Friday, August 15, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
'the meaning of life' and how civilization effects the psyche
I hate it when people ask 'what is the meaning of life?' By implying that our existence on Earth must have a reason, this question makes the assumption that we have to validate our existence, that the reality of life itself isn't a suitable goal and that the ultimate validation of our existence is some abstract concept. People try to find 'the meaning of life' because they think it will be the ultimate accomplishment, the ultimate means to fulfillment. And this betrays the fact that the vast majority of individuals in our culture are living unsatisfying lives. What is more, people seem to take it for granted that they are destined for lives during which they must compromise happiness for survival and emotional well being for physical safety and security. This is incredibly tragic.
The idea that one must look for something to validate their existence reveals how deeply rooted civilization is in our psyches. I guess this shouldn't come as a surprise from a culture that requires people to pay to exist-i.e. rent, food costs, permits if you want to go out and get your own food, etc. Mother culture tells us that the most important thing in the world is production. Without production, constant growth, civilization would collapse. And people seem to have taken that idea to an existential level by thinking that their lives can have a quantatative value like everything else we try to control. If one finds the meaning of life, it's as if one has succeeded in making a product of one's life. One has taken one's existence and produced meaning, and those who haven't found and pursued the meaning of life don't have lives that are as valuable as the lives of the individuals who have found that meaning.
Whenever I've mentioned to people who are hot and heavy into philosophy or religion that I think the 'meaning' of life is survival of the species, they scoff and say that there must be something else that's more important, that we were put here for a reason. This is because people in this culture have an enormously fucked up sense of what it means to survive as a species. When people think anarchy, they think of raping and pillaging. When people think survival of the fittest, they think that means the physically strongest individuals reeking havoc and violence on weaker individuals. They ask, 'what about love? What about happiness?' Isn't it obvious that as social animals relationships, empathy, communication, and cooperation are the most essential characteristics for the survival of a group of people? Violence against one's own community isn't conducive to survival since one needs the community to survive. It's been proved over and over again-Into the Wild has good examples-that humans can't survive long alone. When a man rapes a woman, that isn't some animal desire being manifested that is usually kept in check by civilized life. Patriarchal civilization-at least subliminally-actually encourages rape. But if that particular mating practice was more evolutionarily sound than having the consent of two individuals, then that would be the norm. It's not, however, because brute force alone-the characteristic in question during rape-doesn't ensure a sound mating partner. While aggression and physical strength are useful, things like communication skills and common sense are also essential for human survival. A loving relationship between partners means that there is more than one person to raise offspring. In addition, the bond between partners and parents and children is such that a parent is often willing to sacrifice their life for the survival of their child or partner, which helps ensure their genes will be passed down and the species will continue (in the case of a spouse dying for the other partner, it helps ensure that the surviving partner will be around to take care of the children and community). The fact that we seek friendship is proof that we benefit from cooperative involvement with other people. Mutually beneficial relationships where people help each other with physical and emotional needs are essential, and in my opinion, beautiful. So, I don't get why it's so hard to understand that in order for the human species to survive-or perhaps a better word would be to thrive-people have evolved in such a way that we have the capacity to love and harbor strong relationships so that, even in the event of the death on an individual, their community and hopefully a set of their genes survives. What is more, we value these things and find them so moving because this instinct gives us the stimulus to create these relationships.
But in this culture, one can survive without any human contact whatsoever, and people usually have families in the midst of non-communities where they never see their neighbors and they can send their children to be raised by professionals in schools. In fact, human contact is discouraged because it's inefficient from a production standpoint. Healthy relationships aren't useful to industry. A worker who has no community and therefore no real sense of security is great for production because this worker will see their income as their means for survival. The catch, of course, is that for two million years humans have evolved to feel secure in the midst of close knit groups. If they found themselves alone and alienated from other people, this usually meant death. A 1920s street photographer, who's name I forget, explained that he shot crime scenes to illustrate how everyone in NYC was surrounded by hundreds of thousands (actually, the number six million comes to mind) of other people, yet they were still alone.
We have this ridiculous impression that survival of the fittest means cut-throat, narcissistic competition because that is what survival in this culture means, except in this culture we compete and try to do each other in through economics. That's what capitalism is. Get as much business and accumulate as much property as possible regardless of how your neighbor is doing. If your neighbors are doing poorly and you're doing well, then that's just dandy. If you can't produce enough to compete, well that sucks for you and it's your problem because there's obviously something wrong with you.
So for a couple million years, humans have found fulfillment in survival because survival entailed healthy relationships in a community where every individual was valued. Today, we look towards religion and philosophy to give us 'the meaning of life' because we think finding said meaning will allow us to feel the fulfillment we long for. Basically, I'm saying the question about 'the meaning of life' is null because this question is asker's way of trying to find a way to make their life feel worthwhile, feel right. And it's nearly impossible to feel completely at easy in a culture that is so counter to our nature. We're not naturally homocidal. Look at the surviving indigineous cultures that still exist. They're not trying to one up each other through competition. This culture tells us that our natural impulses are gross and wrong-organized religion's attitude towards sex for example-while twisting and manipulating those natural impusles for profit-porn is perhaps the most obvious example. What the average Joe would describe as anarchy, that's capitalism: every man for himself, survival of the fittest (product), no sense of responsibility nor need for other's well being. This culture takes millions of years of evolution and turns it on its head. How are we supposed to find actual, lasting happiness and fulfillment here?
Edit: changed font
The idea that one must look for something to validate their existence reveals how deeply rooted civilization is in our psyches. I guess this shouldn't come as a surprise from a culture that requires people to pay to exist-i.e. rent, food costs, permits if you want to go out and get your own food, etc. Mother culture tells us that the most important thing in the world is production. Without production, constant growth, civilization would collapse. And people seem to have taken that idea to an existential level by thinking that their lives can have a quantatative value like everything else we try to control. If one finds the meaning of life, it's as if one has succeeded in making a product of one's life. One has taken one's existence and produced meaning, and those who haven't found and pursued the meaning of life don't have lives that are as valuable as the lives of the individuals who have found that meaning.
Whenever I've mentioned to people who are hot and heavy into philosophy or religion that I think the 'meaning' of life is survival of the species, they scoff and say that there must be something else that's more important, that we were put here for a reason. This is because people in this culture have an enormously fucked up sense of what it means to survive as a species. When people think anarchy, they think of raping and pillaging. When people think survival of the fittest, they think that means the physically strongest individuals reeking havoc and violence on weaker individuals. They ask, 'what about love? What about happiness?' Isn't it obvious that as social animals relationships, empathy, communication, and cooperation are the most essential characteristics for the survival of a group of people? Violence against one's own community isn't conducive to survival since one needs the community to survive. It's been proved over and over again-Into the Wild has good examples-that humans can't survive long alone. When a man rapes a woman, that isn't some animal desire being manifested that is usually kept in check by civilized life. Patriarchal civilization-at least subliminally-actually encourages rape. But if that particular mating practice was more evolutionarily sound than having the consent of two individuals, then that would be the norm. It's not, however, because brute force alone-the characteristic in question during rape-doesn't ensure a sound mating partner. While aggression and physical strength are useful, things like communication skills and common sense are also essential for human survival. A loving relationship between partners means that there is more than one person to raise offspring. In addition, the bond between partners and parents and children is such that a parent is often willing to sacrifice their life for the survival of their child or partner, which helps ensure their genes will be passed down and the species will continue (in the case of a spouse dying for the other partner, it helps ensure that the surviving partner will be around to take care of the children and community). The fact that we seek friendship is proof that we benefit from cooperative involvement with other people. Mutually beneficial relationships where people help each other with physical and emotional needs are essential, and in my opinion, beautiful. So, I don't get why it's so hard to understand that in order for the human species to survive-or perhaps a better word would be to thrive-people have evolved in such a way that we have the capacity to love and harbor strong relationships so that, even in the event of the death on an individual, their community and hopefully a set of their genes survives. What is more, we value these things and find them so moving because this instinct gives us the stimulus to create these relationships.
But in this culture, one can survive without any human contact whatsoever, and people usually have families in the midst of non-communities where they never see their neighbors and they can send their children to be raised by professionals in schools. In fact, human contact is discouraged because it's inefficient from a production standpoint. Healthy relationships aren't useful to industry. A worker who has no community and therefore no real sense of security is great for production because this worker will see their income as their means for survival. The catch, of course, is that for two million years humans have evolved to feel secure in the midst of close knit groups. If they found themselves alone and alienated from other people, this usually meant death. A 1920s street photographer, who's name I forget, explained that he shot crime scenes to illustrate how everyone in NYC was surrounded by hundreds of thousands (actually, the number six million comes to mind) of other people, yet they were still alone.
We have this ridiculous impression that survival of the fittest means cut-throat, narcissistic competition because that is what survival in this culture means, except in this culture we compete and try to do each other in through economics. That's what capitalism is. Get as much business and accumulate as much property as possible regardless of how your neighbor is doing. If your neighbors are doing poorly and you're doing well, then that's just dandy. If you can't produce enough to compete, well that sucks for you and it's your problem because there's obviously something wrong with you.
So for a couple million years, humans have found fulfillment in survival because survival entailed healthy relationships in a community where every individual was valued. Today, we look towards religion and philosophy to give us 'the meaning of life' because we think finding said meaning will allow us to feel the fulfillment we long for. Basically, I'm saying the question about 'the meaning of life' is null because this question is asker's way of trying to find a way to make their life feel worthwhile, feel right. And it's nearly impossible to feel completely at easy in a culture that is so counter to our nature. We're not naturally homocidal. Look at the surviving indigineous cultures that still exist. They're not trying to one up each other through competition. This culture tells us that our natural impulses are gross and wrong-organized religion's attitude towards sex for example-while twisting and manipulating those natural impusles for profit-porn is perhaps the most obvious example. What the average Joe would describe as anarchy, that's capitalism: every man for himself, survival of the fittest (product), no sense of responsibility nor need for other's well being. This culture takes millions of years of evolution and turns it on its head. How are we supposed to find actual, lasting happiness and fulfillment here?
Edit: changed font
Monday, July 21, 2008
Mortality: it's your own life
This society that we live in is afraid and ignorant. Death is a factor of life that people nowadays hides from reality. The same goes for the elderly, as we hide them away in their retirement homes like they're lepers. We look at death now as an 'embarrassment' as when people die now, they're treated like they're making a huge inconvenience for everyone around them. With this day in age, the old ritualistic celebration of ones life when one dies is over, people don't value life like they once did. We are now too concerned with our glossy magazines and billboards showing healthy young men and women in their prime. There is now a cultural silence about our mortality because of this passive consumer mindset of society wasting away precious time in our lives.
No one likes death. It's hard to come to terms with it especially when one is on the brink of it looking back at their past, regretting having wasted their life balancing checkbooks, keeping up with television comedies, all those mindless activities. Our denial of death has a deeper significance, beyond it's function as a reaction to our fear of mortality and blindness that helps preserve the status quo. It is a symptom of our ongoing struggle to escape from the the cycles of change in nature and establish an unnatural permanence in the world. Our mortality is frightening evidence that we do not have control over everything: thus we are quick to ignore it, if we cannot do away with it all together--a feat towards which our medical researchers are working at breakneck speed. It is worth questioning whether this would even be desirable.
Men and women in civilization not only hunger over dominion of everything but also seasons, and time itself. We make gods with endless dominion over man or build empires, cities, corporations that are constructed to last into infinity. We want things to stand forever as a testimony of our victory over the sands of time. We would do well to be wary of fulfilling our own darkest dreams by creating a dystopia, a frozen world in which no one must fear death anymore, for everyone exists forever and no one lives for even an instant.
Alive in the land of the dead. They eat dead food with false teeth. Their buildings have false fronts, their radio and television stations broadcast dead air. They kill time as spectators of false images. Their corporations are guilty of false advertising, and their employment 'opportunities' offer only murderous mistreatment, lethal boredom, and fatal submission; they demand that you meet deadlines, that you pitch tent in death camps. Does the dead end justify the means? They inhabit dead cities and make false moves, really going nowhere at all, treading day after day the same path of despair. Even their air is conditioned. They ask you to give your lives for their countries, for their religions, for their economies, leaving you with only. . . . Their system is organized by artificial intelligence and provides only virtual reality. Their culture will pin you down and bore you t o death, their lifestyle is lifeless, their existence is a permanent deadlock. Everything about them is dead and false. The only thing that is unbearable is that nothing is unbearable. When will we demand more?
The struggle for life, for real life.
Fight foul, life is for real!
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Lakota Indians Announce Formal Separation from the United States
On Wednesday, the Lakota Indians declared their independence form the United States of America. The tribe of such legendary warriors including Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, delivered a message to the U.S. State Department earlier this week, announcing that they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties signed with the U.S. Government.
The Native American tribe has territory spanning five midwestern states, and have said that the treaties have been repeatedly violated by the U.S. Government. In all, the Lakota tribe feels that a total of 33 treaties have been broken.
Roughly half of the Lakota nation is within the state of South Dakota, while the rest resides in portions of Nebraska, North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming.
Representatives from the newly self-proclaimed Lakota country said that they plan to issue their own passports and driving licenses. Residents living there would free of taxes as long as they renounce their U.S. citizenship.
In recent years, the Lakota Indians have suffered through some rough times. Teen suicides are 150% above the U.S. average, unemployment is extremely high, and the infant mortality rate is five times higher than the U.S. average.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Morality: your own code
How long have we listened to the nagging voice in our heads telling us what the 'right' thing to do is? How long have we been told over and over again what the 'right' thing even is? How many people have nagged us again and again by teachers, parents, our religions into incorporating these established 'right and wrongs' into our heads? Think back as far back as you can remember. You can't remember can you? Thats because as far back as civilization came to exist, roughly ten thousand years ago, mankind has been manipulated time over time again and again by religion and it's universal moral code that 'applies to everyone living a civilized lifestyle'.
Gods have always existed to man. We've always imagined we live under a god even if it's an animistic view point. About the same time of the agricultural revolution in the fertile crescent, the birth of what we call 'civilization', the gods we have always supposed existed around us were starting to appear in written text. These many texts, roughly similar to each-other, contain written law or virtues that must be followed by all those who worship the certain gods or god implied in the writing. This disregards any individual morality one might have thus replacing them with these universal ones created in order to keep order. The manipulation begins. Universal 'truths' are born and people begin to split things into two groups: good and evil. The claim by these universal truths is that there is only one standard of living and it is the only way to honor your god and be a responsible citizen.
The idea that there are universal moral laws is mere superstition: it is a claim that things exist one way and cannot be questioned or tampered with. The fact to the matter is, our spirituality is being manipulated by those that want to control you to their standard of living. Everyone is different. There can never be universal morals designated for mankind as a whole.
There is no universal moral code that should dictate human behavior. there is no such thing as good or evil, there is no universal standard of right and wrong. Our values and morals come from us and belong to us, whether we like it or not; so we should claim them proudly for ourselves, as our own creations, rather than seeking some external justification for them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
