Humans are the only animals in the natural world that work towards anything other than their direct good. Moreover, especially in the developed west, the reality is that humans generally work almost exclusively to their indirect good with the very limited exceptions of tidying up around the house, doing the laundry, and cooking, but even these later universals are associated with those that haven’t the means to oblige someone else to fulfill these tasks for you, the basic paradigm being that if one could acquire the necessary funds, which everyone must want and anticipate, they could forego all species care taking up to bathing and other physical hygiene.
This radically bizarre, yet often unconsidered, thought process is the exact product of wage based capitalism, whereby an individual comes to associate an arbitrary monetary value to a certain itemized task or series of tasks that they perform. They are conditioned into this relationship since infancy as a secondary nature of the social contract, in which, in addition to their individual human rights, the citizen foregoes the direct fruits of their labors in the interest of the superstructure attaining the increase of material wealth it requires to continue to manifest.
*If you don’t act like the state/economy is real, it ceases to be real*
In exchange for these sacrifices, the citizen humans are endowed with arbitrary rights, necessary units of trade (money proportionate to their position,) and the satiation of the hard work myth. One establishes their value according to how they and society perceive his work. He applies himself to it accordingly, and experiences the sensation of proportionate value as a consequence of its actualization.
Having traded his literal quantitative body and strength to near maximum (depending on the nature of his work and his physical and mental relationship to it) he feels an emotional justification in not wishing to exert anymore and the compulsion to use his trading units effectively to unburden himself accordingly. This, of course, detaches him from the literal (direct) relationships to work that a sort of homesteader feels and erodes his innate understanding of real value for a purely commodified and abstract understanding of it. It ceases to be important how well one can care for themselves/others, or even what they can create, and becomes exclusively what they can afford and of put, fostering a distinctly inactive (passive) sense of self.
The citizen human becomes primarily identifiable passively, associated to “hobbies” and “recreations” which they don’t lend value to on a real personal or social level, enacting them as time that is valuable precisely because it is devoid of creative purpose. Even worse than this, though, is the alternative common response, wherein a person becomes actualized through their indirect work, coming to see their value in what they can do arbitrarily. This response is worse, due to the sociological concept of the “good person” that it renders, who is “nice,” “hardworking,” and, above all, appreciates the established order on a deeper, more subconscious (unchangeable) level. This person will therefore feel greater vindication according to their indirect labors, again on a level of subconscious dogmatism, and will be heartily resistant to deeper self exploration and fluid consideration of arrangements and realities. This in particular is the mechanism behind the “middle class,” and it is precisely why they historically side with the oppressive in their paradigm, especially in America.
-“He” and “His” are here used for the authors inability to properly write. The sentiment is obviously not gendered.
-If you like this stuff, or think you do, you should follow me, because I’ve got notebooks full of it that I’ll be putting on here.
-If you’d like to talk to me about it, you should do that too.
The two biggest obstacles to actual freedom are wage labor (capitalism) and the state. (We’re generally more oppressed by the later but have been conditioned to think only of the prior.) The problem is the standard view of comfort as the precursor to freedom rather than the absence of oppression; essentially that freedom can only exist on the other side of oppression and therefore oppression is something which must be passed through and experienced. Consenting to oppression is, however, is a fundamentally inhuman function for the transformative effect it has on the subject, not least of all the willing participant. The experience of “freedom” (comfort) that an individual experiences after a life of hard work coming up through the ranks is starkly different than the freedom promised to them before entering into the arrangement. It is precisely their freedom that they exchanged part and parcel of their time and facilities, and it is that actual freedom which dissipates in the process, making the original value of the exchange null and void.
*Any time you do something you don’t want to do you disrupt your innate understanding of right and wrong; you don’t want to do it for a reason. The state and capitalism are built upon the belief that humans are fundamentally wrong, as evidenced in the very plain language of all the enlightenment era writers who edified it’s existence, and it is these institutions that condition the individual away from their earliest understandings of right and wrong towards a developed personal ethos of negating the self by transforming the basic desires. This superstructure tells you that it’s good to be greedy, lazy, apathetic, etc, but that you must work to attain the necessary capital to sustain it. Shy from proposing any bold explanation of human nature, other than that we’re born basically good, it is not so hard to ascertain what their diagnosis is and poke some pretty big holes in it.
**Comfort is a trick of the mind, whereas freedom is a real state of being, which can, if actualized, produce comfort. The quest for either typically produces a loss of one, and while there is not a hierarchy of values in the reception, there is the necessity to meditate on the procedural relationship of both and the community; ie freedom, which produces comfort, should not be seen as something which must be attained through oppression (passive support for the oppression of others,) or something unique to the individual acting in their own interest at the expense of the community. True community is built on liberated actualized individuals that freely associate towards their mutual gain and sustenance.
STAY TUNED FOR MORE
Where did your uncle get married?
Bigger than I remember, or maybe I’m just smaller than I remember.
I used to see pretty girls everywhere
just how they see themselves
posted up here and there
with smiles so wide and eyes that see
I used to believe in casual elegance and the way their sleeveless shirt hung right at the edge of the shoulder just so
But here is a grin that slips through with precision
and a pair of eyes which aim with intent
here is a pretty girl laughing because something was funny
then smiling and laughing again
here is a girl that I have chosen to believe
and may the terror of the prospect carry us over
now of course most of you aren’t mormons, as i do have a certain hierarchy of things that negate me respecting a human enough to have any legitimate social interaction with them, but this does bring us back to the humor of the whole “now that’s crazy” thing, where people who literally believe that a man who worked miracles was crucified, died, buried, resurrected, and ascended into heaven, can somehow call mormons, scientologists, and other equally psychotic people “crazy,” as though this fundamental aspect of their world view somehow wasn’t.
so that being said, at 1:33
"I no longer believe that an institution which changes its doctrines as our culture evolves is in any way directed by a transcendent being."
wow formon, you just very eloquently hit the nail on the fucking head for me.
for some context on my views
but a big piece that’s missing is my ongoing contention with the ebb and flow of the spiritual institution. you see, it is precisely because i do believe in the existence of something which is too big to be understood, what you might and i periodically refer to as “God,” that i can’t accept established religion of any kind in any way, as ALL formalized religions (and subsequent cultural spiritualities) are the direct bi-product of an established orthodoxy slowly coming to grips with a lack of relevancy and saliency and making the necessary concessions to maintain a seat at the table. in my interpretation of logic and legitimacy, that equals out to being proven wrong and deciding to tone it down a bit before everyone realizes, and since the subject matter is the transcendental (essentially “God” or “that which cannot be known ((because those words basically means the same fucking thing!))) it’s very easy to play to the human desire to connect with the beyond and keep them coming back for more while trading in the initial strategy. FDR convinced a lot of the wealthy establishment people to kick down some of the crumbs because the masses were getting restless, and this peculiar abstraction of freedom and democracy was able to perpetuate as a result. was the system legitimate in any way, all the more so clear based on its need to change form? obviously not. the two most unflinching while unfounded beliefs that people generally hold are that of religion and politics. go figure.
i remember when i lost my faith. i remember snagging a cigarette i had hidden (i hadn’t smoked while i was living in orlando) and biking over to a nearby pond in tears. i sat down, lit up, continued to cry, and was only able to carry on for the strange and illusive relationship i’ve always had to the unseen. this overarching sense of purpose, what you might and i periodically refer to as my mind (God,) seemed to be telling me that i should walk away from this flawed beast. you see, a lot of things in life are confusing. a lot of them are confusing beyond reason, and we often must accept something at face value for that in the interest of carrying on, but i tell you that it is not wise or necessary in any way to conform to even an abstraction of dogmatic orthodoxy for those reasons. as the transcendental cannot be known, only experienced, you are doing your fluid natural self a severe disservice by stitching it up in any manner of practical explanation, aside from completely negating the basic nature of it, and if it does have any agency in this realm, it probably doesn’t want you to do that.
so clear your inbox for a minute, because maybe god wants you to walk away from God so you can hear it again.
Anonymous asked: How do you like David Lynch's work?
alright, who’s the fuckin smart ass?
i just wanna take a minute to try modestly to explain why i think non-religious people are increasingly aggressive towards religious people, or at least why i am.
everyone with a basic understanding of things knows that not all muslims are terrorists, not all christians are fundamentalists, and not all jews are zionists. if you think they are, you’re a twat. that being said, taking any of these religions literally will, if done so in a direct sense, render those positions. it’s a basic problem with the notion of divinity/providence/salvation, which can best be explained by comparing it to pride: to be proud of your race, nation, or state necessarily indicates that, in your mind, if even on a subconscious level, it’s better than the others. think about it logically. if you believe that you are saved through divinity than you necessarily believe that those who haven’t made these decisions are not saved, ie they are lesser than you (see fuck tards in this video for a more vivid example.)
now obviously it is people that are consciously thinking like this that have created literally every war in human history. to put it another way, it is only religions, states, and the philosophies which drive states, joined together by associating individuals that have produced literally every war the world has ever known. cool. we understand that. maybe we don’t think about it like that often, but we all kinda know that on a subconscious level (again referring to people that know how to read and have some basic critical thinking skills) but what does that have to do with the liberal religious folks?
well, liberal religious people, that meaning people that ascribe to some element of these text based creeds but don’t take them literally across the board, could be said to make up the majority of the religious population of the world, just like people that essentially believe in america but don’t think we should conquer the world make up the majority of our national population. what that means is that these volatile ideologies persist not on the efforts of fundamentalists and ideologues, but on the cowardice of thinking people who don’t have the strength of mind and conviction to renounce them. to put it another way, when a US drone drops a bomb on a child, you represent 1/313,914,040th of that bomb, because you have passively supported the continuation of the united states, and even if you didn’t vote for the guy or you wrote your congressman or you protested this weekend or you’re a fucking anarchist like me, in the natural order of things, you’ve got blood on your hands, because this shit doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and as we’re seeing more and more often, when the crows come home to roost, they see the forest not the trees. to be clear, i’m not saying that that’s okay or what i would like or what i think is fair, because it’s not about that, it’s just the logical equation that reality follows.
coming back to religion, what we’re seeing here is the basic problem of personal evolutions within society. in other words, if every christian, muslim, and jew all became relaxed and groovy about it, admitted that a decent chunk of their books can’t and shouldn’t be taken literally, and peace on earth occurred, it would only last as long as it took for some young person to grow up and get a hold of his culturally relevant religious text and start thumbing through it, notice that his culture wasn’t doing what is implied by referring to themselves as christians, jews, or muslims (that meaning following the laws of those creeds) and become indignant enough about it to decide that he would = terrorism at worst, major dickhead at best, and the problem would begin again.
what i’m getting at: peace cannot exist with religion. your liberal version of it is fine on a personal level, but in the larger context you are passively contributing to what it does in all its incantations. BUT THERE’S GOOD NEWS! if you’re not taking your religion literally, but rather using it as a personal source of reassurance, than there’s a million other things you can believe in that don’t kill lots of people. i believe a lot in music, cheeseburgers, myself, you, the future, swag, and making funny faces on the bus. mythology is an incredibly powerful thing, but you can mold and create it outside of dogmatic barriers in anyway you chose. because rigorous study of these orthodox religions renders the indisputable fact that they are widely false in a simple could this have actually happened sense (the gospels, the old testament, etc) the only hard thing you need to do is set down the rest of it. it’s like walking towards a house and seeing the back half of it blow up. do you continue to walk towards that house, assuming that it will somehow still provide you shelter, or do you make camp for the night and re-evaluate your plan? believe in something, anything other than these things. believe in humanity! check out secular humanism !!! we’re awesome, and we are so without the easter bunny, uncle sam, or jesus!
religion, states, and statist philosophies are the only convictions which are generally accepted while being viewed as potentially false or at least unprovable. no one still believes in spontaneous generation, because it couldn’t hold water, and yet a majority of humans accept these other shaky at best paradigms with stunning conviction. imagine what we could do as a species if that enthusiasm was placed elsewhere!
additionally, the age of the humanist martyrs is upon us. non-believers are the target of constant criticism from the religious parts of their communities, and for what? because they’re not convinced? because they see some of the holes? or because they challenge the ease with which the majority of people consent to total bullshit? when these attacks happen, carried out by religious extremists, they typically kill all kinds of people. there were liberal muslims in the twin towers that died at the hands of islamic extremists, but does that mean that islam is actually cool and we should put our human energy into accepting or saving something that is at least partially fucked in a huge way? WHY WOULD WE DO THAT?!?! STOP DOING THAT!!! REJOIN THE HUMAN RACE!!!
i made young video!