Privilege, Guilt, and Social Currency

I’m concerned about the proliferation of articles on privilege being used as a sort of social currency. What is often left out in all this privilege talk, is that the advantage given by privilege is given by a neurotic and hypocritical hierarchal society. So, by all means, if I am seeking advantage in this society, I shouldn’t be blind to that which helped me here. However, it seems like if the privilege dialogues are successful, and we all try real hard, the most we can hope for is to grant everyone equal access to participate in the “status quo.”

It is a fact that there is a full fledged attack on human consciousness in the form of mass media. A lot of us take this media far too seriously. It is an insult to our most basic human sensibilities and seeks to make us feel marginal and less than whole. The divide and conquer strategy runs deep, and will leave us all fighting over the largest crumbs, while the cake is hoarded by the instruments of a psychotic control matrix. I don’t want more access to advantage in this culture. I want each of us to take responsibility for our own consciousness, which may in some small or large measure involve taking stock of those things that give us advantage, how we seek to exploit that advantage, and our deep rooted fear of losing a secure position on the social ladder. Additionally, we need to reconcile what society projects onto us, in our appearance and station in life, and where we choose to place our identity, for ourselves. It’s basic self awareness, and I expect it from all of my people (my people being anyone who is ready to share from the heart, care for fellow humans and the earth, and rigorously apply themselves to the work of taking responsibility for their consciousness and how that consciousness effects others).

Those at the top of the pyramid are only too happy that we squabble over the minutia of privilege. It seems like authors of such articles are trying to get out in front of the guilt ball by pointing out and codifying ever new areas where some have privilege and others lack. It is a great way to distract and not get much done in the work of saving our species from extinction. Voices like James Baldwin and Steve Locke are not saying, “stop oppressing me, person of privilege,” they are saying, “Stop whining. Don’t pity me. You, like the rest of us, have been sold an empty bill of goods. Why do you accept it?” Stop seeking advancement in a profoundly sick society, and join the rest of us out here. Let’s not be defensive or guilty, let’s grow in strength by sharing our vulnerabilities.

The history we learn in school is bunk. A lot of us learn that later on. But in our formative years, when exploring our identities, personally, familialy , and culturally, we are severed from our roots, all of the human’s in America (and probably other places, too). Hundreds of years before the monarchs, clergy, financiers, and great pirates of europe colonized the rest of the world, they conquered europe, and ruled it under a reign of terror known as feudalism. During the European Renaissance the great expansionist mythologies came into action. Under the banner of divine right to conquest, a small handful of psychotic families conquered a lot of the world with brutality, various forms of slavery, religion, and the divide and conquer psyop that continues to the day.

Our modern racial constructs were created to give lighter skinned people an upper hand and therefore split the slave classes. This included white slaves from europe, or “indentured servants.” The construction of “whiteness” occurred around the time “divine right” was no longer a tenable justification for conquest. This required a major white-washing of history to hide the deep intermingling of all people of the earth, genealogically and in the spread of knowledge and wisdom. To accomplish this, it was necessary to establish “Western” culture as being at forefront  of evolution, and the appearance of an unbroken religious and intellectual supremacy going back into greek antiquity. So, the “white man’s burden” was used to “civilize” “backwards” indigenous cultures.

It is often over looked that during the “dark-ages” in Europe, the Moorish culture was flourishing in the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain. The Moors in Spain were not religious fundamentalists, the land lords took what was fair, in food, for payment for the use of land, and cross-disciplinary education was encouraged from the ground up, as opposed to being guarded by a few elite. Further, they were open to many systems of knowledge and translated libraries of greek, egyptian, chinese, and indian treatises on topics ranging from astrology, to alchemy, mathematics, architecture, and so on. The Renaissance was made possible by the work a civilization far in advance of European society, a civilization comprised largely of brown-skinned people.

Our differences were further codified by the development of the middle-class, which was the missing link to the lie of meritocracy: the middle rung of upward mobility. Sure, many have climbed that ladder from the bottom rung to the top, but the lie of meritocracy is that this is a valid option for everyone if they try hard enough. Our society relies on there being poor people in our country and in the world. It’s built that way. Looking through the internet often makes me feel hopeless. What gives me hope is my interactions with humans on the day to day. But let’s forget hope. Enjoy the inspiration of hope while it is there, but it is not required to show up everyday, and take the high ground and be in our truth, as Morrison suggests.

Tagged , , , ,

Myth Making: Restoring the Universal Power of Story

The audio has some errors in the beginning, but those clear so stick with it! I also encourage all to watch all ten parts.

Mercury Rising has, for sometime, returned to a period of silent gestation; of learning what the true nature of the work is. In reaching back over the last year’s writings there are key themes which point to a unification of the mythos and logos, with an emphasis on personal empowerment through discernment. We can use the so-called “experts” as tools for understanding, but never yielding in our own critical rigor, both intuitively and intellectually. Yielding to no other’s authority but that of our inborn sovereignty. Using what we have gained in independent thought to give to the interdependent whole. The next several posts will be monthly musings on what exactly is meant by mythos and logos, and how a critical study of the two can aid in discerning our role in the “living reality.”

This term “living reality” will be used to describe life-as-it-happens, in contrast with the stories we tell ourselves about life or the various scientific models that are produced to describe the living reality. In other words, it is the ever elusive Truth.

First, I am interested in story. To look at closely at story, requires no advanced knowledge in any field. It does however, require a rigorous moment to moment analysis of our thinking. Our world is shaped by the stories we tell ourselves, both personally and as a culture. Our cultural stories filter into personal identity, playing a large part in shaping our psyche. To be clear, it is not the goal to make the perfect story of reality. To bask in the presence of the living reality requires, only, a perfectly story-less consciousness. The first step in reclaiming the power of myth-making is to realize that you are not the stories you tell yourself or the stories that culture creates about you. You are your own subdivision of the living reality, which is infinitely inter-related with the whole.

So, what is myth? Myth seems to have been relegated to the role of ancient fantasy story. A myth in our culture is either something that was a story created long ago, or it is a false societal assumption that requires debunking (ie “Myth-Busters“). However, a myth is not a true or false story. A myth is an important story. Myth shapes our identity. And if our awareness does not intercede between the creation of myth and our identification with the myth, than we have given up our power of myth-making, and have made ourselves unquestioning purveyors of the prevailing social engineers of mythos, namely the advertisers, entertainment industry, and news media.

The first level of empowerment through myth is making the distinction between the story you are telling yourself and the events that, once strung together, create the story. There is a school of dream analysis that says that there is no narrative during the dream, just a series of impressions flashed across the psyche, and that it is the dreamer upon waking that gives the dream it’s narrative arc. We can view our waking reality similarly. Myth and metaphor is one of most important tools that we use to replicate the world. As Joseph Campbell states, if you change the metaphor, then you change the world. Stories are dead unless we invest our hearts in them. But our world cannot afford our  investing our hearts in erroneous stories. We can create ourselves anew and birth a new world by resurrecting the mythos as a living analogue to the living reality. In this analogue, there is no finished world, no immutable law, no structure of belief, only a living process which, at no point, is requires our stories. Those remain for our own benefit.

On a collective level, we must listen to each other’s stories. We must create our platform, which is an inclusive culture, a culture which will not marginalize us and insult our intelligence and undermine our personal power. As it is, as Terrence McKenna puts it, “culture is not our friend.” We must push each other to DO THE WORK, require impeccability of thought and feeling. We have to believe that we, as our own audience, are worth the painstaking effort in creating a faithful body of artifice, which represents an authentic vision of ourselves in the world.

I would like to begin by opening up Mercury Rising to musings of others who are moved to share. I will, at this point, be contributor and editor. Allow yourself to be your own visionary, start now, if you haven’t already.

Tagged , , , , ,

Thaddeus Golas-The Lazy Man’s Guide to Enlightenment

“We are equal beings, and the universe is our relations with each other. The universe is made of one kind of entity, each one is alive, each determines the course of it’s own existence.”

These are the basics of Thaddeus Golas’ cosmology. We can see this behavior in atoms and cells as they come in and out of participation with other entities. Golas does not presume to define the limits of the “one kind of entity.” At the dawn of atomic physics, science decided to call these things atoms, which is a greek word for indivisible. But we later found that they are divisible, although the process may yield a violent explosion. In Golas’ cosmology these entities are alive and self-determining, and may exhibit different  behaviors depending on there chosen ratio of mass to space. Think of the 1’s and 0’s that construct the code of digital computing. This oscillation between space and mass is energy and determines an entity’s frequency or energy level. Based on the chosen frequency, these entities “behave in agreement” with one another. They collude, in manner of speaking. It is this collusion that makes aluminium appear as it does to us. This agreement he equates with love, and disagreement in behavior is pain. Pain is only available as an experience in an energy state. It is from these set of assumptions that Golas elucidated his philosophy.

It is not an entirely unique cosmology, although it is stripped of mythological language. Gnostics, yogis, mystics and occultists of many traditions considered us to be living in a false reality, either at the whim of a mad demiurge, or at least in the prison of ignorance and self-delusion. And though I feel certain Golas would not claim it, there is even the nuts and bolts of a trinity, and similarities to the Sacred Science as expounded by both H.P. Blavatsky and Swami Sri Yukteswar. Although, Golas’ is somewhat easier to digest.

The above quote came from his classic, The Lazy Man’s Guide to Enlightenment, which he wrote as a guide to help folks draw lasting value from the unexplainable experiences they were having with LSD. Unexpected to him it became popular with those who weren’t in the psychedelic crowd and is recognized as a spiritual classic.

As the first modern psychedelic era gave way to the late 70’s, the fallout produced a proliferation of new-age brands of self-improvement, many of which could legitimately be considered a flowery redress of the snake oil salesman. One thing psychedelics do well, is act as a deconditioning agent, which is important. But once one is thoroughly deconditioned, if they do not have the capacity for critical thought, they are perfectly ready to be reconditioned by whatever ideologies are looking for a sponge.  It is the same principal used in electro-shock therapy.

I imagine Golas being disappointed by the overall mediocrity of the discourse, having seen the high-water mark. Golas particularly singles out the concept of spiritual materialism, or the idea that if you broadcast positivity, favorable life circumstances will develop. He did not believe that this worked, probably because it didn’t work for him. And when it doesn’t work, its proponents say it is because you aren’t trying hard enough, which is like saying, “you’re failing at being positive.” This is alienating. Not only did Golas believe that positive thinking didn’t work, he believed that, in an inverse way, the suppression of negative thoughts may cause them to manifest in unfavorable ways. I would claim that this distaste for the trend toward spiritual consumerism, in part, lead him to author Love and Pain, which was unpublished in his lifetime.

He considered this book to update and complete The Guide, thus removing a lot ambiguity about whether his work may be interpreted by the easy statement, “the world is what you make of it.” While many who love the Guide cannot take Love and Pain, it is not a departure from but a natural outgrowth of his basic philosophy as expounded in the opening paragraphs to The Guide. The reality of pain, while in the transitory energy state, is real enough when it is you who feels the pain, whether focusing on the positive or not. The empowering aspect of this philosophy is that we exist among our equals, the false is constructed from the real, and that we are self-determining beings whose life on earth, as we know it, is contingent on uncountable self-determining beings. Knowing this doesn’t cause one to dissolve immediately into space, rather, as Golas experienced, you stick around, you get older, you feel pain in the body, loved ones pass, society gets more ridiculous, and hopefully you experience a good share of love, as well. It’s life and it’s a boundless, bewildering, and beautiful mystery.

Tagged , ,

Culture Lag

The feminist thinker and cultural critic, Camille Paglia, said that a man is more likely to be a DeVinci or a Michelangelo than a woman is. Paglia follows to say that a man is also more likely to be a Ted Bundy or a Charles Manson. This is because, in her view, men are more prone to be driven to obsession. She also believes in the mental superiority of women. Additionally, she holds that men and women have innately different psycho-emotion constitutions.

This would make Paglia of the old world sensibility of fixed gender characteristics (which she personally defies), which is rapidly becoming passé. This does not mean that those sensibilities no longer effect us, but that there is a long and painful “cultural lag” that occurs during the changing of the guard. This is part of our transitional task: the task of knowing in our cells what we see to be true in our intellect.

A few examples of this cultural lag follow. We know that ecosystems function through symbiosis, and that parasites on an ecosystem drain its ability to sustain itself, and we can plainly see that we have a parasitic relationship to our ecosystem. Biologically, humans are more similar than different, in some geneticists view, we are no more than 50th cousins. We are family. Yet racism and factionalism persist. We know that at an atomic level we are 99.99% empty. We know that radios and cell phones and satellites all receive and transmit information electronically, and we know that we are electro-magnetic beings, but we believe that something as confounding as human consciousness exists entirely in the matter of the brain. We believe in the immutable laws of nature, but in scientific observation, we see that we are standing on shifting sands. An example of the last is that, the constant on which the Theory of Relativity relies, the speed of light, is not constant at all.

So, if all the above is true, than we live in a post-racist, post-sexist, post-factionalist, post-materialist, infinitely interconnected world, in a universe of worlds that may be similar, in this regard. We know this, but we don’t seem to know that we know it. So you have our world, a sick world, devastated by parasites, trying excruciatingly to birth a new world which is radically self-aware through it’s newly evolved faculty of social consciousness. This is a living world, colonized by its own inborn sovereignty, in an endless multiplicity of modalities of expression. It is not the world of our dead stories, it is not a world that is ruled by immutable laws from on high, it is dynamic, it is happening now, and our awareness of all of these facts has pressed us to the edge of the Chasm. So, into the Chasm we must plunge. And if we emerge from this crucible, we collectively and universally, will be pure gold.

Social regeneration is our survival. The journey of dependence through independence to interdependence. Or the journey from here to here. We have extremely violent first-person shooter video games. We hype our sporting events as battles. Ultimate fighting is, like, crazy popular. We sensationalize and idolize our mass murderers. We have TV shows (some of which I enjoy) that romanticize and protagonize serial killers. We pay tax dollars that fund wars in which thousands of children are murdered by our boys and girls, at the order of our government. And then when one of our boys glitches out and guns down a bunch of people and himself, we use that opportunity to watch the news and push the hot-button issue of our choosing (well-intentioned perhaps), rather than giving the victims’ families the silence to bury their kin in dignity, and taking that time to explore deeply our own cultural culpability. Adam Lanza is a symptom, and so is gun violence, mental illness, violent video games, and mass media. So yes, we should treat the symptoms for temporary relief, but we have to heal the cause if we want to live together in this world. We don’t need to be reminded of human decency in order to forget human depravity, we need to be aware of all that it is to be human, in every detail, in cellular culture and in social culture.

Tagged , , ,

If I had to venture a guess…

I have been asked to venture a scenario for what might be at work in the event of Apocalypse. Or put another way, to guess what is beneath the veil, of what is the veil constructed, and how it may dissolve.  The singularity and the event horizon are terms used these days, which are not synonymous with the term apocalypse, but influence current strains eschatological thought. They each have various definitions as they are used in different areas of study, but they represent the fundamental uncertainty that a given mathematical model is based upon. In Einstein’s relativity the singularity is hidden inside the event horizon. For our purposes, we’ll call it a riddle enfolded into a mystery, wrapped in an enigma, encased in a conundrum, birthing an abyss.

Charts of population growth and consumption of world resources show exponential growth or decay depending on what is being measured. Exponential curves cannot ever reach their asymptote, so the axis is the event horizon. So, what happens at the event horizon? If these charts run themselves out, without any major earth dissolving events or fundamental change in the global modus operandi, I imagine a world not unlike the plethora of sci-fi dystopia scenarios, in which most of the world is a post-industrial technocratic ghetto, kept alive as an incubator of energy for small pockets of oligarchy and their elaborate pleasure-domes. We aren’t so far of from that now. In our world and this future world, economies (or the wealth of the people) and ecosystems (the wealth of the earth) are continually diminished.

Besides being a very gloomy scenario, it is also a scenario that is not inclusive of how strange reality seems to be. For this particular type of gloom/doom scenario to work, the full ramifications of new physics and mathematics would have to be kept under wraps, by our own undesire to know and by those whose control may be threatened. It seems unlikely to me that this is possible, it’s too big, and it’s too in our face. But scientism is equally a peril to be avoided. We cannot afford the smugness brought on by the scientific fundamentalism that is endlessly confusing the new scientific model with reality. A description of reality is not reality.

Some of what I extrapolate from Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is that observation is an organizer of quanta. Less simply put, sub-atomic particles exist in a state of endless flux, we cannot observe the location and structure unless we measure it as particle, and we cannot observe its momentum or direction unless it is measured as a vibration. What is this power of observation? One could say that observation is awareness focused through sense organs. So, in this line of thinking, observation is the event horizon which conceals the singularity of awareness.

Observation is a capacity that we have, and it organizes the fundamental structure of our physical reality. This is a big deal. This sounds a little bit like the pop-spiritual meme of manifesting favorable circumstances through positive thinking. Except positive thinking involves the intercession of thought to create a story about a series of events. Here we are only interested in this phenomena as it happens, and the good news is that no one is more qualified than we are to make this observation for ourselves. We may even find that just as thought intercedes in observation, the observer intercedes in awareness. So, both thought and observation are tools of awareness in replicating life. It may follows that from awareness, sovereignty is derived.

Now, consider the veil that lies between us and the event horizon. This could be thought of as the Chapel Perilous, which Antero Alli discusses in the above video, he also refers to it as the dweller on the threshold. The dweller being the beastly reflection of our own ignorance, which is the accumulation of years and memories. The veil is made of all that we have gathered: our secrets, our clinging to comfort, and fear of being separated from all that defines us as somebody. Facing this may come as a result of re-cognizing sovereignty. But it has been staring at us the whole time.

This is the work. We are the ones we have been waiting for. We can’t leave it to the experts, the politicians, or spiritual leaders. We are responsible for our own senses, nervous systems, and psycho-emotional faculties, so that we can sort, for ourselves, what is shit and what is shinola. It’s the first step in the process of “knowing what to do.”

Tagged , , , ,

Sovereign Apocalypse

There are rumors on the wind of apocalypse and a “shift in consciousness.” There have been since the beginning of the peculiar period commonly referred to as history. On Mercury Rising, we use the literal greek definition of apocalypse, which is the lifting of the veil. I have only vague speculations as to what might be under this veil, based on  shadows and echoes reflected back over history from its end.  I can only assume that whatever that which Terrence Mckenna referred to as the “transcendental object at the end of time,” is astonishingly beautiful and terrifying beyond our ability to imagine. Which is probably part of the reason why apocalypse is generally characterized as the sudden and violent end of the World.

What are the political implications of something like apocalypse and  “shift in consciousness.” Contemplating consciousness is a fun game to contemplate. Think of this game as: consciousness getting to know itself in an entirely unique way, unlike any previous method, such as organizing itself into the atom or being the first fish that walked out of the ocean onto land. This sort of thought, carries the assumption of, what is referred to in quantum theory as, a unified field. Is it possible that this sort of first-person scientific exploration can bring about a fundamental restructuring of our being? With such a flexible experimental awareness, let’s approach the concept of Sovereignty.

The legal definition of sovereignty is subtle and complex, but basically means “all power.” In the days of monarchy, royalty were considered to be the only sovereign of the land. And perhaps s/he doled out sovereignty to dukes, feudal lords, and the like, but all sovereign power resided in the King and Queen by divine right. The United States was founded on the idea that all men are sovereign, and that the sovereignty of the State was derived from the sovereignty of the people.

The Constitution was one of the first documents to back-pedal on the Declaration of Independence and other founding articles. The Constitution defined just who is equal and who is not. We must be very honest with ourselves, and finally admit that the “dream of America” has never been seen.  It has been lip service and a target which we were not properly aiming for. As William Burroughs stated, we have “vulgarized and falsified until the bare lie shines through.”

One of the fascinating things about law as it has (d)evolved is that our sovereignty has never been taken away, even the sovereignty of the enslaved is not taken away. Legalese is written around the Law, it is not itself Law. It constitutes the body of “law” known as statutes. Legalese can not remove sovereignty. This was known by the slave holders who founded America, whether they knew they knew it or not.

Sovereignty is an inborn quality of consciousness, and human-beings along with other beings are conscious to varying degrees. We give our sovereign power to the de facto sovereignty holders,  known as the State, in the form of our time, energy, and labor, which is often transmuted into currency. The central bank owns the money, and circulates it and charges a percent for this service. The labor we give the State is largely used to pay the debt owed to the centralized bank, which is interestingly enough a private international entity.  Which means we as a nation are giving our sovereignty to an outside force. Whether administered by an international bank or a government, this is debt slavery. We give our power over in exchange for “privileges and benefits,” public plumbing, roads, trash collection, emergency response, and so on . We take care of the system, it takes care of us.

So, it is not a matter of “taking back our sovereignty,” but rather exercising it, or not (we have that option, too). It is important not to think of sovereignty as a concept that we use to prop up ideologies, but that we actively learn about it with same sense of novelty and ebullient energy  as a child catching fire flies for the first time. It may be the only completely selfless action, as well. By taking-care-of-the-system-taking-care-of-us, we are killing the world, we are killing ourselves. We all know it, whether we know it or not. Ultimately this is something we do for ourselves, it is sovereignty recognizing itself, in itself, so that we can each become “one who stands.”

As Burroughs points out,” The final Apocalypse is when every man sees what he sees, feels what he feels, and hears what he hears.” This could also be a working definition of Sovereignty.

Tagged , ,

The Agnostic

I am underwhelmed by the factions involved in the theist debate. We have monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, and atheism. And then there is this peculiar category called agnostic. From speaking with people about agnosticism here and there since youth, I developed the idea that agnosticism was an state of indecision.

What bothers me about that idea is that indecision requires a decision, a declaration of belief. This is also often put upon “independent” voters, that they should really just suck it up and decide what they believe: Republican or Democrat, as if there is a substantial difference between the two.

There are many subcategories of agnostic, which are interesting. There is even this silly diagram, which appears to over simplify the matter by hinging the whole matter of reality on whether or not a deity is responsible for the whole thing.

The ignostic holds the peculiar view that the whole debate is worthless unless a coherent definition of deity is put forth, otherwise neither theist, or non-theist really have enough data to carry on a worthwhile dialogue or debate.

The carnival ride goes round and round until it inevitably gets stuck at the burden to produce evidence for both sides. Neither can seem to provide evidence. And both seem utterly convinced they do not require evidence in order disprove the other. Of course, because a debate is a debate, evidence is required.

But the matter does in no-wise require a debate. Reality will continue to be reality, even if we stop arguing about it.  The word agnostic does not imply anything about deity. It literally means without knowing. As an intellectual movement it seems to have developed out of Thomas Henry Huxley, who stated, “Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle…do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.” What can be taken from it, is that we may not have the faculties to know, and in so far as we have the faculties to know, we may not have the faculties to relate such knowledge to our brethren in the manner that is becoming of truth.

The Fact of Uncertainty

Listen to the Evens while you read the latest post!

We have a concept of predictability, whereby unlimited potential filters into probability. Anything could happen, at any moment, but it doesn’t. A piece of a broken satellite could careen through my window as I plunk out these words, but I would say that probably is not going to happen. We have translated this process into a belief that, most likely, tomorrow will be like today, unless it’s a weekend in which case it might be like last weekend.

We are intensely overwhelmed by our cultural barrage of information. In a state of shock, we carry on our lives. The time we have is dense with information, and choices demanded by this information. This daily tidal wave of crap and the dire condition of our world, causes our eyes to glaze over, and our state of overwhelm, shock, and helplessness turns into boredom.

It maybe understandable, but it is unjustifiable, this boredom with modern life. It has something to do with leaving the “heavy lifting” to the “experts.” It also has something to do with endless choices in our consumption of goods, entertainments, spiritual exercises, etc. We have so many options for the augmentation of our reality, each of which are just another dollar and couple days away. Amongst the immediate satisfaction from endless variations of shiny bullshit, we have allowed and often endorsed a completely monstrous spectacle of a culture to propagate itself, at the expense of all other cultures and the Earth which sustains us. This culture provides us with many of our operating assumptions or our ethos. So, we are immediately satisfied and never content.

This impasse leaves us where we began, with uncertainty. Uncertainty is the very foundation of any good science. I don’t know something, so I’m going to find out. I’m not going to leave it to anyone else to tell me, because I must taste it for myself. For some reason, the general public looks to “science” to give us answers. How many times have you or someone you are in conversation with quoted a study to give your side of the debate or dialogue greater credibility. It is that in us that desires answers, conclusions and certainty that causes me to raise one eye-brow high. It is the author’s opinion that any worth while science or philosophy, for that matter, in its reaching a conclusion raises at least ten more good questions. Therefore, science is the act of asking good questions.

In quantum theory there is what is known as the Measurement Problem, and the Uncertainty Principle put forth by Werner Heisenberg. The problem is that the more the position and the structure of an electron is measured, the less is known of it’s momentum. This implies an electron becomes observable only when there is an observer present. When the observer is present the infinite possibility of position, or super-position, collapses into the position that is observed. When momentum is observed, the electron behaves as energy and vibration, when position and structure are observed it behaves as a particle. This suggests that this fundamental component of the universe is at play with that which observes. Of course, this game requires that we behave as observers.

The reality we take for granted is in a constant state of collapse, meaning it has collapsed into what we observe it to be, rather than remaining in an infinite state of super-position. In this particular state of collapse, Newtonian physics works to describe the laws that govern the systems of nature. But all these systems are made of something that is essentially unmeasurable. This is how fundamental uncertainty is to our reality, not metaphorically but actually, physically. We as observers cause the our reality to coalesce, as it does.

The certainty to which we cling may have some reliance on physical reality, but it is constructed entirely of our psyche. Our system of beliefs, what we include and exclude, what we are willing to look at and what we bury, all of this is given its life by our illusion of certitude. Uncertainty is, however, the only fact of existence. As John Lilly proposes, “In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true, either is true or becomes true.” This sort of thinking is often used by the spiritual materialists as in The Secret, wherein one can use one’s own power of positive thinking to make favorable life circumstances present themselves. This philosophy is often reduced to a few cheap aphorisms and buzz words, while its practitioners are missing what this is all about, which is asking a good question, and becoming intimate with uncertainty.

Question for dialogue:

What practical good can arise from intimacy with uncertainty?

“Welcome to the inner workings of my mind.”

MS MR – Hurricane

Tagged ,

Gender Dissolution

We live with a great deal of confusion regarding gender and the interplay of opposites. This play is far more subtle and complex than regularly acknowledged. The two basic poles in the dance of opposites are active and passive, and the third force is the mercurial element which reconciles the polarity into unity. A basic assumption of various lazy mysticisms which has translated itself into a broader cultural assumption equates the masculine with active and the feminine with passive. This is incorrect, or at least only half correct. The feminine may be viewed as receptive, but one can be actively receptive, in the sense of enveloping another, wherein that which is being enveloped is the passive masculine. It is a fairly simple and over-looked fact of nature that the feminine is regularly active. Further more, it is totally possible for the receptive to be received and therefore to be simultaneously masculine and feminine. For example, think of a cup, a vessel which receives water. In this interaction the cup is feminine and the water masculine, but stack the cup into another cup, and the 1st cup is now being received, as well receiving. To add more complexity, we could put a spoon into the water and the water which was masculine is now playing both roles.

The point here is not to create further complexity, but to point out the inadequacy of our current means of approaching polarities. The mistake is of a predominantly linear and reductionist thinking, in which we prefer to make fixed correspondances between our continuums (male/female, masculine/feminine, active/passive, light/dark, right/left, good/evil). This mode of thinking has been very hindering to our self-knowledge, as a collective and as individuals. The implication of a continuum is that it is a unity, expressing itself in endless variations of proportion and rhythm between two poles.

If we imagine male and female sexual intercourse, as a metaphor, when the sex is good, it is like a good conversation between the enveloping and penetrating principles of the universe, both are equally active and passive, sometimes one more than the other and other times meeting one another in perfect balance. In this way the sex act itself is the mercurial third created by the union of opposites. This is not to purvey some sort heterotypical sexual fundamentalism, but it is the mode of sexual expression which fascinates the author most.

We can translate this metaphor to look at the forces that make up an individual. Masculine and feminine principles are never fully predominant in a human. We are gendered only to the extent that we behave as a particular gender and that that behavior forms our identity. Being genderless does not necessarily imply that one changes one’s preferences regarding attraction or start dressing a different way. One can be heteronormative in behavior, and express oneself within the cultural norms and still have a fluid relationship with gender. However, our cultural norms are proving inadequate in dealing with the whole person regardless of sex or gender identification. And if, in order to express oneself authentically, a person must behave outside of gender norms, then they must feel safe to do so. We must express our sovereignty authentically. And that which is sovereign within the individual is genderless. Sovereignty, in this case, is the continuum itself, expressing itself in an endless transmutation of the masculine and feminine principles.

Tagged , ,