Stop Thinking, Start Being

Do you know how, when you repeat a word over and over again, it begins to sound strange? Today I was sitting and thinking heavily and at great lengths and depths when I started to feel odd. Soon I realized that it felt weird to sit and think repeatedly, to be consumed only with the act of thinking. I began to feel a little unsettled as my thoughts started sounding more and more strange, like the odd waving vibration you feel when two notes are almost in tune. It occurred to me, then, that I was on to something, that epiphany might make an appearance amidst the tangle of oddity and thought.

Eventually it did. I realized that thought itself is a removal from experience. It is an abstraction of occurrences and abstractions are intangible and do not contain the reality of truth, beauty or any other aspect; it only contains itself.

After this realization, I decided that I think too much. By thinking at great depths for long periods of time I am removing myself from experience, and this does not coincide with my personality:

I feel like I have a young soul. I feel a perpetual will and energy of unparalleled strength and vigor. I need motion and action. I am burning when still, and living in a fully engaged manner only partially quells my fire. Because of this, I am especially excited that in a few months I will be hiking for almost an entire cycle of the seasons. I will fill myself with life and burn comfortably in the immense simplicity of the wilderness. I can no longer feel content with "disinterested contemplation". I do not wish to be disinterested, I want to be perpetually engaged. I do not care for abstractions, I prefer reality. Why think about things when you can embody them? Why contemplate art when you could make it? Why think about sex when you could actually fuck?

Sometimes, I think my personal philosophy dictates that I forget about philosophy; that I need to stop thinking and start being.

Meditation

I try to meditate often, but the imagery provided by the recording in the in-class meditation was incredibly illuminating and really enhanced the meditative experience past the bounds of my usual meditations. The imagery, it seemed, functioned as a stream of analogies for the state of being. The ebb and flow through the opening and closing of the pores and the blooming and wilting of the lotus flower described the perpetual fluctuation that we are permanently engulfed in. However, fluctuation and flow require the future and past, and I think that the two inhibit the examination of the state of being, also referred to as the human condition or, more simply, experience. We only are, we only exist, in a stream of instances, of heres and nows. If things are as fluctuating as they seem, how would each here and now account for the constant interchanging of lows and highs, ins and outs, lightness and darkness?

Well, after a few days of reflection, I think that each here and now is potentiality, or rather, is everything at once, as opposed to a particular thing at a particular time. This way, there can be no constancy in our successions of here's and now's (time), as the fundamental component of these successions is a single, uncertain, infinite instance. Across the expanse of time, things that are high become low, things that are good become bad (Nietzsche- Genealogy of Morals); everything becomes its opposite because each instance exists as everything, making it pure possibility.

This meditation allowed me to consider each here and now (not that there is a calculable, tangible quantity of heres and nows) and whenever I embrace the experience of the present I find myself steeped in paradox and duality. Even as I sit typing these words, my heart is expanding and contracting. I'm letting in breath, and letting it out. My muscle cells die in order to regrow. Human beings, and all things experienced are beautifully contradicting; everything gives way to it's opposite because, at its most basic, each thing is its opposite. Life seems very cyclical, and I love cyclicality.

Wall.E and the Axiom

The Axiom, in Wall.E, may be described as a "utopia"and I would understand the reasoning behind such a description. However, I could only honestly say that the Axiom possesses utopic qualities. It is entirely stable and peaceful. There is no suffering, only entertainment and hedonistic consumption.

However, the Axiom is missing something. It is missing sorrow and pain. It is missing toil and turmoil. It is missing failure, it is missing mourning and death, uncontrollable outside forces and the Unknown. Moreover, it is missing the tears that burn cheeks and the pressures that break backs, bones, hearts and minds. These are the aspects that make humanity so incredible; only through the lens of suffering can we see happiness. It is all too evident that, in our fear of the Unknown and the Negative, we seek stability and ease, and I believe these lack the importance we assign them without existing in congruence with their opposites.

I'll take upheaval and struggle over the Axiom any day. Only then, in intense moments of pain and suffering could I truly be happy. Negative forces are no different than positive ones. And sorrow is just as beautiful as happiness.

Dear America...You Are An Idiot

Today, I was coming home from a friends house and upon entering the house I, unfortunately, heard a television blaring the "nightly news". Before escaping to my room I couldn't help but overhear the following: "Tonight we are discussing Newt Gingrich's bold plan to do what no other man has dared to do, create a colony on the moon. But first we must ask ourselves, is it currently scientifically possible. Here to discuss with us is..."

Right now I am trying to remain serene, and not allow my head to fill with disgust, outrage and anger. It is a struggle, but I think I can manage. Only in America could this happen. Only in America could such an unfounded, ludicrous proposition be so readily lapped up and absorbed. In a recent debate in Florida, Gingrich claimed that, were he elected president, he would set up an American (and he stressed that it would only be American) colony on the moon. He further specified that after reaching thirteen thousand citizens, the colony could apply for statehood. He elaborated no further and gave no explanations.

How pathetic is this "society", how brainwashed are the majority of the population, when this is taken seriously without any form of investigation or rational discussion? WHERE THE FUCK IS THE DIALECTIC?! Why is the "nightly news", which is considered a source of information, and is used as such by most of America, not investigating the basis of such a moronic claim? Why is no one, on a national and public scale asking things like "What would be the purpose of doing this?" or "Do you realize that there is no oxygen, water, or anything at all on the moon?". Only us American's who are so adept at removing ourselves from truth, rationality, and reality, could not question such inane nonsense.

I would like to say that I am angry, I would like to say that I am outraged, but I am not. I am afraid. I am afraid of what our civilization is in the process of devolving into. We have given up personal control of our own thoughts. The man on the T.V. tells us what to think and we don't question. We are so caught up in our own conscious creations that we are completely alienated from the natural world. We are, subsequently, alienated from our survival instincts and cannot understand the basic concepts of sustenance, otherwise we wouldn't take this claim seriously. There are no resources on the moon. Organisms cannot live without necessary resources. Everything is done for us, as long as we keep existing as one more cog in a machine. Who among us is self-reliant in a true sense? Who can sustain themselves? There are very few. There are, possibly, one or two agrarian communities who have the ability to exist completely self reliantly and sustainably. The rest of us work a job and go to the grocery store to find the shelves magically stocked with food, turn handles in our kitchens and bathrooms and find clean water inexplicably flowing from the pipes. We are all focused on minute, little Particulars that we have forgotten about the larger, singular and cyclical Universal: survival. I think we are doomed to run ourselves into extinction, and if it happens within my lifetime I will laugh uncontrollably, for it is so pathetic it borders on comical.

The only solution I can see today, with my head clouded by dark thoughts, is to hand out a copy of Brave New World and hope that people aren't so stupid as to ignore the warning within it's pages.

Part of me, the darker, more morbid and less forgiving part of me, wishes for an apocalyptic catastrophe. Part of me wishes for huge global storms to rage across the planet, killing millions, even billions, of people. The one's left would be the strongest and smartest, the ones who are most aware of their mortality and their capacities to prolong it. I would like to think that they could rebuild, or not rebuild and just live barbarically and beautifully.

Well, that's my rant for today. I can already feel the brief storm clouds in my head fading. After all, I'm alive right now so there is no reason to be upset in the slightest.

Two Songs

“Woods” by Bon Iver

Whenever I listen to this song, specific memories replay themselves in my head. This nostalgic ode to the healing powers of the wilderness, and of solitude itself, reminds me of a backpacking trip in northern California that made me who I am today. More specifically, it reminds me of how I discovered my one constancy, the most important aspect of my life: nature. The dramatic buildup of “Woods” forces me to recall my initial realization that I belong away from the consciously created clutter of humanity’s modern civilization. This is the only piece of art that, I believe, could possibly come close to reducing me to tears. I do not particularly enjoy art, nor do I find catharsis through artistic mediums, but this song nearly does the trick.

“Yawny At The Apocalypse” by Andrew Bird

This song, too, conjures up fairly specific memories and the emotions intertwined with them. The high-pitched violins and droning cellos create a tension that is all too familiar to me. It reminds me of instances when I have felt like the embodiment of freedom. One would think that freedom ought to feel loose and devoid of constraints, but I have come to realize that it is quite the opposite. Looseness is more accurately attributed to oppression and control. Under control, you are directed by an outside force, as if floating on a raft amidst an ocean or river. The tides and currents remove any semblance of personal control; you are flowing. Freedom is quite the opposite. Freedom is taught, a feeling of internal energy. Within freedom, everything is a possibility and, because of that, the individual is filled with choice, and choice is an unstable, quivering feeling.

This song does a remarkable job of recreating the invigoratingly tense feeling of freedom that I feel most of the time, but most acutely in specific situations, for example, when I fall asleep beneath the stars and wake to the chirping of birds, greeted by the warm rays of morning Sun. In those instances, I realize that all I must do is live, and I don’t even have to do that if I don’t want to.

These two songs both reveal the same aspect of my personal aesthetic. My personal aesthetic seems to be dependent on my personal experiences. For me, art does not conjure up abstractions or singular emotions, but specific events and emotions with a context.

Justice As An Evolutionary Adaptation (Part 2)

As I have termed societal justice “collective consensus” [i] on what moral values to uphold as being common determinants of mutual benefit or harm, the obvious objection raised is that it doesn’t appear that any country in existence has a single semblance of collective consensus; laws are always being debated, there is always internal strife. I agree. There do not seem to be very many societies today that have collective consensus on anything at all. The question we must ask ourselves is what causes this, and what are the effects of such societies?

There are two conflicting components that, I believe, cause a lack of collective consensus, and therefore a lack of societal justice. These two forces are freedom and societal dimensions.

Modern society is larger than ever, or rather, modern governments and the things we have termed “a society” are larger than ever. There are three hundred million people in the U.S. and a single, centralized government attempts to enact laws over every single one of them. A society this large cannot conceivably reach a collective consensus. There are too many people spread across too much land. This size creates infinite variability; moral thought is dependent largely on the culture in which one is raised, and with so many different cultures within a single society, moral values will inevitably differ from person to person.

Surely, American society still functions, though. As to how well it functions, well that is a matter of debate (one that I’d love to have). It may be asked, naturally, why it is that the society still maintains itself, if it does not possess the mechanism for survival that is justice. Well in response to the self-posed query, I would say that a society doesn’t necessarily need to be just in order to preserve itself, but that a just society does a better job of preserving itself than an unjust one. However, I would feel bad if I were to merely claim that modern society is unjust and leave it at that. I am not one to criticize without attempting to offer pragmatic solutions. In order to explain my solutions, though, I must first explain how the second component, freedom, fits into my theory.

With all the differences in moral outlooks, our society is, on some level, disorganized as it is filled with disagreements on the most important and pertinent issues our society faces. Why is this? Well, put simply, it is because people have the freedom to disagree. There is room for disorder. If a society of this size is to be just, everyone must be made to conform to a single set of moral values that are upheld as the common determinants of the benefit or harm of social decisions. Freedom and justice are inversely related in a large society; if freedom is desired, then justice is lost and if justice is desired then the freedom to have differing views of morality must be lost.

This brings me back to my solutions and, not surprisingly, to Socrates. Though I said that, in a large society, people “must be made to conform to a single set of moral values” I do not mean that these people should have certain ideologies forced upon them; much worse, in fact. I mean that an individual’s ability to disagree with those moral values must be destroyed. If the ability to have opposing moral views exists, then disagreement is possible, as is the likelihood of revolution and civil unrest, and therefore societal instability; as society is our primary means of survival, unstable society is a threat to our existences. Socrates’ myth is the best method of controlling people’s ability to have differing views on morality. Their individual thought processes must be morphed into unanimous conformity, by whatever means we have available. The perfect example of this is the dystopian/utopian novel Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. In this novel the people of the world are not only manufactured by the State, but are also conditioned throughout the course of their lives into a conformed culture and, therefore, a particular set of moralistic views.

On the opposite side of the freedom-societal dimensions spectrum the solution is, I believe, much more enjoyable. A society with freedom as well as justice is much less complex to obtain. The size of the society must be made small enough that consensus is easily and readily obtained on an entirely societal scale and in individuals' interactions with one another.

My third and final solution is complex in its simplicity. This solution is not so much a construction of societal organization as much as it is a deconstruction. My proposal is this: that we forget about justice entirely. Indeed, that we do not consciously consider society and its organization, and that we no longer consciously create organization or structure within society, instead allowing it to become more natural and simplistic. In all of our haste to escape death we have grown shortsighted. We have built huge buildings, towns and cities, so as to ensure knowledge of what is in our environment. We seek to control every aspect of our lives in order to be as sure as we can that we will not die. At the core of every animal is the drive to live. It is the reason for our every behavior, our every action. However, humanity has become so caught up in the avoidance of death that we have forgotten to accept the inevitable: we will die. We have grown more and more afraid of death, and thus our adaptations for survival have grown larger and grander. Our adaptations are killing us; not individually, but as a species. We reproduce endlessly, bringing billions and billions of new members of our species into the world so as to ensure huge society, and therefore our survival. But, in order to sustain these people, we are pillaging the Earth ruthlessly and without foresight. The Earth’s resources are our resources, and we can only survive insofar as we have access to them. Amidst our avoidance and fear of death, we are destroying these resources (every one imaginable) and thus are leading, inevitably, to our own extinction.

So, my final solution is to take a step backwards and give slack to our taught focus on society, become more utilitarian and simplistic and accept death. In fact, welcome it when it arrives. We do not need rigid rules, and strict structure. All we need is our brief, transient lives, and whatever comes after is no cause for alarm.

To anybody who reads this, I hope that you never read it again. I hope that you focus on your immediate existence and enjoy it because it is beautiful and inexplicable. It is this mindset that can deconstruct our destructive organization. Breathe deeply, stay healthy, and enjoy the fluctuations of life.

:)

---

[i] The term “collective consensus” seems to imply a conscious mutual agreement, but I would not limit the scope of the term to something that simple. There are plenty of unconscious agreements made within each culture; people behave certain ways because they have seen others behave that way. In fact, it seems to me that the very nature of culture is to be an unconscious set of rules.

Justice As An Evolutionary Adaptation

What is justice? This question seems to be at the heart of all of our discussions about Plato, however, I do not believe that this is the central question being argued in The Republic. The manner in which Socrates, his interlocutors and, indeed, our class use the term “justice” implies its definition. Justice is equitable with morality. Things that are “just” are “good”, just as things that are “moral” are “good”. Similarly, things that are “unjust” are “bad”, as things that are “immoral” are “bad”. The question we all (Socrates included) are asking is not “What is justice?” but “What is just?”. We are asking what constitutes “good” or “bad”.

As I have said many times in class, morality is subjective. Things I consider “good” or “right” or “moral” will inevitably differ from someone else’s concept of what morality entails. I, personally, have different moral boundaries than others, and their moral values hold no sway over mine. However, justice has, as Socrates pointed out, two components or scales: the individual, and society.

Societal justice must, necessarily, be treated as objective instead of subjective, and in order for me to explain why I believe this I feel obligated to first explain and define societal justice, and society itself.

As extraordinary as we human beings are, we are still organisms. We still exist in the same way that a wolf, or a gorilla, or any animal or plant exists. Our basic function in life is to perpetuate our species, for no organism exists without others like it; no organism lives entirely in solitude. In all of our grandeur I feel as though humanity has lost all sense of humility and all sense of what it means to be a species. As we are just a species of organisms like any other, we must not forget that evolution is the only inescapable aspect of life. Through our constant struggle to survive we are perpetually changing and adapting, and in understanding ourselves it is key to understand how it is we are most adept at survival. Some species are immensely large and powerful, like the buffalo or the elephant, and survive first and foremost by being able to fend off attack easily due to superior strength. Others are incredibly quick, like the rabbit or fox, who survive first and foremost by being able to either escape predators with their speed and agility or to catch prey with the same qualities. Still, others are adapted for survival in admirably different ways, such as the simple plants, who survive by being absolute in their indifference.

How are humans best adapted for survival? Well, as I see it, communication and cooperation are our first and foremost means of survival. Envision a human completely solitary. How is it adept at surviving? It is not particularly large nor is it particularly strong. The human stands no chance against a bear, or a lion, or any number of other animals, nor does the human seem equipped, by itself, to survive strong currents in a river or ocean, or to survive much bodily injury at all; many important organs are only protected by a thin layer of skin, fat, and lean, thin muscle.

The human does have the ability to run slowly for very long distances, but that is not very useful when its life is threatened, as it cannot run quickly to escape danger. However, humans have an ability that has, clearly, been highly advantageous to the survival and subsequent propagation of our species: our ability to complexly and effectively communicate with one another. Through communication we are able to coordinate large tasks that help fill the void left by our other, inferior characteristics. We can coordinate with one another to elaborately trap and kill prey to eat, and further coordinate with one another to ensure that the food is disseminated amongst the population so that each member of the species may thrive and then, moreover, help to coordinate the species’ survival. It is because of this remarkable faculty of communication that we have survived as a species for as long as we have. It is because communication is our best means of survival that we are constantly together; why we form the things we now term as “societies”. Society is, therefore, an evolutionary adaptation; society is our peculiar excellence.

If our interactions comprise our main mechanism of survival, and the most basic fundamental function of an organism is survival, then by what do we measure and control our interactions with one another, to ensure our survival by achieving some form of symbiotic mutualism? Morality. By terming certain decision as “good” or “bad”, we have made the concept of beneficial versus harmful more easily applicable to our method of survival: society. For example, no one would make a moral judgment on the decision to eat food. They would say that eating the aforementioned food is either beneficial or harmful to one’s health and, subsequently, their survival. Moral judgments are instead used to describe the beneficial or harmful nature of a social decision. People debate whether it is right or wrong, good or bad, just or unjust, to make the decision to do things such as perform capital punishment or abortions, lie, cheat, or steal because all of these decisions are social decisions: they affect the interactions between humans. As communication and, thus, society are our primary adaptations for survival, and moral judgments are the way in which we determine the benefit and harm of certain interactions, then morality and, therefore, justice are also adaptations for survival.

Justice on the larger, societal scale functions exactly in the same way. It serves as a means of maintaining society, and therefore is a means of survival (adaptation). However, societal justice is more complex. Just as an individual’s concept of morality is personalized and objective only in context of him/herself, so must justice, within the greater context of a society, be personalized and objective in context of the society itself. Societal justice is the collective consensus on what moral values, what is considered good or bad, right or wrong, just or unjust, are to be upheld as common determinants of mutual benefit or harm. It must follow, then, that justice on both the individual and societal scale is humanity’s primary evolutionary adaptation.

Now, it may be easily pointed out that most societies today do not have any collective consensus on what moral values to uphold, and I have quite a bit to say about that topic and more, however I felt that it would be too long of a blog post if I incorporated those thoughts. So, I’ve decided to break this essay into multiple parts, and the next part that I post will be concerned with modern society and how I think it does and does not reflect what I’ve just blabbed on about for the past one thousand words.