ChaNce

What are coincidences?

To be lazy, the 1st definition provided by dictionary.com is as so: a striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance

Apparently. Seemingly so.

Even in the very definition, there is an air of unknowing - not even the dictionary for sure knows if it is only by chance. What it does know, is that it appears as such.

The common understanding of coincidence in my experience is that there is no "apparent" - that it IS by mere chance. That there is no guided pattern. That there is no explanation beyond its occurrence.

My 2nd favorite word in this definition is CHANCE - something that is by luck, accident or a seemingly random probability.

But I think I've come to a place where I don't think I believe in the common understanding in coincidence - that it is a seemingly random pattern with no meaning or intent behind it or that comes as consequence. As for CHANCE - my attitude toward its definition taken when it is TAKEN.

The thing is, I associate "chance" with "impulse" and "intuition" and "risk." There's a sense of thrill that shoots up my bones and sparks the neurons in mah brains. I'm always surprised by where my impulses lead me, when I do decide to take that chance. It's almost never where I ever expect for it to go.

COOL STUFF!

I've come to a point where I'm not going to dismiss something for grammatical or spelling errors. Because I miss a lot of good stuff when I get caught up within the trappings. If you find yourself resistant to enjoying something especially yummy, try thinking of these materials as stories. Because that is, in fact, what they are: stories.

no need to be creeped out. they're just stories!



bedtime stories.

origin stories and science fiction.



fascinating stuRF.



interesting how he connects the dots.



i wonders if BSG people read into Tsarion and Maxwell.



mythmaking from olde myths.



now... what if these myths had some modicum of truth? would that scare you? why?



why are myths with the same or familiar symbols or narratives passed down for so many generations? beyond the why - because I do think that question may be useless at times - what function do you think this passing down would serve?



is there really a danger in asking "what if"? or is there more of a danger in absolute dismissal?



is there anything of value that we can glean from these stories?



if there is a pattern of symbols or narratives, what happens when we learn what it is that they mean? wouldn't it mean that we'd become more literate? more discerning? more in control of our own understanding of the world around us?

bahahaha, I love how they use the dude from Quantum Leap and BSG.

cool shit, no? though there's a little discrepancy as to whether or not Earth existed before "Tiamat" was "destroyed" or whatnot.

Narratives are important in framing agendas, yes, but when framed as fairy tales, bedtime stories or sci fi (BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, how eyez ruv thee~!), it's safe to pass down certain histories. I think where a lot of people get "caught up" and "paralyzed" or even "evangelized" is when they take texts - religious and not - quite literally.

But these stories, simple enough so that they can be easily remembered and passed down, are cloaked in a protection of fiction. And they are fictional. But within these stories are certain patterns and repetitions of narratives - and that is where I don't believe in things like coincidence. There is a pattern and there is a repetition for a reason.

Not because these are supposed to be taken literally, because there really was a big, bad wolf out to eat Grandma.

Not because it was an actual snake that lured Eve from the Garden of Eden, or that there was even truly a literal Garden of Eden.

In these tales are SYMBOLS. Familiar signposts, stars that make up an overall constellation and map of human understanding of from where we came and what we are becoming. Isn't it strange that across the globe are legends of human beings being descended from serpent "gods"? Isn't it strange that almost every religious text records a great flood that covered the earth after a war between the "gods"? Or the idea of plagues?

There is a distinct difference between taking something seriously and taking something literally. One has a practical application towards movement, taking chances and figuring out new ideas whereas the other is an impractical shackle or trap that prevents you from learning or changing your very reality.

The danger is in the "FRAMING." For 2012, let's say, there are a bazillion theories as for what's going to happen, since the Mayan "calendar" ends in 2012, we move into the "Age of Aquarius" and a lot of agendas and presidential terms end in 2012.

It can be framed in death and destruction, Armageddon, being saved by alien beings, etc. But I don't think that's very helpful.

What I do find helpful is LOOKING at the pattern and repetition in that from various different mediums and texts, something culminates in 2012. There's no point in trying to predict what exactly WILL happen, but what you choose to do with your time in between now and then.

There are symbols, stars and entire constellations mapped out in the repetitions found in stories. Connect the dots to find out what the core of the narratives are saying. Take it not as warning or advice, but just as is. And act accordingly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIu2rA0yd9s&feature=related

is there an Esoteric Agenda? BLARGH!

Those who believe that it's real are Conspiracy Theorists and those who do not are supposedly Realists. But as of late, my whole idea of reality has been turned inside out and has beens meLticated.

Like I've mentioned before, facts and truths can be quite ephemeral, just like our perception of the physical materiality (matter-reaLity <-- bahahahah! too punny!) of our very bodies can shift when we look at it from another angle. Even in a physical sense, our bodies are very mold-able, adaptable and plastic.


If you want to see the film, you can see it HERE.


Speaking of here and not THERE, here are clips of the "yummy part" that the esoterics favored and savored:

GENERAL CRITICISMS OF ZEITGEIST AND ESOTERIC AGENDA:
* factual inaccuracies regarding the birth of Christ or alignment of stars
* fear mongering
* conspiracy theorisms
* "too harsh" on government
* only has the "good stuff" at the end (Esoteric Agenda)
* is hypocritical in its use of fear
* confusing in what it's trying to say
* goes off the deep end when it connects government to spirituality and religion
* is it criticising paganism??
* it's got SPELLING MISTAKES!!!

What I found interesting is that I found a lot more criticisms of Zeitgeist from more religiously-inclined folk...aaaand "academics" - cuz, well, for reals, it just shoves stuff out there without citations or whatnot. For Esoteric Agenda, I saw a lot of criticisms from those who practice more "esoteric" spiritualities, like those who regularly converse with spirit guides or take psychic phenomenon very seriously.

Sure, it is not a perfect video because a lot of it can be misconstrued or posit ideas that can be misleading - yet what I find interesting 1st and foremost in the criticism is that the film is mostly criticised by those who feel attacked or "misrepresented."

Ahhh, so self-centered are we all! So vain! (yours truly included.)

Yet, let's look at this criticism...

IT'S FEAR-MONGERING: yes, it certainly appears that way, especially for the first hour-and-a-half. Unfortunately, that's kind of a gimmick or staple of this genre of documentary. The bombardment of images of past and present world destruction does jolt the viewer awake and does try to scare the viewer in a sense. Though... I think this is unintentional on the part of the director.

I honestly don't think the director is trying to SCARE us into believing his own agendas, but is trying to wake us up, as if to say, "DUDE. The world out there is SCARY and the people who rule it are SERIOUS."

But it's a bit awkward. Like a newbie 6'4 dancer who's trying to boogie with a 5'2 athlete. There's a lot of toe-stepping and awkward, rough re-directing that's going on.


I THINK IT'S ATTACKING ______: Again, the problem normally lieswith the insecurities of the viewer. What is the intention of the video? Is it to attack? I'm not quite so sure. And, if you think it's attacking YOU, then I think skepticism of your dismissal may be a wise choice to make, indeed!

WHERE'S THE CITATION? An academic's chief complaint. Where is he getting this information from and who's saying it and why, exactly, is he putting a rhetorical quote in the middle of all this "factual" evidence? Obviously, he's trying to convince us through rhetoric, which is dangerous because rhetoric hides fact and truth, rhetoric is propaganda, a dangerous form of hypnotism.

Neeeigh! whinnies the bobbLebot. Neeeeigh! It thinks not. At the moment.

If I am understanding it from the director's standpoint of the importance of connecting the left and right hemisphere's of the brain (PLEASE watch the Jill Bolte Taylor video~!), the quotes are more than just artistic touches or attempts to posit opinions as fact.

Sure, it ascribes to some of the staples of its genre, but it is jumbling the abstract and the emotional heart of it with "cold" facts to... well, I can't know what exactly his intention was, but I can say what it elicited from me: questions. Lots and lots of questions and discernment.

The thing is this - when people - like the New Agers/Esoterics and the religious don't get it immediately, a knee-jerk reaction is to say, "Well, it's just a conspiracy theorist talking. It's just a THEORY" and walk away without having taken it seriously. But how many theories in the humanities and sciences do we take pretty damn seriously?? How many are we REQUIRED to take pretty damn seriously?

Everything is a theory and there is no fundamental truth that is absolute 24/7. And I'm not saying that in a flippant, "ooo, I's SOOOOOO meta-meta!" kinder way.

I suppose... what IF we decided to take it seriously? What? We need a Pulitzer Prize or have it formally listed as required text in a university-level classroom for it to hold any sort of value or validity to take it seriously?

Think about it... when we do THAT, it's like an Amazon.com booklist. We are submitting to the arbiters of taste and validity. We are... "sheepLe" - as described in Esoteric Agenda. We need someone to taste our food for poison before serving it up to us to seriously digest. But we aren't really questioning who is deciding what is and isn't toxic.

BASICALLY... if you criticize anything, your criticisms don't hold water... at least, not with me - until you've taken what you've criticized seriously. Which is hard. I mean, it's something I struggle with day by day, but once you're conscious of it, it's your responsibility. Your choice. Deep down you know that your criticism doesn't hold any real weight when you haven't taken what you've criticized as a serious text or piece of "truth."

Do I think it's a piece of art? NAH. It's a bit sloppy in some areas and the production values are low. (bahahahahaha! sorry, SouthPark reference)

But I do think that there's a lot of interesting material to wade through, some of which honestly resonates with much of what I've been looking into over the summer with The Holographic Universe, certain "universal" Laws, Mayan Calendar stuff, Nibiru and Annunaki stuff, Sitchin and Maxwell with a little Tsarion and Cremo on the side. A LOT of material, and it DOES all connect, but at the same time, it's key to use DISCERNMENT when looking through a lot of this.

Basically, if you look at criticisms, take them seriously. See where they stem from. See if they challenge your own formulation of understanding something. If you dismiss something - study that as well. You may be surprised by how much we dismiss on account of a bruised ego or a side effect of identity politics.

Siiiiiiiiiiigh.

Politics.

It's just a religion by another name that functions by indoctrination of the sheeple and the deification of a material "leader." Yeah, yeah - I might come off as "oh, I'm like, soooooooo past THAT" but no - it's not coming from a place of elitist intellectualism. Where it's coming from is a place of "it is what it is" with a side of sadness.

This is how it is and how larger material structures of government function.

I catch myself from time to time making comments while watching an episode of Heroes or LOST, "There they go killing Black people again!" or "ABC hates Black people!!!" - but when I do this and crack jokes at the ridiculousness of such blatant racism or blindness of multiculturalism, it's often to elicit a laugh or an act of affirmation from someone who's watching it with me.

Like, "This PISSES ME OFF!"
"WHOOOOOOOO! Yeah, it pisses me off, TOO!!!"
"We're so AwEsome!"
::pat selves on back::

Why do I do this? Why do so much of us do this? I suppose for me, it's an affirmation that all this struggle into coming into my identity or understanding of the world around me wasn't in vain. That my opinions are, in fact, valid, because they so easily elicit validation. They're valid because there is a group mentality that supports my statements. They are real. They hold water. They matter.

But often... though a lot of these "witty" remarks have come through processing and struggle and questioning things - by the time they come out in a social environment, they've lost some power because they've become cookie cutter statements. It doesn't mean they're not longer true, but that they're no longer "subversive" - they no longer hold any profound weight or value to me because they're things that reside on the tip of my tongue. Memorized slogans. Politics worn as fashion statements.

No processing there. Because it's already been processed. Like Kraft singles.

Mmm... Kraft singles.... ::drools::

But yeah. I get it. I still do it. It's hard feeling alone and unheard. But what I'm coming to understand is that as long as I understand and hear it myself... as long as it resonates with me and challenges me and doesn't feel pressured to conform for the sake of affirmation, then I am well on my way of becoming a more fully integrated being.

Socially, I've been plugging out a bit. And Facebook... has lost its mojo, you could say. It's still a useful tool, for sure, but I dunno... there's something about status updates (which I still utilize!!) that creeps me out. Like, WHY? Why do I feel the need to announce that I am sick? To seek sympathy? Why do others feel the need to announce that they got the iPhone or saw The Dark Knight?

To affirm that we matter? To validate our lifestyles? To assure ourselves that we're not alone?

Again - not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

But isn't it disturbing when you catch yourself in that moment?

Why do we care that other's care? Why do we care if someone we see separate from us affirms that we're right? Why all this emphasis on the left hemispheres of our brains?

I suppose the HEART of this post is - why ESCHEW one part completely in favor of another? I don't mean it in a lazy sense that EVERYTHING HAS VALUE, but I think it's productive to seek the value in something we automatically are inclined to eschew. Like the esoterics who discounted 90% of Esoteric Agenda, only favoring the last 12 minutes that makes sense to them, that makes them feel good, that makes them feel like their viewpoint... MATTERS.

Yeah, yeah... we are allllll special.

But no, really look at that. "We are all special."

Not in a material sense. Not to be quantified in a list of accomplishments.

Seriously look at that statement. "We are all special." 4 words. Once you get past the surface...

"We are all special."

What does that mean to you?

Question Marks . Process

Something I struggle with is, that when I get too excited, I throw myself into something but only get the affect of everything. This is odd because as much as I am in tune with my emotions when I'm reflective, I tend to not value anything beyond excitement when caught up in a moment. Sometimes I don't know if this is due to the Aries in me or because I've been conditioned to not value emotions - or to value sharing them with other people. And then a thought occurred to me - why must intellect and intuition be perceived to be polarities?

Why see them as separate? Because we don't know how to trust. We don't know how to trust how we feel or some otherworldly feeling that's directing us.

We've lost the ability to trust when we've privileged intellect above intuition. Because intellect is more concrete in a material way. Because we've become material beings, privileging what we can perceive with the 5 senses above all else. Intellect - we can trust. Because it can be molded and dealt with when it no longer fits our reality in a very materialistic way.

If a certain ideology no longer serves us, if we aren't GETTING anything out of it, we use our intellect to figure out why it is no longer working and then map out a new way for new ideologies to serve us. To take care of our material understanding of the world. Whether it's an attainment of wealth and friends, or a redistribution of it.

The thing is, with intuition and feeling, there is no clear GETTING. Wait, correction. When there is no GETTING, then we devalue it.

You see, we've trained ourselves to perceive feeling and intuition in a very materialistic way. If we invest in grief, it is so we can get over something or relieve ourselves of guilt. If we invest in loving someone, it is to be loved in return. Some would say that love is unconditional, or that it SHOULD be - and perhaps this is so... but when you love someone and that person does not love you in return - whether that person is a child or a dog, your mother or your partner, doesn't that feel terrible?

And then what happens? The way we've been taught is that if there is an investment, there has to be a return.

And when I say "we" I mean as a mainstream collective being of entities that see themselves as separate. Whoa, that was wordy. Blah, blah, blah - there are always exceptions. ::rolls eyes:: Seems like America is the land of exceptions. As are most nation states and people who identify with them. Blah. BLEH, blah!

So what happens when we grieve and don't get healing? We're "depressed" and need to "fix" that. Anger is not a popular emotion - it's something one should not express at another person. Love - is it an emotion? Well it's an abstract feeling, for sure. Love, if you express it, then it should be returned. With the exception of family, if you love someone "separate" from your blood and it isn't returned, then we are conditioned to divest ourselves from these feelings. Because it doesn't GET us anywhere. Because it doesn't GET us a return on our investment.

The thing is, when the feelings aren't Practical or Logical, we are encouraged to keep them to ourselves.

If you express Love to someone who does not return it, not only is it an expression "wasted," but it makes the recipient feel obligated to return it. And if the recipient doesn't, then people tend to feel bad. All around, for different reasons. But is this a way of "dealing" with emotions?

Again, "deal" with. Emotions are something that must be 'dealt' with. A chore, of sorts. Because they are messy, because they aren't super convenient. Because, if not utilized in the "correct" fashion, emotions don't get us anywhere.

So we are trained to laud the happy, more positive emotions and to devalue those that aren't as positive. Or, we can feel them as long as we keep them to ourselves or as long as they serve a purpose - so we can "get over" them so that we can move on towards more positive emotions. And when we "feel" too much without a return on investment, a common solution is to self medicate or go to a therapist to "fix" it.

My conundrum is... if we aren't encouraged to experience a full range of emotions, what happens? Repression or possible conditioned anesthetized emotions.

Because the lows aren't socially acceptable to be "so" low, the highs probably won't be as high.

More importantly, in my mind/Intellect, is that when we anesthetize the experience of emotions, we become less equipped to process them in a way that resounds with us - not a mainstream kind of affect - but within our own network and complex of affect.

When something bothers us, it's our emotions that point to that red flag. And why is this important?

When we don't know how to deal with our feelings, when we just go to the surface of it and cannot logically or rationally understand them, often our first reaction is to either ignore them, exorcise them/"fix" ourselves or to go Unconscious.

But when they come back, when they won't go away, what do you think that indicates?

Process is different from Understanding. The thing is, Understanding comes FROM some kind of Process. If we don't Understand our emotions, chances are that we haven't fully Processed them. How can we Learn without Process? The thing is, when you look at it beneath the surface, our emotions try to trigger within us a Process.

But why are we so wired to struggle against this process?

I've thought and struggled with the idea of struggle for a bit. Struggle has a purpose. To learn. But is struggle the only way? Isn't there a way we can process things without struggle? Not in a lah di dah kinda way, but in ALLOWANCE. Allow, allow, allow for the process to happen. Don't fight the process. Let it happen.

Don't you think we'll learn something new, come to a kind of understanding where in which we'll learn the value of our emotions and Intuition that is Outside of the Immediate Understanding of What We Get Out of It?

MorTaLity of Logic and Reason

A recent email touched upon the topic of a falling out with someone that person cared about. Long distance friendship/relationship, little regular contact, yadda, yadda, yadda - and then BOOM! One person makes a choice to use passive aggressivity to hurt the other person. Long story short, time has passed, and while they're "okay" with each other, there really isn't the kind of connection there used to be.

People hurt out from a place of hurt.

It’s hard to see when someone is trying to hurt you – intentionally or not – and a lot of that, I think, comes from our own conditioning of our material attachments to things – even books. On the surface, we know we do not and cannot possess people, and yet, despite ourselves, when we become attached to or perceive that person to be an integral piece of our being or expansion, that’s what essentially happens.

They get upset when they can’t see you or when you don’t fulfill a role because a part of them is responding to an unconscious understanding. And that understanding, beyond reason or rational logic, is that a part of you is supposed to belong to them. They’ve made claims on it and invested in it.

So it hurts when something that is theirs is denied to them. It’s unconscious. Usually it is unintentional. But it hurts because it makes them doubt how strong that claim is. How loyal you are, or how much you do, indeed, care. It makes them feel vulnerable because they fear that you don’t love or don’t love enough. At least, that is my understanding as to why people who love or care for one another hurt each other.

Does this mean that no one is at fault? No one is to blame? Yes and no. It is what it is. But once you become conscious to what is happening, you must become responsible for your own actions, for your conscious behavior, at least – in order to maintain your sense of integrity. But realizing your own culpability can be a scary thing, indeed, because… what do you do? What do you do when you realize what’s been done? What do you say?

If it's scary it's because you are afraid of how they will receive it. Saying sorry, or trying to offer insight to a deeper truth to what is really going on. Getting people to understand or recognize the uglier sides of their selves or actions can be painful because you don't want to hurt them. Because you're scared if they do, they'll hurt you back. Especially when you're feeling most vulnerable.

This is where my inner cheerleader kicks in: be brave. Be brave, even if you're scared.

Acknowledge the fear, but avoid giving control over it, because when fear hijacks the mind, like a meme, it will come up with a multitude of excuses so that you can protect yourself and that other person from expanding. Like a virus, it is infectious and can dismantle your ability to listen to your intuition.

That is where it is hard, because it is an inconvenient thing: paying attention to your intuition. To value it and see it as a part of the intellect, not as a separate process. It's inconvenient because there is a threat that if you apply or practice this channeling of your intuition, that the person you are sharing it with will not understand, or worse, hurt you via emotional and intellectual denigration. Whatever you're paying attention to, you become conscious off. But sometimes consciousness is not enough. And you've got to learn to be okay with that. That, when applying consciousness, when practicing the sharing of your own understanding of truth, there will be mistakes.

And that if you allow it, these mistakes, to happen - you will learn from them. And so that every time thereafter that you practice this flow of consciousness, you will get better at it. Better at communicating what it is that you're trying to say. Better at reaching that other person's consciousness, so that he or she can see that you are not saying or doing something with the intention to hurt. You are doing it to help.

I, myself, have realized a mistake. That I may have unintentionally hurt somebody when I plugged out of a connection to keep from getting hurt myself. Because it made me feel too vulnerable. Because I didn't think it was fair that I was so exposed and the other person seemed so distant and far away.

So what do I do?

A convenient thing to do would be to leave it alone. Because, if I listen to just the memes of fear, then I can rationalize that this is all in my head, that I didn't hurt this person. I mean, I'm such an insignificant blip on this person's radar, why would my disappearance hurt this person? If anything, I doubt this person even cares as to whether or not I exist. If anything, this person found my presence annoying and irritating. That, you know, disappearing actually did this person a favor.

And in that moment, I realized, wow. I was getting defensive, I was going into a mode of self-protection. But why? What was I trying to protect? Beyond rationale, beyond intellect, what I've come to realize is how my interactions with this person made me feel much more attached than would make empirical sense. And that I was resisting it. That it scared me - how I ended up caring this much for a person, if I were to count the hours, doesn't add up. Didn't make sense.

This had to be some sort of infatuation. Which is dumb and stupid. Logically - LOOK, it IS stupid!!! It's stupid because it serves no immediate, practical purpose!!

And perhaps a part of it was. An infatuation of sorts. But more than that, I cared. When I sensed that person was having a hard time, I cared. Despite myself, I found myself channeling energy towards being good to this person, trying to find ways in which to relieve a burden. I cared, and that scared me. Because the level to which I cared didn't make sense to me. Because it would totally UnMake everything I believed to be true about the nature of the human condition - and as a close extension of that: the human connection.

The more I plugged into Logic and Intellect, the more confused I became. The more dissatisfied. The more I misunderstood what was going on. I knew everything. Or thought I did. So when I came up with a diagnosis and the treatment didn't work, I didn't know what to do.

The thing is, my intuition knows what to do, but my intellect is scared to do it. Because my intellect doesn't trust my intuition, because my intellect is more scared of the consequences, of what will Happen, than in making myself vulnerable enough to apologize for something maybe even this other person may not be conscious of.

The more I resist, the more this persists and hijacks my thoughts. Another meme that is battling the ones already trying to control my actions in interest of protecting my emotional spirit. That, and Pride.

The thing is, up until I met this person, I was a very Rational Being. Even when delving into more esoteric topics such as astrology, mimetics and spirituality, I did it from a very Rational standpoint. I used my understanding of Logic to guide me. Everything I was interested in HAD to HAVE a very Practical Application. A function. If it served no immediate function, I often abandoned it.

Even when it came to betrayal and other forms of heartbreak, I was very Rational and Logical in creating rough time lines in my head as to how long it would take for me to get over it, what my course of action would be, how I would heal from this situation and bullet point what I was supposed to have learned from it.

The thing is... and I shall get to this in another post - but the recent reports of the Real breaking into the Imaginary (from the Lacanian standpoint) from the "chupacabra" to the gnome in Argentina, to the giant stingrays found in the South Pacific and off the coast of Florida, chemosynthesis, the Montauk Monster, the Vatican announcing that believing in extraterrestrial life is okay with God, Dr. Edgar Mitchell from NASA coming out that the government has, indeed, covered up its contact with alien lifeforms, and, most recently, Big Food/Yeti - which will be officially revealed today, its DNA testing and everything, at a conference today -- all these things, when we deny they exist, WHY do we DENY them?

Because they CAN'T exist.

Well, if they show up in the real, if they PERSIST - if there is photographic evidence and witnesses and news footage showing us that these incidences DO EXIST, then what happens?

First is outright Denial.

This can't exist.

Why?

Because to believe that it does will UnMake all that you believed in, it will shatter Reality as you know and understand it. Because Logic and Rationale aren't as reliable as we've come to understand them. Because we treat Logic and Rational like we do Science - like a Religion. Like it is infallible. Because we need to believe in something concrete and infallible to feel in control of our own existence and destiny.

The thing is, I think we are in control through choice - that destinies can be infinite, but that the problem is that the manifestation of destiny is so incredibly different that what we've come to understand it as: linear, concrete.

So if Logic and Rationale have Holes, what do we do?

If we're scared, we Deny. We protect ourselves.

Bahahaha. It's easier to talk about it when I distance myself from what is going on with me internally. The thing is, the connection that I experience with this person is something that defies my Logic, my understanding of how people are SUPPOSED to connect. The conditions to foster this level of affect and emotion aren't present in this connection. Hence, it cannot exist.

And yet it PERSISTS.

And it won't let me go. Gahhhh... I feel like that nerdy Dr. Horrible who can see everything but himself, who can aspire towards everything but what makes him feel emotionally vulnerable.

Logically, I should not contact this person. That I should continue to sever our level of contact. Logically, if I give it a few more weeks, this person will become but a distant memory and I can move on my merry little way without having this person plague my thoughts. Unbeknownst to me, this person's infected me with a meme. Or, perhaps, an "eme" since it is emotionally-based.

But I've been listening to my Logic and Rational for a long time now. And nothing is panning out the way it's supposed to, on a mathematical timeline. A meta-Logic beyond that would Logically say that it is because Logic is Failing me.

So what am I supposed to do? Even as I ask this question, I realize that I am asking it in the context of - what can I do to fix this situation and fix myself and keep myself from being emotionally vulnerable in any way? A very selfish question. How Can I Protect Myself? How Can I Stop Caring About This Other Person?

I know what I should do. But I don't know what will happen after that.

And that's what disturbs me.

If I listen to my intuition and I contact this person, it will shatter my sense of Logic in connection to human connection. The thing is, if I contact this person, there has to be a Reason. There has to be at least a sense of a concrete Outcome. But there isn't. So why am I being interpellated to contact this person? There is no Reason, no Outcome, no Rationale behind this ghost that continues to haunt me.

And that's what disturbs me more.

I've created this system of Logic and Rational that has never emotionally failed me. It is INFALLIBLE!! At least, it was supposed to be. And now that I'm not sure if it is anymore, now that it appears to be, in fact, very, very mortal...

Is there such thing as being called to do something or say something without a clear, discernable Reason?

What is the Meme-ing of Life? And – there is no “I” in Temes.

As of late, I've grown quite enamored with Ted.com and am currently mining it for a lot of interesting presentations I'd like to share with you in the near future. Liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiike... NOW!

I misunderstood memes when I first riffed on science vs. religion. (science IS religion and vice versa, as I now understand it). So I got to the core of it and bring it to y’all: MEMEs (a concept by Richard Dawkins in his The Selfish Gene) – information that copies/replications with variation and selection; that which is imitated – according to Susan Blackwell. It is that which is imitated. Wearing jeans, eating peanut butter with jelly – ideas that are passed on from person to person. Selfish information packets that will get copied if they can. Like viruses…

Dan Dennett has an interesting take on memes (“an information packet with attitude”); how ideas can hijack our brains, not much like viruses, but AS viruses. Ideas that we decide that we are willing to die for are, essentially, pathogens to the human psyche. They are infectious. Its interest, as a virus, is to replicate and to survive, whether or not it is damaging the body or mind of its host. The thing is, viruses/memes do not care whether or not the body/mind of its host deteriorates, for its primary interest is to replicate itself and to spread. That is its aim.

Not to say all infections are bad. There are good bacteria and bad bacteria, like cholesterol. Some can be utilized to save the body of the host or build the host’s immune system. Think of and thank all the helpful bacteria swimming around in your gut that helps you digest the many germs that enter your system every day.

What I find interesting is his focus on responsibility. We are responsible for ourselves, our ideas – their intended effects and their possible misuses. When we are the vectors of specific memes, we should also take upon ourselves the responsibility for their possible mutations. When people are afraid of ideas that make them confront the mortality of their own belief systems, it is common to “caricature” – as Dennett puts it – or mock these ideas so that they are taken out of context. Infecting the idea of the idea with a mutated understanding of it.

The thing is, once an idea is out of your mouth or hands, it is open to be interpreted by whoever decides to engage with it. I think the tactic is not to combat this specifically. Allow for it to happen. Resistance, in a sense, is futile. But this isn’t to say that we should give up. If anything, remain vigilant and acquire new ways in order to return to the source of the creation of this idea – its intended core.

So how can we tell the difference between “good” memes and “bad” memes? The toxic and the helpful? Here’s where we go into the idea of utilizing one’s own consciousness in order to discern the helpful from the harmful. Discernment via becoming very conscious of an idea and its intended effects. Paying attention to the aim of this meme beyond self-replication.

Like viruses, we can build immunity to specific memes via a scientific process that Dennett underscores – find out the source of the memes, how it spreads and gather the facts. From there, one can build new mutations.

For me, when listening to his talk, it brings me to see mutations of memes that spread on “both ends” of a political spectrum. While the Christian, conservative Right prepare for the Rapture, the grassroots, radical Left prepare for a Revolution – both ideas that members of both sides are prepared to die for, and both ideas that will probably never manifest in their lifetimes. Because they can’t. Because the meme calls for a “moral passion” that calls for its affected and infected to not think or process, but to prepare. To wait. To get caught up in the cogs of a virulent machine that will never come into a physical or concrete manifestation, but will harm the lives of many in its wake.

Susan Blackwell - what catches my attention – that she glosses over – is how memes and temes may be affecting the cosmos – life beyond our very planet. This is a topic I would like to return to in the near future. As the week has been fairly busy and overly social for myself, I do need time to sit and reflect, contemplate and release thought upon thought so that I can come to a better understanding of ideas apart from the immediate emotions associated with them.

Us as meme machines is an interesting concept that Blackwell brings out. The idea that everything that’s ever come about – language, culture, belief systems – all come back to genes, that they benefitted the passing on of genes. An idea that is limited to the material as its source.

The idea of mimetics is interesting to me because a new replicator that was “let loose” was the spreading of mimicry to forward the passing on of an IDEA. Something immaterial. And yet connected to the material. These memes – her idea, not mine – are what drove for a biological push for bigger brains in the evolutionary process so that they can better take in and replicate memes. MIMETIC DRIVE, she calls it. And if you think of it, really – what IS the biological benefit of wearing earrings or speaking a certain way?

What Blackmore (from my POV) is suggesting/saying is that as we are outgrowing the passing on of things for the primary aim of spreading genes into flourishing into the passing on of ideas – MEMEs – there is something going on that is outgrowing our physical bodies as meme machines. (In a very Keanu Reeves Matrix sorta way.) TEMES she calls it.

I suppose the crux of it makes me wonder if there is a functioning hegemony going on in gene, meme and teme variation, selection and replication? That we are choosing to let them choose FOR us? That we are unconsciously giving consent to our own domination? That we only THINK we’re choosing to “improve” technology or ethical ideas, but that these are, in actuality, choosing US?

This also makes me wonder if these are all horrible. Probably not, but it possibly can become just so if we do not become aware of it – what it is, how it functions, what are its aims. Because it isn’t until we Pay Attention to it, until we become Conscious of what is going on, that we can exercise the Free Will to actually CHOOSE, selfishly, I suppose, what will benefit ourselves.
Like Blackwell ends when she asks if we will pull through, “Maybe we will. Maybe we won’t. I have no idea.”

As with a lot of forward-thinking ideas of science, religion and spirituality, I think it would be unwise to dismiss these ideas/memes at face value. WHEN we dismiss things, my plea is to ask yourselves WHY. WHY are you dismissing this idea? Is it because you think it may destroy the very memes that you are comfortable with? Is it because they don’t fit in with your idea of a reality?

Remember, a reality is made concrete only via consensus. So if another meme spreads, it can threaten your reality by becoming a new consensus.

STILL – what I want other humans to do is ask the WHY and WHAT FOR. WHY do we dismiss it, WHAT function does this SERVE? This doesn’t destroy a virus or a meme, much less, build immunity to it. For it will exist until it finds another replicator.

But Paying Attention to and becoming Conscious of its Source, its intent beyond replication – that, I think, is a better way of discernment, choosing which memes you will allow to spread or “hijack” your ideology. I think right now, most humans are selfishly and dangerously stuck on the ego and the material. Everything revolves around a sense of control – we MUST be able to control the world around us, or at the very least, ourselves. So it’s a scary prospect – the idea that we may not even be in control of our own ideas. And maybe we never will be.

But Choice still exists if we let it. Choice comes via Process. But how can one Process when one Dismisses whatever foreign meme it comes into contact with – or worse – imbibe without careful examination? Such has been the role of pop culture as of late in the very culture of reality shows. Which I would like to talk about, but I think if I go off on any more tangents, this will come off as increasingly rambly so that not very many – if any – will be able to make any sense of it.

But something is happening here. In Human Consciousness that is manifesting in the Material and connects to something beyond the scope of our planet. But I’ll get into that on another post about a lot of cool/inneresting/weird/scary/amazing revelations as of late of life that don’t fit into our current understandings of biology and civilization.

RambLings on The Dark (K)Night: PrescripTion JeLLybeans and CanDied PiLLs

DON'T READ UNLESS YOU'VE WATCHED THE DARK KNIGHT AND/OR ARE PREPARED FOR SPOILERS.

SPOILERS!!!

**********************************you'vebeenwarned***********************************

I just came back from watching The Dark Knight and was profoundly disturbed and moved towards picking apart all of this - sure, about "what does this all mean" but more like, what does this mean to me? Because I think I know how mainstream audiences who watch this simply for entertainment value sees this, "How tragic, this huge sacrifice Batman made on behalf of the people" - unconsciously, "the people" standing in for "democracy" - but for me, "the people" standing in for the sheep. For sometimes sheep are in wolves' clothing and vice versa.

There are a bunch of thematic mini critiques and some missteps along the way, but all in all an interesting film that should be dissected "as is."

The thing is, I did not find the Joker to be the villain of the piece. My housemate goes so far as to glorify and romanticize the Joker, but I don't go so far as that. I don't think this piece has any villains. Perhaps I've been watching too much Zeitgeist, listening to too much Jordan Maxwell and looking too much into the Mayan calendar, the foretold 2012 and how this all ties in with a New World Order versus the New Paradigm. I'm still processing a lot of it with its connections to planetary movement and how much weight our world leaders put in symbology, but gahhh!

Okay, let's start with symbology and why there are no villains in The Dark Knight.

Like Horus vs Set, there is initially Batman and the Joker with their copycat counterparts. The only difference is that the Joker has control over his counterparts by a total disregard for rules and agreements whereas Batman has no control over his copycats by his own codes of moral conduct and "honor." Sometimes, like Lee Adama in the courtroom, too much self righteous nobility can be a sinister thing, indeed.

But the writer and Christopher Nolan complicate the Horus vs Set/Day vs Night order by inserting Harvey Dent -- who starts out as the "White Knight" who fights crime by day while Batman fights crime by night -- who descends into darkness/madness after Rachael is killed. (OyL. Can Hollywood STOP using heterowomyn as SYMBOLS of nationhood and social justice to be fought over?! We're people, too!! Gah!)

Like the introduction of the Joker's crones and Batman's copycats, nothing is as it appears. The 1st clown we see is not the Joker and the 1st "batman" we see is not Batman.

Gotham City is as topsy turvy as it ever was, even with the futile enforcement of law to keep the city under "control," under some kind of order. But there is no order and the Law turns out to be just as illusory as the money the Joker burns up at the end. What I find interesting is that we never find the identity of the Joker, though we know the identities of 2 Face and Batman in their civilian attire. Perhaps a critique of those who have a foot in both worlds... and perhaps not. In either case, having a foot in both worlds leaves one vulnerable because under one guise, one must play by the rules of social order in order to survive under its rule.

Basically, what keeps a city running but its laws? Its illusions? It's just as vulnerable to anarchy as those who can see through these invisible reigns of order and justice. Like money. It's not real. It doesn't hold real value. It's just paper that's a Symbol for value.

And here's where we descend into real Darkness. When we spend too much energy fighting for Symbols. But symbols are only as powerful as you believe them to be. The Joker has power as long as there is a Batman and vice versa. One cannot be imbued with meaning without the other.

Yes, when Joker pretends to play by rules, by a set of instructions, civilians are uncomfortable, but swallow his execution of fellow citizens. But once the Mayor's life is on the line, oh, lord, "heaven help" the Joker. Because the Mayor is a Symbol, you see. The Mayor STANDS for something.

Why does Batman take the fall in the end? Because Harvey Dent STOOD for something. Because the people/sheep need something to believe in. Because without sheep, our illusions and daydreams cannot be built into a concrete "reality" of skyscrapers and H&M's. Because Symbols are what keeps things in some semblance of order. Even the Joker, in the end, has to respect that. Because he, himself, is a symbol of total Anarchy. And therein lies his Achilles Heel -- that he has become more of a Symbol than the ones he is using to destroy the System by which the city and "society" runs by. Basically -- he must fight Anarchy in order to enact a controlled semblance of Anarchy. If that makes any sort of sense.

But let's pay attention to that... to the Joker, I suppose. With the Joker, the only thing consistent about him is his inconsistency and his craving for the darker side of the willy nilly. You can consider him the black, snuffed out side of Harvey Dent's coin, the ravaged side of Harvey Dent's face. Even as how he got his scars, how he got "crazy" -- you never know because the story always changes. In letting go of order, the Joker is able to control the structured, ordered world around him. Pull people's strings. Know how to push them over the edge.

His saving grace is that he knows how to disrupt the system...though, in the end, I don't think that's what he REALLY wants. He only toys with the idea with never taking it across the line. That, he leaves up to the sheep. If anything, the world is his stage -- he gives life to his puppets and let them duke it out and take full responsibility in the end. He only sets up the circumstances.

That's what I admire about the Joker. He forces people to take responsibility for their choices.

Here's where Ideology versus Tools duke it out.

Ideology is a set of beliefs or dogma one adheres to so that one is absolved of ever being truly responsible for one's own choices. One is responsible for the upholding of the belief, but never the self. "Well... I voted for him cuz I'm leftist..." or "I'm protesting that cuz I'm a feminist." or "I blew up the abortion clinic because Christ compelled me to."

People who adhere to ideology let ideology take the fall for their actions. Their arrest? It was in the name of something. The shooting of civilians? It was for the "belief" in "democracy." But it's never really, "I killed" or "I hurt," you see? It's the belief in something. That's where I disagree with Batman.

He doesn't like his copycats because his copycats are putting themselves in danger -- this messes with Batman's ideology. So he smacks them on the wrist - "I'm supposed to protect you. You're not supposed to protect yourselves. You're sheep." Batman's choices are ruled by his sense of justice. As much guilt as he feels for the death of Rachael, he can at least, at the end of the day, justify it with the excuse that he chose Harvey for the Greater Good. Because Harvey was a Symbol that stood for Something.

Here's the interesting critique: what happens when those Symbols fail us?

The thing about the Joker is that he doesn't use a gun to kill people, really. Or he doesn't prefer them. And he doesn't kill people unnecessarily -- there is a method to his madness. It is to reveal to humans how dark they really can be. It's to see what happens when the coddled and sheltered are given responsibility, REAL responsibility.

With the bank heist, he gives his underlings guns - and a choice: to shoot each other for a bigger share of the money. They could have chosen not to follow his instructions. But like sheep, following instructions lead them to their own slaughter. With the boat -- he put the Tools, the detonators -- in the hands of the people. (Here's where I think the writers fudged a little bit by romanticizing the good of the people) But it's not the Joker himself who goes about blowing them up, he sets up the circumstances to see what they would do. To see if nobility would survive or if they would turn into animals in the face of Death.

He gives them Choice. He gives them Responsibility. If the other boat blows up -- they know it's because They pulled the detonator. It is Their responsibility, and that's a choice they would have to live with every day.

What's cool is that he gives Batman a Choice: to annhiliate the Joker (on several occasions) to protect the people, or to let the Joker live so that he can continue to uphold the Law. It was a choice Batman was responsible for. In the end of the first few scenarios, the Law won over the protection of the people.

Basically, Laws and Symbols and Ideology cannot protect us. Nothing external can really protect us. We can only look out for ourselves. And it's not a matter of being selfish, but it is a matter of being responsible. The only control we have is over ourselves, really. And if we don't, we must destroy ourselves in order to reconstruct (a very Fanon idea) who we want to become in our next incarnation.

Harvey Dent doesn't survive in the end because he never is able to make a choice for himself. He is never responsible. In the beginning he is beholden to the System, to the set of Laws that supposedly protect society (from themselves). His descent into madness is due to his grief over Rachael. He is never truly responsible for himself and his own choices. Good or "bad," his choices are framed in the name of fighting for something. In the end, when he is about to make a choice, he never really gets to. Because he was never meant to. Because, in the structure of the film, Harvey was a Symbol.

Harvey was the Coin. When we leave things to Chance or Fate or Ideology -- is that real justice? Justifying when bad things happen to "innocent" people (I'm skeptical of the word "innocent") is something that happens when we do it in the name of a "greater good," when we use it to absolve ourselves from responsibility. WAKE UP. Own up to it.

I know I have to.

But in the end, Batman is given a choice and he takes responsibility for it. In order to continue to fight for the people, he must disregard Law (break ties with the cops). He must take responsibility. At the same time, he does an injustice in that he does it in the name of Harvey's "good side." Only half the story. He absolves Harvey of any responsibility. How frakkin noble.

The Joker is never really a person, but a spook, a demon, an entity that forces society and the individual to take a good look in the mirror. What do we see? What will we allow ourselves to see?

If we see only our faces, then the Joker, ironically, has failed. The thing is, we're trapped in a consensus. In the name of the collective, we become blind to the blood we've stained our hands with. Votes and protests are not enough. Resistance is not enough.

The whole resistance -> rebellion -> revolution paradigm never sat well with me. Mebbe because intuitively I know that the way that people go about it, revolution won't ever come. Revolution is never here or waiting upon our doorstep. Or as soon as we fight for it, it vanishes. New figureheads replace old ones. Look, did France ever REALLY, TRULY have a revolution?

Resistance is such a defensive stance. A seat at the lunch counter. And it's too easy to get up in the cogs of "social justice." Protesting on behalf of Sean Bell is not gonna do it. Maybe the very fact that resistance and "free speech" is allowed is something we should really, truly think about.

So how can we create a "revolution"? Don't. Because it's as elusive as democracy ever was. Why settle for a "better" paradigm when it's just a mirror of the old one?

Creativity.

Create.

Imagine.

Simple, naive-sounding, but profoundly honest. Not true, but honest.

Create a new paradigm. Why waste energy in resisting when energy can be utilized in imagining? In the creation of something new? The thing is, when engaged in battle, we play by the aggressors rules. So if we win, it's almost impossible to NOT become the aggressor.

When playing a game of "resistance" we're merely taking a coin toss to another level. Different faces, wholly opposite - heads and tails - but both are still a part of the same coin. One side cannot exist without the other and is only a flip, a photographic negative. But the original image, the fingerprint of its hologram is still there.

So if there is a war of a coin toss, instead of waiting for your turn to flip the coin, why not ignore the coin and imagine a new game? Why not break out a roll of toilet paper? A smelly shoe? An electrical outlet? Something beyond binaries!! Something beyond Good vs Evil and Right vs Wrong.

No matter what new paradigm takes over, there will always be a darker or more complicated side. It won't ever be a true Utopia. But that's not what we should be fighting for. That's not the point of human existence.

Why struggle? Why feel pain? Why sex?

The thing is, struggle, pain and pleasure reveal things to ourselves. It's when they become routine that we lose something and feel hypnotized by pleasant patterns. Cease to learn. Grow stagnant. That's why if a so-called "revolution" ever happened, it'd be the same thing and we'd never really learn anything new or grow or fundamentally change.

The toilet paper in lieu of the coin, however, is a new paradigm with new complications. And, in the end, will teach us new things about ourselves in this newer struggle. It's a learning curve, the surprise that's in store for us in our new incarnations. As of now, we're deadlocked in the coin toss which is why resistance really is, fundamentally, futile. This is not the voice of nihilism, but the voice of Choice and Responsibility.

The human brain has such a large and infinite capacity that it's sad we only use such a small percentage of it. And perhaps this will always hold true because we're conditioned to utilize it in only a conditioned set of ways. So we never really get to reach those other parts of our brains within the whole scope and span of our collective lifetimes.

We need a new struggle, a new paradigm so we can reach a greater potential instead of stagnating in this repetitive cycle of lather, rinse and repeat. Aren't you tired of it? The redundancy? The disembodiment of the human soul? Doing things only for the sake of the ShouLd? The things we think we "should" be doing?



In the end, is Gotham a safer city? Sure "evil" is temporarily "vanquished," but is it ever permanent as symbols and their binaries are allowed to survive? And perhaps therein lies another power -- the struggle towards permanence. In the name of permanence. Sigh. Always fighting for the wrong/same things.




On another note, if the Joker truly took his false ideology ALL THE WAY, Gotham would have transformed into a new society. Not a "better" society -- pay attention -- but NEW. Different. Fundamentally transformed on a profound level. A breaking of a spirit is profound, indeed.

But he allows for Batman to survive. He needs Batman to survive, so the Joker can live to play another day. The killing of Batman was only a ruse to get Batman to show his true colors, to make a fundamental choice when his own, structured ideology can no longer protect him. He can't blame it on the Law, he can't blame it on Love, or Grief, or Society -- the choice was with Him. So, in becoming the Dark Knight, he was wholly responsible. (and for that, I do give him props).

In the end, the Joker doesn't really truly want to DESTROY society, but have fun in his own sadistically diabolical way to get the city to own up to ITSELF. To really catch at least a GLIMPSE of its true reflection in the mirror. And, I suppose in THAT aspect, the Joker is at his most human.

Because on a deeper level, he, too, needs a sense of order and structure so he can play pretend at destroying it.

I suppose, in the end, no one wants true Anarchy. Even "villains" need their sense of order.

I do believe in a sense of order, but not the upholding of the Imaginary. These hotels, these cars -- none of this is really real. And not even in a pretentious, academic sense. I mean, they are only as real as we allow them to be. We become our Jobs when we Let it.

Oy(L), I've more to say, but ze bobbLebot must get thee to bed.

Michael TaLbot and the Holographic Universe

Michael Talbot is this late, White, gay, American physicist who's done a lot of fascinating work on holograms and how, perhaps, what we perceive to be reality is one giant hologram. When people say perception is reality, Talbot brings it to a whole other realm.

What is even more fascinating is that Talbot was drawn to this idea of a holographic universe because of his own experiences with psychic activity. On top of being psychic himself, his sisters were psychic as well. Even more interesting, is that he's drawn to things like telekinesis, stigmata, poltergeists and ESP because he is trying to uncover its practical applications on a day-to-day basis.

In any case, this interview is so incredibly intriguing. I shall post up audio clips of some of his workshops in the future, and for those interested in his book, I do have a pdf file I could send you if you so desire. You know where to find ze bobbLebot.

-=xoom zoom=-

Anyone who listens to these clips, I shall greatly like to discuss them and their practical applications to our understanding of reality. Totally blew my mind. Hope it blows yers, as well.

FreeDumB!

AmiGo has Landed -- ::ga-DUNK!::

I COME IN PIECES

I've been trying the wordpress thing, but the audio upload was totally confounding me. I want to be able to work with all types of media - jpeg, video and audio.

So ze bobbLebot has decided to LanD on a New Caprica in hopes of feeling more at home in the new incarnation of this blog.

Looking back at past blog entries, I'm kinder embarrassed, but what can I say? When I'm excited, sometimes I don't take the time to correct grammar errors or to explain a weird concept more in depth. Hence I come off as a strange, hippy dippy "New Ager" thingamaBLOB.

Anyway, I saved what I thought were semi-interesting and reLocated them HYAR.

But since I'm coming off as such a hipadeebot, I might as well insert this audio clip on spirituality from The Naked Truth <-- DAMMIT! Wai do zey come up with such cheesy titles, WAI?! WAI????!

yeah, a bit dated, but it's something inneresting nonetheless if ur innerested in something beyond just religion and the questions that come after that.

Now listen:

TriPPy StuFF

Anyone who watches Battlestar Galactica, I wonder if the creators themselves have delved into the works of Jordan Maxwell and Michael Talbot (with CyLon projection), or, at the very least, studied material on the Sumerians, Annunaki and Nibiru. Cylons, after all, were supposedly descended from a “reptilian race” in the original version. In any case, it is fascinating stuff.

Now I understand why such large world questions or issues are addressed in sci fi and fantasy. The links and development of politics and ideologies are so complex, so intricate and so far-out, that one must dress it up in a shiny silver suit and claim, “It’s just entertainment” so that it doesn’t make too many waves. That, and they must cater to the cultural whims and fancies of Comicon peoples.

This one, here, I find interesting in the first 5 minutes — kind of like Zeitgeist, I found only the first 1/3 of it brain tingling. Speaking of Zeitgeist, the narrator’s voice sounds very similar. And if it’s the same, it would explain how the narrator makes a giant leap in logic in the last 1/3 or so connecting the Annunaki and Nibiru to the Bohemian Club — a link I don’t think is completely illogical, but it wasn’t done very well.

Here is a lecture by Jordan Maxwell. Many people might outright call him a nutcase, and there are certainly a lot of ideas that are either beyond me or I don’t think he processed enough yet (like explaining this war between male and female, or how he has yet to delve into other religious texts of reference as deeply as he has the Bible, and the yeti, etc.) but I suppose his greatest selling point is that he is not a salesman. He’s not trying to charm the audience, he’s not trying to convert anyone to any one point of view or religion. In fact, he’s quite anti-religion if you get right down to it.

As trippy as his ideas are, he comes off as an academic in a true sense of the word. He’s not trying to inculcate the ideas that strengthen the foundation of an academic institution. It’s like, “Here are some facts, and this is what I make of them.” He’s also in love with words and symbology, so he goes off on little tangents when he gets excited. Kinda like me.

It’s a bit long, but overall, it is pretty worth it. And it kind of gets you interested more into Michael Cremo and Zacharia Sitchin.

Most unfortunately, Jordan Maxwell is kind of in hiding at the moment. Apparently his wife left him, the government is tapping his phonelines and he’s getting death threats in the mail. At least, the last I heard.

Also, there's this bitter Jordan Maxwell debunKer trying to "expose" Jordan Maxwell as a "liar." While yes, I'm sure there are some holes to Maxwell's theories and he does get a little carried away with Western etymologies, the debunker is missing the point of the larger picture. It's the ideas and the way in which these ideas connect on a material and spiritual and concrete level. There's an overall holographic interference forming a larger picture, a larger constellation.

The thing is, I think we too soon throw out the baby with the bathwater. What I mean is so-called "feminists of color" saying nothing Freud has to say is valid because his work is oppressively patriarchal in scope, or boho, hipster queer theorists saying Fanon has nothing to teach any of us because of his blatant homophobia.

Hold up there.

What disturbs me is that inherent conviction that we must hold theorists and academics as being superhuman so that as soon as their theories don't address this identity politics or is blatantly racist in his or her case studies -- they are devoid of value. That they lack having anything to teach us.

But they aren't Gods. So why are we so utterly disheartened and disappointed when they prove in some areas to be fallible?

That's just nihilistic and lazy on our parts. Think bigger picture. Think what you CAN glean from this. Think JenGa.

MateriaLism (no, ahm not tawking MarX)

I think it is a mistake to focus on solely the material, for the human soul is something beyond what is concretely material. Here is where I delve into not an observation of contradiction – for contradictions hold their own inherent values, especially when examined during a process of dialectics – but an observation of hypocrisy. And hypocrisies cannot help but materialize when the way in which we conduct our lives, the way in which religion and the economy functions, are all based upon the material.

We live in an age in which human value can be quantified in the material. Statistics are utilized to determine successes and failures, to record changes in temperature or how many hours a day we allot to being economically productive. And for purposes of things such as physical human health, mathematical mediums such as statistics can be helpful. But they can also be reductive when they are all we have time to look at to make a decision as to whether or not a human life has value. A dip in the number of human casualties in times of war can signal a victory to some, or to see a higher casualty rate of Iraqis to Americans, soldiers to children – statistics can be used to reframe tragedies as small victories.

Who’s going to win the presidency? Let’s conduct a poll. A poll lists a number, that number makes the immaterial – a candidate’s popularity – material. The empirical “evidence” of a candidate’s popularity can then have the power to sway potential voters one way or another. Statistics. Facts.

Is that all that we are? Cells? An amalgamation of chemical compounds? Certainly these things are helpful in learning how to find ways to eradicate sickness and disease. But is it wise to reduce human beings to the sum of their concretely material parts?

This is not to say, “We’re humans. We’re special.”

What I am saying is that we are human beings and we are more than a fleshly sack of blood and bones – if we were just that, it would be so much easier to kill and maim our neighbors. We are a living dialectic, a constantly changing assemblage of material and abstract entities. And there is a relationship between the physical body, the soul, the intellect and the human consciousness.

The problem in trusting only the material is that we learn to value only the material.

There are times when I wonder if we amaze what we know as God(s) just as much as the scope and span of the universe as well as all its earthly affects and effects continue to surprise us.

On a more earthly note, as suspicious as I am of White people sometimes, there will be an occasion or two when I will happen upon one that I find transcends my standards for befriending someone who’s White. And it’s not just because they are politicized or have taken a class in ethnic studies. On the contrary, it is the way in which they choose to interact with me on a very human level – and I’m not talking in a “we all bleed blood” sense. I suppose the reason why it’s become this way, this suspicion is because so many of us are conditioned by the structures of White supremacy and capital consumption to INTERACT with each other on a very material basis.

What I’m talking about is the materiality of difference, bodily difference. Race is a social construction that is also a social fact that is governed by physical difference. And it’s when the interaction is more of a transaction of differences based upon the materiality of things, I tend to get cagey, suspicious. A mechanism of defense, I suppose. “Wow, your eyes are so chinky!” or “I’ve gone to China before” or “I love lumpia” – these are transactions/interactions based upon the material.

But I think that we are more than just material beings. Not to say we must transcend our material forms completely, but understand that there is a relationship between the two – but when such a large part of what makes up the human entity is ignored, neglected or reduced, something suffers. An illness of sorts that overtakes the spirit and can rewire the mind to think in terms of only the empirical. In only the material. Is it no wonder we are so materialistic?

This is why identity politics concerns me. It is resistant to the materiality of difference while it adheres to its very logic. Weird, isn’t it? That, and it can only take us so far. Especially when it is based upon the materiality of difference.

I suppose my concerns or questions at the moment center around the connections between the materiality of the body to the abstract power of the soul, intelligent processes and human consciousness.

Again, I don’t claim to know anything, these are just thoughts, lofty-yet-sincere as they are.

Reality and Myth : : Life and LifeSTYLE

The Real exists in the Myth and the Myth is living, breathing and feeding into Reality. What do I mean by that?

Not going into the whole Jacques Lacan concept of the Real and the Imaginary — but the things we are conditioned to hold as True, as Real — our identities, our career goals, the lifeSTYLE that we’ve created for ourselves — are all an illusion, a dream, a myth.

Is my laptop real? Do I identify as a woman of color? Am I a middle glass graduate student in monetary debt to a bank and a private instution of academia that is being partially funded and allowed to continue to run by a government-influenced doctrine of what is allowed to be taught and learned?

Yes.

Do these things matter?

A conditioned yes.

Do these things have the power to alter my perception of self worth and power?

Yes.

Illusions. Myths. Dreams. Things that are as inspiring as they are terrifying. They have a transformative power to shape who we want to and will eventually become. The danger lies in the seeds sown into the un-Real. Our greatest hopes and fears are the one and the same — but how high do we allow ourselves to hope and to what degree are we conditioned to hope for the same things, the same illusions — that have nothing to do with our human value, but with our economic value. Our facebook profiles. Resumes.

Have you ever worked in an office, sat next to a person whose resume shines more brilliantly than yours? That person has more awards, accolades, recommendations and “experience” than you do — and yet, after 2 or 3 months on the job, you’ve discovered that they know almost nothing? That they aren’t even half as competent as you are in completing or achieving the same task?

That person’s resume — those awards, those accolades, the recommendations — they are all Real. They are all recorded on a sheet or 2 of paper. A record of that person’s value. This is Real. This is also a Myth — because no matter how many girl scout badges that person has acquired throughout the years, it still inadequately quantifies that person’s level of competence at the job. In essence — the person knows how to work a system of quantified economic and productive value so that he or she can appear to be more valuable than you.

This Myth is more powerful than the Real.

The Real is not something that can be quantified on paper. It changes and it becomes Real with Real experience. With an actual demonstration of Reality. The actual showing — and not telling — of how competent you are at the job.

And yet we’re conditioned to follow this rat race, to have moments of panic hit at certain ages — younger and younger — to believe that our economic, our Mythic Value is more important than the Real. And to distract from the asking of questions, there is the proliferation and inundation of popular culture. Not to say that popular culture is bad or evil, but it can become counterproductive when it is utilized in a certain way.

How many channels do we have now? Movies? Music? iPod updates, new versions of laptops, the latest, the newest — what you haven’t heard…?

Have we ever had so much entertainment surround us at one point in time?

Post-undergrad, there was a time when I was doing exactly what other people my age were doing, what my peers were doing — working 9-5, come home exhausted, but stay up so I can watch certain shows, listen to certain kinds of music because I needed to keep up with everything. Because I didn’t want to be left behind. Because I didn’t want to feel out when at a party, because, as it turns out, aside from alcohol, one of the few things that would help me connect to other people quickly was popular culture.

Talking about LOST, The Office, the — omGZ, can you beLIEVE that Tyra actually…?

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

And all my money was going into this repetition that was spiraling into something empty, numbing and meaningless.

Because I wasn’t building a Life. I was building a Life-STYLE.

That’s where all my energies were being directed towards. Building a lifestyle, filling my brain with pop cultural facts and figures, desiring and craving the next saccharine-laced episode, even though I knew 90% of the time what would happen next. Premise, conflict, almost-resolution of conflict, pitfall, bigger conflict and finally, the conquering of the conflict. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Same bad guy. Different faces. Different races.

Same rat race, same rat channel.

So what happens when you get caught up in the current that is flowing towards a particular life-STYLE?

Think about it. Life versus Life-STYLE.

A STYLE of life. A WAY to live.

AWAY from living.

That isn’t a life. Though sometimes we have the tendency to mix the two together.

For the past year, I haven’t really been watching TV. I’ve watched shows — selected 2-3 shows at a time and followed them. Some superficial and bad for me (ie, The Hills, ANTM), others that try to be thought provoking or at least entertaining (Weeds, LOST), and some that genuinely had me raising larger questions about the world around me (Battlestar Galactica, Death Note).

So for the past year, I haven’t been keeping up with commercials either… you know, the things that are seeping into the movie theaters?

And I’ve felt a disconnection from people I normally would have desired to have friended at my new school… at least, on an acquaintance level. But, interestingly enough, the biggest barrier was the fact that I didn’t desire to go out to bars after class with them and talk about Gossip Girl. I just couldn’t relate. And after a while, I found that I didn’t want to.

What I thought was Real was revealed as a Myth and that for most of my life, I’ve been trying to aspire towards building a Life-STYLE but not a Life.

And I’m not just talking about what is considered in the mainstream as superficial.

I’m talking about going to this many meetings, wearing this many grass roots student org shirts, organizing this many projects and workshops — and for what? In my head I knew that real, profound and tangible change wasn’t being enacted by my efforts, that I was only — by default — keeping up with the lifestyle of the student activist. Only I wasn’t an activist. Ever. An observer, you can call me a fraud of you want, but there was a disconnect there as well.

Because I could see it.

And I tried to trick myself into believing what I saw because my low level of self value prevented me from believing what I new was Real.

I saw them all — competent and incompetent — rise through the ranks in prominence, in influence — claiming to be familiar with the works of bell hooks, Angela Davis, Foucault, Paulo Freire, and Fanon — but none of them really practicing what they preached. And no one calling them on it. No one questioning their knowledge, their authority, their sphere of influence. And the fact that I couldn’t see it, but that everyone else could see it — their value, how important they were, I thought there was something wrong with me. That I was stupid.

Both grass and money are green. Different shapes, same shit.

And maybe I was, since Stupidity, like Truth, is all relative. I was stupid in that I didn’t get it, and everyone else could. I was stupid in convincing myself to live and breathe in a denial of Reality.

What is quantified as Real Intelligence anyway?

With the advent of standardized testing, I see the dumbing down of kids. Most of students had no idea how to write an essay, how to think an original thought — unless it was in relation to pop culture and its innovation. Again, not to say POP CULTURE is evil, cuz it’s not. It’s like saying hip hop is misogynist. That is a Lie.

Hip hop can CONTAIN misogyny in its lyrical content, in its marketing — but hip hop is but an artistic MEDIUM. It could be channeled for purposes both “good” and “bad.”

Same goes for pop culture. It is a MEDIUM that is being misutilized at the present so that it can SERVE a FUNCTION.

So the students aren’t stupid. Their brains are wired to be original, inventive and creative in other mediums. Just not in the field of academia, in the field of expanding their understanding of the world around them in a manner that is Real.

With standardized testing, they are being conditioned to swallow certain FACTS as though they are UNIVERSAL. School is no longer geared towards a pursuit of or expansion of knowledge, but the pursuit of HIGHER TEST SCORES, a QUANTIFYING of their value as students so that they can get into GOOD SCHOOLS so that they can get GOOD JOBS and eventually life LUSH LIFESTYLES.

All geared toward teaching them that their eventual economic or symbolic value is the same as their human value.

And if we’re unhappy about it, there’s apparently a pill, a movie, a show or (head) doctor to help “fix” us. Like we’re machines, like there was only a glitch in our programming.

But maybe the dissatisfaction resides there for a reason.

This is getting increasingly nihilistic, but rest assured, there are beacons of hope. If we’re willing to work for it. Unfortunately I’ve got to run, but I shall return later with more questions and, hopefully, a sunnier entry.