Employment is slavery cont.. .

When you are employed you create a certain amount of value every hour you work.

But you don’t get that value. You get a percentage of it and your employer gets the rest.

The employers are the shareholders.

Like the slave owners they do nothing and reap the profits.

Where do you think profit comes from?

It is the value the worker creates above and beyond his wage.

Now say that the product you make in an hour is sold for $20 and you get $7.50 for that hour.

That means that for 3/4s of that hour you are working for nothing.

What is slavery if it isn’t working… exerting Labour for someone else’s benefit and not your own.

I mean you can call a chicken a fish if you want but if it clucks and it’s got feathers it’s a chicken.

Now at the beginning of capitalism they tried all sorts of ways to get people to work for longer hours.

Because the more hours you work the more money you make for your employer.

So they thought if they increased the wage the employee would work longer for a greater reward.

What they found was that the employee worked less. He worked enough to maintain his level of life.

I’m getting that from Weber’s “Protestantism and the capitalist…” I forget the title lol.

Anyway they found that the only way to get the worker to work long hours was to keep him at subsistence level.

To insure he never reached financial security.

Don’t you see that the slave owners didn’t go away. They just bought the political system and put on a pretty mask.

Advertisements

Employement is slavery.

I’m not backing the claim that anyone is property.

Property is a fiction maintained by might.

But people who believe the fiction believe that their property is an extension of themselves therefore they look after it.

Like within the current worldsystem instead of slaves (property) we generally have employees.

The employees are very often exploited to the same degree as slaves.

But the employer unlike the slave owner doesn’t look after them as well.

Because the slave owner would see the slaves as an investment that decreases in value with bad treatment.

Whereas the employer don’t give a fuck.

When an employee is used up he just hires a new one.

A bit like how you would treat a car you bought compared to a car you rent.

Essentially the difference between a slave and an employee is the difference between owning and renting.

Oh and that employment is a much more subtle form of exploitation.

People think that all because they can choose who to slave for they are not slaves for some reason.

I still prefer my employment over slavery though.

I just think all forms of exploitation need to stop if humanity is to have any hope for the future.

Could robots ever have emotions?

Would the emotions expressed by a robot ever be “real”?

To get at this question we first have to take a look inside ourselves to see what happens when we experience and express emotion. Look under the hood so to speak and see what’s going on.

Now to do this I don’t think we need to have some special form of access say to the brain. We don’t need any other form of knowledge or experience than what is universally available to everyone by virtue of the fact that as humans we all have emotions.

So here’s my description of what happens when I experience emotions.

There is a circumstance or event that happens. When I become aware of this event and if I care about the constituents of the event I experience gladness, regret, excitement etc.

Now how do I know I am experiencing an emotion? What is it that informs me of this?

Very often it is a change in my heart rate, a feeling in my belly or just a general change in the tone of my experience.

A spring to my step or a falling feeling in the stomach.

Why I feel what I feel or rather why I interpret the sensation as either a positive or negative emotion isn’t as immediately available as the immediate experience of the emotion so I am compelled to generate a theory.

The theory that makes most sense to me is that our preference is the determining factor behind how I interpret my emotion.

If I want the outcome of the event it is good; if I don’t want the outcome of the event it is bad.

Why do i prefer what I prefer? I don’t know is the simple answer.

The best narrative to use to understand preferences is that of programming.

The only difference between my preferences and a computers programming is that I was programmed by nature and the computer was programmed by man.

Now to the robot.

Some people will say “a robot cannot have real emotions because it is just programmed to do what it does.”

That is to say that when event x happens the robot’s programming tells it to express so and so emotion.

How would the robot be told this?

There may be a certain transistor that turns on or a group of transistors that turn on in a specific pattern.

I don’t really know enough about computers to know how but that doesn’t matter. What matters is that some form of a signal will tell the robot how to act.

Well what is the difference between the physiological changes that occur to my body that tell me I am angry and the signal that tells the robot how to act?

I mean anger is the physiological changes accompanied by my interpretation of them.

The robot has both of these characteristics. There is a signal and programming that tells the robot how to interpret the signal. The signal acts as a result of external stimuli.

Don’t you see that this narrative is a perfectly adequate narrative for what happens to us when we experience emotions?

You may say that the robot isn’t conscious. I won’t go into that claim here but say it isn’t.

So what?

Consciousness is present in all of our experiences. And emotion is one of those.

You are not always angry. You are not always conscious.

Does consciousness need to be present for emotion? I think not.

Consciousness is a kind of emptiness. A space for stuff to happen in and for and to. As such the stuff happening to consciousness would still be happening if consciousness were not aware of it.

Your breath is a perfect example of this.

Really this issue is the result of a false dichotomy we have drawn between nature and man. Real and artificial.

Man is a continuation of nature. He is nature.

If the products of human activity are not natural than neither are termite mounds.

It seems reasonable to assume that anything man produces will share some very basic and fundamental features with man.

In defence of Alan Watts and Osho

I have heard countless times that Alan watts and osho were immoral. Alan watts was into his booze and had failed marriages and osho… Well osho I have heard liked his ladies.

I don’t know how true this is and I don’t really care. I’ve never been one for biographical information because words stand or fall on their own.

The people that report this to me think they are revealing the charlatanism of these guru types but really they are revealing that they either haven’t read/heard what they have to say or that they have but have failed to understand.

Now if you get Alan Watts and Osho you will see that what they are describing is freedom. That good and bad are a game we construct on top of reality.

Sure reality supports our games but it also supports many other games. Even further it supports many mutually exclusive games.

There’s an unspoken bit of any moral claim. “X is good” is how they are presented but if they wanted to be a more accurate representation they should add “according to me”.

Freedom is a double edged sword in that you cannot have it if you do not give it to everything else. As a human I can’t or rather won’t give it to everyone because quite simply I am a selfish individual concerned over the state of my neck.

I want to not be murdered and stolen from in other words.

So I am for locking up murderers because the less murderers wandering around the less likely I am to be murdered.

As a result of this if I murder I am likely to be locked up. I have exchanged my freedom from come uppance if I murder for an increased likelihood of not being murdered.

I refuse to take refuge in a fiction about how the cosmos supports my moral preferences.

But what Alan Watts talks about is what is. He doesn’t give any rules. Therefore he cannot be a charlaten.

The reason I admire these men… Or rather the reason I experience thrills at what they say is that I have always had that inkling that if you could be in someone else’s shoes you could forgive them easily.

I have had a desire for as long as I can remember to be able to express all the dark and grotty secrets in an open manner.

Funnily enough as I have followed this carrot I have cared less about it. But anyway…

The people who criticize people like Alan and Osho in this way are not really criticizing them at all.

They are really saying “I don’t like what they say and freedom scares me” but trying to mask it in an cloak of objectivity.

Again it’s an example of what people are doing with morality all the time.

They are scared. They don’t want to be hurt. So they express this desire as if it were a law of nature in the hopes that it will stop people hurting them.

It may work for some people but not for everyone as is evidenced by the packed state of the prison system.

Funnily enough I bet if you were to ask criminals whether they thought their action was good or bad a lot of them would say it was bad and they felt guilty.

What this shows is that morality and guilt are heavy shields that just don’t work.

So I’ve thrown mine away.

Which is the advice of Alan and osho.

So to finish.

What these people are really saying is that people like Alan Watts aren’t carrying a shield and they should be and what is more they are telling other people to throw their shields away!

Austerity is class warfare.

Austerity is class warfare.

They talk of how communism is bad but I ask “do you know what communism is?” And invariably the answer is no. They do not know.

In order for corporations to be deemed successful they must make more profit this year than they did last year.

Yes; cancer is the model they are working from.

Now the most effective way for them to increase profit is to decrease cost.

I know, I know I may sound a bit pedantic but bear with me.

How are they to cut cost?

Pay less for materials sure but how do the companies that produce those materials afford to sell them whilst maintaining profit growth?

It always comes down to the worker.

The worker takes a hit in the wallet so that growth can occur.

But wait. If the worker is getting paid less and less within a welfare state what will he do?

He won’t work.

And if that is allowed to happen then the employers would have to increase the workers wage to keep him working.

Supply and demand.

But the employers don’t want to do that and they got the money.

So they have bought the state apparatus and are now dismantling the welfare state.

Why? I hear you ask.

Because the employers want to be the only means of survival the worker has.

The employer wants all the leverage.

So the employer has to keep the employed at subsistence level.

They’ve also bought the media and have conned the working class into wanting this.

Have you seen shows like benefit street and all the shows about bailiffs? That’s capitalist propaganda right there.

I am of the working class. I am working class through and through.

Sadly as a result of inflation and the amount of work my class has to do we’ve been made stupid.

It’s not our fault.

A 40 hour work week doesn’t really leave much energy to educate yourself.

Sadly the working class has become like sheep bleating to be turned into a roast dinner for the employers.

We are living in the most effective propaganda machine the world has ever seen.

And to bring it to point.

They want you working longer.

They want you to work till you drop.

Why? Because they want to maximize profit. And it’s Labour that produces profit.

So they want to, nay they need to squeeze every last drop of Labour out of every single worker in order to maintain this insanity of constant growth of profits.

Where does this inevitably lead?

It leads to your granny working in a sweat shop for pennies so she can buy the product of an hour of her labour with a month of her wages.

In case you are wondering communism is the realization that this is the state of affairs and the movement by the working class to take back the product of their Labour from those who have taken it without working for it.

Do you see why capitalist propaganda has turned it into such a bogey man?

The ground of morality

I believe our moral judgement is just another expression of our preferential judgement.

There are those in existence who believe murder to be good ie they have no sense of revulsion towards it. When a “normal” person witnesses a murder they feel revulsion and that is the inner reality pointed to with the statement “I believe Murder is bad”. When such a person says that then they are expressing that inner reality.

When someone who doesn’t experience that revulsion (and they do exist) says that statement then they are lying. Just as when someone who does not like the taste of sprouts would be lying if they said “These sprouts taste good”.

Murder (and any other atrocity you care to mention) are, whether we like it or not, perfectly natural. Look at a lion’s pride. When a new male kills the old leader he kills all the kids and shags all the women.

This to me is disgusting; but it is natural. It is an expression of what is, the totality. If it wasn’t, then it wouldn’t be.

Simple as.

Why do we believe what we believe.

Any statement can be proven or disproven. This holds especially true of science; scientific facts have a Half-Life. At least if QI is to be believed.

Now what does this mean for belief?

Belief is very rarely anything to do with truth. Ask yourself this question and you will see this.

How do you decide whether something is true or not?

If you don’t know the answer to this question then how do you lay claim to truth as a value for any of your opinions.

Ultimately this leads to a paradox. Say you do have an answer for this question well how do you know it is the right answer?

You are using the answer as a means of deciding between truth and falsehood but how do you assign either value to the means. Who polices the policeman? Who judges the judge?

All beliefs are constructions that we build on top of experience. This can be normal run-of-the-mill sensory experience or spiritual experience. It really doesn’t matter how you get the experience.

We generally choose the construction that satisfies us in some sense. That is our beliefs are like the scratch marks above a flea bite. We have an itch to scratch so we scratch it.

A lot of people are anxious concerning death. They worry about what will happen to them or their loved ones. So their particular scratch is a belief in an after life.

Now all because your beliefs are a result of a need for satisfaction doesn’t mean that they are false. This would be falling for the genetic fallacy: a proposition is not true or false because of how you came to it.

It may disagree with the “truth” according to another decision procedure. We can’t really get at the Truth with a bit T to know if a statement is true or false in an absolute sense.

Zen knows this. Which is why Zen is all about the death of constructs. Just take experience as it comes. Don’t build castles out of sand.

But this can go a bit too far. At least according to my particular itches.

It is fun to build constructions and seeing as we cannot get to the big truth we might as well build pretty castles in the sand. But we mustn’t take them to seriously.

Atheism, theism and even agnosticism are all of the same order of validity as Harry potter and Lord of the rings.

Some people enjoy atheism and some enjoy theism.

The funny thing is though that if you have ears to hear it they all end up saying the same thing. They all end up being languages in which you can tell people “behave” or “It doesn’t matter what they do” just as in French and English you can say “the glass is on the table”.

People argue over the relative merits of language and that is really what the religions have been doing for god knows how long.

Then you see the whole thing is like football teams and their fans. They are all the same but people support one or the other for whatever reasons they can use to con themselves into taking the game seriously.

And they do this because it’s a hoot.

You want to hear what you want to hear; you don’t hear what is.

I think the problem a lot of people have with getting what I have been talking about isn’t that it is inherently difficult to understand. It’s really quite simple.

There is nothing to be done for god and nothing to be done to gain unity with god because god needs nothing done for him and you already are united with him.

He’s god! Don’t you get it. If he needs stuff done for him then he isn’t god. It’s really that simple.

Now you don’t have to use the word god. It is just a word. Source, creation, what is, the ground of being and the structure and fabric of existence all do perfectly well for pointing to this.

He is neither good or bad but the context within which such dichotomies can exist.

Now the reason you have trouble getting this is because you want to be told what to do. It’s not enough for any old plonker to tell you; you need someone with authority to tell you what to do.

So you look for an authority and because if you look hard enough for something you’ll find it even if it isn’t there you find an authority. It could be an imam, god, Allah or Stephen fry.

You give them the authority because you choose to have them over you from the many people and things begging to tell you what to do.

So when I say “there’s nothing to be done” I’ve had people say “how am I supposed to live my life?”

I shrug my shoulders.

I’m no authority.

“Look mate” I tell them “I don’t know where I’m going and I don’t know where to go. I’m in the same boat as you and I’m lazy so I don’t really want to have to come up with stuff for you to do… I have enough trouble coming up with stuff for me to do haha

“But here’s an idea. See that steak? It looks well tasty doesn’t it? Let’s go gobble it up.”

And we eat the steak and it’s lovely and that’s really all there is to it.

What we have done is we have cast the heavenlies in the light of our own society.

Now we have the poor doing the work for the rich.

The poor need to be worked for the rich don’t because they have it all.

In the same way we have got a theological system whereby us broken suffering finite beings are supposed to Labour for the absolute and perfect.

We’ve really put the cart before the horse.

The illusion

Every now and then god gets bored of being blissful so he plays these far out games where he pretends he isn’t him but poor little us who get hurt and die.

He’s so good that he fools himself absolutely.

I mean you don’t feel like god do you.

Neither do I.

But just as I can show you an illusion. Like say one of those illusions where some lines look like they are different sizes but are really the same size.

You can even know it’s an illusion and how it works. But still your eyes are fooled by it.

Just in the same way it can be shown that if there is a god then you are god because of what we say god is but we can never the less feel like we are seperate from everything.

That we are not god who is supposed to be the ground of being. The fabric and structure of existence.

That we are poor little mes who are the victims of circumstance.

I mean whatever is putting on this whole show is such a good actor that he’s got himself on the edge of his seat! He’s even got himself committing suicide even though he knows it’s a show.

The biblical dialectic

The Torah pushes the lie that we are separate from god. It doesn’t do this by telling us to do bad things. It’s much more subtle than that.

By the very act of issuing a command god initiated the seperation. You don’t tell yourself what to do. Even if you do have a little voice saying “do so and so at such and such a time” you are projecting this from outside of yourself.

At least it appears that way. Are you that voice? Surely not because it comes and it goes and you remain. So even when you give a command to yourself you have to initiate a seperation. You need to create a distinction between the you who tells you what to do and the you who does (or often doesn’t) do what you are told.

Now then this distinction is death. It is dissolution. That is to say it is a fragmentation of a whole.

This occurs whether you are obedient or not. That is to say that obedience is irrelevant when it comes to this seperation.

So really Adam and eve died the day they were told not to eat. They just became aware of it when they and god went their seperate ways.

When their will became evidently seperated from the superficial will of god.

This is how Paul can say with one breath that “I delight in the law of god after the inward man” and with the next that “the commandment which was (apparently) ordained to life I found to be unto death”.

Now of course I’m missing out some steps. The mechanism by which the command creates the illusion of seperation or death is sin which as I have shown elsewhere (just type sin in my search bar) is failure.

So we come to feel seperate from god when we fail to do what god commands.

But that seperation was already there when god gave the command. See god pushed us away we didn’t flee from him. At least in the biblical narrative.

Now how would doing what god commands make any difference? It obviously wouldn’t. At least not to the seperation between us and god.

Really when you are under the law oneness with god is simply not on the table. You may feel he is pleased with you or displeased with you; which one is entirely dependent upon how hard on yourself you are.

But guilt or innocence do nothing to change it. In fact they both exacerbate the sense of seperation.

This is why Paul says in 1 corinthians “all things are lawful to me”. It’s really the same statement as “We are saved by Grace”. Our unity with god just is. You see it or you don’t. If you see it then no matter what you do it will still be there.

This seeing is something you either have or you don’t. It doesn’t matter how naughty or nice you are. I’m actually convinced that Charles Manson gets this… as did Ghandi.

God takes responsibility for evil. “Shall there be evil in a city and the Lord hath not done it”. “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Don’t try and get him off the hook. Who made you God’s lawyer? Don’t you think he can do a better job himself?

What is salvation? Eternal life right? And what is eternal life? “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent“.

Jesus said of himself “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

What Jesus was doing was showing our actual (whether we know it or not, whether we like it not) relationship to god.

Look at yourself as you think, as you act and as you experience. Everything and I mean everything; your thoughts, decisions, feelings and everything you sense have this quality of coming from nowhere and going nowhere.

What do you think that nowhere is? All because you are not aware of a thing doesn’t mean it’s not there and this thing, this place from which everything you call you comes is the ultimate invisible.

It can’t be spoken.

It can’t be touched.

It can’t be conceived.

And it’s from there that we come and we go. Not just way back then when I metastasized from my mother but right now. Right this second we are proceeding out from this unmentionable and vanishing into it.

We are the image of it. As is everything else.

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

In revelations it says of Christ he was the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world“. What this is saying is the exact same thing that the communion is saying.

Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

This act along with the crucifixion was pointing back to the creation.

God incarnated himself in physical form and then crucified himself. He split himself up into many parts.

This incarnation isn’t seperate from god just as the movements of a dancer aren’t seperate from the dancer.

Then hid from himself by acting out man and telling man (himself) what to do. Just as you do in your head all the time with all your pretend conversations.

Does this mean the death of Jesus 2000 years ago was just a symbol? In a way it does but it’s a symbol that points forward as well as backward.

It was the end of the hide part of the cosmic game of hide and seek god plays with himself and it’s defining feature was “all things are lawful for me”. It was the end of the command.

At least it was for the Hebrews.