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 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:  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

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.
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.