Deadly musing

To the caged bird the uncaged bird is a scary thing.
It’s like people haven’t got the fundamental fact.
We’re all gonna die. Everyone of us. 
Now this can be good or bad. If you’re lucky enough to have had your face smacked by the love reality than you don’t know what it is but you know what’s doing it so you’re cool with whatever the answer to the death question is.
If you’re not lucky enough to have that (and I’m sorry but it’s pure luck no merit. I’m sure there’s a part in the gospel of John where Jesus elucidated this. His disciples are. Arguing and he’s like “why are you arguing don’t you know it’s the father that chooses. What’s the point in these frivolous words” or something like that) then you don’t know.
But either way you are definitely gonna die.
This hell is just indigestible nonsense. What would you say about me if I said to you “come to my party or I’ll kill you”?
You’d think I was a twat and you’d be right.
So we’re all gonna die.
Say if you advise someone wrong. Well their gonna live their lives with it’s ups and downs then – guess what? – they’re gonna die.
Same with the good advice.
Follow this. I mean really follow the white rabbit. Hitler. Really bad. I wouldn’t have done what he did. But guess what? What was the effect of his actions? 
You got it people did what they would have done anyway. They died.
A villain in Sherlock said in response to Dr Watson’s “but you made people die” “THAT’S WHAT PEOPLE DO”
Am I saying that you should go out and kill people. No but I’m not not saying that.
What I’m getting at is this. 
Who the fuck are you really? I mean let’s get beyond all the consequences and legalistic bullshit. Who are you when no one’s looking?
Remember ultimately it don’t matter what you do. God’s will is being done.
So let’s get to reality here. What are you protecting me from? What’s the worst that can happen to us?
People die that’s what they do why throw up hazard signs?

Service to god

A servant is a fake. That is the essence of servitude.
The definition of fake is unfreedom. What you do from freedom is real and is you.
Of course from this angle even your servitude is real. You from a position of freedom chose slavery.
What is this slavery. It is where someone else acts through you. 
You are already a slave of god. A perfect slave.
Where do you think your thoughts come from. They just pop into your awareness from you know not where. They are God’s thoughts all of them the good and the bad. Everything. There is no escaping god.
I create good and evil he says the light and dark.
What bigger concept can you have than that.
You want to do something better that cannot be done any better than it is already being done.
Now my advice to you is this. Float don’t cling. Follow the easy path.
Not because it is good or that god will be pleased. You are already in whatever state you are in a perfect manifestation of God’s will. Bit when you cling you suffer and if you’re anything like me you don’t like suffering.
Rest and know that I am god

Come on Corbyn!

I think terrorism and immigration are the result of something deeper and more nefarious.

In fact I think their main function is one of distraction.

It is well documented that the actions of Britain and America have created is. 

But beyond even that. Society is made up of 2 fundamental classes. The exploited and the exploiter.

The only real issue is that exploitation is the system we live in and this fact is what gives rise to everything else. 

If you deal with immigration new even worse ills will arise (for instance the increased automation of jobs. Instead of an immigrant taking your job it will be a robot)

Corbyn is the only mp who is dealing with the fundamental issue and the establishment is shitting themselves. 

For example: 0 hour contracts are things that give more power to the exploiters. When the situation changes and your exploitation ceases to be profitable then they can just get rid of you.

Why do you think immigration gets so much coverage in the media? It’s a punch and Judy show to distract you while they put the shackles on.

But you do it!

There’s this idea that has sway over the majority. It is that someone has to practice what they preach. That if you don’t do for yourself what you believe to be the solution for your problem then you have no right advising another with the same problem to do the very thing you do not do.

The problem with man is not that he doesn’t know what to do it is that he doesn’t do it.

This almost unspoken rule is the very rule that causes people to become disingenuous. We all want to be heard, to feel that what we say carries some weight and because people habitually almost instinctively judge the truth value of what we say by how we live our lives we whitewash our lives before others just so we can participate in communication.

We argue constantly trying to justify ourselves. To make ourselves at least appear to do the right thing. To never be wrong in word or action.

This sets up a strange little feed back loop. Instead of looking at a thing and saying what we think we now try to conform our behaviour to what we say. Often when the two (What we do and what we say) are out of step we change the words to fit the actions. 

It would be better and less pathological (in the sense that a pathology causes pain and disruption) if we recognized the fact that we act from a different place than we speak from. That a drug addict with a heroin syringe in his arm can say truthfully “you shouldn’t do this; it’s bad” with the exact same weight as a Tory. 

There is a difference between walking the path and speaking the path. This is true. But the words are the same for both.

All because a thief says it is wrong to steal doesn’t mean it is right. 

The truth is the truth whoever says it.

Special

We think we want to be special but what does it mean to be special?

It’s an assignation. It exists in the interstitial space between objects. It is a judgement of relation between things.

This is different, unique, unparallelled.

But once you see you’re special so what. Each snowflake is unique but does the snowflake get anything out of it?

So i’m special. I’m awesome. So what. The awesomeness is a tag put on at the end. The little bow on the top of the hamper that lets us know that the contents are worth something.

But in the enjoyment of the hamper, as it’s consumed there’s no consumption of the awesome. It’s carried over. That will be awesome. That is awesome. That was awesome.

Specialness.

We don’t really want it.

It’s tat.

What we really want is mum to hold us in her arms like she did when we were young. 

We want to play in the mud with each other again. Have that intense interaction with one another children have so easily when they are constructing twig dams and rolling down hills.

We’ve had it denied to us through our conditioning. We’ve lost play and been taught to want to be special.

We’re all consumed by the drive to get (what turn out to be) tags. Accolades. Estimations.

We’ve forgotten it’s ourselves who are the consumers of ourselves. We have to enjoy being us whatever accolade we’re given.

I may be miserable but at least… at least what. Fuck it whatever it is. But i tried, but i’m strong, but i’m different.

No no no fuck it truly into the ground. They’re fictions and we’re real. Don’t bargain yourself away for a tatty accolade enjoy yourself.

Enjoy your self!

The narcissist’s dream

The trap can be encapsulated in an image.

 
There is a stage and on this stage is a dancing woman. The crowd stares in wonder as she convulses to the rythym.

 

This image is repeated again and again in popular media.

 
The clubs are full of individuals all on their seperate stages surrounded by their own gawping spectators.

 
The music industry has flooded the public consciousness with vacuous dreams of celebraty.

 
Everyone’s walking around; the central protagonist in their private drama where stuff matters and where what happens is important.

 
But it’s not. It’s all trash and the masses have gobbled it up.

 
Oh she said this and he did that.

 
She called me a slag oh no oh no what am i going to do they criticized my parenting style.

 
It’s all tat and people have wilfully impaled themselves onto mediocrity. Onto a humdrum existence with no depth, no insight. A black and white 2 dimensional existence.

 
Despratly they try to maintain the extreme emotional high of the fashionably late entrance.

 
It’s all a scream for attention but when the spotlight’s on them what have they actually got to say? A schoolgirl scream as a factory produced dream streams nonsense into a microphone.

 
And the worst of it is that this vacuity is miserable. The stage is an arduous trap. It’s a strain. The narcissist’s dream is a hell for the narcissist as well you know.

What should we work towards.

Ethics is a thick tangle of a puzzle isn’t it?

It seems that for every person you ask they have a different idea concerning what is good and what is bad.

Once you let go of the idea that good and bad have any existence in themselves that would force us to construct them in a particular way we can become more practical in our thinking about them.

The first step is to realise that moral statements are really statements of preference. Their content is determined through the collusion of an individuals desires and his empirical context.

For an individual it is easy to discover what is good. He just asks himself what it is he wants.

The problem of ethics arises in the interaction of many individuals. What should humans as a whole do and call good.

I think it needs to be as general an ethic as possible. It must allow the widest range of freedom; give the freest rein to individual preference.

We should as a species seek to maximise the amount each individual member can do what they want to do when they want to do it.

The language of modern love

The christmas tree shines its desperate appeal to togetherness
But behind it shines the glare of todays alonenes

we hide behind these symbols

a barricade against the empty glaciers of life as it is.

There is no security and our search for the secure loses for us the very thing we’re seeking to secure.

Two people barricaded behind the walls they’ve secured to protect themselves against that which they seek.

Two seperate languages spoken in silence a silence un broachable an isolatiotion unspeakable.

Even when spoken it lies un interpretabable.

A frozen heart unthawable that shatters with heat. The german and english desperate to not shoot but the only language available are brazen jacket shells that tear and distort.

A constant distortion of love pleas twisted into knife stabs and wounds.

 

We shatter ourselves on ourselves left with our torn selves and empty wrapping paper.

A broken promise, a dead butterfly and a crushed crysalis

If only we could speak the speech of broken hearts and pusy cysts.

Live an ugly life of this and this

Forsake the shoulds and oughts give a fuck you to the massed prescriptions but no all that’s left is a grotty cyst that  hides the promise of what could of behind the supercilious should of.

On revelation

I have a lot of time for the idea that God could reveal himself to people in such a way that they know.
 
It’s a bit like experience. You can make all kinds of statements up in your head but you know (don’t you?) what statements correspond to what you experience.
 
Not that your experience necessarily corresponds to an external reality; but that you know that your statement about what you are experiencing is about what you are experiencing.
 
But if someone never had that experience and heard your statements they would not be able to verify it for themselves.
 
It could be the same with the god thing. People could have that experience and other people who don’t wouldn’t be able to verify it.
 
It could be from this that famous quotes like “Those that don’t know speak those that do know don’t speak” come from.
 
And like how our statements about what we experience can be erroneous but never-the-less statements about the experience so can the statements people who have epiphanies make be erroneous.
 
They could muddy the experience by trying to make what they experience fit their preconceived ideas about morality.

Ramblings with the absolute

For me books aren’t a way of finding out about absolute truth. I don’t think there is one. I think it comes from the human urge to summarize things.

We conceive of the absolute truth like a final sentence. A sentence to take the place of all other sentences. A sentence from which all other sentences derive.

The thing is such a thing does not exist. Language is useful because it allows an almost infinite amount to be said. Grammatically “The tasty cellar ate the dark, empty radish” makes sense yet it is about nothing that could exist in experience. Sentences such as “A square circle” and “a colorless color” are other examples.

That language is so plastic is the essence of its usefulness but it’s also the reason why you can’t derive statements from one another. I mean you can by mixing them up and such; but the reason you can’t get the statements concerning what I’m doing now from what you were doing 20 minutes ago is that plasticity. Well you could but you wouldn’t know as there would be an almost infinite number of possible statements concerning what I’m doing now and a smaller infinity would contain the set of true statements and so on. So you would never know which ones corresponded to the truth of your particular progression through various reality configurations.

It is that many statements can possibly preceed or proceed any statement or set of statements; just as any word or conceivably letter could go before or after any other that you can’t just reduce statements to one another if they are about something in particular; like a road-trip or relativity.

This mirrors the plasticity of reality. Reality contains many distinct and often mutually exclusive things. Their pairing being numerous enough to stink of infinity means that reality contains the possibility of any possible pairing and cannot be reduced to any specific configuration. Thus no absolute reality because every definition inevitably misses part of reality and would be an appearance amongst appearances (Oh such a sweet statement! I think that sums up the dominant way I perceive things: “An appearance amongst appearances”).

You may say that all sentences can be derived from one sentence. Have a sentence, have access to the alphabet and use the laws of sentence formation to construct new sentence repeat ad infinitum. This fails in the sense that quantum explanations for free-will fail. The entire force of free-will in Christianity and social control generally is that it serves as the necessary prerequisite for metaphysical guilt.

You deserve what you get because you chose this.

Anyway using quantum weirdness or any natural phenomena to explain free-will gives this free-will to everything thus free-will loses its relevance.

The same is true here in that the absolute is meant to be singular, uniquely perfect but you can derive any sentence from any sentence; and that’s supposed to be the unique power of the absolute. So the absolute at best becomes a first amongst many at worst a false echo from a powerful link in an infinite chain.

Whatever the ontological status of the absolute is. What I have said is all about how we think not about reality in-it-self so to speak. There could well be a reality which inspired the first numinous finger-point. But whatever it is or was to most people who espouse it it is nothing but a nothing. Something beyond and above experience that cannot be experienced. It’s the ultimate fallacy of ignorance.

Funny thing is that both sides of the debate are arguing from ignorance. The for and against the ontological status of real being given to the absolute.

So yeah I don’t use books to search for what ain’t there. I like knowing stuff in such a way that I can produce my own facts within its domain. Get the essence of it so I can riff it to myself at work.