While trying to post a comment on another blog, Blogger signed me into my account. I had forgotten about The Whole Scratch... I quite disagree with what I have asserted below, so I will do my best to share my most recent explanations of my experience.
Reality lacks any inherent essence, as do I. I have no "me." It cannot be in my body or in my mind because nothing in my body or in my mind is static. If anyone can find an essence, self, or soul that isn't constantly shifting, please do let me know. It would clear some things up.
To demonstrate what I mean about any object's lack of essence, think of a rock. You might look at it, but you aren't seeing a rock. All you can really "see" is light. You cannot feel a rock, just pressure and texture. You can taste sweetness, saltiness, whatever... but none of your senses can actually perceive the rock. In fact, there is no rock. There is an object there, but it has no fixed rock-ness. The part that labels it a "rock" comes from the perceiver, not the perceived. You put your observations together and, based on all other similar experiences, you say that is a rock. But, basically, you are just making shit up.
When this idea first became clear to me, I found it terribly depressing. It is sort of ironic, to be upset because nothing matters. But I have come to see that it does matter. Because things lack their own inborn meaning, it is up to me to create the meaning that is most useful and beneficial to me. I am not a victim of or even subject to how the world IS. Truly, the world I live in is nothing but my own mind. Creepy.
What I mean is that there is some sort of objective world out there, I concede, but any living thing I have ever met is unable to directly experience it. We are limited by our senses. I can only experience the world through sights, sounds, tastes, scents, touch sensations and thoughts/emotions. Clearly I am missing something to get a clear picture of what is actually out there! These imperfect instruments of perception are my only tool with which to gather data about the world I am in. I cannot have any experiences except that which passes through these sensual gates.
So, then, doesn't it follow that all I experience all the time is my own mind? There is no "me," but there is also nothing but "me" everywhere I look.
:)
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Thursday, December 16, 2010
This Is Where the Universe Will Play a Trick on You
Well, I thought myself right into a conundrum. Just wanted to get it down before it flitted right out of my fickle head:
I don't believe in a metaphysical world... in a soul or a spirit or anything. So, then, perhaps my "me" is my body and my mind. I have no evidence that there is a "me" that is separate from that. It seems like I HAVE a body and I HAVE a mind, so that there is an "I" that is doing the having. But it isn't a soul, it is an essence. My essence. My self.... my ego-less self? If I
Something to think about.
I don't believe in a metaphysical world... in a soul or a spirit or anything. So, then, perhaps my "me" is my body and my mind. I have no evidence that there is a "me" that is separate from that. It seems like I HAVE a body and I HAVE a mind, so that there is an "I" that is doing the having. But it isn't a soul, it is an essence. My essence. My self.... my ego-less self? If I
Something to think about.
A conversation:
Me: You are right...
I don't think there is a point
but I am here, and I have this love, i guess...
It is part of randomly generated me
I look at it all
as said
randomly here
and it is so amazing
i fall in love with it to the point that it hurts
the idea that the whole thing is just pointless makes it MORE incredible
and whatever love and awe this causes me makes me feel compassion or i don't know...
it makes me want to put my love and my awe into action
so i have to find what the right action is... that is how i work, i don't know why
and in order to find the right thing to do
i have to figure it out
so i try to figure
and i try to act
i try to find a way to act in reflection of the awe that i have
Eric: i think this is where the universe will play a trick on you
me: yeah?
Eric: probably
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Then what is "me?"
Well, since the last time that I have written here, I have undergone a major philosophical change. I am rather "under the weather" at the moment, but I thought that at least putting something down would inspire me to return to it... to organize what I've been thinking over the past five months or so.
Not too long ago, it suddenly occurred to me that I am not my thoughts and feelings. In fact, it isn't really so hard to control them. Truly, I have a choice of how I want to think and feel, and I certainly do not have to react to stimuli. So this was a great discovery. I can choose and control my perspective and my attitude. Fantastic. This went just swimmingly until I was suddenly faced with this question:
If I can control my thoughts and feelings, what is this I that controls?
Oh boy, now I've become quite existential. It is a little bit scary. I've recently heard the term "positive groundlessness" to describe the discomfort of ceasing to identify one's self with one's thoughts and feelings. If I can't ground me in what I think and feel and do, what am I?
So I started reading. And this is what I read:
Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu
The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali with commentary by Sri Swami Satchidananda
Meditations by Marcus Aurelius
The Elements of Moral Philosophy by James Rachels
Teach Like Your Hair's on Fire by Rafe Esquith
Shambhala: The Sacred Path of the Warrior by Chogyam Trungpa
The Enchiridion by Epictetus
Buddhism by Donald Mitchell
Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives and Practice, Edited by Catherine Twomey Fosnot
I've read more than that since the summer, but that seems like a decent overview. I left out fiction, which can be just as inspiring. I realize that these books seems sort of disparate, but they've influenced my thoughts and philosophy, which is moving toward consistency. Here is what I'm thinking:
When I first began to talk and think about all of this, a friend of mine described the technique of choosing one's perspective. He said to catch each moment, each happening, as if it were an egg. Don't rush to meet it, don't aggressively catch it or it will break. If one feels the motion of the egg, leans back and allows it to be caught gently, then it can be kept in tact. Once I have gently caught whatever the present moment is throwing, I have the ability to inspect it and decide what I want to do with it.
Morality is ridiculous. Personal responsibility, being honest with one's self, is the only possible way to do what is "right." Somewhere in my reading, I came across Kohlberg' s Stages of Moral Development. It is different motivations that people may have for doing the "right" thing. They are:
1. Avoiding punshment
2. Earning a reward
3. Seeking approval
4. Following the rules
5. Empathizing
6. Acting (making individual decisions based on a personal [global?] set of ethics)
It is some form of stage six that has my mind moving. When I come to the above mentioned decisive moment... I have delicately caught and examined the present moment... how do I know what to do with it? Certainly, no set of rules is going to tell me the answer. I want to do the "right" thing. I think that the way to do that is to simply ask myself what it is. "What is the right thing to do?" Generally, I can figure it out on a day to day basis. There are big huge scary moral/ethical dilemmas that it would take some more time to figure, but on a regular basis, I know what is right.
This is sounding like I have some kind of intuitive alignment with the cosmos... I don't mean that only I know what is right, I think that most people know what is right. It might be different than what I know... But I cannot judge another person's ethical system using mine. As long as a person can say, "I feel that what I am doing is right. I have no guilt, I have no second thoughts. I am acting deliberately, and I have decided that this is the best course of action," I cannot judge their actions.
I will have to elucidate this later, as I am presently feeling quite sick.
Not too long ago, it suddenly occurred to me that I am not my thoughts and feelings. In fact, it isn't really so hard to control them. Truly, I have a choice of how I want to think and feel, and I certainly do not have to react to stimuli. So this was a great discovery. I can choose and control my perspective and my attitude. Fantastic. This went just swimmingly until I was suddenly faced with this question:
If I can control my thoughts and feelings, what is this I that controls?
Oh boy, now I've become quite existential. It is a little bit scary. I've recently heard the term "positive groundlessness" to describe the discomfort of ceasing to identify one's self with one's thoughts and feelings. If I can't ground me in what I think and feel and do, what am I?
So I started reading. And this is what I read:
Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu
The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali with commentary by Sri Swami Satchidananda
Meditations by Marcus Aurelius
The Elements of Moral Philosophy by James Rachels
Teach Like Your Hair's on Fire by Rafe Esquith
Shambhala: The Sacred Path of the Warrior by Chogyam Trungpa
The Enchiridion by Epictetus
Buddhism by Donald Mitchell
Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives and Practice, Edited by Catherine Twomey Fosnot
I've read more than that since the summer, but that seems like a decent overview. I left out fiction, which can be just as inspiring. I realize that these books seems sort of disparate, but they've influenced my thoughts and philosophy, which is moving toward consistency. Here is what I'm thinking:
When I first began to talk and think about all of this, a friend of mine described the technique of choosing one's perspective. He said to catch each moment, each happening, as if it were an egg. Don't rush to meet it, don't aggressively catch it or it will break. If one feels the motion of the egg, leans back and allows it to be caught gently, then it can be kept in tact. Once I have gently caught whatever the present moment is throwing, I have the ability to inspect it and decide what I want to do with it.
Morality is ridiculous. Personal responsibility, being honest with one's self, is the only possible way to do what is "right." Somewhere in my reading, I came across Kohlberg' s Stages of Moral Development. It is different motivations that people may have for doing the "right" thing. They are:
1. Avoiding punshment
2. Earning a reward
3. Seeking approval
4. Following the rules
5. Empathizing
6. Acting (making individual decisions based on a personal [global?] set of ethics)
It is some form of stage six that has my mind moving. When I come to the above mentioned decisive moment... I have delicately caught and examined the present moment... how do I know what to do with it? Certainly, no set of rules is going to tell me the answer. I want to do the "right" thing. I think that the way to do that is to simply ask myself what it is. "What is the right thing to do?" Generally, I can figure it out on a day to day basis. There are big huge scary moral/ethical dilemmas that it would take some more time to figure, but on a regular basis, I know what is right.
This is sounding like I have some kind of intuitive alignment with the cosmos... I don't mean that only I know what is right, I think that most people know what is right. It might be different than what I know... But I cannot judge another person's ethical system using mine. As long as a person can say, "I feel that what I am doing is right. I have no guilt, I have no second thoughts. I am acting deliberately, and I have decided that this is the best course of action," I cannot judge their actions.
I will have to elucidate this later, as I am presently feeling quite sick.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Hope
[personal ramblings...]
...but what is this hope? Perhaps hope is what drives us, as humans, just as much as selfishness. Selfish hope? Sure... But for the best of us--the best of them?-- the selfish hope is more than just hope for one self. People are social and need the rest of the world just to exist. So selfish hope is the hope for everyone, if one is thoughtful.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
First Thoughts on Gender
I'm not sure I am ready to delve into this one, but I figure whatever makes me least comfortable is the most potent. Irrelevant subjects stir nothing.
Gender inequality is very old. Did it ever make sense for efficiency's sake? Women are the limiting factor in human reproduction. Males have such a high capacity that it could be mistaken for limitless. Perhaps the domination of the man, who has "unlimited" reproductive potential, over the woman, who, individually, limits reproductive efficiency, could be an efficient method. Efficient, how? A man has more of a stake in (and, it follows, biologically, more of a drive to) having frequent sex. It could follow that dominating one or more females for the purpose of demanding frequent reproductive attempts would be efficient. Not necessarily the most efficient or the "right" way to achieve efficiency, but it is a possibility. It would seem MORE efficient for the male to roam and spread his seed as far and wide as possible, but at some point the family became a preferred way to ensure offspring reached reproductive age. But that doesn't mean family was the most efficient: agriculture certainly isn't. Hunting and gathering became, perhaps, socially inefficient, the family becoming socially efficient inside of the agricultural system.
Things to research/think about:
familial evolution in relation to agriculture
find article on the efficiency of hunting/gathering in the geographic birthplace of agriculture
various familial constructs in different culture
synonyms for "efficient" (seriously)
Gender inequality is very old. Did it ever make sense for efficiency's sake? Women are the limiting factor in human reproduction. Males have such a high capacity that it could be mistaken for limitless. Perhaps the domination of the man, who has "unlimited" reproductive potential, over the woman, who, individually, limits reproductive efficiency, could be an efficient method. Efficient, how? A man has more of a stake in (and, it follows, biologically, more of a drive to) having frequent sex. It could follow that dominating one or more females for the purpose of demanding frequent reproductive attempts would be efficient. Not necessarily the most efficient or the "right" way to achieve efficiency, but it is a possibility. It would seem MORE efficient for the male to roam and spread his seed as far and wide as possible, but at some point the family became a preferred way to ensure offspring reached reproductive age. But that doesn't mean family was the most efficient: agriculture certainly isn't. Hunting and gathering became, perhaps, socially inefficient, the family becoming socially efficient inside of the agricultural system.
Things to research/think about:
familial evolution in relation to agriculture
find article on the efficiency of hunting/gathering in the geographic birthplace of agriculture
various familial constructs in different culture
synonyms for "efficient" (seriously)
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Crime...
Resulting from a discussion with a friend on crimes we had been a victim of, I was asked to consider the general concepts of the film/story Minority Report. That is: is crime prevention a good crime prediction technique? Here is my initial response, which I wrote this morning:
Is crime prediction a good crime prevention technique? If you can predict a person will be a violent offender, what do you do with them? Like a zoo: You lock a tiger up not because he has mauled anyone, but because he is so incredibly capable.
First, I want to consider prediction, specifically through social science. If you come up with a set of criteria that is extremely accurate, "A man born into these circumstances that has these experiences with these genetics will, under these life conditions ________." A giant statistical program. If we had the statistics, we could predict the whole of everything:
The e-book of life?
I think that in the strictest sense, it is possible (though not probable). People would be so perfectly predictable if we knew what data to gather. As for the right way to deal with potential, certain violence: I ask about fairness. I am making a possibly incorrect association between justice and fairness, but it is the only way I know to go forward, here. What is most fair?
Fairness means that everyone gets what is best for them, but on a societal level, that breaks down. There are so many variables, and everyone is searching for their own efficient comfort. My question is flawed. Crime prediction is no different than crime detection when thinking of crime prevention. It is the reaction to the crime that is the question. What do you do with some one who has or is going to commit a violent crime? My response is the same, but it is not practical: Education.
What is best for the criminal and for the larger society, what will make fairness instead of search for it, is access to knowledge of how comfort can be most efficiently attained without committing a crime. Crime for comfort is inefficient because it is dangerous, though for some the benefits outweigh the risks.
This is completely confounded by those who commit voilent crime for no overt gain. I want to know more about these people: Are they somehow related to those who give all of themselves for the sake of what is good? They are beyond my theory of efficient comfort because their motives are not for their gain.
Both senseless violence and senseless benevolence are a product of a loss of self, but the vacuum has been filled by different things.
Is crime prediction a good crime prevention technique? If you can predict a person will be a violent offender, what do you do with them? Like a zoo: You lock a tiger up not because he has mauled anyone, but because he is so incredibly capable.
First, I want to consider prediction, specifically through social science. If you come up with a set of criteria that is extremely accurate, "A man born into these circumstances that has these experiences with these genetics will, under these life conditions ________." A giant statistical program. If we had the statistics, we could predict the whole of everything:
The e-book of life?
I think that in the strictest sense, it is possible (though not probable). People would be so perfectly predictable if we knew what data to gather. As for the right way to deal with potential, certain violence: I ask about fairness. I am making a possibly incorrect association between justice and fairness, but it is the only way I know to go forward, here. What is most fair?
Fairness means that everyone gets what is best for them, but on a societal level, that breaks down. There are so many variables, and everyone is searching for their own efficient comfort. My question is flawed. Crime prediction is no different than crime detection when thinking of crime prevention. It is the reaction to the crime that is the question. What do you do with some one who has or is going to commit a violent crime? My response is the same, but it is not practical: Education.
What is best for the criminal and for the larger society, what will make fairness instead of search for it, is access to knowledge of how comfort can be most efficiently attained without committing a crime. Crime for comfort is inefficient because it is dangerous, though for some the benefits outweigh the risks.
This is completely confounded by those who commit voilent crime for no overt gain. I want to know more about these people: Are they somehow related to those who give all of themselves for the sake of what is good? They are beyond my theory of efficient comfort because their motives are not for their gain.
Both senseless violence and senseless benevolence are a product of a loss of self, but the vacuum has been filled by different things.
Friday, May 28, 2010
More Philosophy
This is going to have to be straight philosophy for a while. Here is what I've been thinking (mostly unedited, written over the past three days):
(In park 5/28)
Opting out could be better-- It would have to be a complete opt out-- what would that look like? It woudl look like... I don't know. I can't do it all, I need a village. A commune, I guess. Is that where i want to go? I want to live in an intentional, thoughtful, synergetic community. I want education to be my niche. I want simplicity. I don't want to just keep getting "educated" after this. I don't want to fit into what is already here. That is compromise. Is what I want the classic utopia? collaboration-- complete-- intellectual, economical, physical (but isn't that part of economics?) Can this be applied to a classroom?
I am questioning my staunch pro or anti anything stances. possibly.
New phrasing: my best guess, based on the evidence i've gathered, is that...
... life ends at death
...there is a single, fluid, objective reality.
Reality that everything exists in. Fuck, though, what if there isn't? Is this insistence based in the same fear that my mother insists on Jesus Christ? It is completely terrifying to think that I can't trust reality.
It is my best guess based on the evidence i've gathered that the external reality is stably reliable on a single set of physical laws. The complete set of physical laws that humanity may or may not have figured out. Certainly we have not.
What i want cannot exist in isolation, but I do not want a family:cooperation.
There is a playground here, how silly. Necessary only in this mess. An approximation of really being outside. I do not get the public beach. It is the same, like an approximation of what a sandy shore could be like. Designated areas to approximate the experience of being outside. Approximation is compromise.
Government and society in their current forms are irrelevant to me-- I do not want to compromise and that is the only way to live within it so
collaboration=revolution?
collaboration=opting out?
perhaps, then, the choices shrink to 2.
-compromise v opt out and then collaborating in order to revolutionize
Find food efficiently and rest often. We follow this completely and it makes perfect sense:
find food efficeintly, rest often.
We followed this and we failed, the efficiency went too far. Our brains are meta enough to see our mistake xxx million years later. When did the mistake happen? Beginning of hunter-gatherer societies? Beginning of agriculture? Hunting? Existence of rational thought? or social meetings that didn't include procreation/young care? Oh, yes, what a certainly affecting factor.
Reproduce efficiently, rest often.
The family is an efficient system for maximum reproduction. We outgrow our systems. We are, as a whole, beginning to question the system at large. Most people compromise completely and make small rebellions "I have opted in to a system I don't agree with, but at least I stand out."
I don't want to act out, I want to simplify, collaborate and revolutionize. I don't have enough time! I want to believe in an after life, not so that I can finish revolution, but so that I feel a stake in revolution continuing beyond my struggle for my own, personal satisfaction.
meta-global-selfishness.
If you move into a mansion and you're dying tomorrow, would you go through the trouble of unpacking your boxes? What would you unpack? Your bed? would you dedicate your last day to the project of being as comfortable as possible (assume for the purpose of this metaphor that ultimate comfort for dying would be reached when everything was unpacked)?You don't have time to finish the job completely so you have to compromise how comfortable you need to be (and the time/effort it takes to achieve this) with how much time you want to spend actually being in a state that approximates comfort. sooo...
(in class 5/26)
So every kid in the US has to go to school that is at least somewhat guided by legislation? There is no possibility, as a teacher, of escaping it without changing the system. What if everyone invloved was willing to opt out? The parents and teachers-- I'm thinking one room school house... or like the school in VT (Rushton video, find name in notes). How does that work? Would it be irresponsible to escape instead of revolutionize? I feel too small-- too socialy inept and too proud to relinquish my thoughts to some one else's charisma. I am too uncooperative-- cooperation in its least effective form is what caused the mess in the first place. Compromise is so dangerous, but of course I don't have all the answers I need. Collaboration without compromise. Not many ideas giving up part of themselves, but many ideas shredding the useless until a collaborative, correct idea emerges. The right thing to do. The perfect system.
Being uncomprimising does not mean I think I am right. If I ever beleive I have it all figured out I have secured my failure. More information is always burried and being generted. Fluidity= every person is always being formed so the world is always morphing. Maybe the objective reality is always changing. A fluid objective reality. How evasive, but maybe not? The reality exists regardless of us. It is what is and what is is is a clear view. No. The view is not what is is, the view is the subjective part. An objective view is not possible, like the Doors of Perception. What does he call it? The Mind at Large? Limited by perception and perception is limited by human needs. If we could really percieve it all, we would die from lack of attention to personal needs. That is too abstract-- I mean real reality I am in right now. But how does this relate to the US education system? I cannot refuse to cooperate with people who don't agree with my standards for collaboration. So what?
I either opt out, revolutionize, but never compromise.
What is behind this? Hope? Rather blind hope-- Even if I put my whole strength into revolution, it would surely be swallowed by beaurocracy in some stage. So not hope, I am not particularly hopeful. Responsibility? More likely. Because it is right and hope is irrelevant. What is motivating me, though? Why do I care to do what is right? Why not what is good or what I want or what feels good at any given moment? I'll only die anyway so the whole thing is irrelevant. It makes more sense to live a purposeless, lustful, hedonistic, gluttonous life. Why do I shy from pleasure for its own sake? Because my brain physically must move. I could drink through that if I tried, I guess. Or even seek diagnosis and take prescribed psycho-pharmaceuticals, but that isn't hedonism. It is compromise. So one way of not compromising is giving in to all sensual yearnings, but my mind would not be satisfied. Another way is to live with strict adherence to justice and responsibility, but I am not good at it. I will keep practicing, but I need more reminders? If I exercise my brain maybe I can be more comfortable with compromise.
(In park 5/28)
Opting out could be better-- It would have to be a complete opt out-- what would that look like? It woudl look like... I don't know. I can't do it all, I need a village. A commune, I guess. Is that where i want to go? I want to live in an intentional, thoughtful, synergetic community. I want education to be my niche. I want simplicity. I don't want to just keep getting "educated" after this. I don't want to fit into what is already here. That is compromise. Is what I want the classic utopia? collaboration-- complete-- intellectual, economical, physical (but isn't that part of economics?) Can this be applied to a classroom?
I am questioning my staunch pro or anti anything stances. possibly.
New phrasing: my best guess, based on the evidence i've gathered, is that...
... life ends at death
...there is a single, fluid, objective reality.
Reality that everything exists in. Fuck, though, what if there isn't? Is this insistence based in the same fear that my mother insists on Jesus Christ? It is completely terrifying to think that I can't trust reality.
It is my best guess based on the evidence i've gathered that the external reality is stably reliable on a single set of physical laws. The complete set of physical laws that humanity may or may not have figured out. Certainly we have not.
What i want cannot exist in isolation, but I do not want a family:
There is a playground here, how silly. Necessary only in this mess. An approximation of really being outside. I do not get the public beach. It is the same, like an approximation of what a sandy shore could be like. Designated areas to approximate the experience of being outside. Approximation is compromise.
Government and society in their current forms are irrelevant to me-- I do not want to compromise and that is the only way to live within it so
collaboration=revolution?
collaboration=opting out?
perhaps, then, the choices shrink to 2.
-compromise v opt out and then collaborating in order to revolutionize
Jon S. argued that opting out is not a necessary first step: "It is not compromise-- it can be like going undercover: infiltrating the ignorant-- like a wolf in sheep's clothing. Then you plant a little word here 'wolves are awesome'-- a little word there 'wolves give great back-rubs!' Before you know it, they want to know where to find the wolves"
It is something to consider.
Is the human experience, because of our brain's meta-abilities and social demands, based in varying qualities of approximations of reality? Our bodies evolved selected for societal living which became less natural over time. We are clever and lazy, which was certainly a selected trait.It is something to consider.
Find food efficiently and rest often. We follow this completely and it makes perfect sense:
find food efficeintly, rest often.
We followed this and we failed, the efficiency went too far. Our brains are meta enough to see our mistake xxx million years later. When did the mistake happen? Beginning of hunter-gatherer societies? Beginning of agriculture? Hunting? Existence of rational thought? or social meetings that didn't include procreation/young care? Oh, yes, what a certainly affecting factor.
Reproduce efficiently, rest often.
The family is an efficient system for maximum reproduction. We outgrow our systems. We are, as a whole, beginning to question the system at large. Most people compromise completely and make small rebellions "I have opted in to a system I don't agree with, but at least I stand out."
I don't want to act out, I want to simplify, collaborate and revolutionize. I don't have enough time! I want to believe in an after life, not so that I can finish revolution, but so that I feel a stake in revolution continuing beyond my struggle for my own, personal satisfaction.
meta-global-selfishness.
If you move into a mansion and you're dying tomorrow, would you go through the trouble of unpacking your boxes? What would you unpack? Your bed? would you dedicate your last day to the project of being as comfortable as possible (assume for the purpose of this metaphor that ultimate comfort for dying would be reached when everything was unpacked)?You don't have time to finish the job completely so you have to compromise how comfortable you need to be (and the time/effort it takes to achieve this) with how much time you want to spend actually being in a state that approximates comfort. sooo...
So my motivation is solved, then? To increase my personal comfort level until i reach a point where ia m comfortable enough to compromise.
So:
-I am motivated by a search for the balance of comfort
-Humans have reached a stage in our evolution where we can see our collective error in the formation of human civilization.
- the error is: following evolutionary instincts for efficient energy consumption (food) and procreation after the point where we were efficient enough. Our abiltiy to think abstractly... to organize and create tools-- the ability to envision what is NOT-- put us in dissonance with the rest of existence because it can not.
Our human quest for efficiency for the sake of rest went too far. but at what point?
Many people are out of work and cannot eat because a few people are so efficient at getting food. We are all very efficient, in general, at procreation.
more people, enough (?) resources
we are too efficient and too selfish.
there are too many people
food production is too efficient
It does not matter at what point the mistake was made because it is truly too late. People's ability to compromise is huge, and our selfishness is unshakable. things could be saved, i think, but humanity is, as a rule, into SELF preservation. I am not an exception.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)