God, money, weed, and civility

Someone posted about how we can't use cannabis unless we give the government money. And if anyone knows the history of how it came to be a schedule one drug, they know why this is so. In the end, it's just a weed. I collect and use another one, Yerba Santa (Eriodictyon c.) for medicinal purposes. It grows wild in the area and is very effective. I've used it in trade and shipped it out of the area to friends who don't have accesses. I've even been observed by police while they were on other business as I picked it. There wasn't even curiosity as to what I was doing.

The difference is the potential for psychotropism. One of the greatest fears of many in power is that the people will actually think, or have a different perspective than the Party line. Or be, god forbid, awake. That's why there's a constant effort to make the public ignorant in a land where money is god. And money is god because that "substance" is a powerful drug in itself! And it yields the ability to use force. And force is necessary for those who are so empty and impoverished as selves, who are so disconnected from others, that they need to control what others think, say, and do in order to feel "safe". That is why I have said so often that a suppressive and repressive government is run by those who are in a state of fear and disconnection. They build walls and can't see the ways of relationship as a solution. Nor have they the tools or ability to make useful connections which are lasting and trustworthy. So they depend on creating chaos in order to control.

Look at the childhood and upbringing of any dictator. Look, indeed at the infancy and youth of our own. You will always find a damaged individual who never had the neural network of connectivity installed through the experience of being loved. And sadly, that's a condition rampant in our society, ours being one which is very much based on competition, forced leverage, and the disconnection from each other, education, and from different ways of seeing.

So it's really no surprise that those who have relied on ignorance to gain power will do anything to retain money as the sole drug and source of force and leverage over the population. And that can only lead to worse. It can only bring about conditions which even their staunchest public supporters will regret. They will discover that TV never portrays how conflicts actually go down and what astounding suffering they cause. We are poor students of history and reality. And our chief insulation and insulator is ideology. No idea in the abstract which is divorced from measurable reality will stand against the forces of Nature.

This is why attention to The Great Commandment, The Golden Rule, and to the idea of "Women and Children First" is so vital. Those are the ways of inclusion, of connection, of Reality. They are what in fact we are hard-wired for, as we are in fact communal beings. Conflict is our last and worst solution. Yet there are those who rely on it simply because they have no other circuits in their psyche to employ as methodology due to their impoverished past. And that's why they are impoverished now, however unimaginably gigantic their bankrolls might be.

And these are the ones we allow to govern us? While they are high on THEIR drug of choice? Is that wisdom on our part, who will take the brunt of any suffering, as we now take the brunt of taxation and declining relative incomes, while theirs soar on the backs of our labor? What kind of democracy or republic is that? I can get along with my politically opposite neighbors because we act like the block community we are. There's no sane reason we can't do that as a nation while we look for stable ground on which to base our policies. But I think I have proposed three that actually work. They work here. They are universal. They should work wherever we are. If that's what we want.

If you don't like "socialism", this might be for you:

Someone went off on me about the evils of "socialism" and how Nazis were "socialists" as it was part of their name, etc, etc. Here's what I replied.

Actually, _____, I lived through part of that history and my parents each escaped both Nazi and Communist regimes and occupations. I'm 71yo and did rather well in my history classes, which weren't merely from your handily dismissed "what some professor wished to teach you" which makes you sound like one of those who believe that facts, figures, and documentation in the hands of a professor automatically make them tools of a radical liberal left. In fact, my view of history, economics, and motivations is rather differently based than either that, or whatever else you might imagine.

I happen to somewhat agree with you about Social Security being a disaster, but less about the idea itself and more about how it was left in a state in which its funds could be plundered. Evidently, there are people who are reactive to any form of the word "social", as I was to the idea of "social dancing" which was required in my school. Perhaps it's a term, like "God", which due to overuse and abuse has left its arena of usefulness. "Social" merely refers to the fact humans are wired to act in groups and have a tendency to care for their own, and that trait can either be damaged or enhanced by upbringing and modified by circumstance.

"Social" thus refers to connectivity. And humans are so dependent on the kind and quality of their connectivity that it's being seen that most deviant behavior in individuals and groups is related to some breakdown in connectivity. Human maturity can also be measured in some kind and degree as to the nature of connectivity one feels. The arc of that might be said to range from the self-absorption of an infant to the very rare sort of identity which identifies "self" with all of humanity or even Nature, such as a Gandhi or Schweitzer, or even a Christ.

So on that scale, most of us are strongly connected on the level of immediate family. The things you personally might deny other members of society, you might not deny to members of your own family, depending on their condition and circumstance. As one matures there is the possibility of seeing greater patterns of connectivity and the resources, possibilities, and responsibilities which are inherent in larger groups. And in the same way that a cook doesn't use the same proportions or even ingredients for a huge batch than a small portion to get the same taste result, we must also adjust some things when dealing with larger groups. We do this because of connectivity, as in "to form a more perfect union". You do know where that comes from, don't you?

So from my perspective, being an American, I don't see our amazing Nation as a system which functions as an auto-immune disease, or as a mass of people who are meant to be either cash cows for a few hyper-rich and their insatiable needs and powers, or not even a land comprised of millions of competitors engaged in a free-for-all in which it's fine to step on your neighbor's face to get ahead. Now that's a simplistic description and I'm well aware that there are other dimensions to all that. But suffice it to say that from here "E Pluribus Unum" means that like we did during the war effort in the 30's and 40's and the years after, we can indeed pull together and create and have a well functioning and prosperous society. Roosevelt pulled that off and so did my favorite Republican, Eisenhower. But sadly, exactly the thing Ike warned us about is exactly what happened.

Now I'm someone who is very much in favor of profit and economic progress, mine and yours and ours. What I'm *not* for is the way that a republic can be brought down when those in power can vote themselves favors as Jefferson warned. So my way of seeing things involves a form of economic fairness which is based on the poverty line. Pursuant to the ideal of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" in a Nation which claims to be and is the richest on Earth, why do we have the highest rate of child poverty of all industrialized nations, the highest rate of incarceration of its citizens, the greatest economic disparity between CEO's and lowest earners, the most spent on military per citizen by an astronomical amount compared to any other nation, or should we have to pay 4 times as much for poorer medical care than the next most expensive nation? Neither should we be an elephant distracted by the flea-sized problem of "illegals". That's fucking embarrassing.

In other words, we are being taken advantage of. You don't like socialism? Bullshit. If you didn't you'd be screaming about the trillions gifted to corporations in tax breaks or the military for the sake of supporting banks and arms makers as Eisenhower pointed out. Our world expenditure on military action last year could have ended world hunger every eight days. Every fucking eight days. In other words, food for everyone for 45 years at this level of population from one year of military action mostly about protecting oil interests which are in fact detrimental to us at the scale we now use that material.

So what the people who profit from all that fear the most is that people like you might actually start thinking. Do you remember who said, "It's great luck for leaders that men don't think!"? That's why our education system sucks compared to other nations which actually have governments devoted in large part to the economic and social advancement of their publics. That's why we are being taught to distrust all news and all things intellectual and encompassing of anything more than one person's private gain.

If you're so smart, then you know that combat aircraft rely on instability to be effective. The Red Baron's plane had to be constant hands-on, and any modern jet requires a computer for steady flight. They aren't like a family Cessna in which you can take your hands off the yoke and not instantly go unstable. But that kind of stability is not suitable for tyranny. So look at what's going on now. Is it a building of connectivity between citizens from an alleged leader? Or is there the condoning and promotion of contention, separation, and distrust?

I'm a "Family American". You, however much I disagree with you, are part of my American family. And I don't want you to go down and if you have trouble I want to have your back covered because if you are well, so am I. You do know, don't you, that over 60% of bankruptcies are due to medical expenses of insured people? So I'm happy to pay taxes that you can benefit from as you now do. I'd even pay a bit more if I was sure that everyone could be healthy and have an education. That's because I consider you and others as resources, not liabilities. And I'm for stability, not friction and turbulence. And, as a capitalist, I'm happy to invest in resources. You might call it "socialism". I call it taking care of my own. And that would include you, like it or not.

Labeling Ignorance

It's convenient to label ignorance or brilliance, real or perceived, according to a Party affiliation or some other inculcation. But in the end, it's either ignorance or brilliance free of partisan labels when compared to the nearest accurate assessment we can make of Reality with as clear lenses as we can manage. If we don't, in our political, religious, social, or any other bearing divorce ourselves from the coloration of our unconscious and learned prejudices, we will fail in the most basic facet of authority. That facet is accuracy relative to an impartial and unbiased factual assessment of any situation as nearly as possible with the admission that error is inherent, especially in emotionally loaded situations where we or something we care about is at stake.

There is much that can be said about this that would for many require a thorough re-education in the ways and means of human perception, thinking, and feeling. Most of us can't do it very well at all, and if democracy has a serious failure it is this: it gives equal weight in popular decision making to fact and fantasy. And in many cases, fantasy wins, sometimes with tragic results.

So it's good in the midst of heated politics to remember that our views are not only limited, they are limited heavily by unconscious training that is indistinguishable from addiction. It can take an actual physical shock to bump one the inch or so out of their habits to see that they are merely thought patterns and not in any way equatable to the reality the "owner" who thought they were a thinker thought.

This is demonstrable by experience. It is what Plato's Cave Analogy refers to. In its extreme, there is possible a radical shift in the nature of one's awareness. That result is not advertised, despite its utter practicality as being a basis for a re-evaluation of one's real circumstance as a human. Such re-evaluation can take as long as two or even more years as the new perspective is integrated. It's why it used to be attempted only in monasteries and under tutelage. Yet it can happen spontaneously. I know of several such cases.

Even Heinlein in his fiction outlines a radical scale of intellectual ability and its consequences. Yet even he doesn't go the final step, though he implies it. That's because it is so different, that in the religious writings of the world it is cloaked in symbolism. Yet it is the one consistent thing in the matter of human awareness regardless of religion, culture, time, place, gender, status, or any other factor including contact with others who have experienced that shift.

But the essence of it is in clarity, a kind of clarity which is free from political, religious, social, or any other categories. It is the foundation of the beginning of actual work on oneself, if one is so motivated. It is also dangerous in the sense that one man said that "The search for Reality is the most dangerous undertaking; it *will* destroy your world". Why? Because we are taught what we are, and what the world is, in terms of necessary local beliefs which do not usually transfer to a universally true perspective.

That perspective is infinitely adaptable, but can be dangerous to the individual who sees that way, as it reveals much of how the locals, wherever and whoever they are, really don't see themselves clearly, and therefore mistake their environment as well, sometimes tragically while they believe they are pursuing their own wellbeing and that of others. That's only natural, as that's how we are locally trained. But what we are as awareness isn't local. Everyone is it, no matter who, when, or where or in what condition. It is the one thing in which all humans are equal: We are beings of awareness trained in minute detail to believe local things to be universally true. And they are not. So when local perspectives collide, we have actual drama. The definition of "drama" is "what's at stake". And that can be trivial. Or it can cast the fate of a Nation.

I'm not attacking christianity

People say sometimes "You are attacking Christianity!" Why would they say that? What is this "Christianity" which I'm said to be attacking? According to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, there are approximately 41,000 Christian denominations and organizations in the world. This is why Gina Cerminara wrote her handbook on religious sanity.** So what exactly is being attacked? That there are 41K+ versions of devolution from an alleged original teaching? Does anyone think that any one of these chosen at random, from some Catholic sect to the Westboro Church is, in fact, the original teaching of Jesus the Christ? Seriously? 

So if someone tells me I'm attacking "Christianity", what I hear is some version of this:

"I have chosen or have been indoctrinated from birth into one of 41,000 versions of someone's teaching we have a few contradictory lines about in a 2000-year-old book. That book also has other parts another 2000 years older yet, which contradicts both itself and the newer part. That whole caboodle wasn't compiled as a piece until some 300 years after the little known, if extant, original dispenser of a tiny fraction of it was gone. So I have, without original records and after 2000 years of alterations and changing interpretations, decided that the story my sect of an overwhelmingly turbulent stream of unverifiable beliefs is, in fact, the one true and only way to an end I postulate based on what these stories passed down and altered for two millennia claim to be "true" in the particular version I claim as mine.

"I do this not having looked into the origins and history of my beliefs, and without examination of the philosophies and mystic traditions my particular extrapolation of beliefs comes from, including, but not limited to, Zoroastrianism, Nondualism, Mithraism, or the Egyptian and Essene Mysteries and the teachings of Indian, Tibetan, and Oriental Masters who may have influenced the person of Jesus, and are traditionally and falsely discounted as relevant material to understanding words, works, and ideas attributed to him."

So for my part, I completely understand what Jiddu Krishnamurti said: "When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind."*

So I am not attacking an unspecifiable brand of christianism, for I cannot call any current thing which calls itself "Christianity." I cannot, because it is all derivative and based on feasibly demonstrable misinterpretations. What I am doing is asking for a conscious re-evaluation of beliefs by anyone who has the moral and emotional courage to do so, and come out the other end retaining their faith if they wish, but doing so on a foundation of self-awareness and history. 

~~~~

*Source: Jiddu Krishnamurti, Freedom from the Known, chapter 6

** The book is one used by many denominations in their study of comparative religion, and has many interfaith recommendations. It is called "Insights for the Age of Aquarius: a handbook for religious sanity." 

Someone asked me "What is you higher power?"

Sorry, I couldn't adjust some of the spacing here! ~~~~ I personally "have" no higher power, as that usage denotes possession. There is a fundamental Principle. It has me, and you, and all of manifestation as its expression as the Cosmos which It permeates, and is not separate from, and in fact IS. It can be pointed to, but not spoken, as it is Ineffable. It is not a person or Person, yet is the power to and source of either.

Simply stated, one can say:

Consciousness is fundamental

Consciousness is the Light to the awareness of ideas and thoughts.

What one is conscious of, as awareness, constitutes experience.

All are aware, few are consciously aware and thus mistake their thoughts, memories, senses, physicality, "self", etc, for their actual immutable untouched Self, which is equatable with such words as Soul, Spirit, Life, Truth, Love, Principle, and Mind. I would add "God", but that has become one of the most abused and wrongly understood terms in any language. There is a simple reason for this and it is the cause of much tragic misunderstanding and wrong teaching.

 One is trained to be aware "of ", as subject/object

experience and mistakes the objects of that awareness for Self, mistaking the self-constructed by parochial indoctrination as real. In fact, that constructed self, wherever and whenever it is may be functional or not. In any case, it is in fact merely programming. This is demonstrable by a number of experiential means, some spontaneous, some induced. In fact, it is possible to go past the extremely and most common state of the human, that being the subject/object state. Going beyond it yields a basis for actual and useful work on self in a way which is inclusive of Universals as distinct from local or parochial constructs of explanation. This is demonstrable and experienceable.

Operationally, all of this means exactly what has been

succinctly stated for ages in many ways. The most familiar to us today are three:

 One is the Golden Rule. Foundational to the Golden Rule is the

experiential and gut understanding that the other IS oneself in essence, despite appearance.

Second is The Great Commandment. Foundational to the Great

Commandment is the experiential and gut understanding that the other IS oneself in essence, despite appearance.

Third is "Women and Children First." Foundational to

"Women and Children First" is the understanding that they are the means of transmittal and expression of the first two if properly educated. Any morality, or civic system, or economic system, not based on Women and Children First is a false, detrimental, morality or system at worst leading to collapse and societal suicide.

From these three flow all of the connective and salubrious

considerations and actions, private, familial, civic, and other, which foster the highest possibility of all individuals and the various aspects of society. It is on these that Civilization and Culture of the highest sort might be built.

An additional note:

Because of both the emergent nature of human awareness as

pointed to in christianism by the sadly misunderstood story of "The Fall", it is the Nature of the human awareness to NEED to know. And to do. And to protect what it thinks is sacred. And all of that is well and good. IF it is done consciously. Usually, it is not, and it is done from personal and parochial ideas. That's natural. And it works very well up to a point. That point is when other explanations understood by their holders as beliefs, usually sacred beliefs, clash in the practical world.

Of course, the Prime Directive of the human being survival, even

beyond the grave, the SYSTEM ONE WAS INDOCTRINATED INTO AT BIRTH AND THROUGH CHILDHOOD IS PERCIEVED AS ABSOLUTE AND FUNDAMENTAL REALITY. And that is the root of the persistence of "faith". But it is not Real. No matter how real it feels and how much sense it makes. It is not. It might have actual elements of Truth in it which keep it afloat, as do the thousands of versions of christianism today, but they lack the leveling factor, the leavening which would bring them to Life and allow them to naturally shed their differences, their parochialisms, and all of that, while retaining the feeling and actuality of Sacredness which is Real. This can happen as naturally as graduating to the next grade up, or as easily as a snake sheds its skin, or a butterfly emerges from a cocoon.