Where's the conscious evolution of society?

I've been on this planet for nearly half a century, always curious about learning new things and connecting to people in all kind of life circumstances. I spend a significant amount of time exploring consciousness, and embarked on the challenging path to find out who and what I am.

Just like everyone and everything around us, I'm an expression of universal consciousness, a crystal in Indra's net. I learned that intentions have the power to change situations for the better, and also that intentions and actions can go into entirely different directions.

I agree with Douglas Adams, and consider the population of this planet as mostly harmless. I met some less harmless people, but much less of them roam the streets, offices, shopping centres, factories and homes than the average harmless human. The existence of violent, harmful people reminds the majority of the choice each of us can make in life: To strive for peaceful cooperation or to 'win' the competition among false egos.

Our current society shows little interest in raising self-determined, cooperative individuals capable of making their own choices. Education systems prefer obedient conformists, easily controllable by fear and victimisation. Once we get sufficiently inculcated with the big lie 'us vs them', we get numbed to our own nature.

If we allow ourself to let go of our cultural programming, it becomes easy to experience that "We're all in it together". The age of global communication shrunk our planet and raised awareness about the interconnectedness of the diverse cultures, and all life on Earth. We wake up the fact that the destruction of Amazon rain forests, overfishing, monoculture, pollution and war endanger the survival of our entire species. The war waged against nature will see nature as winner, while many species, including our own, will lose.

As every human came out of nature, giving our species a special status in it sounds utterly ridiculous. Everything changes, yet the scale of change imposed on this planet by humanity in the last century alone feels like 'modern civilisation' has pushed the self-destruct button. Modern society sacrifices human life, eco-systems and other species for the sake of the 'economic system'.

While our planet offers abundant resources to feed and shelter everyone to high standards, our economic system bases on the misconception of scarcity. Our economic system thrives on scarcity, and thus needs to creates it systematically. The idea of 'eternal growth' makes up the second elementary misconception of the economic system.

In essence, we could easily say that the economic system intents an eternal growth of scarcity for optimal performance. The meme of egalitarianism doesn't exist in economic theory, only winner and losers. The promise that everyone can win the economic game distracts from the embedded injustice in it.

The global economic system didn't develop organically or spontaneously. A cabal of interested parties spreads it around the globe, utilising genocide towards indigenous people where ever they find them. Societies outside the global economic paradigm mean no market opportunity, so stealing their land and killing them for profit means acting in the interest of 'shareholder values'.

The biggest promoters of the economic system belong to the minority of winners in it. They don't win because the play better, but because they can and do rig the game in their favour. The bank bailout in 2008 poses a brilliant example for this, which got copied plenty of times since then.

Sorry for bothering you with the 'economy'. Many people still believe that government shapes society and directs it, and has some control over banks and corporations. Modern governments have degenerated to mere PR agencies selling corporate interests disguised with empty promises or general fear mongering.

The Australian government spends about $3 billion for its unjust treatment of refugees in its offshore camps. This money comes from the taxpayer (mere individuals, mainly from the non-game rigging part of the population), and goes to multinational corporations like Serco and G4S, and to other corrupt governments.

Who wins, who loses this match of the economic game with the government as referee? The usual suspects. The old game of redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top grows scarcity among larger and larger parts of the population. Unprofitable human life can be warehoused for a profit, the economic system happily demonstrates its psychopathic nature.

Meanwhile, governments start more openly to defend corporate interests against the mandate of their population. The Queensland government considers 'environmental activism' a crime punishable more severe than owning an unregistered gun. Does it really act in the interest of its people?

Mandating governments to reign in corporations is like telling a dog what its owner should do. Politicians can't be held accountable even for crimes against humanity, which crudely hide beyond a veil of 'national security'. While governments act more and more paranoid and in secret, business secrets seem guarded even more.

The winners of economic game and their confederates in government act out of self-interest, and have taken environmental destruction to a threatening level. If society hangs on to the need to keep the current systems of economy and governance alive, despite them having failed to provide a fair share of the abundant bounty of our planet, then a collapse of civilisation, much worse than the fall of the Roman Empire, seems inevitable.

The oceans overfished, old growth forests cleared, coral reefs declining, increased weather extremes indicate that 'doing what's good for the economy' yields terrible consequences for life on this planet. The cleanup of the mess created by clinging to a system of destruction will keep humanity busy for a while.

We can co-inhabit this planet without sacrificing ethics or destroying our resources in the process. Many people have explored sustainable ways to generate energy, build houses, grow food, utilise water and deal with human waste.

We need a shift of consciousness. Do we want to continue to support a system which grows scarcity, or do we want a build a system which shares the abundance of this planet with everyone?

In the beginning

Life remains a big mystery for all involved. How did we get here, how did it all begin and where does it all lead to? Many people asked these questions, and entire societies emerged depending on the answers given. While current predominantly accepted answer to these big questions seem simple, they might reflect an unhealthy tunnel vision.

How did we get here? Coincidence. The universe acts like a giant quantum computer, pre-programmed with rule sets which randomly create systems of higher complexity. Basically Newton's clockwork universe revisited, full of inevitability and determinism.

How did it all begin? Big Bang. The strictly causal universe popped out of less than nothing into existence, without cause. While everything within universe seems to follow causal relationships, universe itself lacks any cause. In other words: The existence of universe, or its origin, kind of breaks the entire rule set valid within universe.

Where does it all lead to? Entropy. Everything deteriorates, transform from order into chaos. The entire universe will run out of fuel, and collapse in itself, popping as mysteriously and inexplicable out of existence as it emerged.

This big picture of things diminishes our existence, our individuality and our consciousness to nothing but an inevitable by-product of rule-based processes beyond our intentional influence. While this concept of reality has been promoted and believed lots, it doesn't really reflect what happens.

The three questions seem to go to the core of life, the universe and everything, yet from a perspective making our existence the centre of importance of the whole universe. These questions address the 'objects' of our thinking, without addressing thinking/observing itself.

This virtual conversation could not take place without consciousness. Any word, any thought just attempts to describe the experiences available to consciousness. Please allow yourself for a moment or two to live without a concise definition of consciousness, and trust your idea of it (at least as long as you believe that you're endowed with it).

Let me now propose 'consciousness' as primary 'substance' of our universe. Like the ocean consists of water molecules, consciousness consists of 'spirit' molecules, distinct yet closely linked. Our 'self', us being represents one droplet in the ocean of consciousness. Matter as we know it emerges as consequence of consciousness, never as its cause.

It might take a bit of contemplation to shift our perspective from materialistic, deterministic object based thinking towards process-focussed thinking. The word consciousness describes a process, yet the english language lacks the precision of specific terms for different states of this process. Dhyana, samadhi, satori can not be properly translated into the language of cultures which subscribed to materialistic fundamentalism.

The western culture replaced the quest for liberation, for moksha, with the illusion of personal liberty. Like in many areas, some cleverly installed maya (illusion) suggests already 'being there', no need to move deliberately into the direction of love, compassion and understanding. The Western culture has ostensibly reached the level of enlightenment about 2 centuries ago. No worries, mate, we totally got it.

If you grew up in a culture claiming to have descended from an 'enlightened' culture, it's easy to assume that the systems in place reflect enlightened ideas. Unfortunately, the existing systems of governance and economy fail to provide access for everyone to the abundance of resources our planet offers. The firm believe that the current world is the best possible, after a quasi linear development to excellence, hinders participation in individual growth and evolution of society.

From a process-focussed perspective, change of structures of society appears natural and inevitable. The very same evolving structures have rather quality of static snapshots, gradually adjusted towards more 'efficiency' when seen from a materialistic-deterministic perspective. Considering the lack of success in making this planet work for 100% of humanity using the current systems of society, restructuring society in radical new (old) ways seems the next potential evolutionary leap.

Before I leap to far ahead, I'd like to step back a bit to introduce my understanding of the process of evolution. Individual systems combine with other other systems towards higher complexity and diversity in order to succeed coexisting within an environment. From one-cellular beings via multicellular life forms evolution increased complexity and diversity of the biosphere of Mother Earth.

As an ongoing process on all levels of life and consciousness, comparing evolution to a race to the top, with humanity as its most important outcome, makes only little sense.  Everything permanently co-evolves. Humanity's attack on biodiversity tears holes in the web of life which endanger its own existence. The temporary madness in global human interaction, war, pollution, starvation only paves the path to a massive fall of so-called civilisation.

Unless we decide to organise our support systems in ways that work for 100% of humanity, to consciously evolve our communities and ourself, we have little chance to avoid witnessing the empire falling, and taking many with it. Understanding evolution as on-going process, and not merely as propaganda tool to justify a culture of domination, can facilitate shaping our evolution of society without creating unnecessary suffering.

Suchness

If you choose a life from the shelf

you'll block the path to your true self.

Life offers so much more variety,

than just to function in society.

Yet when your ego becomes your master,

life easily turns into a disaster.

The game of craving and aversion

prevents healthy energy conversion.

Once you tame that fearsome hungry beast

you will find true peace, at least.

You can stop swimming against the stream,

turning the re-occurring nightmare into a dream.

Don't be afraid to seek your art of living,

and life becomes the gift that keeps on giving.

Querencia

Prelude

I'm playing the game of chance,

wanting my life to advance.

I had enough of luck's wrath

Just want to peacefully walk the path.

I had my fair share of the endless fight

about what's wrong & what's right

I can no longer stay in solitude

After steady increase of amplitude.

I see the tree tremble and shake,

in the game of give and take.

Deeply rooted to Gaia's core

That what I want of some more.

Yet it seem's like my life's predicament

is to remain in perpetual movement. 

Querencia

It seemed like coincidence

a random meeting of souls,

sharing o so many goals,

It turned into a cosmic dance.

Two hearts melting together

each of us of their own kind

thinking together as one mind

touch as light as a feather.

A common love of geometry

which shapes the universe

through which we traverse

brought our dreams into reality.

We were meant for each other,

For once, I stopped to bother.

This is a peaceful protest

Some critics of the global occupation movement complained about using iPhones and other hi-tech gear from mega-corps during escalating phases of this shift of consciousness. Technology doesn't need corporations, capitalism or money for its creation, but dedicated and skilled people. 

The capitalistic axiom of money as prime motivator succeeded in the memeplex of the world-domination phase of human history. Most great inventors and scientists were not really interested in money, sometimes even rather naive in the crooked game of economics.

Without many 'natural' enemies left, survival on this planet of plenty could be a piece of cake. Food and shelter exists still in abundance, as humans managed to accumulate many wicked skills. Yet some people decided to implant the fear of human predators in the collective spirit of their 'nations'. Without war and paranoia, and with the abundance of practical knowledge collected over millenia and its fruits, modern technology, no human being should spend more than maybe 20 hours per week toiling for the essentials.

Our desire to cooperation get exploited by extreme competition - the common goal is 'to be better' than 'the others', instead of making it better for everyone. The idea to make this world a better place for everyone gets portrayed as unachievable, yet honorable ideal. Sorry, the markets haven't sorted that out yet.

I think that the occupy movement want nothing less than to save this planet from the destructive forces of soulless systems implemented to domesticate human beings. The diversity of talents, preferences, tastes, skills, visions, expressions of human existence can not thrive in a bureaucratic nightmare designed to disguise this cruel global social experiment that lasts already for millennia.

If we learn to respect each other as equals, we can create the solutions needed to sustain a conscious species with billions of members on a planet with free solar power for the next billion years or so, combined with an exponential growth of applicable knowledge about how to do more with less.

The world game produces only winners - for entertainment reasons competitions of all kinds will flourish, albeit without nowadays prescribed celebrity status. As mankind, we got paralysed by fear, inspired by memes like homo hominem lupus est. In groups, people were always able to self-organise their needs with growing experience about their environment, and violence among each other (like statistically nowadays) was mostly an exemption.

Yet during an average day at work, we pass hundred, if not thousands other people, all of them mostly harmless. Even in our crime-drama and security-obsessed societies most of our life-time happens peacefully. I know that some people are exposed to frequent violence in their families, yet I still hope that only a minority suffer from this situation.

What will do with all the time we have available when we stopped fighting each other for profits? At the moment, many people share, teach and learn. Being hypnotised by the latest movie and its paranoid messages hidden beneath cool apparel and computer animations, while vacating a body in a work place for the majority of the 'waking' time.

Humans are naturally curious, and the diversity of artefacts of arts, science and technology not only attract 'consumers', but encourage people to contribute to the richness of life. It's not like nothing needs to be done once we stopped fighting each other - the mess left behind swells our oceans and intoxicates soils and atmosphere, the struggle has left many wounded souls.

It's reassuring to see how fast creative solutions where found to support this noble rescue mission. Open source works not only for software, it works also for the economy. Open source money, open source technology (no more IP, copyrights or the like) can make even large-scale operations work out in favour of all mankind.

Our leaders pretend business as usual, while more and more people occupy this planet to rescue it. And bring their skills with them.

Occupy Everything

Rubber bullet to the head, Oakland, Oct 26 2011

The speed of events left me a bit breathless, tuned into the surge of adrenaline that wavers around the globe since the occupation gained momentum. The evictions in Melbourne, Sydney, Athens, Oakland, Chicago and of course London and NYC have become a talking point in Social media.

The narratives between spectators and 'official' commenters diverges in bizarre ways. Where ever the movement had some time to teach its participants the rules of the process, the moral bankruptcy of the 'leaders' became bloody apparent. Pushing, choking, punching, kneeling on necks, tear-gassing, dragging on hair and limbs, shooting rubber bullets, riding horses into people describes the means with which 'governments' sought conversation with a dissenting public.

When we watch a documentary about civil right movements of the past we hardly get an impression about the time it takes to peacefully shift society towards more justice. Pensions, health insurance, voting rights for woman, indigenous people or descendants of slaves, decriminalisation of homosexuality weren't implemented by reasonable, benevolent politicians but came into existence due to the non-violent resistance against blatant injustices. It just took a bit longer than the average attention span for a movie to happen.

Although Australia claims 'fair dinkum' as a part of her national identity, the desire for justice seems universal. The occupy movement continues the long struggle to liberate mankind from its unchosen leaders, and as their reign of terror and oppression spans the entire planet, the whole world gets involved.

Amazingly, although no leaders emerged, the movement has developed a huge global solidarity, and many voices say similar things in different words. Participatory democracy, self-organisation, the end of wars is possible when people want to work together for that aim. Yet these 'goals' have less overall importance than the means used to achieve them: The process of non-violent communication.

I admit that it takes time to learn and embody this process, and decision-making seems much slower than in hierarchies. The need for speed, however, brought this planet to the brink of an ecological collapse - maybe slowing down prevents sinking into the abyss our society heads towards. Yet those people who learned to interact, talk, decide and live non-violently have tasted the beauty, fun and power of this way of life.

Community turned for them from a buzzword enforcing conformity into a living experience, capable of tackling a variety of practical problems. According to their preferences, different workgroups for different tasks emerged, in which the same process of consensual decision making happens. Working together as equals and the useless violence created a durable bond. 'Leadership' isn't an important task, which didn't stop many to ask for it.

In Melbourne, a small, functioning society emerged, providing exchange of ideas, some free goods, a library, tuition for many aspects of daily life. In six days. Then the Lord (Mayor Robert Doyle) used his mighty fist to smash this fledgling approach to real democracy, to a world without leaders.

No more wars, no more unnecessary starving, no more slavery - does that really sound so scary?

One of the programs to maintain unaccountable power creates the habit of uniting against a common enemy. On the surface, the occupy movement appears as yet another one of those anti-everything but the whales airy-fairy hippie bullshit. Or rather, this portrait creates a decent niche in which to scare the movement. It ignores the diversity of support from various levels of society, intellectuals like Noam Chomsky or Leslie Cannold, entertainers like Keith Olberman, as well as lesser known people from all walks of life, including bankers and politicians.

Banksy installation in front St. Paul's, London

When I spend my time on a self-chosen duty as troll patrol for #occupymelbourne, I often hear that 'you people/hippies/commis/lefties/other insults don't represent me'. I can hear a wish for representation in there, and that's one of things the movement offers. Not in the traditional sense of giving up your voice but by providing an open space for everyone to be heard.

I consider the 'trolls' as my friends, and encourage them to make their voice heard on the next general assembly. First and foremost, I learn about my own reactivity to adversity, and to pause before engaging in troll patrol. Respect exists among friends, yet positions of authority and power predetermine the levels of respect expected and acted out.

I wanted to tweet 'One of the big mysteries of our times - does the Queen wipe her own bum?', yet decided against it. Maybe I need to decode myself more, however, she looks like a nice, old lady, and I respect her as such no matter how little her title means to me. After all, she might still live after the revolution, maybe even in Buckingham Palace. If the royal family finds enough supporters to squat the Palace, hardly anyone should object to this group of people self-organising in that space.

While I'm typing here, today's second wave of police violence erupts in Oakland. I checked the live feed from this morning, shocking. The Nazi had gas chambers, the police in the US throws gas grenades into crowds of peaceful people while wearing gas masks. The images from the protest become more surreal, 1984 available on your doorstep or through youtube.

However, that's also part of the predictive programming you can learn about by studying products of the entertainment industry. We have seen the images of riots in movies, and were trained to obey orders from authority. After the apocalypse, as first step a new government is elected, suggesting the innate need to be a sheep. We don't want a total breakdown of society, that's just the scare tactic from paranoid leaders.

Greed requires power structures to grow into a cancer of society. I understood the message of the GA in Berlin to the world as a determined call to heal this planet from the wounds inflicted by the unaccountable abuse of power the bureaucratic systems have created. Our current leaders simply don't care about this planet, they sent troops and drones in parts they don't live in, sell out indigenous people for the exploitation of natural resources, which mostly includes irreversible damage to well-established eco systems, while demanding us to pay for these non-sensical policies a higher and higher price.

While the planet might be healed, as well as mankind, as well as each individual, the system can't. We need to build a new one. The means of doing so matter more than the results. Nobody can predict the future, although politicians and economists talk often extremely prophetic. There can't be any promise that this experiment succeeds. However, self-organisation maintains the balance of all natural systems around us, so let's try this evolutionary successful strategy for humanity.

Don't get the illusion that this experiment is just a talk fest. Communication is essential, yet many things get done as well. In a different style than in the streamlined job slots for wage slaves, yet amazingly efficient.

No matter how often I referred to 'we', I'm not representing the Occupation Movement. I can only speak for myself, and I hope that sharing my thoughts and ideas finds some common ground.

Conception of a nation

While it took only six days to create the entire world, I plan for a bit more earth self-revolutions to give birth to a nation. I consider it a prosperous sign that Liberecujo was conceived on a monday, the start of the week.

We have only one planet, and so far it suffered a great deal from the gullibility of traditional nations, that got lured into the fearful visions of the multi-national madness of the military-industrial complex. As mankind, we have become aware of global challenges, yet the rotten, corrupt, self-interest driven national governments, and international organisations with similar psychopathic nature will rather literally crawl into a hole while the ecosystems of the planets collapse around them, then changing the rules in the interest of all humanity.

Instead of creating solutions, governments create more problem, democracy seized to exist since the start of the global terror campaign in 2001. Many good ideas exist how we can life sustainably and luxurious at the same time, nevertheless the myth of scarcity contributes to often dire living standards. Conventional governments agree on one slogan, like 'carbon tax', which reflect wishful thinking and general naivety.

To have less of the usual national stupidity, we can simply outnumber the war-driven, violent form of nation by creating thousands, if not millions of micro-nations. Mutual recognition could transform international cooperation into a truly democratic process, worthy of the special status of the human race in the game of evolution.

Of course, certain minimal standards should be provided. A simple legal systems, without any extraordinary status for corporations could shift the current legalised-robbery jurisdiction back into a system suitable for global justice. If one day a thousands of micro-nations, without any armies or weapons, but consent of their citizens, declare war on the UN, it has give into democratic pressure. This would mean as well the end of the war against the population, that most nations of this planet currently wage.

I don't expect that running a nation just happens, I suspect quite some work will be involved. The battle of constitutions begins, ruling a nation need creating the rules for your citizens. In long term, micro-nation could as well agree on using new virtual currencies, that make national and corporate currencies redundant. Citizenships for micro-nations to blow away the old power structures need to be fluid, explicitly trust and not evidence based.

The bureaucratic aspect of citizenship deserves more artistic than data-collecting attention. The initial small number of citizens allows a prime opportunity to shape the 'political' aspect of the nation. A micro-nation needs to provide benefits to its citizens in a fair exchange with obligations consented to. This differs from the traditional model of owning the citizens and black-mailing them into protection rackets, euphemistically called taxes.

In the game of evolution, few simple rules lead to unpredictable, often amazingly beautiful outcomes. The simple rule of government by violence creates rather ugly outcomes like torture camps, permanent war zones and environmental destruction in massive scales. Cooperation and non-violent competition are simple enough rules of engagement to establish a network of nations willing to save this planet.

Evolution and human history

We live in amazing times, and always have. The basic need for food and shelter exists for as long as humans roam this planet. Even in the 'modern' world with all its technological complexity and vast knowledge mankind hasn't conquered this challenge sustainably, not because it cannot be done but because  of insanity.

Human memes spread wider and faster than those of any other species known to us. Our story telling ability provides the basis for progress, an evolutionary phenomenon that creates dynamically balanced complex systems.  Contemporary science and craft still hasn't been able to recreate technological marvels of the human past, and the ideas of how people lived in previous eras of history often base on sketchy evidence.

As social beings, survival of humanity depended rather on an evolution of group organisation strategies than advancing the bio-physical machinery of individuals. Different environments favoured different strategies of how people live together, cultural exchange added into the mix. One might question the meaning of his/her individual existence, but the group with its customs, rules, traditions and myths seems to make sense, as it seems to last longer than any of its individual members.

When ever more people live together in smaller spaces, when ever urban culture emerges, art and technology advance, yet not in a linear fashion. Complexity of society adds to its vulnerability, especially the way it generates and uses energy. Deforestation killed many cultures, and the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq secure the US future oil-based energy demands. The lack of sustainability and efficiency of a fossil-fuel economy is known already at least since Buckminster Fuller. Investing the resources in securing a useless mode of operation instead of devising more sustainable solutions appears to me utterly insane.

I can imagine the better-off part of society marvelling about the technological wonders and wondering about the future ahead of them in most times of history. With the need for food and shelter satisfied, story telling becomes the main occupation of humans. Humans devised amazing ways to utilize the resources of their environment, and many ideas spread around the globe.

A progressive society provides change much faster than the seasons that determined the life of many of our ancestors. Travel and communication technology have advanced like never before in known history, yet the structure of the mixed global societies looks similar to those in times of mass self-destruction.

The amount of people that could communicate together found its limits in societal, cultural and foremost spatial barriers. That limits the amount of ideas to choose from, 'best practice' simply meant doing anything in a way that worked somehow. Funny enough, Victoria's desalination plans seems as if the deciders never considered solutions from other parts of the globe, instead they use a strategy that doomed many societies.

The way evolution is taught and commonly portrayed unfortunately rather obscures evolutionary principles than allows us to take a bit more active part in it. It makes a lot of sense to consider developments in technology and society from an evolutionary perspective, and this makes it so much easier to perceive evolution as an ongoing instead of a relatively finished process.

Societies have always organised themselves, yet mostly only a minority within society acted as agents of this process of self-organisation. It doesn't really matter that not all ideas to structure society had something original to them. The diversity of concurrently existing and past societies simply indicated the lack of a 'natural' law about how conscious individuals organise their common affairs. Those indigenous cultures that survived until today lasted for much longer than any specific 'nation' or 'society', and proved thereby that mankind can survive without 'civilisation'. I have a good laugh at the idea that something as virtual and malleable as 'culture' can be deemed 'unchangeable', yet many fundamentalists might get angry about my bout of humour.

The 'us versus them' meme comes with the myth of any nation, and many other gangs of humans. It survived easier and longer than any technological advancement that could provide for the essential human needs. Mankind created technology to extinguish the entire species, and as a trade-off developed amazing life-saving technology.

Evolution seems to favour the 'us and them' idea. No species exists in isolation, only bacteria might happily survive on a purely an-organic diet. Ecology taught us to consider life more from a system perspective, and to study the interaction and interrelation of all species existing in a biotop. Have we cultivated plants and animals, or have these species adapted to us to selfishly spread their own genes around the globe?

Nature doesn't need humans to sustain life, it existed before and will exist after our species' expiry. The special role of humans on this planet, a meme popular with scientists, philosophers, artists and priests alike, has no basis in our current understanding of evolution. Wait, humans can master evolution of non-biological systems, and even their own, but as yet this meme hasn't reached many members of our species.

No society managed to 'stay on the top' throughout history, yet many still try. No strategy to organise society won the 'battle of civilisations'. Many species got extinct, yet the number of evolutionary winners  exceeds most peoples imagination. The evolution of ideas about the organisation of society show the same random variety as any experimental setup in the lab of life.

In an era of global travel and communication violent government doesn't make any sense anymore. Simple birth proves the evolutionary right to exist, no matter how hard bureaucracy may try to withdraw the means of survival for unwanted human beings. If everybody would want to live a meaningless and parasitic life like most professional scaremongers do, our planet would run out of resources within a very short amount of time. While violent governments needs individuals who combine greed, gullibility and recklessness, a sane society would rather offer those misguided individuals treatment than permit them to run the show.

Yet the Western World, conditioned to believe in the myth of enlightenment, shows little interest in a sane society. Although having power and acting responsibly are not mutually exclusive, without scrutiny representatives of government have always abused power. Most of the corrupt and irresponsible activity remains hidden under the cloak of 'national security' or 'public private partnership'. Corruption remains a much too successful business meme to undergo moral considerations. Corruption among politicians protects this mechanism from the law and public eye.

The way any society evolved doesn't represent any precipice, at least as far as I know. That doesn't stop politicos maintaining the myth to represent the best of societies by exclusion (claiming other societies offer less), This makes as much sense as saying because kangaroos have conquered Australia, all marsupials should be roos. Understanding that any living system (and I consider memes as living systems as well) evolves together with its environment means embracing diversity instead of enforcing conformity.

Any society defends some of its behaviour rules vigorously, while other behaviours are happily tolerated. It's okay in many western nations to show murderers and killings as part of story telling, yet real dead people are hardly seen. Unlike in Thailand, where graphic images of crime victims embellish the front pages of news papers. All groups of people developed some idiosyncratic ways of dealing with sex and death, deriving many other rules in accordance to this attitude to these essentials of life.

Again, the diversity of rules merely shows evolution in action. Progress seems like a by-product of the evolution of consciousness, and the consequences often favor only a minority of the human species. Yet progress as it manifests today would allow to feed and shelter every human being on this planet, if the splintered global societies wanted to. This doesn't imply some sort of welfare planet at all - yet the global free riders (politicians) like to perpetrate the myth that wealth leads to procrastination and decadence. Indeed, any society with considerable wealth and without control over their leaders ended in catastrophe or revolution. Violent government breeds intolerance, war, terrorism, murder, abuse, addiction and desperation.

Unfortunately, other forms of government hardly make it into the public consciousness as they can easily fall victim to the expansion lust of violent governments.  In retrospect, Saddam's Iraq before 1991 looks far more tolerant and secular than the US or Australia today, although dissidents held as political prisoners might survive longer with Western-style torture and imprisonment. Like after WW2, the US simply adapted the inhumane treatment of other people as demonstrated by the evil regime that got replaced. Of course, known wars hardly ever involved non-violent governments. Iraq just serves as example that comparing society standards can yield surprising results, and unveils the hypocrisy of fingerpointing, especially from the US government.

Rebranding war as insanity poses a huge challenge. From a global perspective, war creates losses by its unsustainable nature. Mankind needs protection, but not from our evil neighbours, mankind needs to protect itself from violent governments. Mankind shares one planet, and if mankind is willing to use evolution in its favour towards a more compassionate world it needs to cooperate to create sane forms of government.

Modern history creates the illusion of a relative linear development of mankind. The chaotic co-existence of different approaches of living together seems to scare those who live off collective fears. In the history of evolution diversity proved as advantage, and many forms of life simply vanished. The meme of violent government seems obsolete, yet still irresistible for many. And while it's popular not to expect 'historic' changes within one's lifetime, I have witnessed too many to lose my hope to see a much more just and compassionate planet than we have right now.

evolution exist global government history human ideas life live mankind meme myth people planet seems society species survive systems technology together violent war

created at TagCrowd.com

In a real sense all life inter-relates. A network of mutuality catches all human organisms, ties them in a single garment of history. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. I can never stay in this moment until you stay in this moment, and you can never stay in this moment until I stay in this moment. This demonstrates the inter-related structure of reality.

If evolution is happening everywhere in a global fashion, where is it heading? For centuries human beings assumed that we were the highest goal of God's creation, and despite Darwin's shocking demotion of humans to one species among many, we still believe we hold a privileged place. But it's not at the top of the ladder of life. Instead, we are the one creature who grasps that creativity is infinite. Evolution is heading everywhere, not to an end point. The ultimate goal of the universe is to unfold without limits. To put it in a word, evolution is becoming more and more free, and its ultimate goal is total freedom.

The apparent

randomness by which Universe

reveals

itself is

but a signal from a still higher sense of intrinsic order

The initiatory cycle can likened to a snake ploughing off its skin. So too, we must be prepared to slough off old patterns of thought, belief, (about ourselves and the world) and behaviour that are no longer appropriate for the new phase of our development.

Utopic space - a space that has been hinted at all through recorded civilisation. There exist no external clues as to its existence or actual characteristics.

The point of education is to create a flourishing society in which as many people as possible have wonderful lives filled with freedom, happiness and fulfillment... Whatever the method, it needs the movement from memorization to learning how to think... It means teaching them to be conscious! Conscious! Conscious! Conscious!

Mankind has a special tool,
a time-binding mind,
truely one of a kind.

Even the biggest fool,
no matter what season,
can claim to use reason.

But our minds do not create,
they just cleverly reiterate
their fear, guilt and shame
and desire for a bit of fame.

Your mind's constant strive
can take over your entire life -
while just a bit of silence
will end this inner violence.

Merry Kill-mas

The world has changed on 9 11 -
it has turned into a fascist heaven.

Soon, the coalition of the willing
started their useless killing
with an incredible haste
to dispose their nuclear waste.

Life has gotten so much rougher
with generations bound to suffer
while the spy agencies dragnet
extends to the whole planet.

Reason has lost its place
as motivator for our race
it all went terribly wrong
since only fear moves us along.

War is just temporary insanity
and will not last until infinity,
yet blind trust in war government
prolongs this cruel predicament.

Human rights no longer count,
the prison industry profits abound.
You have to be real brave
not to become the state's slave.

The prize of freedom is vigilance,
but it's less sexy than ignorance.
Lulled into a virtual reality
individuals enjoy lots of cruelty.

Fascists are in power again,
and it drives me insane -
yet it solved a personal mystery,
whether we're doomed to repeat history.

O, how much I'd love to hear
people speaking up without fear.

When we frame the inquiry "how did human languages originate?" in terms not of adaption but of living bodies, we are necessarily confronted with the creation of meaning, a creation that did not arise de nove but was grounded in an already present semantic repertoire, itself grounded in archetypal corporeal-kinetic forms and relations that, as suggested, follow along biological family lines. Accordingly, we should take not only gestural systems of communication seriously: we should take movement seriously, all the more so in view of the fact that in the bisocation of modalities, the kinetic modality is always primary: it is the source of meaning.

Global Whining

Our planet offers an amazing abundance, basis for all sort of life. All these life forms have co-evolved with their Umwelt, the climate being part of this Umwelt. Simply being alive means altering the enviroment, transforming food into energy for movement and into various metabolic byproducts.

The abundance of life-sustaining 'stuff' becomes fairly obvious when one considers the amount of energy currently used to propagate a global scare campaign about the climate. It's quite amazing to see how much pollution is created to squabble about global warming. If someone believes strongly that Co2 is the culprit for seemingly catastrophic climatic changes, why don't they use modern technology like video conferencing instead of physically traveling around, creating masses of Co2 in the process?

Which logic dictates that it's okay to destroy old growth forests, which are nature's carbon dioxide traps, when 'climate change' is of such importance? But logic and reason, so it seems, are not part of any proposed solution to the perceived problem.

Rhetorics dictate the media discourse, the old meme 'us vs them' makes 'climate change deniers' to Holocaust deniers, all the while none of the participants of official talks shows any sign of personal responsibility. Politicos claim scientists have found the truth, citizens trust into their politicos, especially if those don't follow their own opinion, but those of impeccable and infallible scientists.

That's right. In any given time of history, scientific knowledge was incomplete, and most assumptions and conclusions wrongly oversimplified. But now, in the 21st century, thanks brilliant fundamentalists like Dawkins, that has changed. Scientists stopped to err, like the Oracle of Delphi they cannot but tell the 'truth'. In earlier times of history saints channeled divine truth to their communities, now scientists are blessed with this job. Hurray, finally I can stop to think for myself, I just find a scientist to answer all my questions.

One of the factors that taints the credibility of contemporary science is the idea of causation. Let's take a simple example, a man stabbed with a knife in his heart. Obviously, the knife caused the death of the man, but it's not weapons, but people that kill people, so the 'cause of death' is the stabber. The 'stabber', however, is not primarily a cause of death, any investigator would look for a motive.

Neither the knife, nor the stabber, nor the combination of knife and stabber suffices as 'cause' for death. The amount of detail about the circumstances of that killing event is theoretically limitless, a judge would certainly require lots more than I made up on the spot to determine whether the deed will be penalised as murder, as man slaughter or as act of self-defense.

Any credible scientist will avoid stating any definite causal chain, as our planetary climate is a highly complex system. System theory as a discipline of science is less than a century old. Chaos theory, an offspring of system theory, became popular during the 1980s, and most definetely deserves consideration when attempting to make predictions about the climate. A 'young' science like that is highly prone to be wrong, new territory needs time for exploration before usable pathways are found.

Mankind is part of the 'finite' system planet Earth, and its activities, especially the technological aspects, affect the entire system. The pollution of man made industry spread through the atmosphere around the globe, it sounds retarded to deny human influence to its environment. Many cultures in history ended in ecological desasters, the lack of understanding of the interconnectedness of nature doomed many civilisations.

If mankind would want to learn from history, than treating nature with more respect must be the consequence. Indigenous people managed to survive for centuries, until globalisation destroyed the balance of their Umwelt. Only sustainable approaches to live with the natural environment succeeded, imposing control over nature with anthrocentric approaches always ended in doom.

It sounds quite hypocritical to claim that controlling CO2 emissions will avert an almost certain catastrophe. Most contemporary species have survived for millions of years on this planet, with about 30,000 years we have just started to use our survival potential as species on this planet. The thought of us (mankind) wiping ourselves off the planet in maybe only a century is way too pessimistic for me to buy into, although I certainly believe that we have the technological capacity to exterminate all human life on this planet.

But okay, let's assume for a second that reducing Co2 in the atmosphere will safe the planet. First priority then should be the preservation of existing 'carbon sinks', which is good old rain forest, saved from activists around the planet since the 1970's, nevertheless shrinking at an alarming rate. Instead of getting hyperactive simply doing less. Less rain forest killed means less heavy machinery running on fossil fuel, less global transport of those goods, and mainly a living ecosystem binding massive amounts of Co2.

And course, reducing emissions at the same time, or at least, not increasing them. Although I'm not a friend of nuclear power, generating energy in this way certainly wouldn't contribute to more Co2. Instead of hailing Iran for its nuclear program as spearhead for non-carbon based energy production, she is demonised. Instead using Australia's sunny predisposition to become world leader in solar technology, sun-deprived Germany, smaller than Victoria, generates more solar energy than entire Australia.

O wait, there's a catch. In global fascism nobody beats its own drum, all march in step. Those hippie ideas of saving forests and green technology creates too much autonomy, and require different solutions for different areas. Once the sheeple have grazed the idea of Co2 causation, their next meager meal is a hidden tax to finance a trading scheme.

The fear mongering in the name of science is already hard to swallow, but a positive influence of trading on the climate sounds like a pretty drug-crazed idea. It's a bit like reinventing the rain-dance, just in a suit, without music, dance and others to pick up the bill. Please, my local politico-parasite, present me a scientist to prove that trading cools this planet, and until then, stop the systematic rape of nature in this country.

century climate co2 death energy forest global history idea instead kill knife life man mankind nature planet science scientists sounds system technology umwelt

created at TagCrowd.com

Darwin's wholistic conception of evolutionary continuities is never mentioned in twentieth-century Western scientific or philosophic circles. It has never been openly challenged. It has never been methodically rebutted. It has simply been ignored. By twentieth-century standards, only the Origin of Species and the second half of The Descent - Selection in Relation to Sex - count as evolutionary theory. The rest is silence ... the pressing question then is, why is there a selective reading of Darwin? Since never explictly discredited, why is his organic and evolutionary wholism not taken seriously?

The master does his job and then stops. He understands that the Universe is forever out of control and that trying to dominate events goes against the current of the flow. Because he believes in himself, he doesn't try to convince others. Because he is content with himself, he doesn't need others' approval. Because he accepts himself, the whole world accepts him.

World Gaming recognises that there are no unnatural materials. If nature permits their chemical=elements associabilities, the materials and their functions are natural. If nature does not permit or bring about their associability, they cannot exist. The substances permitted by nature might be unfamiliar to humans, but they are never unnatural - i.e., "synthetic." World Gaming notes that humans' fear of the unfamiliar often prevents realization of humanity's imminent acquisition of improved living conditions for everyone.