves healthily into larger frameworks. Those of us who seek to follow a spiritual path try many ways, we read Holy books and perform spiritual practices handed down from the ancients though these things don't quite fit us because we have so many choices. Still, those practices and philosophies are useful as guides and should be always used as reference points when feasible—but we lack the fundamental stability to really do much with these paths.

We need simple spiritual paths based on elegant fundamentals. This is why the more basic forms of Buddhism are attractive to many aware (hip) people in our culture. For me, the teachings of Eckhart Tolle are prime examples of elegant fundamental thinking because he emphasizes simplicity, i.e. “the now”. The Presence that comes from being in the now is, for our generation of humans living in the craziness of the modern world, God.

Actually the situation we face is not as simple as Tolle implies but his fundamental insight is crucial to any sort of practice, and he doesn't lay out a big agenda for us precisely because our minds would take his idea structure and run with it; he knows full well how addicted we are to “ideas”. This focus on thoughts, ideas, "solutions" fuel our tendency towards mental spinning which because we lack grounding literally in the soil (this includes place, family, community etc.) this feature is the hallmark of our era. All the classics of spirituality were written or taught in cultures that were stable, except for odd periods of instability. Family, tribe, and location were fundamental not incidental. Most people have always been raised within a common mythological framework that developed and changed very slowly gradually adapting to new situations or, when major wars and dislocations occurred there was a quick blending and period of syncretism and a new myth developed out of the old fragmented myths. Today we are in a period of time when the period of dislocation seems permanent so that no stable sustaining myth or ethical sensibility can be established everything seems temporary and in a state of flux. In the past the split between self, society and the Earth was not there so people did not have to “choose” what to do or what to believe even in times of instability. People were used to acting within a context of codes of honor. Today there are no standards that have the power to hold us and it is not our fault.

Beyond practicing a simple practice we can understand clearly and perhaps experimenting with other practices, what do we do to heal the illness? How do we heal the damage we all feel (if we are honest) inside? While practicing being Present we have to create a framework for that practice since we are usually not present. That framework is where we can perform our spiritual practice.

There is no real separation between oneself and the world whether we are speaking of people or the physical world around us or all the inner and outer worlds that we can imagine. There is no real separation but, as a practical matter of living in a time-bound existence, we make certain demarcations. Still, the basic issues of ones psychic makeup are reflected in the rest of nature and society. Thus ones relationship with spouse/partner, children/parents, friends, institutions, societies, is part of one continuum. Therefore our relationship with the world should be based on the same principles as our inner practices and vice versa.

The political “situation” is not something that is apart from us but the medium of our interchange with the world as our body is the medium of our own self-awareness. By “political” I mean the world that exists beyond ourselves and those we are intimate with (those whom we are intimate share both personal and political qualities). It includes such things as economics, business, culture, public associations of all kinds. While there are certain spiritual principles that we are discovering or seeking to discover in the internal spiritual world there are certain principles that operate in our political world and that we call “ethics”. Without an ethical structure of some kind spirituality is barren and ultimately withers and the same can be said of the opposite—both ethics and spirituality ought to be practiced together.

Intimate relations are where we confront our boundary issues. The point of intimate relations is to practice the connection between self and not self (I and Thou by Martin Buber discusses a very solid basis for ethics in seeing all relations as essentially intimate). Our intimate circles particularly sexual partners and family provide us with some of the basic grounding structures we lack that I mentioned above, i.e., connection with a place, lineage, tribe, and mythical framework, in short a sense of belongingness that is absent from our larger associations.

First Post--about This Presence

2005-07-04T11:33:00.000-07:00

This Presence is always here. It is that part of us that is most particular and personal to each of us yet universal at the same time. It is the deepest paradox I know of and the most fertile. My own contact with the Presence occurs when I am honest and empty of stories and narratives I've chosen to follow only in the internal sense so that my perceptions become more acute and deepen as I gaze out into the world first through my own "identity" (personal history) and then into my family, community, culture and so on. Mostly though I lose focus and I am not Present and lurch from one thing to another distracted by the buzzing variety all around me.

I could find somewhere quiet and just sit but I've found that to be as noisy and full of distractions as anything else. I could just contemplate ideas but they turn into movies. The real movie is this world we live in. To be Present and fully in the now is to be in this world with all its craziness and distractions yet not loosing the thread of being.

This blog will focus on contemporary events and social/political issues in terms of the truth of the Presence (always rooted in this moment). Or, perhaps this is easier to understand, this blog focused on social/political issues from the point of view of pursuing spiritual practices that bring us to some form of Kaivalya or liberation. You may ask: "liberation from what?” In the various forms of spiritual philosophies liberation means liberation from all the illusions we live under. So, for me, the illusions we have that cloud or own being are similar to the collective illusions that cloud our view of the society we live in. My view is that just working on spiritual practices, at this point in history, is inadequate and certainly just working in the social sphere is clearly inadequate since, without spiritual practice to sharpen perception, ones actions are based on potentially dangerous ignorance.