Samsara and the Rise and Fall of Civilizations

I thought I'd use this passage from Endgame: Volume 1 as a writing prompt. It is Derrick Jensen's thoughts on Buddhism, as it pertains to civilization; followed by my response:

"I have friends who are Buddhists. They too, are trained away from their bodies, away from the real, away from the primary, away from the material, away from their experience, away from what they call samsara (literally the passing through in Sanskrit: what my dictionary calls "the indefinitely repeated cycles of birth, misery, and death caused by karma," and what one Zen Buddhist calls "the hellish world of time and space and the shifting shapes which energy assumes, the fluctuating world which is apprehended by the senses and presided over by the judgmental ego," all of which sounds like an awful drag, and really, to be honest, does not sound in the slightest like life as I experience it), away from what they call illusion, and toward what they tellingly and pathetically call "liberation" from this earth."

He says this is not his experience of life, but it sure does sound like his experience of civilization. And how can you separate the two?

"In short, Buddhism and Christianity do what all religions of civilization must do, which is to naturalize the oppressiveness of the culture -- get people (victims) to  believe that their enslavement is not simply cultural but a necessary part of their existence to which they've been "condemned" -- and then to point these people away from their awful  (civilized) existence and toward "liberation" in some illusory better place. How very convenient for those in power. These are religions for the powerless. These are religions to keep people powerless." 

So what is he saying here? That samsara is a lie? That the idea of suffering being a fact of earthly existence was a lie invented to justify the injustices endemic to civilization as we know it? How does he know that when he knows nothing but civilization? All of his ideas about life without civilization are speculation.

I'm not denying that religions have been used to control people, to justify evil, inequality, and injustice, but I do not believe that civilization is wholly responsible for any of it. I think the problems of civilization are symptoms of a much deeper problem that has always existed in human nature, which is the potential to be evil, to be selfish and greedy and cruel, to lie, to steal, to cheat, to control, to abuse, to cause harm, and to selfishly and greedily pursue power for power's sake. Each person has that potential. No matter where they live. No matter who they are. Maybe civilization has a higher concentration of it, maybe civilization as we know it is unhealthy and unsustainable, but the problem of evil I think will always exist no matter what. It's not just a problem with civilization but a problem with human nature itself.

Jensen says civilization will crash whether we want it to or not. I'm not sure I understand what that means. The collapse of the global economy? The collapse of nation states? The collapse of our money system, where the dollar becomes worthless, and all the jobs disappear that are not immediately connected to survival? Non-essential jobs will disappear (and we all know that means most jobs), because there is no longer money to pay people, and little incentive to do meaningless work if it doesn't pay anything, if it doesn't put food in your belly or joy in your heart. Or does he mean ecological collapse? Where we have depleted our resources and exceeded our carrying capacity, where there are simply too many people and not enough resources to sustain them? Not enough food? Not enough fuel, to cook, to heat, to cool?

If this is so, the collapse of civilization will inevitably result in a massive die-off, a major reduction in the population, caused by widespread starvation, disease, exposure to the elements (when there is inadequate shelter and no fuel to heat or cool homes), and war where people fight among themselves for the last remaining resources. Got food? Other people will want it. Problem is there won't be enough to feed everyone, not if crops fail, and food surpluses are depleted, and all that people have to rely on is what they are able to hunt and gather and grow themselves. Since most civilized people are unskilled in those matters, people may attempt to steal food from those who have it, from those who do have the skills to obtain it, to grow it, to hunt and gather it.

Also when civilization collapses where do think all the world leaders, social planners, corporate executives, military and law enforcement personnel, the wealthy and intellectual elite, basically all the people that have power now in civilization, where do you think they will be when civilization collapses? Do you really think they are just going to disappear? Also, civilization is not just a way of doing things, it is a way of thinking about things. The only reason why civilization will collapse is because it is unsustainable. It's motto of endless growth and endless expansion can't go on forever. Perhaps it's collapse will force people to live more sustainably, simply because they will have no other choice, living "green" will become a matter of survival. But just because people are living in a more ecologically sustainable manner doesn't necessarily mean they are going to be better people, nicer people, kinder people, more compassionate people, or more enlightened people. In fact Hitler was a big advocate of developing green sustainable technologies, organic gardening, using renewable sources of energy, and yet he was seriously lacking in the kindness and compassion department.

So running out of resources isn't going to eliminate all the negative qualities that Jensen pins on civilization. It's not going to completely eliminate hierarchical thinking or authoritarian control. It will simply become civilization on a smaller scale, with fewer people. There will still be evil. There will still be exploitation. There will still be violence. There will still be rape and theft and murder. There will still be war. There will still be inequality and injustice. There will still be people and all the ensuing conflicts that occur whenever people arrange their lives together, forming different societies, different groups and subcultures. We don't all get along. We have different ideas. Different personalities. Different objectives. Sometimes others are opposed to what we want to do, and they will resist us, sometimes with force, sometimes unreasonably and unjustly.

The collapse of civilization does not mean the end of societal conflicts, interpersonal conflicts, or armed conflicts. It just means that everything will be on a smaller scale, but that things will get very bad, before they get better. A lot of people will die, a lot of plants and animals will die, resources and habitats and whole landscapes will be destroyed, because you really can't believe that civilization will collapse without a war, as the last remaining world states fight for the last remaining resources.

So, my whole point is that the main problem I have with Jensen is that he seems to project everything he hates about the world onto civilization. Civilization is his monster, his devil, the source of all the evil in the world, that if it could just be brought down and destroyed, everything would be so much better and we would all enter a golden age. But I don't think that's going to happen. Certainly life may be better and more comfortable for some, but not all. Because the nature of samsara is suffering. Life is beautiful, but it can also turn ugly really quick. Just when you think you have gotten your shit together, have found peace of mind, have formed good friendships, have a high quality of life, and love your life, whose to say it will last? You could be a really great person, friendly, courteous, diplomatic, non-violent, willing to help anyone in need, and one day someone may beat the shit out of you and burn your house down and murder your family and friends for no reason at all...just for the hell of it. Because while you can control your own actions, you have no control over the actions of others. You may find enlightenment, but that may not stop the unenlightened from destroying everything that you've built, everything that you've accomplished, and discrediting everything that you've ever said or done.

Samsara. Not just the natural world and civilization as we know it, but also the human heart and mind. What does it mean? That suffering is a natural characteristic of life, whether we live in a civilization or not. That life is not perfect. That people are not perfect. And bad things have been happening to good people for as long as people have walked the earth. It doesn't matter what kind of social structures are in place, what kind of society we live in, what kind of government we have, what kind of economy we have, whether we live in villages or cities, even if we all lived in sustainable eco-villages things will never perfect, there will always be conflict of some degree or another, and the choice between good and evil is something that will always remain within the human heart; to respect or disrespect, to help or to harm, to give or to take.

Civilizations come and go. That too is samsara. Could it be that this world that we live in, this reaching the tipping point of overpopulation, resource depletion, and over polluting the earth is something that has happened before and will happen again? Maybe our history is wrong. Maybe there were ancient civilizations going back further than what we have a record of. Maybe they were destroyed in some major cataclysm, buried beneath the sea, left without a trace. I don't know. But maybe the rise and fall of civilizations come and go in cycles of expansion and contraction. So when our civilization collapses whose to say it won't build itself right back up again? Certainly not in our lifetimes, but eventually, and that too will pass, as it always does.

The Pathology of Sport Hunting

Now for a slight change of pace.

Last night I sat outside on the patio, as I do every single night without exception. I usually go out between 10 and 11, and sit out there until around midnight, reading or writing by headlamp and having a beer or two. I need the air. That's one of the major defects of this apartment I'm staying in, is that it has very poor air circulation. It's very stuffy, even with the AC on, it has an unusually dehydrating effect on me. I mean yeah, sure the desert is inherently dry, but I noticed that this particular apartment is even drier than normal. In fact my tube of toothpaste has also recently shown strange signs of drying out, something that I've never before encountered. Mummification comes to mind. Just imagine what it must be doing to the people; hence the necessity of making my escape before it is too late.

Anyway, I sit outside every night and read. I'm still reading Derrick Jensen's Endgame: Volume 1. I'm about half way through it. Jensen is a man with very deep feelings. He's a survivor of child abuse and comes across to me as being deeply wounded, but his main strength that possibly came as a consequence of that is being able to more deeply empathize with the pain and suffering of others, not just people, but animals and the degradation of the earth. I like Jensen and appreciate much of what he has to say. Nonetheless, I don't at this point agree with his advocacy of using violent methods, such as blowing up dams and cellphone towers to help bring down the pathology of civilization. I'm not with him on that. That is where our paths diverge. As soon as I get to passages advocating that, it's like I become more of an outside observer, a researcher and investigator, rather than a participant in his movement.

So I'm sitting outside last night; it was maybe around 11:30 at night. And I'm reading this passage in his book on page 276, called "Why Civilization is Killing the World, Take Sixteen". Where he goes on to graphically describe the massacre of a family of polar bears by explorer Captain George Cartwright; not for food, but entirely for sport.

Here's a short excerpt to give you an idea:

"About half a mile upriver, I came to a very strong shoot of water, from thence I saw several white-bears fishing in the stream above. I waited for them, and in a short time, a bitch with a small cub swam close to the other shore, and landed a little below. The bitch immediately went into the woods, but the cub sat down upon a rock, when I sent a ball through it, at the distance of over a hundred and twenty yards at least, and knocked it over; but getting up again it crawled into the woods, where I heard it cry mournfully and concluded that it could not survive." 

"The report of my gun brought some others down, and another she bear, with a cub of eighteen months old, came swimming close under me. I shot the bitch through the head and killed her dead. The cub perceiving this and getting sight of me and made at me with great ferocity; but just as the creature was about to revenge the death of his dam, I  saluted him with a load of large shot in his right eye, which knocked that out, but also made him close the other. He no sooner was able to keep his left eye open, then he made at me again, quite mad with rage and pain; but when he came to the foot of the bank, I gave him another salute with other barrel, and blinded him most completely; his whole head was then covered with blood. He blundered into the woods; knocking his head against every rock and tree that he met with." 

"I now perceived that two others had just landed about sixty yards above me, and were fiercely looking round them. The bears advanced a few yards to the edge of the woods, and the old one was sternly looking at me. The danger of firing at her was great, as she was seconded by a cub of eighteen months; but I could not resist the temptation."

Basically the story goes on to tell how the hunter continues on killing every single bear he could find, not for food or survival, but simply for the thrill of it. Then the next story goes on to tell about some other early American settlers who killed maybe 30,000 migratory birds in one day, with most of them left to rot. This too was all done for sport.

So I'm sitting outside last night reading this, just finished reading the part about the massacre of the polar bears by stupid white men who enjoy killing for fun, and the next thing I know I hear something. It was pretty quiet outside, so the slightest noise was extremely noticeable. I hear footsteps and a crunching sound very close by. I quickly turn my headlamp off. Don't want to be seen if I haven't been already. I'm a discreet low profile person, don't like to draw a lot of attention to myself. I'm thinking it could be a dog walker, but then I noticed it was a bit too loud for that. And so I stand up looking over the wall of my patio, to see a large javelina walking down the sidewalk, stopping to look up at me directly on the other side of the wall. They look a lot like wild pigs, but they are not pigs. They also remind me of ant-eaters, mostly in the face, they sort of look like fat aardvarks. Then I look around the corner, maybe 20 feet away, I see a whole pack of them. There must have been a dozen of them, with their babies. They were so cute. It's the most javelinas I ever saw together at one time. It was pretty cool, but unfortunately I didn't have my camera handy.

I thought it was really interesting that I happened to see this at the same time that I was reading about a family of wild polar bears being massacred. And I thought there are probably some people who would have loved to have killed these javelinas. That would have been their first reaction. They see a beautiful animal in the wild, and instead of just letting it be and appreciating it for what it is, their first instinct is to destroy it.

You know I can understand that sometimes hunting is justified. If you are hungry, you need to eat. If you are in a survival situation you may need to kill in order to stay alive. But I cannot understand, or accept, or forgive sport hunting; hunting that is done for no other reason than the thrill of the kill, and the arrogance of showing off the trophies of your kill. That is barbaric. And yes that is a judgement. It is a condemnation of a behavior that I consider to be despicable.

Epiphany of Hate

Living in close proximity around people for the first time that you've previously felt prejudiced against, can potentially be a positive experience by helping you grow as a person; meaning that if you learn from it, if it provides you with new information, and new experiences that help you become a stronger, healthier, and saner person in the process.

This does not necessarily mean that you are going to like these people any more than you previously did, but that it may give you a deeper understanding into the matter, either helping you to strengthen your convictions, or to revise your perspective completely, so that whatever stance you do decide to take, you will do so in a more mindful manner.

Sometimes people really do suck. Sometimes feeling repulsion or a strong dislike for someone is a perfectly reasonable response; but not always. Who the fuck cares what anyone else thinks. Your life is your life. No one else's. You will not like everyone, and not everyone will like you, because we are all different, and sometimes our differences clash; just like a bolt of lightening clashes with the wood of a tree, a fire is lit, the wood burns until there is nothing left to burn. Are they complementary friends united by their opposition, each fulfilling their different but reciprocal roles without animosity, or are they enemies, fire and wood, ruthlessly fighting to the death?

If you don't like someone, own up to it. But you need to know whether your dislike is truly justified, or if it is unfounded, based on a mistaken belief, a false assumption that does not match the true circumstances of reality. For example, there is a difference between disliking the occupation of "soldier" and disliking some guy named "John" whom you've never even met before who just happens to make a living as a "soldier".

I've made comments here about soldiers in the past, saying that I typically do not like them. Well the fact is that there are a lot of "types" of people that I typically do not like. In fact, in all honesty I like very few people, not just certain occupations, but also specific sub-cultures and character traits. I'm a reluctant misanthrope, someone who generally does not like people, who really wants to like people, but you all are making it very difficult for me to find anything to like at all. I could name all the traits I dislike but I will save that for another post. 

Character traits, irrespective of occupation or income or reputation or personal history, are what truly defines a person. I will never alter my viewpoint on that, that there are in fact certain character traits that I consider to be despicable and others that I deeply admire. But to lump all those who fill certain occupations together as being one and the same, is a prejudiced belief, an unreasonable belief. So my dislike of "soldiers" is a prejudice, not much different than people who dislike all black people or gay people. It's pretty damn ignorant to lump people together as a group, to dislike all soldiers, when clearly not all soldiers are the same, just like not all Americans are the same, and not all Muslims are the same. Right?

Well maybe I don't have enough personal experience, haven't talked to enough soldiers up close and personal to see the differences between them. I can dislike what a person does for a living, but can I learn to see the positive qualities of a person that exist outside of what they do for a living? Or is what a person does for a living the primary definition of who they are? Normally I would say no, that what you do for money, is not who you are. But if you kill for a living, how are you not a killer? How does that one aspect of your job NOT override all other aspects of your life, of your character and personality?

Example: It's like a really great guy, a great friend, a great husband and father and brother and son, successful, intelligent, good looking, who just happens to also be a serial rapist. Are we to overlook this one moral transgression, because in every other aspect of his life he is an exemplary man? Or are there certain qualities, certain actions, like rape and murder, that tarnish a person completely, where for example, what they do for a living makes them a bad person no matter how much of a good person they may be off their employer's clock? I don't know, just speculating here.

I was thinking about this because funny thing is that this apartment complex I'm living at is full of soldiers. I see it as a lesson in tolerance; learning to live civilly around people that you wouldn't ordinarily choose to live around. How ironic that I was bad mouthing them here just a few months ago, and now I'm living right next door to them. I did not discover this until recently. I've seen a few of them walking around here in full uniform getting their mail, and of course I've mentioned here before that my next door neighbor, whom is a complete stranger to me, is a soldier, goes to work everyday wearing a camouflage combat uniform. Well I've just discovered that I'm living next door to not only one soldier, but three soldiers, and one of them is a woman. All completely unrelated, three different apartments, right next door, one of them is an air force fighter pilot who just got back from a six month deployment in Korea; and there are two more across from me, and a three more right around the corner. It's like a military zone around here; which is strange because it's pretty far from the base.

It's been by far the strangest experience of my life. Everything: living around soldiers, experiencing a foreclosure, and living in the fucking wild west of Arizona. I'm from Wisconsin, and seriously thinking about moving back.

Anyway, I do have more than a few military veterans in my family, some of which I've gotten along with just fine. I'm fit, I like the outdoors, I like working out, spending time in nature, am interested in learning primitive living skills and survival skills, so why do I have such a problem with soldiers? Well, since I've been reading Derrick Jensen I've realized now and am able to finally articulate exactly why I dislike soldiers: It's not who they are individually but what they represent; as agents of the military industrial complex, they serve an industry of death, as foot soldiers of empire, exploitation, and conquest, destruction, theft, and imperialism...they are physical barriers to positive change standing in the way of creating a cultural transformation into a healthier, saner, and more sustainable way of living.

Defenders of imperialism beware: it's one thing to extract resources from another, it's another to do so in a totally unsustainable and destructive manner. That's my main problem with colonialism and free trade, is that it's not just a matter of harvesting resources away from home, it's doing so in such a way that is ultimately destructive. I honestly would not have a problem with "green" imperialism, creating a sustainable global economy, in the sense of working together for the common good and exchanging resources in a way that benefits all parties, locally and globally, without wrecking the planet or the quality of life of all those involved in the process.

Cultural Transformation

I went to the library today. Wasn't originally planning to, but one of the books I tried to renew online was on hold, so I decided to return it. Even though I have a few other books to read that I still had checked out, I decided to browse for some new material anyway. And what do I find? Derrick Jensen's two volume set of Endgame. This would be a perfect instance of synchronicity in motion, of being in the right place at the right time, with things flowing together like perfect destiny.

Endgame is something I've been meaning to read ever since it came out five years ago, but it was always checked out, with a long waiting list, that I just put it off and never got around to it. Apparently the demand must have waned somewhat, so I decided to take advantage of this rare opportunity. I'm not by any means a Jensen groupie or a card carrying member of the anti-civilization club, but much of what he writes resonates with me, and even if you don't agree with all of it, or only some of it, I see it as being a tremendously worthwhile read. I've only just started reading it, so it is too premature for a review, but wanted to explore a question posed by Jensen in this book, which I would like to attempt to answer here.

"Do you believe that our culture will undergo a voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living?"

Hmm, that's a tough one. There are certainly small pockets of people scattered all around the world actively working to change their lives, to move towards living in a healthier, saner, and more ecologically sustainable manner, but culture as a whole, meaning the population at large, seems to be doing very little on their own, other than in some cases buying products that are labeled "Green" but in reality may not be very healthy or sustainable. How can I speak for so many? Call it a shot in the dark, based on conversations with and observations of the people I see around me, is that people are primarily organizing their lives according to the same old unsustainable habits they picked up in childhood; and as they say, old habits die hard.

People are creatures of habit. If they grew up in a household that did not consider the impact of their own individual actions and consumer choices on the larger world they live in, they are less likely to consider such things as adults. The fact is people's habits are often unconsciously shaped by corporations who are only interested in making a financial profit, and care very little about the greater social good. Corporations are not social workers, or humanitarians, they are in it for the profit motive. Of course many have adjusted their corporate practices to be more socially and environmentally minded, but for the most part corporations have only changed their ways when 1) it is either profitable to change their ways or 2) they are legally required to change their ways.

So if a corporation's primary objective is the profit motive, and they are not legally required to align their corporate mission with the aim of transforming society into a healthier and more sustainable way of living, they likely won't. There is little incentive, especially if they care very little about improving the state of the world and contributing to a healthier future, and are only in it to make as much money as they can as fast as they can, even if it is ultimately destructive to the long-range health of the planet and the lives of future generations. Their in it for the short-term, not the long-term. A hundred years from now isn't even on their radar, even twenty years is pushing it, having more of a "we'll cross that bridge once we get there" attitude, even though the decisions they make today are largely shaping the future in a negative way.

Most people's decisions are shaped by financial considerations, are occupied with working, raising a family, and managing their finances to the best of their ability. Not too many people seem to be interested in changing their lifestyles if doing so requires a lot of personal sacrifices and hard work, in the form of studying, learning new skills, developing new habits, and perhaps investing more money initially in changing the infrastructure of their lives; growing some of their own food, switching to more energy efficient designs, sacrificing convenience for better quality stuff that takes longer to use but actually lasts longer and is less expensive in the long run. Most people are running on a treadmill. People are running out of time. Everyone is go go go go. Working. Commuting. Always on the move. Fast food. Coffee. Eating on the go. Very little time to slow down, relax, and think about these things.

The fact is that for the average person to make the necessary changes in their own life, to live in a healthier more sustainable manner, requires an initial investment in time and money, something that many people simply do not have enough of. And those that do have the time and the money, perhaps see very little incentive in doing so. They've got their habits, which they like, have grown accustomed to over time, and see very little reason to change them. People are so often looking for the easy way out, love to get comfortable, to find peace and pleasure, and will only change if they are forced to change, either directly, or by having no other choice but to change or to perish. Survival. If their lives are directly threatened, then suddenly they see the urgency; but by then it may be too late. Otherwise when the sky is blue and the grass is green and their bellies are full and everything is beautifully serene, you couldn't get them to change for anything.

Our choices are often controlled by the limited options made available to us by corporations. Corporations are the big guys. The question is what role should the government have, if any, in implementing a transformation into a healthier and more ecologically sustainable society? Some people say the government should have no role. Others say the government should have a primary role. Either way, whether it is government or corporations or religious groups, it is the big institutions of the world that often set the mandate, that lead the way in directing the course of people's lives.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? Personal responsibility, self-control, rugged individualism only works for a very few. I could do it. I'm totally game. But for the many, people are largely creatures of habits, habits which are unconsciously shaped by the whims of corporations, who are only in it to make money for a few, and couldn't care less about the long-term effects or consequences of their products on the health of people and the planet.

So in answer to the question: "Do you believe that our culture will undergo a voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living?"

I think there will be many people who will do this voluntarily, but unfortunately many more will not. Most people I think will only do so when they are either forced to, when they have no other choice in the matter, or when the choice to do so is offered as being the easiest, most accessible, most reasonable, and most economically feasible choice to make.

It is unfortunate that many people are lazy and do not want to do the necessary work. They are stuck in their little comfort zone bubbles, insulated by habitual habits which routinely gravitate toward making things easier, faster, satiating the pleasures of the senses, where they have become mildly sedated by the monotonous routines of their lives, mediated by the constant pursuit of fleeting pleasures that disguise their half dead existence of mental anguish, quiet discontent, and barely conscious ecstasies of apathy.

The World is a Mirror

A walk down blogger memory lane:

*** I don’t like the world we live in. What I mean is I don't like the society we live in. I've got nothing against nature, or people in general, it's just the current state of the world that I have a problem with. Although I do find many people, at least the ones I typically encounter in my daily life, to be very boring and superficial, but overall I still have good feelings towards people, even random strangers on the streets and in the stores. I don't like our society, but I am optimistic about humanity. That no matter how ignorant, rude, crude, and mean spirited people can be, I look upon people as having the potential to be better than that, to be more than they are, not for my benefit, but for their own. That when I look at people, no matter who they are, or how old they are, I see positive potential, the potential to be more joyful, more intelligent, more creative, more passionate, and to have a more meaningful, purposeful, higher quality of life. People are mirrors. I see myself in others, just as much as I see other people in myself. ***

The above paragraph was from Beyond Mediocrity, which other than a few buried gems, was a rather mediocre post I wrote last November.

Ten months later it still rings true. People are mirrors, are reflections of each other. People that we dislike, often mirror qualities about ourselves that we dislike. People we like often reflect qualities that we admire and would like to possess ourselves. Compatibility is a mutual resonance, where both see in the other qualities that each hold in high esteem. They like what they see, and just like looking in the mirror, it is an attraction of affinity.

Not only are people mirrors, but you could also say that the world is a mirror. We often project our own beliefs onto what we see. So when we see the world, more often than not we are seeing a reflection of ourselves projected onto the world. For example, if you are hungry and food is readily available, there is sufficient money in your pocket and plenty of restaurants or grocery stores to choose from, the world then appears sympathetic to your needs. But if you are hungry and out in the middle of nowhere, or you have no money in your pocket and there is no food available to you at all, the world may appear like a cruel adversary, completely unfriendly and unforgiving.

So if I were to analyze the top paragraph which was written over ten months ago but still holds true today, I would say that what I'm really saying there is that I don't like myself, that I have a poor quality of life, but that I do see a potential for things to get better, a potential to have a happier, more meaningful, and more purposeful quality of life...I just don't know how to get there yet. It's fleeting. It comes and goes, but it does not last.

To say that the top paragraph is only about me is inaccurate. But the point is that when you see something wrong with the world, you need to look at yourself, and see what possible role you too may be playing in contributing to that problem. While the world is certainly less than perfect, there are many problems in the world and many legitimate sources of complaint (which is perhaps the understatement of the century), dwelling on it without doing anything constructive about it is just adding to your own misery. Even just writing about it, bringing the problems to light, doesn't really help at all unless you are willing to take it to the next level, to apply some real world solutions to the problem.

To go around angry all the time, feeling helpless, or like the world is a pile of shit, you're just feeding the ugliness, channeling it into yourself, and lowering the quality of your own life in the process. If you don't like the world, instead of focusing entirely on the ugliness, how about creating something beautiful in its place. That's what people need to be doing. And by people, of course I mean myself.

This is not to suggest that you should ignore or sugar coat or pretend that the ugliness doesn't exist, but instead of becoming fixated upon it and getting stuck in the sticky web of pessimism and negativity and anger directed inwards, envision what you would like to see instead in its place, and get it out there. Look for something beautiful to highlight, to draw attention to, to feed the seeds of positive change.

For instance, if people are dying somewhere in some impoverished country from contaminated water, draw attention to the ways that the problem can be fixed. Maybe it is already being addressed on a small scale, but the problem is that not enough people who are being affected by the problem are aware of the solution, are not being given the resources, in the form of knowledge, skills, and access to raw materials to get it done. This would be an instance where the free exchange of ideas and the dissemination of information has the power over life and death.

Many people are dying unnecessarily everyday, not just because they are lacking the physical resources that could save their lives, but because they are lacking the fundamental knowledge that could show them how to save their lives, or how to prevent or minimize the problem from occurring in the first place. The prevention of problems, whether that be disease, starvation, resource depletion, or armed conflict, all require knowledge. Unless you know exactly what to do, how to manage what you have, it doesn't matter what resources you have at your disposal if you don't know how to intelligently use them.

The point is that if you don't like the society you live in, imagine what kind of society you would like to live in. Instead of focusing entirely on the problem, direct your attention to things that could be done to either solve the problem or minimize the problem. If you feel that the problem is out of your hands, that there is nothing that you alone can do about it, that you feel helpless and powerless to change anything, than it is time to change your perspective, because frankly that is a losing hand. It is counterproductive to dwell on things that you are unable to change that are only making you unhappy in the process.

In other words, if you think the world is ugly, it doesn't help if you continue to look at it exclusively through the lens of ugliness. You've got to see the beauty, you must have a clear image in your mind of what can be done to create something beautiful, and focus on that instead. That is the source of hope, knowing exactly what you want and being able to clearly picture it in your mind. Otherwise if you don't know what you want how do you expect to ever find it? If you don't like the society you live in, but do not know what kind of society you would like to live in, how do you ever expect to resolve your problem?

Hope is a fundamental source of strength, a light in the darkness that enables you to find your way to a peaceful resolution, a meaningful purpose, and a higher quality of life.

It's not just about changing the world, it's about changing yourself. The world is a mirror, if you don't like the ugliness of the world, first thing you need to do is to work on being more beautiful yourself; you've got live it, to not only see the change, but to be the change you wish to see.

Why I Blog

It seems to be a recurring theme around here, that every few months or so I feel the need to explain why I do this. I guess I forget sometimes, and need to remind myself in the form of a "Why am I blogging?" post.

Hard to believe that this blog, which was originally only intended to be a temporary disposable blog, has been around now going on two years come November. In fact it's mind boggling to me and also a bit saddening when I look at the archives seeing what little I've accomplished writing wise. What I mean is that this blog was only intended to be a sort of intermission between gigs, where I hoped to eventually create something better, a professional website devoted to some greater social cause, but I have not yet found the energy to do so, I'm just not ready to do it yet. So I continue blogging here, for lack of anywhere else to write, to fulfill the constant need I have to write down my thoughts.

This IS in fact a real need, a paramount need that I am fulfilling here. As I've said before, I'm pretty much a lifetime diarist. I was writing in a paper journal long before I discovered blogging. This is not new to me, writing down my thoughts and feelings, exploring the memories of my past, my hopes and dreams, goals and ambitions, what angers me, what scares me, what saddens me, what excites me, and writing down my creative inspirations and philosophical expositions is something I've been doing for over twenty years.

The only difference is that instead of keeping these thoughts locked away in a notebook somewhere that no one else would ever read, I'm sharing these thoughts with others. But this blog was never intended for a large audience. And it doesn't really have a theme. Or if it does, I'm not aware of what it is. Can you categorize this blog? How would you classify it? I have no idea. Sometimes it's really personal, where it's all about me, other times it's not personal at all, where I'm talking to you, not myself, where the goal is to help, to teach, to entertain, to inspire YOU. Other times, it's just an emotional clearinghouse, a place to rant, to mope, to scream and to cry and to feel sorry for myself. Sometimes it's pathetic. Other times, well I don't know, you tell me.

The Obligatory Rant

Well, in case you haven't noticed I like to diverge a lot. Sometimes I'm strong and confident, other times I'm weak and insecure. Sometimes I'm kind and patient and understanding and supportive, other times I can be a very ruthless cruel hearted bitch. Sometimes I love people, other times I hate people. Sometimes I truly care about helping to make the world a better place and improving the lives of others, other times I don't think people are worth helping, that the human race is not worth saving; that the world is hell, and there is nothing anyone can do to really change anything at all, because no matter what good you do there will always be evil, corruption, inequality, and injustice.

There will always be war, there will always be abuses of power, the strong will always prey on the weak, exploit the less fortunate, the less educated, the less powerful. That there will always be people without values, without ethics, people who lie with a straight face, steal from the poor, trample upon the weak, and sleep well at night peacefully and contentedly with a smile on their face in spite of it, without a shred of conscience or compassion, who feel superior to 99 percent of the world, entitled to their privileges, entitled to take whatever the fuck they want, to do whatever the fuck they want, and to destroy whatever the fuck they want, and there will always be people like this.

That is the oh shit, pessimistic Cym speaking. The "why even bother" attitude. Not very healthy, but hey, I feel expressing it does have its value.

Keep reading, it gets better.

Anyway, I often feel like this blog is just the tip of the iceberg of what I am capable of doing with the medium of the written word and the internet, that I can do more with this, be more purposeful, more helpful, and more constructive with my time here, where blogging can actually do something good for people beyond just filling some entertainment niche in your life. But I also feel that no matter what this is, how good or bad it is or how much better it could be, what can be said is that having a public diary fulfills a certain need in my life, and therefore nothing here should ever be considered to have been written completely in vain.

I would still do this even if no one else read it, but it would admittedly be less satisfying. It would lose some of its power and effectiveness as a channel for creative energy and therapeutic change.

In fact I would say that the true power of a blog, what really makes it come alive, comes from two things: having an audience and the ability to interact with the audience. Interactivity and communication are the essential ingredients here. That's what makes a blog potentially more powerful than a book, the ability to discuss what has been written. You see, I consider blog posts, not just mine but all blog posts, as being fluid, flexible, not set in stone, ever evolving, malleable, changeable, alive, a creative springboard, a creative prompt for something new, something different, maybe even something better.

Really what I'm all about is creative inspiration. That is my calling card. Hi, my name is Cym and I am an expert in creative inspiration. I don't make any money at it, but it is what I do, here, there, and everywhere. I see everything as a potential source of creative inspiration. Nothing is off limits. Everything is permissible. I'm an extremely open-minded person, but my only major fault perhaps is trying to force others to be more open than they are willing to be, and being frustrated by others stubborn rigidity.

On Comments

Anyway, this blog could easily survive without comments. Reader interaction was never a prerequisite or a goal, but I just want to say that while I neither require it or expect it, I'm pretty much available to discuss anything with anyone concerning anything I've posted here. So I wanted to make note of a revision I recently made in my comments policy, which you will find in the comment box, but am also posting it here, in case I ever change it later, there will also be a record of it here.

*** Rules for Commenting (Or, how I perceive this blog and the possible role I see comments playing in it)

I see everything here as a fluid work in progress; nothing here is written in stone. I blog to learn, and absolutely love asking and answering questions, therefore I welcome thoughtful discussion concerning anything I've posted here. I also don't mind off topic comments, or long winded comments, or comments that challenge me in anyway. However, I typically don't respond to comments on posts older than 30 days, only because it's no longer fresh in my mind, but I do read all comments and will occasionally make an exception. I also typically don't respond to anonymous comments. And I'm much more likely to respond to fellow bloggers, so if you have a blog or website or profile link, do share it. ***

More about Me: My Blogging and Commenting Philosophy

I occasionally get carried away on other people's blogs, leaving long comments that may sometimes get off topic to what the original poster had in mind. Some people do not like this. I am not one of those people. Like I said, I am all about creative inspiration, that is pretty much the stream I am running from, the fountain of myself, the prime motivation underlying who I am. I'm always looking at everything as potential inspiration. If I feel the creative juices flowing in response to what someone else has written, I often take advantage of their comment spaces to explore it further, to add to the conversation, to ask questions, to get into a deeper discussion. After all a blog post is just a blog post, nothing serious, just a fragment of conversation, a beginning, not an end. The only thing that makes it come alive is the conversation that keeps it going, the interactivity, the evolution of ideas. That's what it's all about.

You see, I do not consider these posts as being rigid solid blocks of information set in stone. I see all ideas here and everywhere as flowing like water, subject to change and revision, open to elaboration and discussion. Everything is a springboard for something else. Ideas precede ideas. Building blocks of change. So, feel free to be inspired, to agree or disagree, to quietly ponder them to yourself, or to ask questions that change the course of the conversation entirely. Nothing here is set in stone, everything is a free flowing work in progress. I blog to learn and to add to the creativity and inspiration and beauty of the ever flowing ever changing evolution of the universe.

This is a conversation. Sometimes silent, sometimes vocal, but it is a conversation all the same, of my thought forms reaching out and drifting away into the sea of infinity, from this computer all the way over here, to your computer all the way over there. How cool is that? I'd say it's pretty cool. And they say I'm a troll, how amusing. And they say I'm domineering, how confusing. Whatever, it's all good, I'm enjoying myself either way, this is not done in vain, even if I do delete it later on, it's fulfilling a legitimate need in my life, and I sincerely hope it's benefiting you in some way too.

The Virtues of Individuality and Worldliness

Do you know what has turned me off and away from Taoism, Zen, and Eastern Philosophy in general?

It is primarily due to its devaluation of morality, individuality, and worldliness.

As I understand it, both Taoism and Zen are essentially hermit's philosophies, religions of retirement and inner retreat, more suited to people having very little interest in participating in the outer affairs of the world, in changing society or making the world a better place. While they may advocate kindness and compassion and humility, both are essentially about non-attachment, disengagement, non-participation, and retreat from the outer world of the senses. Each recognizes and advocates the belief that one cannot really change the world or anyone else in it, one can only change oneself, by changing one's own perception of oneself in relation to the world you live in.

But it is possible to influence others, to have an impact on the lives of others, to band together and collaboratively alter the outcome of events; feeding the hungry, sheltering the weak, sharing knowledge and teaching skills, all help improve the quality of life. So, by directly influencing the lives of others, how then could the world NOT be changed by these individual influences?

What is change? A specific action causing a specific effect, that alters the landscape, making it different than what it was before. Cause and effect. If you keep doing the same things in the same ways, you will continue getting the same results. But if you alter your course, you will alter your destination, and if you change your methods you will change your results.

If you keep to yourself, do not talk to others, neither teach or preach, but just live your life quietly and unobtrusively in your own way, perhaps someone somewhere will take notice, and imitate what they see, learning from your example, and changing themselves in the process.

But whether you keep to yourself, or actively collaborate with others, one must never underestimate the importance of communication, that life is essentially all about communication. It is a fact of life, and avoiding the significance of this truth, is only done at your own peril. Communication is not just about the spoken or written word. Communication is not limited to words, to verbalized language or the rules of linguistics. Communication is a dance, an exchange of energies; when you breath you are having a conversation with the air; when you walk you are having a conversation with the earth; when you eat and drink, this too is a conversation between your body and the fuel that sustains you; everything is a conversation between life and death, transformation and sustenance.

I have no desire to lose my Ego, to merge with the infinity of Tao, of all that is, becoming completely selfless, at one with the entire undifferentiated ocean of being. What is wrong with individuality? What is wrong with wanting to remain in one form for as long as you wish, to retain your personality, your individual identity, your unique energetic signature of consciousness?

I often speak of wanting to live 1000 years or more, to become an immortal who retains this form, this identity named Cym, not forever, but for an extended period of time, for much longer than the normal human lifespan. And yet there are those who look upon this wish as being undesirable, as a symptom of the Ego clinging to itself, afraid to let go; a less evolved state of mind, an egocentric consciousness based on fear and insecurity, possessiveness and selfishness, and attachment to duality; dismissing the virtues of individuality and worldliness, as if it were something lesser than, inferior to. But why?

There are those who say that this attachment to the Ego, this clinging to forms, is not real, is an illusion, that what we believe to be our own unique identity is an illusion, that there really is no Self, that there really is no individual person, it is just a temporary role we each play, a mask we each wear over the course of our lifetime, but it is not really who you are, because we are all one and all there is is infinity. Non-Duality. Or so they say.

But what is wrong with Duality? Without duality, without two, how could you ever experience the love and beauty and truth of another being; without ugliness how could you ever appreciate beauty, without death how could you ever appreciate life? But, why must you die before you are ready to die? Why is it wrong to want to live 1000 years, to live in this world longer than is typical of our species? Why would anyone WANT to die? To die not only a physical death, but to annihilate all traces of self, all traces of identity, individuality, to lose all traces of their humanity? It's one thing if this is an inevitable reality that we each must face in our own time, but why would anyone actually seek it? What is so great about it, to favor the collective over the individual, if becoming everything means to become nothing? To lose yourself, in order to gain the entire world and all that ever was and ever will be into infinity, only to lose that too, and be left with absolutely nothing at all, an infinity of nothing.

Maybe that is okay for some, but as I said before, I find it to be completely unconstructive. Why would anyone want to become God, to become omniscient and omnipotent, to "return to the source", to have knowledge of all things, to be all things, and yet simultaneously nothing? Perhaps it is my ignorance speaking, it very well could be, but why would anyone want that? What is wrong with being an individual concerned with the matters of this world? Why is it considered a less evolved or smaller minded pursuit? Or am I just missing the point completely?

Even so, it is not my desire, at least not at this time. I want to live, fully, here in this world, for as long as possible, while attempting to change it for the better to the very best of my ability. Anyone who says it is a waste of time, that I am walking on a treadmill, fighting an uphill battle, going around in circles, getting nowhere, that I am seeking a mirage, clinging to a life which is ultimately an illusion: I say, FUCK YOU! You think you are already immortal eh, all there is is infinity eh, well why don't you just jump off a fucking bridge then, and see how immortal and infinite you find yourself to be then. No not really, please don't do that. I'm just being the difficult unevolved egotistical and selfish fallen angel that I am. But at least I'm honest about it.

Labor Day Weekend Reading Update

So what's up on the reading front?

I sometimes like to use this blog to give a recap about my reading, exercising, and eating habits. It's a good way to keep me on track, to help me feel like I'm actually accomplishing something, making real progress. I've found that if I just keep it to myself, it seems to impede my growth; so I need to talk about it, even if only in writing. After all where else can I do this? No other place I know of actually, and the people I know in real life could care less about these things, so this blog is my refuge. I'll post my diet and exercise update later, but for now, we'll focus on what I've been reading.

Economics

I'm taking a break from the heavier academic reading, and needed something light and fast and easy to sort of give my brain a bit of a break. You see I have these two massive economic classics sitting next to my bed waiting to get into the proper frame of mind to read, wondering if I'll muster the strength, or if I do, if it will even do me any good; they are: The Road To Serfdom by F.A. Hayek, and Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy by Joseph Schumpeter. Funny that I check out these books when I don't even have an academic background or particularly enjoy economics. I'm guided by an invisible hand, an intuition that guides me to certain books, which I may not at first understand why I must read them, but are all part of the master plan of increasing my knowledge of the big picture of how the world really works. Those two books I will delve into soon enough, but for now I am taking a break by reading intellectually light and easy end of summer vacation reading.

On the Road

I've read 100 pages so far of On the Road by Jack Kerouac. This would be my second reading, the first was in high school. Funny how I was really big on the beat poets as a teenager, and even fancied myself to be one, even having big dreams of moving to San Francisco one day and living the beat lifestyle. Now being twice as old as I was then I do not feel the same way, not really, actually think they, they being most notably represented by Kerouac, Burroughs, and Ginsberg, were little more than degenerate drug addicts, who used their writing primarily as a tool to get laid, or to delude themselves into thinking that all the drugs and boozing actually had some constructive or higher creative purpose that justified them just bumming around on one endless quest to score drugs and "chicks". By the way I absolutely abhor the word "chick", and any guy (though strangely enough I am not as bothered when females use the word) who refers to a female as a "chick" in my presence has lost much respect in my eyes.

While I am attracted to the unconventional status quo questioning artsy Bohemian lifestyle, and do admire the Beats contribution of free flowing spontaneous prose writing, but overall, as people, they are just the sort of men that in real life I probably would steer well clear of. Not in my past life though. I probably would have thought they'd be cool to hang out with as a teenager, but now I would consider them to be bad associations. Of course, not having actually met any of them, I can only base my opinions of them on what they have written and what has been written about them. Nevertheless, I do plan on finishing "On the Road", and maybe I'll elaborate more on my thoughts about it later, but for now I had to take a break to read another book that I had reserved at the library that came in and that I had to read very quickly because it was the only copy in town. See below.

American Psycho

Just finished reading the extremely graphic serial killer novel American Psycho. I read it in three days, finished the last two hundred pages today. It was very disturbing. If you haven't read it or seen the film adaptation yet, let's just say it makes "A Clockwork Orange" (something I also recently read) look like a G-Rated children's bedtime story. I could do without cluttering my mind with this filth, parts of it read like a horrible pornographic snuff film put into print, but I have this peculiar fascination with understanding the minds of psychopaths and the roots of evil, so even though it is fiction, I thought it would provide a good character study into those matters.

I got the idea to read the book in the first place after checking out this other book from the library called "1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die", and that one was on it. I gave it two stars, not for being a poorly written book, but for being such unhealthy food for the soul (I can't help thinking that this book will only give future serial killers ideas of specific gruesome acts to commit) and for having absolutely zero rereadability. You could see it as a character study into the mind of a psychopath, but more than anything else such a book is really just another form of "death porn". Hard to believe there are people who are addicted to this genre, who can't get enough of it, but I for one despite having watched the entire Faces of Death documentary without turning away once, will never read this book again.

After reading this book I'm also inclined to think that a good method of weeding out mediocre associations from my life, is to determine whether they read a lot of horror novels or watch a lot pornography. Anyone addicted to horror and or who watches pornography on a regular basis is OUT of my life forever...and if that eliminates 99 percent of all males, than so be it; I say good riddance.