The pinnacle of the human condition
(Source unknown)
The following premise appears true, initially, to the Noble Mind:
A Creator is perfectly benevolent IF AND ONLY IF His creations are perfectly beautiful.
Looking at the skies above, particularly at night, the noble mind experiences a sense of awe, unparalleled to anything else. Certain objects are more awe-inspiring than others. Looking at M31 for example, one often gets a very distinct feeling that "something" is watching one back through one's binoculars.
In general, everything in Nature is beautiful to the noble mind. I'd even go as far as saying, perfectly beautiful. From the fascinating spiral arms of M31 and a colorfully complex sunset, to a gray white 40 kg English Shephard dog.
As there are very few exceptions to the above (see below), the noble mind is tempted to conclude, (based on the premise above), that Nature must be the work of a perfectly benevolent Creator.
On closer inspection though, it becomes apparent that behind this awesome beauty, there lies horror and violence. Everything gets born, lives through a certain lifespan and dies in obscurity. From clusters of galaxies, to galaxies, to stars and planets, the dead are always consumed by higher or more powerful life forms to produce new life.
The entire universe is highly tragic. Although beautiful, its modus operandi is essentially a continuous cycle of life, death, decay and consumption. For humans, which are part of it, it's even worse, because pain is part of their life.
On deeper thought, the premise above does not appear to hold much water. Certain other possibilities come to the noble mind:
1) The Creator is a sadist.
2) The Creator has abandoned us and the entire
universe along with it.
3) The Creator is not exactly what or who we
think He is.
4) There never was a Creator.
5) We are the Creator, obfuscated inside
human
life, in order to avoid the pain of conscious self realization.
6) There are partial "Creators", who may have
created the universe hierarchically, but the chain of their hierarchy
is
infinite and does not have a top element.
I tend to believe that 2), 3) and 6) are the most probable possibilities, with 5) also highly probable, although quite unlikely, given our current sociological state.
It appears to me as though 2) is also true and along with that, something else is also true, which sooner or later becomes obvious:
7) Human Life, including its surroundings, is a very well made prison of sorts.
It appears as though this prison has been custom made for us by The (A) Creator. I really cannot fathom the reason as to why this was necessary, but my honest feeling is that we are prisoners on Earth, with no hope of ever escaping.
If the above holds, two possibilities follow immediately: Either 5) or:
8) Humans at some point in time, were not (and still are not) in agreement with The Creator(s), for whatever reason and took a stance against Him (or Them).
Wanting to keep this article simple, I want to avoid all connections to religious dogma and traditions. But everywhere one looks, one finds that according to various people's distant memory remnants human beings at some point in time "detached" from The Creator(s) for one reason or another.
There are two distinct possibilities that follow this:
9) Human beings were (and are) capable of incredible power, which at some point in time threatened to acquire something "valuable" (Godhood perhaps?) of The Creator. More simply put, human beings were, at some point in time, "troublemakers".
If 9) is true, 7) follows immediately, following the classical religious traditions of a possible disagreement with The Creator. I find this highly improbable though. It is true that human beings can develop tremendous powers, particularly as regards science and technology, but it really sounds like a joke to think that we, at some point "threatened" somebody who might have been responsible for things like putting planets in orbits and creating stars. UNLESS, we are talking about a different kind of power, which has been stripped from us in this existence.
The troublemaker scenario sounds more plausible.
If 9) is true, it follows then:
10) We once were not what we are today, either as a species or as a life form.
Having a human being as we know it today threatening The Creator, sounds like a joke from a Gary Larson cartoon. Having a higher life form, which does not resemble today's humans, threaten The Creator, is quite probable, though. So what exactly was the form we had when we disagreed with The Creator(s)?
I have no idea, really and this very fact, that we have no recollection of such existences, really either discredits 9), or perhaps shows that whatever it was we had attempted, must have been really nasty, since we today have no recollection of our previous powers.
A more probable scenario would be 5). If I ever was the ultimate Creator, I certainly would not be very happy knowing that I am the only being in existence, upon first thought. In such a case, I would have to design a carefully crafted container, which would support me for all eternity, keeping me from realizing my sad and tragic lonely fate. This would immediately necessitate the creation of an almost infinite (but closed upon itself) expanse (the Universe), to live in and various pawn creations which would serve to keep me distracted and entertained.
The predominant needs for such a "prison" of sorts,
would have to be:
11) The impossibility of escape. (Hence the universe
being closed upon itself).
12) The need to suppress my knowledge of conscious
self realization, of having been The Creator at some point in time.
11) leads immediately to:
13) The architecture of a super-complex universe, where the possibility of escape is zero, no matter what kind of knowledge I initially possessed or now possess.
This is essentially 5) and 7).
12) leads to:
14) The illusion of multiplicity.
Partially disassembling my initial existence into billions of smaller pieces and other human beings and animals, I would need thousands of lifetimes to figure out that I am basically alone, since billions of other beings would continuously keep me distracted. Perhaps it's better to not be a God and have company, than to be God and be absolutely lonely.
13) is a consequence of the employment of the five senses in an animal. This works fine so far. The universe does appear to be infinitely vast and our brains which interpret the five senses, cannot really fathom its size or find a means to transcend it.
However, 14) eventually fails miserably. I think this was the most predominant flaw in our existence and creation as a human species. Human beings are basically ALONE. No matter how sociable, how interacting and how well-behaved a human being is, the actual organism is completely isolated from the other human beings, save the sharing of a handful of experiences relating mostly to the five senses.
I see the color "red", but how do I know somebody else experiences it exactly the same way I do? I don't. I can never know. If I ever was The Creator, this could be a direct consequence of 12). I could have MADE a plethora of other existences to either "agree" or disagree (seemingly randomly) with me within the consensus of sensory experience, so I could never tell if I was right or not.
Can I ever know how somebody else really feels? No. Never. All I know is what's inside me. The "I". The "Ego". Society conditions us to learn to "share" experiences, but upon a closer inspection, what does this really mean, apart from being a sort of consensus of "sensory agreement" to retain the very basics of "experience sharing"?
If I ever get reborn as a baby, I need to have someone teach me what it means to "see" red. If nobody exists, i.e. if 14) fails, then I would become again self-conscious and would have failed 12). It's a vicious circle, particularly in view of recent ideas that have been exposed to the public, with films such as The Matrix.
11) and 12) seem to have succeeded, but 14) therefore has failed miserably. The illusion of multiplicity, gradually dissipates, as I acquire more and more knowledge. Not only me, everyone else. I KNOW I am alone. I can't possibly know that YOU know it, but I know it for myself.
Since 14) has failed, the culprit lies elsewhere. I would surmise then, that 5) is probably false. But if 5) is false, we are left with 1)-4) and 6) and we are forced therefore to go back to 2)-3) and 6), validating perhaps 7), which means that we are indeed imprisoned.
What was it that imprisoned us? I don't know. However if 7) is true and we are indeed inside a custom prison, there definitely MUST be a reason.
Various other sub-possibilities come to mind here. 2) 3) and 6) can lead to:
15) We were seeded by higher life forms, who may
have had specific agendas in mind.
16) We have been created by alien herders to
exist solely as miners, slaves, workers or "food".
15) is not very improbable, but alone, (without 16) doesn't make much sense. Why would one, and much less an entire race of advanced species genetically engineer human life forms, unless they had some agenda (obscure or not) in mind?
I certainly am not inclined to believe that such an advanced alien race seeded us out of kindness or benevolence. The way I understand what a "benevolent creator" is, such a creator would certainly be proud of his creation(s) and would like to interact with it(them) often. I know that when I buy a pet, I want to love it, pet it, play with it, cuddle along with it and otherwise take care of it. I love my pet and I show it, to the pet itself and to my companions.
There is no evidence that if there was a creator race that seeded us, this race has any interest in us, apart from sporadic reports of various lunatics who claim to have experienced strange encounters and have reported otherwise strange events. Most of these reports, religious or not , certainly do not show any kind of benevolence or kindness towards the victims. (Who usually proclaim that they are abductees).
Thus, 15) minus an agenda, sounds completely implausible, UNLESS 2) is true. In such a case, either The Creator(s) is (are) planning an eventual return to reap the results of its (their) engineering, or:
17) The Creator race that seeded us, was ousted by force from this planet, for some reason.
17) Is very strange, given our current sociological state of affairs. We are quite advanced, but I don't believe we are advanced enough to forcibly oust a superior race who had knowledge of genetic engineering technology sufficient for our creation as a species. Note that if this had happened, it would have to have happened in the very long past, when (according to our history) we were not even advanced enough.
To conclude: IF there was a creator race that seeded us, then either this race left by choice or was ousted by force. If it left by choice, chances are that 16) is false. If it was ousted and 16) is true, we must have had help from somewhere. From where?
I have no idea. But one thing is certain: Even if we had help from some other race, that other race is nowhere to be found as well.
Personally, I cannot make sense of anything. After 30 years of deep study of metaphysics and various religious doctrines, I can testify with certainty that I now know nothing about any of this. I am not sure whether any of the above is true. I am not sure about even what "truth" is anymore. I have no idea whether there is an afterlife, no idea whether God exists, and worst of all, I have no idea what the hell I am doing here.
The later, produces the worst feeling of all in the noble mind. It is, in a sense, the worst kind of existential void one can ever experience. We are being thrown inside a certain environmental container and we are asked to continue living without any data whatsoever. (Except scientific data, which we gather with blood and sweat). This is like picking a person who doesn't know how to swim and throwing him into the sea, where he has to eventually learn to swim, otherwise he drowns.
As such, human life is the worst tragedy there is, because of the curse to NOT KNOW. We like to KNOW things. I derive pleasure from knowing and understanding how things work. Yet, when one reaches the summits of knowledge, the very knowledge that appears to be relevant to the issue of existence and the final concluding remarks about this issue are taken away from one.
Essentially we don't know anything, save that the container we live in, operates using strict scientific laws. If we are to have any hope of ever understanding the container, we must understand science. But science is hard and not everyone is prone to studying/understanding it. Therefore the greatest percentage of human beings, live in total ignorance.
I sincerely believe that this ignorance is terminal. Neither has science been able to correct the various shortcomings of our society. Things are made worse by greed, money, violence, unkindness, politics, corrupt leaders, the destruction of the environment and the general upheaval that follows human society throughout its history.
I tend to believe that WE are (metaphorically) what Christianity calls "The Fallen Angels". For whatever reason, we are to be found inside an almost infinite prison, with no chance of ever escaping (at least while alive).
I honestly cannot see a solution to the philosophical problem of existence. In my eyes, existence probably has the same net worth as non-existence. "Nothing" becomes "something" and vice versa. The distinction is always subjective and probably illusionary.
If you insist on asking me what are my final
concluding
remarks, I'd say 7) is highly likely. This I am almost
certain about.
Anything
else, I am not sure.
The mind is man's most precious commodity. It can be used to understand
its surroundings as well as itself to the extent that the self allows.
The primary characteristic of the mind is that it is infinite. It
cannot be bound by any finite domain and it always has a desire to
grow, so like most things in life, it is greedy. Yet, contrary to
material greed which always causes problems when expanding
uncontrollably, the mind may be allowed to be greedy, for its
greediness poses no threat to other individuals or itself, when
expanded appropriately.
Greediness here can be defined explicitly: No matter how much
knowledge you give the mind, it will always ask for more. In a sense
this is good, because knowledge is never enough in this universe. There
are millions of domains where the mind may engage its greediness and
once it does, it becomes addicted.
This kind of addiction (related to knowledge) is in fact a very sure
sign of healthiness, contrary to any physical addiction, which is
always damaging. It is primarily related to the mind's need to keep
itself occupied in the physical domain, as long as possible.
Once the mind experiences the fruits of further and further knowledge,
it can keep itself occupied with newly found knowledge for a lifetime.
This is a trait which is ultimately related to constructive
creativity.
Specifically, constructive creativity is the mind's desire to express
itself in any domain of newly found knowledge.
Such a mind first processes the available information and then proceeds
in an attempt to expand the information, which in turn causes the
expansion of the mind itself.
Although there are many avenues which allow for the mind to expand
thus, there are also ways to expand the mind in unhealthy ways. These
are related mostly to artificial expansions, which are mainly the
results of hard drug usage.
It can be argued for example that certain hallucinogens cause the mind
to expand, but in ways which are not easily dealt with. Such artificial
expansions almost always distort the mind and cause unwanted side
effects: The mind may simply not be prepared for such expansions and
may react violently causing damage to the perceiver. Also, in these
cases usually the mind acts as a passive observer rather than an active
contributor, which is, in and of itself void of any substantial
content. Anybody can be a passive observer. Few can be contributors.
This mind suspects that the mind's natural greediness for knowledge
results from a fundamental need of the mind to understand itself as
well as simple pleasure. Minds which have been conditioned to question
their surroundings usually fall in this category. Minds which have been
damaged by abuse, rarely have such a need and usually become content
with whatever stale knowledge they have been fed with.
The above cannot be stressed enough: Most minds in our society are
damaged. The reason is quite simple. Parents abuse their children
either physically or psychologically, so the mind learns to stay within
certain boundaries in order to protect itself from further abuse and to
avoid remembering past issues. When it manages to escape the prison of
abuse, the mind resembles a curious child, making small, simple moves
outwards, to discover what lies outside its own artificially created
boundaries.
This process can take years until the mind learns to become greedy and
healthy, again. Most minds in our society are simply concerned with
trivial things, such as making it financially or taking care of their
basic survival needs. Such minds are completely oblivious to further
expansion, because triteness and triviality have taken a toll: The mind
learns to be satisfied with its smallness.
Society breeds such minds at exponential rates. The few exceptions that
show up usually get absorbed by the rest in an effort to appear
conformist. If and when bright minds manage to escape triteness and
triviality they find that they have to confront a society that's made
for trite minds. That usually results in a disaster for the bright
mind, which in the best possible case is labelled "eccentric", in the
worse "maladjusted".
In general, I can say with certainty that after almost 40 years of existence, my dislike and disgust for human society and its people has increased exponentially.
The above is not a simple blanket statement. It is founded upon a very careful examination of all the relevant issues (philosophical, theological, societal, financial, anthropological etc.) and upon extensive experience which relates to various cultures.
I believe the following premise to be true:
1) Human beings are INHERENTLY evil.
1) is based on inspecting how my own mind works, as well as how random people behave or how famous people have behaved throughout history. It has nothing to do with various religious doctrines that make similar claims.
People's activities nowadays revolve around money. The power that money should exert on a random human being should vary proportionally to their need for the acquisition of something "useful". That would be okay, since then there would be only a uniform distribution of like/dislike of money. Unfortunately western society has become the dominant player in this world and as such it has imposed an exaggerated need for money and acquisition of goods in our minds (at least to those that have had a western education, anyway), which unless is controlled by a nobler mind, it can completely destroy an individual, by causing an infinite obsession with it to the point of insanity.
The destruction has multiple sides: Given that more money cultivates greed and more needs, it produces a never ending cycle of more greed and usually some sort of violence, which goes along with it. The following premise appears to be true:
2) Acquisition of large amounts of money is impossible without SOME form of violence.
The violence in 2) can be physical (expulsion of natives from their land, like native indians, slavery of blacks, wars to gain territory, etc.) as well as mental, spiritual or emotional. (Christianization of peoples, the sell-out of education and knowledge which forces science to obey money, various indoctrinations of sorts, brainwashing from the media which forcibly increases the need for acquisition of useless goods, brainwashing from various religious schemes which claim authority on various existential issues and in general the eventual subordination and slavery of everything to money, which forces even noble minds to participate in this precarious scheme).
Given that most of today's citizens are forced to make it financially inside the country they reside one way or another and survive under whatever circumstances are present by becoming a "good consumer", (usually with a house, a dog, a couple of kids, a good job and an expensive car), most such citizens turn into brainwashed consuming machines, with ever increasing needs, who will sidestep most everything else in order to participate in the creation of what society has labelled as a "successful" human being. Much more so for business men, presidents, country leaders and religious leaders.
All the later are the filth of this planet. The eternal filth which has been imposed upon the lay man, the "sheep" as they call them, who follow and obey their orders without ever complaining (or complain usually ineffectively). Of course, this infestation of filth is partially the fault of The People. If The People were any better, their leaders would be good too. Unfortunately, it's precicely because The People are inherently bad (as in bad quality), that they elect the kind of filth that you see in most of the important electoral positions.
In a sense, the evil of the rulers, is just punishment for the inherent evilness and bad/low quality of The People. Unfortunately, it takes a very long education to transform a human being from an insensitive brute to a noble mind and such education costs money. Since money is largely scarce, the brute is usually denied the privilege, as a result (and because he/she doesn't know any better) propagates his/her own genes, producing more stupidity and bad quality. It is again a vicious circle, perpetrated by the rulers, who having recognized the futility of human existence, must have a way to control the brutes en-masse, so that they can retain their authority. The way to do that, is to keep The People uneducated.
It appears as though the following premise is also true:
3) Irresponsible Consciousness produces filth.
No animal can be found that does not live in peace with its surroundings. From the lion to the cockroach, all have a useful purpose to perform. The interesting thing is that they perform their tasks without ever complaining or turning against other life forms, unless they have a need to satisfy their hunger, which is of course excusable.
Human beings on the other hand interfere with everything and whenever and wherever they involve themselves, usually oblivion follows (local and/or global). They destroy the environment, torture and kill animals for no serious reason (sometimes they call it "medical research", other times production of cosmetics and consumer goods such as fur, or, the worse of all, which they call hunting), and in general have a tendency to seriously disturb the very fine balance of life's ecosystem on this planet.
Acquisition of land has become a high priority. In order to do that, thousands of acres of trees have to give way to bulldozers and cranes, with skyscrapers and ugly houses substituting those areas.
The sheer fact that such practices continue (and will probably continue long after anybody's death), indicates a much deeper problem, which probably sits at the very soul of human existence. But what is it that sits at a human being's soul, but its consciousness? Therefore, consciousness MUST be the culprit, reinforcing 3).
I believe that a human being will, (in general) acquire an overall face shape which will be proportional in ugliness to its intentions. And by "ugliness" I certainly don't mean physical ugliness. You can have a physically ugly person who can be very lovable and vice versa: A physically attractive person who reeks of evil and bad intentions. This kind of ugliness, which is somewhat intangible, (and which I am speaking of), is like an identity signature for all of us. Like our fingerprints, although recognizing a person's intentions probably has to do more with instinct than with their physical appearance, in a way.
When I get out of my house, I am bombarded by
ugly faces. By faces which
hate, which look at you as if you are filth, which are contorted and
distorted
from a wounded inner world, which are just sick and tired of
everything.
Faces which reek of ugliness. Occasionally, a gentle and noble face
emerges.
But such events are rare.
Most of us, in order to survive in this society, will have to perform some kind of job, in order to have an income and this is one of the most demanding tasks for the nobler mind, for one has to train oneself to eventually become oblivious to The People's internal ugliness. Particularly when the noble mind has to interact with bosses, employees and coworkers who are determined to step over dead bodies in order to succeed, because they have been conditioned by society to transform into "successful" and "productive" human beings.
This sort of interaction, I find disgusting and I personally try to avoid it as much as I can. I would prefer, for example, a lower paying job, where I can have free time to do as I please and produce what I consider worthwhile, than a job in some fortune 500 company, where they'd pay me huge amounts of money in exchange for 12 out of my day's 24 hours, performing some sort of mundane and stupid task.
Many people seem to think that a career with a fortune 500 company really determines who they are in a tangible way, whereas in all reality, what they don't realize, is that they are, for all practical purposes, highly paid slaves.
In exchange for their freedom they get paid well. The signs of the good slave:
1) Loves money
2) Wears suit and tie on the job
3) Owns expensive car
4) Owns (or is in the process of owning) expensive house
5) Performs mundane or otherwise boring/uninteresting tasks for
somebody
else
6) Most of the time, actually hates those very tasks.
You can recognize a slave, when one confides in you (usually on Friday/Saturday night), that one really hates every single moment of his job, giving special emphasis on how one hates going to work on Monday morning.
Perhaps the most important trait of the good slave is one's existential void. Everyday triviality, unimportance and routine, usually cause the slave to cease thinking freely and fall into a sort of eternal mental slumber. The slave's consciousness, then, has been conquered. Often, a consequence of this, is a psychological void, as well. Psychology and psychoanalysis usually thrive in countries and places where good slaves abound.
Society needs good slaves. Always did, always will. One only needs to take a quick look at the Sunday paper to see the numerous adds from big companies, offering such and such benefits in exchange for such and such a mundane task. Some employers go so far as to have the nerve to not even offer a decent salary to a good slave. In such a case, the intensity of slavery doubles, because the particular person who will get the job, surely cannot even feel dignified.
What most people don't realize, is that the very need for slaves from big corporations or companies, usually declares a very simple fact: That somebody else, who occupied this very position, long time ago, woke up (perhaps because one's dignity was trampled, perhaps because one realized that one was a double or triple slave, or perhaps because of some other reason) and either resigned or caused his/her ejection from this company. Therefore:
7) For every "wanted" add in the Sunday paper, somebody else tried it and at some point in time realized that he/she "had been had".
Which naturally leads to the next premise:
8) The chances of the noble mind finding a decent/likeable job from a Sunday paper ad, are virtually nil.
Particularly also because the nobler mind has a very clear idea of what one likes to do. Unfortunately, those of us who know what they like are not always lucky enough to work on the subject of our likes. Being able to work on a job that one likes to do and making good money from it, presupposes at least some partial self realization and usually this realization comes around the age of 35-40.
This realization should ideally come around 18-20, so the prospective employee can at least have a remote chance of finding some suitable job. Of course, at this age, most of the people are not even aware of what it means "to like" something, much less can they choose their future course correctly/successfully. This problem has the following consequence:
9) The greatest percentage of all working people, dislike/hate their job
9) Is of course understandable, given 1-6) and 8).
What is particularly interesting, is that
countries which people consider
"advanced" (like the US or Japan) have the highest percentage of good
slaves.
In most of these countries, psychoanalysis really thrives, yet internal
ugliness increases. (Or, when it does not increase, one gets strange
syndromes
which include symptoms such as unexplained heart attacks, death or
premature
mental/bodily deterioration).
On Cars and on Car and Oil Companies
Accordingly, I find most such companies mundane and stupid. From large computer and oil corporations, to companies that produce most consumer goods, from clothes to shoes and cars.
I particularly abhor cars. I have never owned one, neither will I ever own one in the future. One quick look at the Monday's rush hour, at 9 am, is enough to convince the noble mind that cars and car and oil companies are a pestering curse in our society.
Unfortunately, the "advanced" western style of living has imposed on us the acquisition of cars and in most cases one can judge the financial state of the owner by the type of car one owns.
During the older times, people wore feathers, jewelry and ornaments to declare their status. Then, it worked, because real authority was intricately tied with the owner of such objects in a quiet and effective way. Today, one declares one's status, by owning an expensive car.
To the naive mind, an expensive Mercedes 600 SEC, really declares premises 1)-6) in the previous section. To the noble mind, in addition to 1)-6) of the previous section, it declares:
1) The owner must have been a very good slave throughout his career, to have been rewarded with a Mercedes.
1) holds true whether the owner is younger or older. If one is older, 1) can be interpreted literally. If one is younger, it can be interpreted as the owner having engaged in some extremely passive or consonant behavior as a child for one's dad to reward one with such a car.
In either case, the owner is a slave. In multiple ways: In both cases somebody will become very angry if that Mercedes is damaged or crashed. If the owner is older, chances are one has wasted one's life having been a slave. If one is younger, chances are one is the offspring of stupidity and slavery that is directly analogous to that of the offspring's parents. In other words: Like father like son.
On the other hand, cars use gasoline and all the problems associated with their emissions are starting just now to become obvious. The greenhouse effect is slowly progressing and Earth huffs and pants trying to catch up with all the oil related emissions. Various environmental organizations have realized the danger and are just now starting to raise signs of caution. Of course, Oil and Car companies are oblivious to all that.
Every year we get bombarded with new adds about new models and makes, although the technology to produce viable electric cars without harmful emissions has existed since 1950. The Car companies know this, but naturally, they don't care. Who on Earth will want to buy a car running on batteries? Well, I for one, would.
But of course, my opinion doesn't matter much,
cause I am not a sheep.
And non-sheep need to be silenced.
Money is simple. Like people have always said:
1) Money is a necessary evil
Money can be either an attractive fixed obsession or a repulsive fixed
point, depending on character and experience. We all need it to
function in society, but for some of us our destiny is to never have
lots of it. On the other hand, for some people, fate has decided that
they deserve oodles of it as a birthright.
The precise details as of WHY money becomes an attractive fixed
obsession, escape this author as of this writing. The closest
explanation he can come up with, is because it appears to offer some
intangible form of security: People with lots of money, attract
interested parties and perhaps this (concealed) interest gives the rich
person a false sense of security.
The question that rears its head is, is this security REALLY false? It
is a given that the way things have progressed in this planet, nobody
cares about anybody. So perhaps, this sense of security that comes from
money gives us some sort of false hope over how things COULD have been,
had they been otherwise. This holds true particularly of old people, of
whom nobody expects anything EXCEPT their money. Usually, when rich old
people are near their death, otherwise uninterested and unknown
relatives show up. The motives of such people are clear: They want to
"inherit" the sense of security from the rich person.
In other words:
2) Money is the closest thing to SECURITY in our society
however one interprets the word "security". One may want to interpret
it as "emotional" security, another as "financial" security, a third as
"existential" security. Being the token than can buy anything, it can
also "buy" in a tangential sense things which many of us lack. For some
people it can perhaps buy love, for others it can perhaps buy company
or something to keep them distracted, while their mind forces them to
face the existential void.
The problem with money is that it can also be an "unstable" fixed
point. A rich person can lose all his property in one night of unlucky
gambling and a poor person can win the lotto in one lucky streak. As
such, the two camps of rich and poor people, continuously exchange
members, as if trying to share experiences.
This Mind has found the two following premises true:
3) Rich people attract rich people and more money
4) Poor people attract poor people and more misery
It is the author's sincere belief that 3) and 4) are fundamental laws
in our society, in order to force the two factions (of rich and poor)
to expose themselves better and thus become more "visible" to the rest
of the players, whose fate applies 3) and 4).
A poor self-conscious scientist, for example, would have zero chances
coupling with a rich woman, simply because they have different agendas
in life. The notion of "entertainment" for both of them, is very
different, (being a function of money) as such their interests will
surely collide sooner or later at some point in the future.
In general, people with lots of money seem to want to lead lives which
depend on spending vast amounts of it for extravagant entertainment,
whereas a poor person may count his daily income in order to secure a
roof above one's head. As such, couplings of people who belong to those
two different camps, are bound to fail.
Let us continue with the next important premise:
5) Money is power.
Ever since money's inception, society has been divided into the camps
of the poor and the rich. The game of money acquisition, has become a
key element in evolution. Whereas in the animal kingdom "power" is
defined solely on "good genes", in human societies there has been a
second factor: Money. A person with bad genes may PAY now to have his
genes propagated, so the game has been effectively shifted from a
paradigm of "good genes" to a paradigm of those with money and those
without it. As such, "goodness" or "suitability" of genes, however one
has defined them, have lost their importance.
The key issue today, is WHO HAS THE MONEY. He who does, wins. At least
insofar as the new game rules are concerned. People with noble ideas
about anything else, including science, philosophy or whatever else,
will eventually learn that all is subservient to money sooner or later.
If science itself is, which is the most powerful creation of ours as a
species, it follows that everything else WILL be, eventually. So, it
follows therefore, that:
6) Money is freedom
It is freedom for one to do as one pleases, to not work as a slave in
various jobs and to acquire anything one needs. It is freedom to engage
in anything one wants without being sidetracked by the artificial
"needs" of society. These needs, which have been outlined elsewhere,
have been created BY those with money FOR those without money, so that
the former can become richer.
Our entire history has been a war between those with money (and thus
power) and those without it. As a result, please don't hold any absurd
hopes that one day Earth will be a paradise-like camp where all will
live in harmony. This is by definition impossible. Actually it will be
MADE impossible by those with money. Otherwise, they have gained
nothing through their painful toil of acquisition of large sums of it.
When one is free, one needs to invent a purpose. What better purpose
therefore than to create a battlefield of two factions, those who make
it well versus those who starve to death? Doesn't that give life some
tangible meaning? Granted, one may find meaning in engaging in sofa
making for a living, but unless this endeavor brings in some good money
and the laborer starves in the process, any sensible person would
"discard" this endeavor as "meaningful". We arrive therefore at another
crucial premise:
7) For most people, money gives their lives, meaning.
The more money, the better. When one has money, one can invent all
sorts of new games for the poor, like keep them busy with all sorts of
nonsense and mundane tasks. It takes a big man to have money. It takes
a big man to keep the sheep busy and "involved" all the time, and imply
that life is serious. It takes a big man to be the rich head of a
company. He/She must really be a professional CON MAN/WOMAN and
professional LIAR.
That's the way things are. If, dear reader you find yourself being
poor, don't worry. You and the rich man will still be buried 4 feet
under the very same ground one day. Of course, the difference is that
you earn your bread with the sweat of your head, whereas the rich man has gone
through his life not caring about anything. One of my older landlords, a Greek-American with extensive experience in life, summed it all up into a nice motto:
Life is like a cucumber:
Some who eat it, get refreshed,
others "eat" it, and get "stretched".
Life isn't always fair, is it,
now? Whoever said that it would be? That's why it's important to always
be grateful for what you've got. Others don't have
even that.
Survival in the animal kingdom is defined in terms of an animal's
ability to procreate and replicate its genes. While this works well for
animals, for humans the situation is much too complex to warrant
success with the application of just this rule. Examples abound: The
ignorant, uneducated and the poor, all apply this methodology in order
to "show" perhaps nature perhaps fellow humans, that their genes
are worth remembering. As a result, overpopulation in poor countries
occurs easily.
One can see why this definition of "survival" is plain wrong, when
applied to humans: The introduction of "intelligence" (however one
wants to define it), imposes additional restrictions on who's a
survivor and who's not. For example, who is a "better" survivor?
A poor Indonesian native who has 10 kids or a L.V.Beethoven who left a
tremendous artistic inheritance to humanity and had no kids?
After a couple of generations nobody will remember the Indonesian
peasant, while Beethoven may still be remembered after 100 generations
or even for as long as humanity exists.
The apparent contradiction stems from the misapplication of the
previous definition of "survival" to human beings. The difference
between humans and animals is that for human beings a new consensus
exists, called "collective human consciousness", which somehow acts as
a filtering valve, deciding who "survives" in a totally "new" niche,
which isn't necessarily carnal, rather mental.
This new niche, picks up a great artist's/scientist's works and
although the artist/scientist may have had no kids, feeds them to new
generations via schooling or education. As a result, the person's works
(and thus part of his/her mindset) survive THROUGH the minds of his/her
artistic/intellectual disciples.
The above is a new survival mechanism, which isn't found in animals.
Religions for example, often commemorate "great" men/women, in an
effort to "sustain" their authority in our mental space as long as
possible. Efforts to this extent can be found even in simple memorials
of people who have died. ("May his/her memory last FOREVER", etc).
The imposition of a dead person's (famous or not) memory into our
mental space is simple and direct proof that this kind of procedure is
more efficient as a "survival mechanism" than the simple gene
propagation scenario. Johann Sebastian Bach for example, had 21 kids
total, of which 6 or 7 survived and left descendants. There are even
some of his descendants in existence today, but who is it we remember
Bach THROUGH today, as a "collective consciousness"? Through his real
descendants or through his works? Through his works of course. His
actual descendants, whoever they are, bare little or no relevance to
his works. In a sense, Bach or Beethoven, have achieved "immortality".
Therefore, although dead, they have tangentially "won" in the game of
"survival", at least in the Earth plateau.
The above is simple and direct "proof" that "surviving means having
kids" is as absurd as it can get. A further reason why this (default)
strategy is almost completely useless, is because although when one has
descendants half of his genes "survive" through the offspring in one
generation, the survival of the genes, does not guarantee the
"survival" of the original "consciousness". You can try the following
little gedanken experiment: For example, my father is dead and he was a
great man, so what is it that has "survived" in me BY my father? The
first thing I am certain about, is that I am NOT my father. The way I
remember him, we had different likes/dislikes, we liked different
foods, we involved ourselves in different activities and although we
are biologically similar, we are not identical. There are certain
interests which we shared (he liked Mathematics and the music of Bach
for example), but otherwise I have no recollection of BEING my father.
Although we are very similar genewise, we have been two DISTINCT
consciousnesses/entities. So, what, (if anything) has "survived" in me,
through my father's genes? I'd say with certainty that the only thing
that I can safely identify as BEING my father IN me, is part of his
likes/dislikes. In other words, some of the things that I do, are the
only things that have continued in me, past my father's death bed. So,
in a sense, although part of the genotype seems to have passed along, I
PERCEIVE only of part of the phenotype as being the real survivor. Not
even the entire phenotype.
This is ok. In a sense, part of what was my dad, is now me, but in a
totally "external"/"tangential" sense. Part of the phenotype survived,
but not the IDENTITY, which is is what I consider the most important
trait that deserves to survive. Who cares if I like to listen to Bach's
music? Nobody. What would people care about would be having the great
man that my father was, PRESENT in a new incarnation, extending his
life a few years.
Let us summarize:
1) The IDENTITY of a person doesn't survive the person's death (in this
realm) through procreation.
Necessarily then, the act of "having kids" must serve some purpose
other than just the "survival" of the originator's genes, for we saw
that even in the best cases, the identity is not preserved. The only
logical conclusion that comes to mind is the simplest one:
2) Humans "must" have kids so that life (as a collective consciousness)
can continue.
Anything other than that, leads to various absurdities. It seems that
"having kids" serves a higher directive of life itself as a process,
and is not a tool to "preserve" individual consciousnesses. But if 1)
and 2) hold, what then is the difference between having/not having kids
on the level of individual choice? None. There is no difference
whatsoever. If the lame, the diseased, the weak, the impoverished, the
poor, and the stupid manage to have kids on one hand, and the
intelligent, the bright, the worthy, the great and the significant fail
to have kids at the same time on the other hand, the entire scheme is a
travesty.
It would be something if every individual's efforts were focused to
this extent, with having kids being the culmination of one's efforts in
great works, the arts, science and philosophy. In other words, it would
be indeed good if only the "worthy" were allowed to have kids on this
planet, however one chooses to define "worthy". In the absence of any
such definition or application thereof, and in the presence of all
sorts of extreme examples, such as murderers for example, being able to
procreate, the entire scheme is as ridiculous as anything can be. In
vew of the last paragraph, an old aphorism comes to mind:
3) (Human) Nature is a whore. And then you marry one.
On Compassion, Kindness and Traitors
The animal kingdom, although perfectly in balance with its environment, is dictated by brute force. Survival depends on the strength of the fittest and the entire process of all animal interacting life, is inexorable and relentless. The weak and the unable, very rarely survive and even more rarely propagate their genes.
Strangely, human beings, as much as they are capable of extreme evil, they do possess certain traits which tend to differentiate them from animals. At least the nobler ones. I really cannot stand to see any life form suffering. This trait of mine includes both animals and human beings. I would say that it probably applies more to animals than human beings, too.
It is one thing to kill a life form, forcing it to go through a brief moment of pain and permanently removing it from existence and another to partially maim one, leaving it alive, yet unable to function effectively. For better or for worse, killing a life form may be partly justified if the human's need to be satisfied is one of a fundamental survival kind, such as hunger and/or clothing.
Such cases, although justified, have eluded the ethics of society till today, to the point of many becoming, for example, vegetarians. Of course, being a vegetarian causes equal damage in the noble mind, simply because the sanctity of life knows no artificial boundaries, such as those between animal and plant. The noble mind considers all life equally valuable, sanctified and sacred, so to the rational mind there is no guarantee that killing a plant causes less pain than killing a farm animal.
As all life is sacred by definition, torturing a life form, whether human or animal is ethically unacceptable. There is no real justification behind this, apart from some sort of basic instinct that the noble mind experiences. This mind, feels a need to protect and nurture a wounded life form, even resurrect it (if one could).
Eventually the noble mind "learns" to feel pain and compassion, upon seeing a wounded life form. The pain is identical for an ant, a ladybug, a cockroach, an elephant or a human being. I am not really sure why this happens, but perhaps it is the result of the noble mind having suffered itself to some extent.
If this is the case, then it follows that:
1) If one has suffered, then one can feel compassion.
It appears as though the more one has suffered, the more compassion one can feel, although I am not sure the opposite holds. That is:
2) If one hasn't suffered at all, then one cannot feel any compassion.
In fact, 2) may be false, although as I have indicated elsewhere, only personal experience counts in this case, since one cannot really be sure of how much suffering someone else has gone through.
Is 1) valid for animals? I don't know, but it would appear as though compassion doesn't play a major role in the animal kingdom. Perhaps for a reason. Perhaps compassion is a trait that presupposes the existence of consciousness. On the other hand, "consciousness" here, needs to be defined better. How does one know that animal and plant life forms don't have some sort of elementary "consciousness"? Well, whatever they possess, they seem to be unaware of death, so perhaps their general lack of compassion stems from this very fact. So perhaps:
3) Compassion presupposes understanding of the notion of death
In other words:
3) I UNDERSTAND what it means to die, THEREFORE I am compassionate
It follows immediately then, that:
4) People with no compassion for life forms, have no clear understanding of what it means to die
Therefore, it appears as though the following is true:
5) I have suffered and I have a pretty good understanding of what it means to die, that's why I am compassionate
It would appear as if 5) is an attempt by the noble mind to minimize suffering. Yet if suffering is minimized, much less if it's eliminated we get 2), which implies 4), so we again have a vicious circle of sorts.
If one manages to eliminate all suffering from someone else then, does one help that someone to become insensitive? If that's the case, it really makes no sense to be compassionate. If everyone was compassionate, all suffering would be eliminated, which would imply a virtual transformation of all new generations into insensitive brutes. The old generations (the compassionate ones) would still be in existence for a while, but they would eventually die off, leaving society in a state of insensitivity. So what's really going on?
5) appears to work because it also makes the ego feel good and that's probably the true reason, as it is the true reason behind good behavior, in general. In other words, the noble mind develops a feedback reward mechanism using compassion and kindness. Being kind and compassionate makes the ego "feel good", so in a sense, compassion and kindness are probably related to some sort of conditioned stimulus-response mechanism. To the noble mind, it appears as though the following is true:
6) The resultant feelings from being kind and compassionate are "better" than the resultant feelings from being insensitive and noncaring
It is strange that although 6) appears to have some good validity, society pushes us towards the opposite direction with a fervor. The very process of trying to survive under today's adverse circumstances, presupposes one's conditioning to good doses of insensitivity. Particularly sensitive human beings are often labelled "problematic" and often are attached a plethora of characterizations which psychological nomenclature often labels as "psychoses".
Such humans, often are dysfunctional and are ostracized from normal society, either directly or indirectly. Very sensitive people who have been through very intense emotional cycles and times, recognizing the stupidity and silliness of the entire game, often have severe problems "adjusting" to what the brute considers a "normal" job. Extreme sensitivity usually implies mental breakdowns and side or occasional hospitalization. Such people, naturally, can have no decent chance to advance through a "career", because of obvious reasons.
The following dilemma rears its ugly head: Either learn to be an insensitive brute and survive or stay sensitive and become maladjusted to the whole thing.
Nature and society push towards brutality and insensitivity. The noble mind feels overwhelmed by feelings of kindness and sensitivity. Therefore:
7) The noble mind is, usually, maladjusted and often "dysfunctional"
What's also quite paradoxical, is that education, in some of its "ideal" forms at least (however many of these have survived anyway, like religion, philosophy, arts and sciences), makes an honest attempt to teach new generations the fruits of nobility. In most cases where and when this is achieved, the mind (which is ready to transform into a noble one) faces a grand contradiction: To be sensitive and kind and be publicly ousted or to be insensitive, a brute and survive. The later leads to a grand dichotomy, which results in what I call "the traitors" (the brutes) and the noble ones.
The traitors, who are those that have seen the fruit of nobility but have reconditioned themselves to become brutes in order to survive, are the worst kind.
These are the presidents, the CEO's, the religious leaders, the country leaders and the ministers of society's public affairs. They are "the filth" I spoke of, elsewhere.
The noble ones, who are those that have seen the fruit of nobility and have fallen in love with its higher ideals, ignoring the viciousness of society and the relentlessness of the system (as a result of which they usually have been directly or indirectly ousted from it), are the ones that are responsible for all the real "progress" of human beings as a species.
Usually the later avoid public positions like the plague. Simply because occupying such positions is highly contradictory to their ideas and ideals, given that those very positions presuppose a high dose of corruption and irresponsible behavior. Therefore:
8) The nobler minds NEVER occupy higher public positions
Slightly differently put:
8) The chances of finding a nobler mind occupying a higher public position, are virtually nil
The noble mind will retract itself from the system and work on its own agendas. Usually quietly and continuously, but not always effectively. Progress is slow and painful. The system has almost infinite inertia, which unless directly opposed by the noble mind, (consciously every single day) will trample the noble mind in a moment's notice.
This very inertia is often responsible for bouts of discouragement and depression. Although depression in official psychological nomenclature results from a chemical imbalance, many forms of it are triggered from this very contradiction that the noble mind faces. Namely: How LONG should one continue to fight the system in order to achieve minimal progress? The last question can very easily transform the noble mind into a raging psychotic. Oftentimes the result is a sensitive dysfunctional schizophrenic.
In order to avoid becoming a schizophrenic, the nobler mind has to have tremendous reserves of love for what it does, for all life, for the very progress of society, in general. It is expected therefore that such minds should rely on some sort of higher force to sustain their efforts for betterment, because relying on human help and kindness is futile and useless.
No wonder then some of the nobler minds are obsessed with religion and philosophy. It would be nice to have some serious external help in our efforts, unfortunately such help is not always available. Whenever this kind of help was available (usually through higher faith), the results were miraculous.
Without such help, the results are usually disastrous:
9) The nobler mind is usually psychotic, often
depressed and schizoid
On Religion, Death and the Afterlife
The following premise appears to be true:
1) Man is the only animal that has an understanding of its own eventual termination
1) has caused an avalanche of religious leaders and doctrines throughout history trying to remedy the problem. The most common premise which (at least the major 5) religions claim to be true, is:
2) Life continues after death
For the noble mind there exists a dichotomy which continuously pulls one in two opposite directions: The nobility of some of the religious creators, which implies that their doctrines (and particular 2) may be true, and rationalistic thought which testifies that 2) is false.
Reason points towards termination, i.e. non-existence. Love for all things and life in general, points towards the infinitely good, which perhaps can entertain some hope of eternal sustenance. As such, the noble mind continuously alternates between "spiritual death" and "spiritual life".
There is evidence for both sides: The amount of people who are religious exceed by far the number of people who are atheists, yet the former seem to be characterized either as "uneducated" or as "primitive". On the other hand, reason offers no evidence for the existence of an afterlife. There appears to be a contradiction here and reason cannot easily resolve it, simply because the number of theists is overwhelming.
The natural tendency of life is to want to preserve itself, indefinitely. Perhaps the former is the cause of some sort of mass delusion, which can spread from mind to mind and which starts out from one particular person, who, from all appearances, seems to have good intentions in general. However, good intentions are not enough. Reason demands proof and proof does not exist. Those who have been convinced of the existence of an afterlife, call this evidence, "faith".
Faith, however, goes contrary to reason, so the noble mind must choose either one:
3) Believe in an afterlife through "faith", or
4) Trust reason and believe in permanent and irreversible termination
Faith and reason are incompatible, so the choice between 3) and 4) is exclusive for the noble mind. In general the noble mind has enough knowledge to trust reason, yet this very reason points towards the infinite and the divine, and the infinite can accommodate eternity (if it wants).
The noble mind is usually humble. Humility can easily reveal the infinite beauty of creation, as a result of which the infinite beauty of the particular can be easily recognized. It is quite difficult to put this into words: The noble mind recognizes something like a "potentiality" for infinite sustenance, yet one's own reason denies one the privilege of exploring this potentiality, i.e. offers one no tangible evidence. As a result, the noble mind can never be sure of which one (3) or 4)) is true.
Most times things are left at that and the noble mind becomes an agnostic, since an impasse is reached. This, oftentimes, is quite sufficient. Other times it's not and the noble mind continues to be overwhelmed by the question to the point of actual mental exhaustion.
In order to decide, the noble mind must first resolve WHAT is the need for it so that it can believe in an afterlife. Before this is cleared once and for all, the actual resolution to the question cannot be reached. Let's see, therefore, if we can proceed in this direction. The following premises are true:
5) Life has a desire to continue indefinitely
6) reason dictates (with evidence) that life terminates at some point
5) and 6) are again incompatible. Not only they are incompatible, but MUCH worse: A perfect understanding of both, implies a detrimental conclusion: EVERYTHING in one's life is futile. In other words, 5) and 6) imply:
7) Life is (eventually) futile for one
Conclusion 7) can be detrimental to the point of oblivion, if (and when) the mind is not prepared for it. If "the system" (the current consensus of knowledge) manages to convince the majority of human beings that 7) is true, the results in society will surely be detrimental. (If not oblivious). Human beings who have been (or are) suppressed and oppressed, will naturally demand a reasonable explanation for this behavior by their fellow humans. (In particular, by the "filth", spoken of, elsewhere). Such an explanation is possible, but not a very pleasant one. The true reason why such oppression has existed (or exists) has to do with personal motives, such as (usually) money gain and exploitation.
To summarize:
8) If 7) is revealed to the oppressed, the
oppressed will demand an
explanation
9) Since an explanation involves (almost always) some sort of
exploitation,
the oppressed will demand retribution
10) If the oppressed demand retribution, they will question authority
in the process of doing so
11) If they question authority, in the long run, the "filth" will lose
their advantage over them (and more importantly, their public
positions)
12) If the "filth" lose their public positions, one gets anarchy
But anarchy is not desirable, therefore:
7) must never be shown to be true to The People.
There are many ways to "protect" the naive mind from understanding 7). For example:
13) Propagate (silently or invisibly)
religious doctrines which contradict
7)
14) Keep the naive mind busy with worrying about inane details
15) Imply that life is serious (in whatever sense), etc.
There is a possibility that history itself shields the naive minds from 7), using occasional mind viruses, which continuously fight 7) in one's mind. It may be difficult to ascertain wherefrom such memes originate or have originated, but all evidence points towards the founders of the various religions. (It is clear for example, that Saul of Tarsus is responsible for the meme of Christianity, which causes severe schizophreniform behavior to naive minds. The purported Jesus Christ, Christianity speaks of, can be seen to have had little or nothing to do with the actual spreading of this religion.)
The interesting question now is: What was it that these religious founders had in mind? (Metaphorically AND literally)
What happened to Saul, for example, on his way to Damascus? What happened to Mohammed as a result of which they started preaching the Koran? Why were human beings prone to such mind infection? Note that such infections are not exclusive to any particular peoples. Ancient Hebrews, Greeks, Egyptians, Summerians, Chinese, Indians, etc., all have had some strange and ancient tradition to propagate. The phenomenon is universal.
There is a distinct possibility that "primitive" people, deified things they did not understand and some anthropologists are certain that their religions are the result of such mental distortions, aiming in protecting the naive mind from fear. The latter does not explain however WHY history keeps bringing up new religious meme infectors. One would think, for example, that as human beings become more reasonable and logical, the larger percentages of such infections would have been eliminated by now. Instead, there are billions of religious people. WHY?
Another interesting fact is that such beliefs are infectious, so they are indeed memes of some sort, trying to propagate through eternity, by using the human brain as a host. The logical mind therefore must conclude, that SOMETHING has been surviving in our minds for thousands of years, whose traces can be found today inside any religious person's mind. WHAT is this "thing"?
Let us label it "thing", because we can have no better handle to describe it. If the corresponding meme of faith has been so strong throughout history, surely, it must have originated from somewhere. Let's pick Saul's example:
16) Saul of Tarsus gets infected by the
"spirit" of Jesus, sometime
in the past (whatever this "spirit"-meme is/was)
17) Saul starts his travels and infects hundreds of unsuspecting people
18) As a result of this infection, today, we have approximately 4
billion
Christians
What's wrong with the above scenario? You tell me: Which one of the following appears true to you?
19) Saul got "infected" by something very-very
powerful, (which subsequently
directed Saul's efforts towards spreading it)
20) Saul was a very-very smart conster, consciously determined to
spread
a lie throughout the entire world
21) Saul was a schizophrenic with a delusional thinking which made
him THINK what he believed was true
As a result of one of 19)-21) today there are 4 billion infected people.
19)-21) are not exclusive. Two or more options
may have been true, simultaneously.
They are, however, extremely difficult to analyze, so the Noble Mind
stops
here. Judging from the way life works, (in general), it would appear as
though the most probable option was 20). For more thoughts on this
issue, consult the sections On Fraud and On Truth.
The safest position for the Noble Mind is the
agnostic
position, with an alternating tendency for that incomprehensible,
noble,
infinite
and supreme "essence", which internally directs all life,
(including
humans),
towards the unknown future, where nobody knows what awaits for us.
The Ancients had several words for love: Agape, Eros, Storge, Latreia, Pothos and Pathos. Agape is pure love, not necessarily sexually related. Eros is sexual love. Storge is what you feel for your mother or grandmother. Latreia is adoration for humans and possibly non-human subjects. Pothos is desire. Pathos is passion.
Modern man focuses on Eros and Pothos mostly. As such, there is a certain misunderstanding concerning these two: Most people consider victims of these two kinds, as being noble, whereas in all reality experiencing these is akin to being diseased.
Several modern stories have popularized and exalted Eros, the most notable being Romeo and Juliet. Truth is, unless this kind of love is reciprocated, it resembles the worst kind of torturous disease there is.
By definition, when one feels erotic love, one expects. What one expects depends on the person being loved and on what the one who loves has to offer in exchange for reciprocation. Expectation causes imbalance. A strong gradient gets created: A gradient of desire for acquisition and possession. A gradient of sexual pathos. The one who loves, desires to possess the subject of one's desire, so one can reap fruits (sexual or otherwise) that relate mostly to self-fulfillment.
If the person being loved responds and reciprocates, the gradient of desire that gets created from that person, naturally cancels the desire of the person who loves and thus, balance and equilibrium get restored. Then, both people usually delve into the realms of cupid and enjoy each other. This kind of situation usually excites both participants so much, that occasionally, both feel like their life has acquired some new, hidden meaning. The experience itself resembles being under the influence of a strong hallucinogenic drug, where everything is seen under a different perspective.
In all reality, this is actually a travesty. Where there exists no meaning in life, no meaning can exist while feeling euphoric, no matter what the source of euphoria is. Lazy, uneducated and hopeless brutes will only find that this feeling is transient. The existential voids that have been created by today's society cannot be cured this easily.
The difference here between the Noble mind and the brute, is that the brute considers erotic love to be a panacea, whereas for the Noble mind, erotic love (if and when it happens) complements one's appreciation for life, which preexists, prior to the emergence of this sort of thing.
As a result, whenever Cupid strikes the brute, even when it is reciprocated, it usually results in complete disaster after the good feelings eventually wither away.
All the above, when erotic love is reciprocated. When it's not, the progression of erotic love resembles the progression of a cancerous disease. The gradient that gets created (and is pointed towards the person who's being loved) eventually causes tremendous amounts of energy to be drawn away and expended from the poor subject who feels in love.
It is unfortunate that Nature has arranged for the greater percentage of us to experience this kind of unreciprocated erotic love. Perhaps there is a reason for this experience. In any case, the Noble mind considers this experience an anomaly. Once one has a stable, non self-centered psychology, the chances of experiencing this sort of nightmare diminish greatly.
For the Noble mind, the only kind of love that makes sense (if there is to be any), is pure Agape. Selfless pure feeling, without expectations. Once this kind of love settles in and gives the Noble mind a chance to express oneself similarly, sexual feelings can follow voluntarilly, wherever and whenever the situation calls for them.
Having someone to share life with is a wonderful thing, but it ain't worth it, if what the respective members feel lingers on the verge of insanity. And it will be so, if it's all based on sexual love or Eros.
On the contrary, building a relationship based on true love and respect, first, almost guarantees that the participants will be together for a long time.
As such, erotic love has no place with the Noble mind. The Noble ones may need to experience it in order to know what it is like, but once the effects of this disease are over, it has to be ousted completely out of their system and substituted with Agape.
The Noble mind likes to love and to be loved,
but also likes to be sane. And judging from their effects so far, all
other kinds of love (including sexual love) except Agape, eventually
bring about some sort of dementia.
Children are always unpretentious and always approach other children with a straight face and without any predispositions or assumptions. When a child wants to play with another child, the first child will approach the other child as a potential player without assuming in advance any positional advantages, seeing the other child only as a companion in playing. Then both players may agree on assuming appropriate game roles, but only after the game starts. The first child for example, may impersonate a military General and the second an Admiral so the game may take place.
Adults assume all kinds of things in advance. When an adult approaches another adult in order to interact with one in some meaningful way, the "lower ranking" adult, must always take several bows in front of the "higher ranking" adult, consciously or subconsciously. A soldier will salute vigorously a General for example, even though the deeper interaction between the two adults is not very different essentially from the interaction between the two children playing a game, as the two adults as people are equal.
There is a reason for the antithesis, above: The culprit is that the roles that we have been assigned by life, IN The Great Game Of Life, have been engraved so hard in our brains, that we have lost the true meaning of what it means "to play", even though everything in Life is but a game.
Some games are more brutal than others, some are more pleasant, some more satisfying and so on and so forth. Difficulties are part of The Game Of Life. So are good times and moments. Not coming to terms with the fact that Life is a wonderful, (albeit sometimes tragic and brutal) game, can easily result in losing the sense of what it means to participate in this game.
Once the sense of gaming is lost, roles and practices are taken for granted and various assumptions are made: An adult General of the army for example, expects inferiors (as well as lay people) to respect him and salute him, although his role is in essence a very specific gaming assumption. Expecting to be saluted and respected outside the particular environment this adult operates in (in this case: The Army), is highly ridiculous and lingers on the verge of being hilarious.
Similar things happen when other roles are exaggerated outside the environmental constraints inside which those roles have meaning. It is expected for example of lay people to show respect and "admiration" for the President of a certain country even outside the political confines of the President's job. So when the President walks on the street, the lay people usually cheer in excitement showing their respect. This is similar to an adult showing respect to another adult, just because the second adult wears a big and fancy hat.
In fact, the very frivolity of the situation is reflected perfectly with religious and military officials: They will, almost always wear some sort of fancy costume and hat, to "remind" the lay person (you and me) that their roles demand respect, even outside the gaming constraints. The higher the corresponding position, the more numerous the related decorations on their costumes and often the bigger the dimensions of the hat. (So if God for example followed this tactic, he'd have to wear a tiara as big as the universe. He'd just be one giant hat, where everyone in the universe would be supposed to continuously salute it).
Similar assumptions are implied even when lay people wear exorbitant decorations and ornaments, such as fancy rings and necklaces. The wearing of such items clearly implies an underlying role playing assumption which is indicated by the person's need and desire to "broadcast" this very role into society, via those items.
But I digressed. Children know instinctively when and where a game ends. Adult brutes will gradually transform from a child good-intentioned player to an actor impersonating a desired role continuously. This creates confusion not only in other players, whether good-intentioned or not, but in The Game Of Life, generally. Responsibilities get mixed up, roles get mixed up and abuse follows easily, particularly from those adults that are convinced somehow that their role is fixed and non-changing. The mess we are in, then, follows easily.
Children (and intelligent creatures in general) have a fundamental need for game play. It can happen that they themselves, are oftentimes bad players within specific gaming constraints, wanting to cheat for example or otherwise bend the rules, but you won't find a child that wants to impersonate a military General throughout a continuous period of 10 years. Children appear to have a fundamental need for variation in gaming and this variation is very healthy.
The Noble Mind finds that everything is a game, including the very process of Life. As such, it doesn't make sense for The Noble Mind to take anything more seriously than a child's game. Better put: The Noble Mind IS an eternal game playing child, with good intentions and good heart, but without wild tantrums. Should The Noble Mind decide to cheat or bend the rules, one knows that one will pay the whatever consequences, repercussions or appropriate game fines. The Game Of Life doesn't like cheaters and everyone gets rewarded according to the quality of their game play, whether legal or illegal.
In order to teach a child to become an eternal and perpetual good player when it turns into an adult in The Game Of Life, the parent has to first know what it means to play, by being a good game player him/herself. The child is taught by example, by seeing the parent play.
The reason why this society has so many bad players and brutes, is because it consists of grownup children who were never shown the true meaning of what it means to be a good player and/or were denied the privilege to know that everything is a game, with their parents implying directly or indirectly at one time or another that "Life is serious".
The resulting "seriousness" has spread like a cancer in our society, messing up not only the rules of The Game of Life, but other good players. The Noble Mind now faces an additional responsibility, and that's to not only play by the rules, but try to chase other player's cheats and illegal moves and if possible correct them.
This is too much of a distraction for the Noble Mind which often has lots of creative work to do. Particularly when one takes into account the seriousness with which "the filth" spoken of elsewhere present themselves in public.
Children reveal to the Noble Mind all the subtle nuances of human personality. They can be inspiring, revealing, annoying, crazy, wise, evil (within their own domain sometimes MUCH more evil than adults), friendly, comforting, loving, hating and many other things, which taken as a sum total, give a very clear picture of the (contradictory and unknown) face of God.
In a sense, raising and educating a child is akin to raising and educating a (potential) God. The process of having a child to begin with, is also a game with its own rules and often a very difficult one. Do yourself a favor and spare all of us from the terror of having to face one more failure: Don't do it, unless you completely understand what's involved.
The State, any State, is man's worse oppressor and enemy. Many famous philosophers have gone so far as to label it: The Beast.
We are born in The State by force and are asked to contribute to its growth (whether financial or territorial), although it, looks more like a cancerous growth than a benign and friendly protector of its inhabitants.
States must ideally grow. Never shrink. When a State shrinks, it is considered a "defeat" and the State's inhabitants feel very bad about such an event. They feel so bad, in fact, that it is not unusual for The People to overthrow their State's government when such an event occurs.
Therefore:
1) In the best possible case (i.e. non-war situation), a State keeps a constant size
Also:
2) A State which prospers economically, attracts more inhabitants
An immediate consequence of 1) and 2), is:
3) The population density of a State which prospers economically, at peace time, always increases
From 3) we see that all prosperous States are essentially organisms with a tendency to become carcinogenic.
The State has other interesting properties as well: It ideally claims that it can protect one of its individual inhabitants, when an unfortunate event occurs, however it will always put first the ruling party's interests, therefore the individual inhabitant is essentially unprotected. (Locally and globally).
A State will tax individuals to support its existence, although the ones who configure taxing laws are usually the governing elite's members, who will first look after their own interests, occasionally overtaxing middle to low class inhabitants. Such inhabitants never have a second option as to how to control their tax paying.
The State always proclaims that it is the voice of The People, no matter who's in charge, whereas in all reality any State is just the voice of the ruling party and its cohorts. Of course, the ruling party, HAS been elected by The People. But the entire electoral process is a nicely labelled fraud, that usually goes by the name of "Democratic Elections". Besides, today's "Democracy" has little (if anything) to do with some of the earlier kinds, including those of the Ancient Greeks.
A State is defined using territorial boundaries. Therefore it is defined using an intangible means, as land continuously changes hands from those who currently own it to those who will own it in the future. As such, the entire existence of a State is similar to the existence of money. You can see both of them manifest in cases of emergency, but in all reality neither one exists.
A State can force its inhabitants to perform other intriguing acts, as well. It can force me (or you) to go to war, if it determines that its interests are at stake.
It can force you to work as a slave, particularly if you are a foreigner, so it can boost its economy. You won't be very lucky, for example, if you are a Mexican working in the United States or an Albanian working in Greece.
It can almost guarantee you a basic salary of
500 Euros/month (even
this is not sure anymore), but in order to get anything more, you'd
have
to install a red light outside your house and do the obvious.
Problems between people are almost always the
result of problems between States. In the name of the State's best
interest, a State will cheerfully consider attacking another State.
This forces the inhabitants of both States to start seeing each other
as enemies. Prior to the attack chances were the respective inhabitants
of the two States hardly knew or cared about each other. The very
existence of the State, implies a strong potential for creation of
enemies.
You can never "escape" the influence of the
State. Wherever you go, the State will always discover you and will
come and start milking you dry of your resources. The only way to
escape the State, is to go to completely uninhabited land or on
primitive land where people have not yet adapted to our so called
"Western Standards". Such places do still exist, but are disappearing
fast. On the other hand if you go to uninhabited land, you will have to
face the trial of not having the usual comforts you were used to while
in the State and the State has made sure you became addicted to at
least one such thing, be it your computer or your tv.
There are two kinds of people: Creators and bored ones. Sheep are usually of the bored kind, as everyday triviality has stripped their minds of any trace of creativity. The Noble Mind HAS to be a Creator, simply because anything else brings to one severe depression and anxiety.
A Creator is not someone who always creates something wonderful. It is someone who in order to cure the severe existential void that has plagued one or in order to give some meaning to one's life, delves deeply in one or more subjects, investigates them and hopes to (perhaps) extend them. The particular subject may be quite obtuse, unpleasant, dark or even unconventional, although none of these is of course necessary.
Creators crave THE ACT of creation, as a means to cure their existential void. The end means, although important, is not as important as the act itself.
In a sense, a Creator and his/her creation are tied together with a bond that oftentimes supersedes in strength and power even parental bonds.
Usually the very process of Creation demands the Creator's exclusive attention and we all know what happens in today's world if this attention is not followed by some monetary justification: The Creator will starve. However, even though most Creators are penniless, they continue to involve themselves with the object of their creation.
For the Creator, the act of creation, is akin to a mental food of sorts and such food is superior to any real food. Of course the Creator will have to eventually eat, so one must often engage in a side job which usually distracts the Creator long enough so as to sometimes cause one's eventual detachment from one's creation. Therefore:
1) Today's world has a tendency to destroy Creators.
1) is to be expected, especially since we have managed to be unaware of THE Creator (of all this) one way or another. One would think that if we managed to destroy (metaphorically) The Creator, we will surely manage to destroy any lesser ones.
What follows immediately from 1) is, therefore:
2) In today's world, artists, musicians, poets and any fine art person will probably starve to death unless they engage in some sort of side job
Of course, we all know that, don't we?
Let's go over now to the WHY the Creator loves to create:
3) A Creator's creation, gives partial meaning to the Creator's Life
We see thus, that for the Noble Creator, it is of the utmost importance to be able to create. Not only that, but the creation should ideally keep the Creator busy throughout one's lifetime. We conclude therefore that:
4) A True Creator must never cease creating
Doing so, will cause the Creator's mental starvation and stagnation. Such an event, will eventually and undoubtedly cause the Creator's death.
Perhaps, therefore, this is the true reason behind all this:
5) The entire Universe may be the result of someone's extreme love for Creation (literally speaking: "Creation" the act, not "Creation" the Universe)
IF 5) is true, this would explain various other sections as well, analyzed elsewhere.
The following is true:
6) The act of creation, for all Creators, is mainly fuelled by love for one's creation
The importance of 6) cannot be stressed
enough. Note also that it is
unimportant what kind of creation the Creator loves and wants to
create.
It can be a programming project, a musical composition, a painting or a
child.
The above however, is not an excuse for
creating junk, alive or not. It is assumed that the Noble mind has some
sense of what
is beautiful and what is ugly, what is proper and improper and what
kind of talents one has. I may desire to be an Olympic weightlifter,
but if my body type is not appropriate, it would be a futile endeavor.
The act of beautiful creation, entails a
certain amount of maturity and responsibility towards others. One day
the Creator's work will be displayed and judged by those others and by
history. It is often useful to remember that judges are usually failed
Creators themselves who have nothing better to do than bring down
others, so they will be more than happy to trash your average junk
creation. Sometimes they will trash good creations as well, because
their creations never got a chance.
It helps here to remember that most serious
and beautiful creations throughout history, have been made in silence,
often under severely adverse circumstances and almost always without
any public recognition prior to the Creator's death. Let me put it this
way: If Johann Sebastian Bach went through his entire life, mostly
penniless, without being known as a good composer and in infamy for
almost 300 years, you better think twice about starting this "rock
band" of yours.
Insofar as human Creators go, (since we cannot know what a divine Creator might think) they usually do it for one of three additional reasons:
7) Sharing
8) Fame and Recognition
9) Money
I'd say with certainty that among 7)-9), 7) is
the most important, because
the desire to share, presupposes love of some sort. 8) and 9) are less
important. When 8) and 9) become predominant over 6) and 7), you can be
sure that the end result will probably be junk, whether animate or
inanimate.
From 3) follows:
10) A Creator's worth is directly proportional to the worth of one's creations
Therefore, I am, roughly, what I have created so far. Others are what they have created so far also. It also follows:
11) A non-Creator is worth nil
11) can easily be validated, when one looks at
the kind of people that
have ruled this planet for eons. The filth, spoken of, elsewhere, or
the kind of junk that circulates in the media.
Of course, the easiest way out of 11) is for
one to have kids. If one's creations are worth nil, perhaps if one
passes the chance to one's offspring, maybe one can tangentially BE a
Creator. The brute (because he/she doesn't know any better) often
applies the strategy: If you cannot create anything, create someone who
perhaps can
do it. This is the strategy of the loser: Chances are if the parents
are a failure, the
kids will be too. That's how we got to be 6 billion, with 99%
being miserable failures already.
In the author's opinion, the act of creating
gets fuelled also mainly by an obscure desire to understand what/why
other, more advanced creators have created, leading to a noble
hierarchy of creators, with The Creator of all this (if there is one)
sitting on top of the chain, as the most masterful and skillful Creator
out there. A solid understanding of why life came about, presupposes
mimicking the act of creation to some extent.
Every single act of creation by a human, seems
to expand the known universe some, since now or at some later date
there is always the chance of someone devoting mental energy to review
the creator's work. As such, creating new work provides a very small
insight into what The top Creator thought/loved/considered when he
created all this. In a sense, the act of creation is a mirror of sorts,
providing clues about the ultimate Creation, Universe/Nature.
Engaging in the art of creating something,
provides one with the necessary perspective in that regard. Compared to
a possible ultimate Creator, we are of course much smaller and much
less skillful, but nevertheless we engage in a similar act. The
similarity of the act temporarily gives us some clues as to why there
is a WILL or DESIRE to create.
Because the will or desire to create is not
always there as a conscious desire, (or is dormant some times) Nature
has provided humans with the sexual desire, which is the precursor of
the highest possible (in terms of complexity) human creation, offspring.
A complete implementation of this desire leads
to a virtually new universe, or rather, a new super-complex organism
which can perceive the universe in new ways, some times unfathomable to
the ways of the parents. This however, includes pain, which is part of
life. In a sense, the parents are never completely off of their
responsibility to their kids. The offspring can always ask the reason
WHY he/she was created, but it will always receive the parental
response: Because at some point in time the parents DESIRED to have a
sexual union. If the sexual union/love was not there, the process of
childbearing would not be there either.
As such, creating offspring brings about
issues of a tremendous responsibility: The responsibility of carrying
the weight of a new human life forever. No matter how old one
becomes, his/her creators were (and still are) one's parents. That's
why irresponsible parents are the worst trash that exists in our world.
On the other hand, nobody KNOWS how to be a perfect parent, so the
possibility of the offspring being a failure or becoming trash always
exists.
There is another way to look at childbearing. When parents create offspring, along with life, they also create death. Or rather, they force someone else to go through birth and death. Knowing this is enough of a reason for this Noble Mind to not want to create offspring. In a way, if there is a sense where parents achieve some sort of temporary immortality through their offspring, this Noble Mind willfully refuses this immortality, instead, at least until an indication shows up that provides for some hope for humankind.
On the other hand, constructive creativity is
a very serious
barrier to sexual relationships when one of the members leads an idle
life: The amount of time consumed by creation (by the creative member)
is usually disproportionate to the time allotment required for joint
ventures, with one member usually complaining about lack of attention.
The above cannot be stressed enough: A
Creator's life revolves around one's creation. Therefore such a person
usually will devote huge amounts of time to one's creations, in the
process reducing the time the couple spends together, unless the other
member is a Creator as well.
People who lead idle lives, are usually people
with severe psychological problems, most notably insecurities of
various sorts, which have to be attended to one way or another. The
victim is of course, the Creator, who usually is being used as a clutch
or substitute for the other person's lack of interest and has to learn
to divide his time between one's creation and attending the other
member's
desires for amusement.
What these people don't understand, is that
for the Creator, "amusement" is synonymous to one's creation. Such
relationships are bound to fail: Unless a person finds a purpose in
life, or, if you will, something to keep them interested for life,
their life is bound to be boring after a while. Their boredom is not
the Creator's fault. As such, if you are a Creator and find a person
attractive, make sure that THAT person is also a Creator or is
interested in something for life, otherwise they will eventually blame
you for lack of attention.
Of course, if you are not a Creator, you'll
have more chances coupling with someone who's as bored as you are.
This Noble Mind believes in The Holy Trinity of the Three B's:
The Noble Mind has a fundamental need for good quality music. Fortunately such music is available through the great classical composers. One cannot even begin to start listing most of them, or even in order of preference. This Noble Mind likes anything that's considered "Classical Music", modern music written in this style, as well as people's folk music. He also likes all forms of church music very much.
It is really strange to see people listening to various dissonant noises which they claim is music. If the noise from the speakers resonating is louder than the produced music, chances are that the speaker output is not music at all, rather crashing/banging noises accompanied by a beat.
Usually music is accompanied by an appropriate mentality behind it. One can tell a lot about someone, knowing what kind of music this person listens to. Although there are no clear boundaries and descriptions for this kind of characterization, I wouldn't expect a Noble pacifist, for example, to be listening to Black Sabbath or Kiss, neither a violent/raging psychotic to listen to The Art Of Fugue, unless one was trying to cure one's psychosis.
Good music has specific effects on the Noble mind. First, it is company. Perhaps the ultimate company. Second, it elevates the mind and hints towards even more noble thoughts.
Considering the fact that the Noble Mind is often plagued by extraneous thinking and tends to be distracted by various side thoughts, good music provides for a means to keep one's thoughts under control.
The Noble Mind believes that one's affinity towards good music is highly dependent upon one's desire to assimilate the Creator of the music. As such, it considers this affinity, a "desire" for understanding, as well as a vehicle for pleasure. The two cannot be separated.
In listening to any good composer's music, the Noble Mind is interested in understanding both the composer's specific mind set as well as one's own mind set when listening. There exists an implicit identification when this process takes place, and this identification stems primarily from the Noble Mind's desire to understand what is Noble and external to self, so one can assimilate it. A "communion" or "noble assimilation" of sorts, if you will.
This desire for communion is not limited to music. It assumes existence in everything the Noble Mind is involved with. With good music this communion is very intense. It couldn't have been otherwise, for the Noble Mind knows how hard it is to engage in constructive creativity, so one readily appreciates another mind's efforts to communicate in a similar way.
This kind of communication is two-sided: The Noble Mind understands The Creator of the music FIRST, and then one understands oneself. While this understanding takes place, the mind enjoys the music as a bonus.
It is not uncommon for the Noble Mind to completely immerse oneself and perhaps momentarily completely assimilate the creator's psyche. This is a fundamental need for the Noble Mind, as conventional communication often proves quite limited. The amount of information conveyed by good music is huge compared to other means of communication for example.
Some people are afraid of this kind of assimilation: Besides its obvious "dangers", there are also some unwanted side effects, such as musical memes continuously circulating inside one's mind. The obvious "dangers" are of course cathartic revelations of the self which often get initiated BY good music. It is not a coincidence that the Church, for example, has always used music as a way to "elevate" the psyche of the believer.
For the brute, there is no fundamental need to identify with anybody or anything else, much less a noble composer, as the brute's ego size is often prohibitive. For the noble Mind, one of the fundamental needs in life is to first identify potential sources of interest and identification. As such, such activities are often craved upon, rather than shunned.
The Noble Mind is tempted to make the conjecture:
1) A knower of good music, cannot be a brute.
There are examples in history where the above has been shown false, (during Nazi Germany for example), but one is tempted to conclude that in these cases the listener was either not a good "knower" of what one was listening or that one had limited understanding of the "communication" part, reaping only the fruits of pleasure. As such, it wouldn't be unfair to conjecture with a good certainty:
2) A brute cannot understand/appreciate good music
which is, in all honestly, a very good
indicator used by this Noble Mind to judge the quality of other
people's minds.
By language here, I mean language AND speech.
They say that the way you speak shows who you are. Unfortunately language has deteriorated so much in our days that it would appear as though almost everyone is a brute, judging from the way they speak. From the long "Duh"'s, "Uh"'s and "Eh"'s to improper use of words and erroneous syntax.
Language is a hard nut to crack. It is one of those areas (of study) where one has to devote many hours to it to even begin to claim that one understands it, much less to claim that one uses it properly.
To the lay person, language is nothing but a tool. To the Noble mind it is a game (like everything else), with expandable rules. You can extend it, by forming new words and you can change it, by sometimes bypassing the rules.
In general, the level of complexity of one's use of language, matches the corresponding level of complexity of their inner world. As such:
1) One cannot be any better than the way one speaks like
1) is very important, because one can use it to filter out unwanted messages, particularly those we are being bombarded with, from the tv and the media.
On the other hand, it is a joy to listen (or read) well formed sentences. Whether the source is a book or a good movie, the Noble mind delights in picking apart well formed sentences.
The delight does not come only from the nice sequence of sounds which are produced by the well-formed sentences, but also from the realization that whoever it is that speaks (or writes) has delved deep enough into the language to understand even its innermost details. And that is, by itself, immensely satisfying.
A much nicer (and deeper) result comes about, when (and if) those sentences actually convey some meaningful content. As this is quite rare in our days, for the Noble mind it has become almost a challenge to find places where this occurs.
One particularly good solution to the problem of lack of good speaking, is for the Noble mind to start writing. In the beginning the result will not be as good as intended, but as more practice is being applied, the results can be very satisfying.
This article has been written by a non native speaker who simply enjoys good, simple and clear reading and writing.
In its simpler forms, good writing and speaking invoke to the reader and listener a more noble feeling, akin to looking at a beautiful work of art.
Many famous people of the past have used language and speech to trigger emotional responses in the public. Sometimes the response was quite extreme, which proves only how far good use of language can go.
The brutes are afraid of good use of language. When a brute encounters good use of it by a specific person, one of two things can happen:
1) The brute recognizes the other person's
superiority in nobility
2) The brute recognizes one's own complexes of inferiority and
insufficiency
If 1) happens, although rare, it instills a certain nobility to the brute, but as higher positions in any hierarchy are usually occupied by brutes with less than good intentions and rarely noble, 2) happens more often. As a result good speakers are usually marked for expenditure as soon as they are discovered in the private sector.
It is not a coincidence that the "filth", spoken of elsewhere, rarely command speech and writing well enough to be noble.
Good use of language and writing are intricately tied with the property of BEING a Noble mind, as such keep 1) in mind when you are reading material written by anyone.
Anyway you look at it, whether as God's gift to man or as man's best achievement, language (in Greek: Logos) has been (and is) THE most precious gift to human society.
As such, anyone who does not appreciate its
use, cannot be but a brute
or a savage.
There is a strong desire in the Noble mind to understand the way things work, particularly with regard to the Universe itself, but not excluding other areas.
Engaging in the endeavor of understanding most serious things, however, takes an infinite effort and time. Therefore:
1) The Noble mind considers oneself an Eternal Student
1) is crucial, because it puts a very clear bound that separates the Noble mind from the brute. Oftentimes, people will proclaim that they really understand something, whereas in all reality what they understand is a very small percentage of the entire issue, similar to the tip of an iceberg.
Here's then another characteristic of the brute:
2) A brute will often claim one understands something perfectly well
When applied consistently, 2) yields arrogance. Therefore:
3) A brute is usually arrogant
3) is particularly silly, in view of:
4) For any human endeavor and area of knowledge, the chances of finding somebody else who's better at this endeavor are close to 100%.
The above means that if there is to be any hope for the Noble mind to improve upon itself (and the knowledge it has possessed so far) for whatever reason, 1) must hold.
Society doesn't care for people who are uninformed, much less for any kind of "Eternal Student". Surviving in today's world requires that one is "knowledgeable". The more, the better. This requirement is especially stringent for public officials, of whom it is REQUIRED that they know what they are talking about, if there is to be any real progress.
By definition then:
5) The Noble mind will have trouble with modern society's infrastructure, as it cannot realistically claim that it "knows" anything.
On the other hand, a Noble mind can (realistically) be much more informed and knowledgeable than a brute who occupies a corresponding position (or higher) in society. However, the Noble mind has one more important trait which distinguishes it from the brute:
6) The Noble mind is humble
For this mind, humility is not a trait that's
necessarily associated with particular religious beliefs. It is the
naturally borne fruit of one's recognition of one's limitations. It's
exactly because some people have no sense of limitation on certain
things (Pan Metron Ariston=Measure in Everything) that's why they
become arrogant. When things have a measure, there are boundaries and
limits. Bypassing those measures and limits (which are set by the
individual mind) may be a good thing if done once in a while and
wisely, but it is best to avoid trespassing upon one's limits, as the
collapse of limits always brings upon one new burdens and new troubles.
Humility is a function of the individual's
knowledge of such limits. More exactly put:
6a) Humility results from knowing your limits.
It is sad that 6a) comes only as a result of a
long and meticulous study of the universal body of knowledge and
careful introspection, because most brutes who have no desire to learn,
not only are not aware of those limits, but have always the tendency to
trespass upon other people's limits. Therefore:
6b) Arrogance tends to infuse itself into and permeate everything.
The balanced mind knows exactly what 6b) means and in its quest for
knowledge tries to limit the domains of this infusion, because it knows
that the carefully crafted container which sustains us all, never
permeates or interferes with our life. In other words, God himself or
Nature, however you may want to view the universe, although ultimately
wise, never desired to willfully permeate our minds. Instead, Nature
gave us Freedom of Choice with respect to recognizing an ultimate
Creator, meaning that such a Creator is necessarily humble. Otherwise
God could have chosen to create a huge rapture and have everyone on
their feet, after seeing what's out there. Instead, Nature is always
sweet, non-obtrusive, pleasant and always in perfect balance with
itself.
There is infinite knowledge in the Universe. There is infinite knowledge here on Earth, even. Being arrogant with respect to any particular subject, is all but ridiculous.
As a result, when the Noble mind encounters the arrogance of someone, claiming one has such and such qualifications and degrees, it can only respond with a good and hearty laugh. Such encounters are usually quite amusing and result in the Noble mind inadvertently saying or doing something that abruptly and in shame silences the brute.
We are here to learn. What it is we MUST learn, I don't know. Maybe the process of learning is, in fact, more important than learning itself.
Although 1) holds, this doesn't of course mean that ALL knowledge is permissible:
"He who reveals to himself what his conscience has prohibited commits a sin. And he also is a sinner who denies himself what his conscience has revealed". -Kahlil Gibran.
Also:
"Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup".
The major religious manuals have outlined the importance of acquiring knowledge which is not permissible. The "not permissible" adjective here, needs to be applied with caution. The above quotes do not mean that there exists knowledge which is "forbidden" in any way. It means something which needs to be instantiated:
7) For any specific human being, there exists knowledge which is not permissible
and:
8) For the Noble mind, not ALL kinds of knowledge are permissible
8) cannot be made more specific, apart from a small clarification:
9) There exist kinds of knowledge which are not fruitful to the Noble mind.
As such, these kinds of knowledge are best left alone. Knowledge is best judged by the fruits its possessor bears. My favorite motto here is Matthew 7:16: "By their fruit ye shall know them". It really doesn't matter who wrote this. What matters is that certain kinds of knowledge can bear fear, anger, strife, war, dissonance and arrogance. As such, the Noble mind leaves them for others to explore.
I won't go into details about what this
knowledge is, mainly because
everyone has a rough idea of what is and is not permissible for one,
including
the brutes.
We like to be certain about things. Human beings have an inherent
desire to profess their knowledge, when they possess it. The greater the
certainty and accuracy of the professed subject, the better. Humans
have classified all their collective knowledge and young people's
parents spend considerable amounts of money to educate them. The kinds
of knowledge that have emerged, can be roughly classified into
two sectors:
1) Scientific knowledge
2) Knowledge based on belief
The boundaries between the two areas are not very clear, even to this
date. For example, psychology is often deemed "science", whereas it
appears to be more of an empirical model for certain types of behavior,
with huge unknown areas or areas where we have no clue about.
New disciplines are being added to both sectors as we speak. In
order for a new subject to qualify as scientific knowledge, it has to
be based on logic and if it relies on experiments, the results of the
experiments have to be repeatable and reproducible by anyone with a
sufficient scientific background.
In order for a new subject to qualify as belief, it simply suffices for
one to
cause the subject's propagation to a large sample, so as to create
"believers". Such disciplines include all non-scientific areas, such as
religion, astrology, shamanism, etc.
Knowledge based on belief, simply requires THE DESIRE to acquire it.
Knowledge based on science, apart from the desire, additionally
requires being trained in logical thinking and processing. On the other
hand, BEING scientifically logical, is not an inherent trait of the
human brain and as such, one has to spend considerable effort and time
to educate oneself in such thinking. Such training never stops, simply
because the brain tends to believe nonsense, in a moment's thought.
Reiterated, because I consider it vital:
3) The brain has a tendency to believe all sorts of nonsense.
3) is the direct result of the brain being by nature lazy. Scientific
knowledge, logic and correct philosophical thinking, are all hard,
require EFFORT and often do not give the expected (or even all)
answers. Knowledge based on belief is EASY and gives fast answers. It
can be digested easily by anyone and can be easily communicated to
others, whereas scientific knowledge often requires the use of
Mathematics or other abstract symbolic languages, which are hard to
learn and to express to others and it requires difficult (and often
expensive) studies to learn.
Because scientific knowledge is hard, it naturally propagates slower
than knowledge based on belief, which is often widespread. As a result,
most people believe in non-scientific knowledge. (for example, religion)
The fundamental difference between those two kinds of knowledge, is the
existence of faith and/or belief in non-scientific knowledge and their
lack for areas of scientific knowledge. Science and scientific laws,
exist independently of us believing in them. The universe's mode of
operation doesn't really depend on us understanding Newton's Law of
Gravitation, Relativity or the underlying Tensor Mathematics of
space-time, whereas the collective body of Christianity, for example,
depends heavily on people believing the Christian dogma.
The survival of the universe does not depend on us understanding or
explaining its operations, whereas the survival of a social or
religious movement depends on us to continuously replenish it with new
believers, otherwise it becomes history.
To a non-scientist, science appears very similar to a belief movement.
A person who's untrained in logical/scientific thinking, usually has no
clue about any of the inner details of any scientific discipline, so
for practical purposes, such disciplines appear externally to be
similar to a certain set of beliefs. A person has to acquire a rigorous
scientific training in order to fully appreciate the power of logical
reasoning and science.
The strange thing is that a certain amount of belief must pre-exist in
an untrained prospective scientist before such a scientist starts
studying science. For example, if the prospective student does not have
SOME sort of confidence that science will prove to be a rewarding and
fulfilling experience, one will not undertake the task of studying it.
The difference here, however, is that after the prospective student
studies science, he/she can have tangible and rational proof that the
subject of study was logical and reasonable, whereas a believer in
Astrology can never have RATIONAL/LOGICAL proof that Astrology actually
works. It may work sometimes, other times it may fail and other times,
still, it may be completely unpredictable.
Predictability and consistency are the key issues here, as any
scientist knows. In order for an experiment to qualify as scientific,
the results of the experimenter have to be repeatable in a consistent
way and predictable. If they are not, either the theory behind it is
faulty or the experimenter has applied one's theories in a faulty way.
There's no inbetween path.
In a sense, predictability and consistency are the absolute and
undeniable proof we have that something actually works. We have no
other way of knowing if something actually works, except to reproduce
an application of it and be certain that the results are reliable and
consistent.
When theory is validated by experiment, we can be sure that the
whatever scientific model or theory we have so far is "within epsilon"
of the Truth about this particular subject. The theory may be
incomplete as a whole or in conjunction with other areas, but our model
seems to be sufficient for the purposes of what we know so far about a
certain issue.
Non-scientific extravagant claims, cannot be tested scientifically. It
may or may not be true that the planets affect an individual at birth,
as Astrology claims, however it is utterly impossible to test or
validate such a hypothesis using any kind of experiment, if only for
practical reasons. As such, what kind of "knowledge" is the belief:
"The positions of the planets affect a person at birth"? It is useless
"knowledge" at best, nonsense at worst. It is the kind of "knowledge"
which propagates only because people WANT to believe it. It has no
practical value and from a scientific standpoint it can never be tested.
Belief in irrational ideas and dogmas, seems to be inherently tied with
our survival as a species. Although on first thought such "knowledge"
serves no practical purpose, apart from mystifying and impressing the
gullible, it has persisted in our society for eons. The Noble Mind is
tempted to think that sociologically and anthropologically it must
serve SOME purpose, otherwise there'd be no need for it to exist in
society. Here, the chain of events is fairly easy to follow:
a) An unknown event or phenomenon occurs.
b) The unknown phenomenon causes fear to the "primitive mind".
c) The "primitive mind", therefore, has to explain the phenomenon as
quickly as possible to dispel the associated fear for itself and the
other members of the tribe.
d) Deriving a scientific explanation is costly, difficult and requires
vast amounts of pre-existing scientific knowledge, things which tribal
members lack.
e) Deriving a nonsensical explanation is easy (anybody can do it) and
such an explanation can be propagated fairly easily among the members
of a tribe.
Therefore e) has proliferated, as it was the fastest path to dispel
fear among the tribal members. d) is still difficult, today, that's
why, for example, Astrology still has followers. That's why
Christianity, Judaism or Buddhism still have followers. Because the
answers the corresponding dogmas give, are EASY.
Easy answers and explanations seem to be particularly efficient meme propagators. The
propagation of memes which contain non-scientific theories, is in
natural battle against the propagation of scientific memes. The battle
seems quite futile for science, as scientific theories are hard to
propagate, however one has to keep in mind that by many standards we
are still quite "primitive" and the outcome has not been decided, yet.
More and more people get educated and more people become scientifically
oriented, dropping any irrational thoughts in the process.
Finally, scientific memes are very hard to shake, once established, so
scientific training is a very efficient "trap" of sorts, for irrational
memes. Once a person becomes a scientist, rarely if ever starts
believing nonsense, although there are, (as with everything) exceptions.
As knowledge is so crucial in modern society, the flow of data which transmits this knowledge is also essential. Unfortunately, along with the data of information, flows data of misinformation and trash. Regardless, modern man has been conditioned to crave this flow (no matter what kind) and often, his well-being depends on this flow:
1) Modern man is an informavore
The Noble mind has a heightened instinct and knowledge about what is trash and what is valuable information, yet overall it craves information like everyone else. So 1) holds especially for the Noble mind, who continuously searches for explanations. In particular:
2) The Noble mind is an informavore
The internet explosion has caused an explosion on the transmission of information. Although trash undoubtedly gets transmitted along with the good things, the net has helped greatly in the acquisition of information. Because 1) holds equally well for brutes and because brutes have an equal (if not greater) desire to transmit information, we also get loads of trash.
The transmission of information has grown faster than exponentially. In nature, whenever something (or someone) grows beyond certain bounds, there always exists some kind of balancing mechanism to bring the undue growth back to a state of equilibrium. With the internet information this was not possible, until the 80's, when the first viruses showed up.
Today we are plagued by computer viruses. Computer viruses have been growing exponentially ever since, with today counting in the hundreds of thousands.
Viruses have a tendency to incapacitate the host machine and otherwise wreak havoc by spreading themselves to other machines, so it is natural why many people have problems understanding why computer viruses showed up and especially why hackers continue to create them.
The answer lies above. The tremendous growth of information exchange which has occurred with the net, could not be limited in a natural way, so an artificial way was created, indirectly. This artificial way is the viruses, which (in a way) limit the exchange of information by incapacitating various machines.
On the other hand, computers were (and are) accessible by a large number of people, including many lay people, who use a computer with relative ease, without knowing the computer's internal workings.
The later are particularly vulnerable to infection, as they don't quite understand how viruses operate, therefore they are more prone to avoid taking precautionary measures to avoid infection by viruses.
Today one cannot survive if one is computer illiterate. The explosion of viruses however, introduces a new parameter into the game of information exchange: It attempts to sort out those who are computer literate from those who REALLY are computer literate. In other words:
3) Viruses appear to be making an effort to limit the information exchange
Maybe after a decade only those who know how to disinfect their machines will be able to use computers. This is of course speculation, but it does appear as though one has to have a relatively high know-how, in order to survive in the world of computers, particularly in view of the recent virus outbreaks.
The above has nothing to do with the true reason why a young spoiled brat may write and release a virus, yet this very brat may be falling victim to a larger scenario, whose purpose is to control information exchange through the internet. The exact mechanics of such a scenario would be tremendously difficult to analyze, because those mechanics are basically dictated by social behavior, memes and younger "revolutionary" philosophy.
It is not uncommon for virus writers who are caught to be given high positions in programming companies. Therefore, we may be also witnessing a different kind of "survival mechanism". Young kids perhaps foresee that in the end what awaits them is fame and glory, so they write and spread a virus.
Society is being paid back by exactly the same token it has taught its younger members with.
By pain here I mean both physical and emotional pain.
Most people instinctively avoid pain and
seek pleasure. This is only
natural to some extent for all animals, yet few people realize that
human life is almost synonymous with the existence of pain, so just
about everyone will sooner or later experience one's share, whether
physical or emotional.
Physical pain is body's warning that something is wrong (with the body
functions) and although emotional pain sits on a more abstract level
than physical pain, it still carries a very similar message.
People, in general, are afraid of pain much more than anything else,
including death. Fear of death is present in all of us, but upon closer
inspection, what we are afraid of really, is THE MOMENT of
death, rather than death
itself. Recent medical evidence however shows that the brain may
actually anesthetize the body (partially or totally) during the process
of dying, so there may not be any pain present DURING the moment of
death.
Physical pain long before death oftentimes becomes so intolerable
that it might be ethically acceptable to apply euthanasia to sufferers
of terminal illnesses with no hope of cure.
Excluding such extreme cases, the Noble Mind finds the following to be
true:
1) Pain is the ultimate teacher for all of us
While as parents many people apply more lenient forms of 1) to their
kids, by causing either
direct or indirect punishments forcing them to somehow comply with
expected behavior, those same people forget that life may, as a system,
often apply the very same directive to all of us.
The boundaries of what is and is not justified in terms of pain in
one's life are not always clear. Even though there's certainly very
much pain which is the result of human stupidity, arrogance,
irresponsibility and carelessness towards others (including animals),
most kinds of personal pain are usually the direct result of bad
choices and/or self-abusive behavior. If you've been