Tuesday, 28 December 2021

America is Pure Evil

America does not even hide its evil intentions these days. For 40 years the US has been creating war in Afghanistan. Initially to topple the socialist government and replace it with Taleban, and then 17 years to topple the Taleban and replace with a puppet government. Obviously the puppet government has fallen and the Afghans have taken over again.

Yet the moment America decides to withdraw from Afghanistan and grant it peace, it then withdraws all access to international funds thus starving the country.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58263525

Having already killed about 1/6 people in Afghanistan it is already being pointed out that US economic isolation of Afghanistan will kill even more than 40 years of war.

This is how aggressive and callous the American Empire is. You either submit to the Empire like UK and Europe have or you will be destroyed. This is what happened to Germany. Military invasion from 1942 combined with economic isolation and the destruction of supply routes led to widespread famine in Germany. The very first thing the Allies did when they invaded Germany and Poland was to supply food back to the starving people but it was too late for at least 12 million whose death became called the Holocaust. Rather embarrassed by the vast death toll of the Allied invasion and starvation of Germany a story was found to explain the mass death away. Whether the story is true or not, no one really knows. But what is known is that Allied activity starved Germany, and by far the largest cause of death during the Holocaust was starvation. Go figure. Its also known that more people died after the war from starvation than during, so great was the humanitarian disaster caused by America. We know that America does not care about mass murder. It is after all responsible for the Slave Trade that killed 10s of  millions of Africans, and the removal of Native Americans that also killed 10s of millions. And we know Churchill cared little for human life as he did nothing to stop the Bengal famine that killed many millions too. For the Western Empire the death of a few million people is a small cost for the expansion of its power.

And so we have a list of destroyed countries. Vietnam being the most famous. Again America killed 1 in 6 people in this country, poisoned the land so greatly that even today children are still born deformed, covered the land with landmines so that children are still being blown up by American bombs. And they did the same to all the surrounding countries.

America, unlike any other country on Earth, has no regard for human life. To cover its psychopathic trail of destruction it talks a lot about human rights and freeing people. But, talk is cheap. Actions are what people want. And most recently we see US actions to starve the people of Afghanistan. As if 40 years of bombing and maiming of people was not enough. 40 year old people in Afghanistan have never known anything in their lives but US brutality in the region. This is a whole generation of people whose lives have been wiped out by America.

You see the same thing in Iraq which is a totally destroyed country after the American invasion. The government is completely corrupt and people are starving. You see the same thing in Syria after America spent 8 years destabilising the country and creating civil war. Syria was one of the lucky ones cos Russia stepped in to get rid of America so the civil war ended and the country was returned to peace. But not so lucky Afghanistan where Russia pulled out in the 1980s and left it to the Americans.

If you think about it all significant wars can be traced back to America and UK and the West. World War 1 & 2 were created by the West. No West then no World War 1 & 2. Much talk about Crimea now but that was created by the West. Vietnam famously created by America. America likes to say that Pearl Harbour was started by Japan. But America had been a central part of WW2 from the start, it simply avoided actually declaring war: it left that to Churchill. Whether Churchill really persuaded the US to join the War or whether it was the other way around is not so clear. But Cui Bono the US used WW2 to expand it empire up to Russia in both the East and West. And America had access to full Enigma decryption of Japan so they knew what attacks were coming. If they stood down the entire fleet in Pearl Harbour and left it unprotected it is inconceivable that this was an accident. Not even the US Navy is that incompetent. When Russia joined the Pacific War, as it was contracted to do on 8th August, the Japanese surrendered. The Atomic Bombs were just live proofs of concept, they had no strategic purpose. Japan knew it could not defeat Russia and America. Yet America took Korea, moving up to the border with Russia, and then began a war with the Koreans for control of the country. So much for US freedom. Now US occupation of Korea leaves it divided against the will of the Korean people. There is literally no theatre of conflict that has not been created by the US. America is the Father of War, and everything the US does is War.

Right now it is pumping out propaganda across the Empire trying to suggest that Russia wants to invade Ukraine. Unlikely. But even if it does its trivial; the real point here is that America wants to invade Russia. America want to invade everyone! America wants to take over the world. This was the joke about the propaganda against Germany in WW2. Apparently Hitler wanted to take over the world, so said UK the world's largest Empire! When someone accuses someone of wanting to take over the world it because that person is getting in the way of you taking over the world!

For anyone religious, America is the best candidate for the Satan on Earth. And perhaps the rise of America is the Revelation people are waiting for.

Things don't quite fit, ever.

Another way to put this is that in reality nothing ever quite fits.

When we climb a mountain, when do we reach the top? I've often wondered when that exact moment comes. We get higher and higher and navigate ourselves up to the summit, but the gradient usually gradually levels off and you are always left looking for that highest point. You take the summit photos and then realise that if you stand on a different rock or pebble you are a bit higher. Rare would be that mountain that ends in a flake of rock with a point on it to mark the highest point. And even then if you zoom in there is still the question of which bit of that flake represents the top. Its never an exact fit for the idea of the "top." We usually get happy with roughly the top. But i wonder how many people think they have summited but not actually reached the very highest point. I know I have.

Returning to Plato's Forms there must be a trade off. For so many millions of apples to count as "apples" we must ignore many of their differences. They cannot all be identical copies, atom for atom. This means that if we pick a particular apple, like Heraclitus with his toe in the river that is never the same twice, it will be unlike any other apple. It means that the word "apple" can only be an approximation, a rough category or container, that doesn't really capture the unique nature of a particular apple.

So it is with this idea of "self." Its a broad handle on "me" that misses out almost everything. Inside this container is a being which is barely recognisable from the crude label of "self."

This is another avenue that takes us to freedom. Just as the exact point at the top of a mountain is hard to pin point in reality, so the exact place and moment of self is hard to pin point. It seems easy to say "I am happy" but look closer where exactly is the happiness. When exactly did it start, when will it end, where is it? There is no discrete thing to grasp there, it is a swirling river. The river flows around and through the crude box called "self" and the label "self" seems to capture almost nothing. Before we know it the happiness has subsided and we have new feelings coming about. Realising that we simply cannot grasp at a solid thing called "self" brings us to just accept the chaotic mess. We're not quite sure if we stood on the exact top of the mountain, but it was a great day's mountaineering and we're happy with the messy way the world is. We're not quite sure if that counted as "me" but we're happy with the mess.

Now it gets a bit more complicated because we have this idea of "existence." I may not be able to pin point exactly what I am at any one moment, was that "happiness" or was it slightly tinged with "melancholy" or maybe I was already starting to feel sad cos I remembered something. Like Heraclitus with his toe in the ever swirling river. Yet the river does exist even if we can't say what exact state it is in, and I do exist even if the details evade me. But its not so simple as this. Existentialism has done the human race an enormous disservice.

Back to that discussion of containers on Christmas Day. Can we really talk about a river while missing out ALL the details? Surely in the discussion the actual nature of the swirling mass of water must be addressed somewhere. Sartre would rather separate existence and essence so much that we can talk about the river without ever looking at a drop of water. His reason would be like the apples. This apple is not any other apple, it is itself. We then examine this apple and only then do we get the details that mark it apart from other apples. But you can turn that around. Without some phenomenon why are you even talking "apple"? Surely there must be some phenomenon that got us started. And Sartre says but it is the existence of that phenomenon that got us going, the spark of "somethingness" or a "happening" that triggers our interest and examination of exactly "what" the essence of that happening is. But you can't have a happening without something happening. You cannot separate the existence and the essence like that. It is when you do that you end up with the nonsense of Existentialism and the belief in an individual self completely separate from anything else. And existence without any essence in fact if you look closely.

Imagine trying to capture a bottle of drink being poured into another bottle. Simple when its all been transferred we say there is it, the drink is now there. But now try and capture in a sieve. At no point can you say where the bottle of drink is. Indeed is there a bottle of drink any more? It's a mess again. It's only the people still trying to fit it into the container of "a drink" that start complaining that it has been spilled and wasted. Its true that we are all familiar with drink bottles and spilling drinks, so someone turning up on the scene after it has happened will quickly work out it really belongs in a bottle and has been spilled. But actually there is no bottle of drink anymore, its gone and is now a puddle or something else. Given how messy the bottle of drink is, its not so clear whether it really exists. Perhaps on the shop shelf its easy to convince ourselves its a solid existing thing. But as time progresses it gradually stops being a bottle of drink. Everything is in this state of change, of being created, existing for a while in some inexact but recognisable state and then decaying. Even that mountain the next time we climb it will have eroded and the rocks be in slightly different positions.

We say "exist" like its a fixed thing. Yet nothing is fixed, and everything has fuzzy boundaries.

What is exact are our thoughts. Our thoughts have discrete boundaries, they are the containers. And we spend our life tring to force things into thought containers so we can carry them around. "I have climbed Mountain X" we out in a container and carry it around. When we thin back of course "climbing mountain X" was a long process with 1000s of  steps and things going on. Its a simple container for a quite unique experience.

So we meditate to learn to separate the thoughts from the reality. The Nama from the Rupa they say.

Plato preferred to live in the perfect realm of Forms, that is thoughts, where things were exactly this and exactly that. In his cave he describes the particular imprints of the forms as just shadows.

But why place a hierarchy here. There are forms, there are thoughts. But the world barely fits into them. Thoughts have a truly bad tailor you might say. When events happen, we finds the thoughts very inadequate.

There is a clear temptation to hold on to the thoughts cos with these we feel we have something tangible to hold on to. But if we look underneath the layer of thoughts we see the swirling river of reality that really doesn't fit.

Why enter the swirling river we might think. Well its only swirling from the standpoint of the thoughts. But if we let go of the thoughts and experience the river then it stops being this and that but just becomes a flow without especial boundaries.

The problem with trying to say this is you can't capture the laid back peace of accepting the flow in words. Words always want things to be this way or that. and indeed we can--and do-- make these decisions of whether it is this way or that. But think about it. Before you have decided what way something is, don't we have to be in an undecided state? And that is not a discrete undecided state, but just a fuzzy "kind of" state which becomes clearer and then less clear all the time. Being able to stick it in a container is no longer a big deal. We add a label, we take one away, we change our mind, but we are being really precise because we are being sensitive to the changing world around us.

Monday, 27 December 2021

So actually none of this really captures the point!

 Its worth writing things down to see what they look like. The post on Christmas Day despite being of interest is actually useless I think. It in no way actually helps to grasp the point. In fact I feel I've taken a step back with that post!

The goal here is to liberate. But thinking about Heraclitus' river or the Ship of Theseus does not really help to liberate. It simply causes confusion.

Newton's Cradle is perhaps better at raising the much more sublime issue.

At root, and how we should conduct ourselves in life, is to not fixate upon a view of the world centred in our self. When something goes wrong for me, it is worth remembering that it has only gone wrong for me, and other people carry on quite unaffected. Indeed its extraordinary really how we can be obsessed about something that has happened to us, and remain oblivious to what is going on in other people's world. We literally have grown used to walking around like this, seeing only what concerns us.


Now we can argue at length that this "self view" is a myth and based around the illusion of "self". And while we are certain we can see this self, in fact on closer examination it is a phantom. And yet this direct approach never seems to quite work. It is like telling someone to stop smoking. Simply focusing on the problem is never enough, we need to also encourage them into a different way of living. Have a cup of tea instead of a cigarette, or go for a run, or embrace the idea and benefits of fasting (I did this last one).

What we need to do in addition to questioning the reality of self, is to focus on the bigger picture also. In every situation there is a large world, and filtering it just to see what is relevant to us is actually just closing down options.

Its so funny how we do this obsessively and almost instinctively. When hearing the lottery numbers read out we are obsessed about our numbers coming out. When in fact it doesn't matter: someone will win, what is so amazing about that person being me? Well we may argue "but it would change my life." To that we need to think carefully. Chances are you won't win, and you are going to get that same life back (minus the cost of the lottery ticket). And you will get that same life back 14 million times before you win on average. So you better learn to live with "this life" cos that is the winning you are going to get most of the time. And if we are living "this life" 14 million times before the big win, actually it can't be that bad. But despite all this wider thinking its amazing how we can obsess on "winning" and "better life" and do this to such an extreme we get sad about our actual life. Speak to a corpse next time you are sad about your life! Whatever form your life takes, it is nevertheless life! And that is the best win of all.

And if we unobsess then we can look at the people who do win and enjoy their winning, instead of our own. And if we can do this well, and take the blinkers off, we don't get so trapped in "our" life and see life as a big expansive thing that includes everyone here and far. With such a wide view there is little that can touch us. A "bomb" goes off here, and destroys something, but across the landscape that damage looks small. The wider our view the more impervious we are to what the world has to throw at us. And if we let go completely and have an unlimited unconditional heart and mind that can go freely anywhere then we cannot be hurt.

But contrast walling ourselves inside our possessions and holding as tight as possible to what is "ours" and focusing exclusively on "me" makes us incredibly vulnerable to damage. This is the core teaching of Jesus and Buddha to name two.

This also seems a much better approach to expressing this than attacking the illusion of individuality, personality and self.

Newton's Cradle & Illusion of Individuality

 


On this individual/group thing was thinking about old Newton's cradle. We might think there is just one ball moving that somehow passing "through" the middle balls. Or we can see the system as a whole which passes from one state to the next, from which the moving balls at the ends are just side effects. So the "individual moving ball" thing is an illusion, its really a whole system in change. As far as I can work out its obviously the second interpretation. And this "illusion" of an individual ball is the same illusion that the Indians say is the illusion of a self with individual action. Remarkable similarity between the ideas.

Trying to push this to get an insight into "energy" which always seemed a bit bullshitty. My understanding of energy is that its like a second magical world that allows things like Newton's Cradle to work by allowing momentum and energy to pass through the stationary balls without actually being there. A ghost world. I wonder if the Buddhist conception is better. There is no ghost world. The world is just like computers, shifting from one state to another. But to allow this we must do away with "individual existence" and have Quantum-like "fields" that represent the whole system state.

One of the most extraordinary things I heard of recently was Noether's Theorem  Conservation Laws (like exhibited in Newtons Cradle) actually come from symmetries in the underlying systems. So if we do away with "individual" existence and look at things in terms of distributed systems the conservation law becomes just a symmetry. Jim you are physics/engineering does that sound right?

And that is the very battle between "individual" and "group" in politics. But it seems the individual is the more primitive idea, cos it needs a whole load of theories to explain how the individuals are joined up. While the field idea sees individuals as products of an already expansive society. That is Society being a spatial temporal field like space-time in which humans live.

This explains for instance how Wallace working in SE Asia had the idea of Evolution by Natural Selection at the exact same time as Darwin working in Kent.

Altho proponents of the individual theory will point out that Darwin says "he was inspired into action to write his theory after reading Wallace's letter." Did Darwin really fake all his research and retrospectively reinterpret the Beagle expedition to make it look like he originated the idea? Field is a better interpretation?


Saturday, 25 December 2021

Beyond Birth & Death

This has been written about so much that I wonder can I really add anything, but I used to read all this stuff and while I could grasp it I never made the actual move needed to "become it."

For example in his fragments Heraclitus says, "You cannot step into the same river twice, for other waters are continually flowing on." It is deceptively simple. This simple observation contains the secret of complete freedom from Death and suffering! It seems almost impossible, isn't that just a simple thing he says?

Plutarch, writing in the C1st AD says of the Ship of Theseus:

The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned from Crete had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their places, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same.


People used to travel to visit to see this ship. Now what did they think they were seeing as the planks were gradually replaced. At some point it would become indistinguishable from a copy of the original. This puzzle leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouth, there is something deeply unsatisfying about it.

But we better get used to sitting with this problem because it lies at the centre of the Problem of Life. Because of this problem all things are actually "illusion" and the truth is something quite different.

Just like the Ship of Theseus they say that the human body replaces every atom every 7 years. It doesn't matter what the exact numbers are, it is sufficient to observe that we are physically changing all the time. Like a wave in fact travelling through the ocean. Waves do not take water with them, they simply move the local water in a circle. That is why a piece of wood just bobs up and down and does not move. When it moves it is the wind or tides, but not the waves. The substance of waves is always changing, at any moment there is a wave of water but move forward a few seconds and it is a made of completely different water. One wave causing the next wave, but nothing to actually moving.

Another example is Newton's Cradle. We might we tricked into thinking that some phantom ball moves through the middle balls carrying the "movement" from one side to the other, but clearly there is nothing more there than 5 balls. The system clicks along, each state causing the next, and the movement of balls at the end is just a side effect.







In Buddhism an often used image is a line of candles being used to light each other. Each candle causes the next to light, but nothing is transferred. The result looks like this.

     


So there are lots of examples of this uncomfortable truth about the world that it seems there is no substantial "thing" there, but rather the substance changes within the "thing" we are interested in.

And at least for me I kind of left it there. So things are like containers and the water in them changes all the time. The river is always flowing so is never the same. But the banks of the river, or the container, are roughly the same so "big deal". But I didn't make the transition that this implies.

If the substance in "things" is always changing, and it is just the container that stays the same, what is the container made from? When we say that a river is flowing, what is the river made from if not the water? How can a river be anything other than the water? What is this container? A phantom of a "river" without any water?

Likewise, an ancient Greek would say "I'm off to see the Ship of Theseus." His friend says, "but you know half the wood has been replaced?" He says doesn't matter its still "The Ship of Theseus." But if all the wood is changed what is this "Ship of Theseus" that is somehow a ship separate from the wood in it? Perhaps the "shape" is what makes the ship, as though it is the container. But then surely anything with that shape is The Ship of Theseus. When we say something "is" something, we want to mean there is some particular fixed material thing there, something that is unique and unlike anything else. But a shape or container is never unique and the substance is always changing. It seems we want for a phantom, something impossible.

Its a very dissatisfying problem. In a Sartrean way it gives us some nausea. Something is very wrong. We probably push the problem away, or pretend we understand it. But instead, now, just sit with it. This problem is the doorway to enlightenment.

Before pushing for a solution, why do I say this is so important. The reason is that when we think about ourselves we have the exact same problem. And what could be more serious than a fundamental problem with ourselves. We are like the Ship of Theseus. We have a name, we have an identity. People travel to see us sometimes just like the ship. And yet we are always changing. I've already said that materially we change every 7 years or so. If the substance of my body is always changing then am I not a different person every 7 years. Or perhaps there is a container called "me" that this stuff moves through. We've already questioned what the meaning of an empty container is. In reality containers are made of stuff like glass or pottery. But this doesn't help cos that stuff in the container is changing too, although more slowly. So there is then a container for the container (whatever shape the container walls have) and it starts to get stupid. Take a jog. Somewhere there is an injection mould for the glass jug, and presumably a mould for the injection mould but it must stop somewhere. To stop an infinite regress we should haul that up here and force these containers to be the same stuff as it is supposed to hold: a river is not its banks, it is the water flowing in those banks. A river is always made of water. Containers do not really help with this problem.

So the very idea of "me" which is the centre of "my life" is a problem if we think about it. Wow, perhaps I don't get life at all! And what are the key things we know about life? We are reminded of one every year, twice! Once on our Birthday and once today on Christmas when we remember the extraordinary birth of Jesus. Now what is all this virgin birth stuff? That will become apparent. The other thing is death. We are reminded of that at Easter at least with Jesus' extraordinary death. What is all this resurrection stuff? That will become apparent too. But we also have our own death to worry about, and that of the people we love. But perhaps if we don't understand what we are, perhaps we have this wrong and Jesus has this right? Possibly a more significant figure here is Buddha who spoke at great length about all this.

"Where there is nothing; where naught is grasped, there is the Isle of No-Beyond. Nirvāṇa do I call it—the utter extinction of aging and dying."

There is definitely something going on here, but what is it? How do we make sense of all this?

SO lets begin by not throwing anything away. There is a "Ship of Theseus" and there is a "Self" or a "Me." But we need to see them as though they are photos in a photo album of the mind. Or we can use the containers idea, as long as we don't over do it. These things are like very thin transparent plastic bottles like the 2L ones that hold fizzy drinks. These snap shots or sample of the world, are just very rough holders for the world. We can capture bits of the world in a bottle, or take a photo of it, but no one would ever say that the photo "was" the world, or the stuff we have stuck in the bottle belongs there.

Perhaps a child collects some river water in the empty plastic drinks bottle and shouts out "I have captured the river!" In a way they have, but its just a small bit of the river and now it has been captured its no longer "river." It no longer swirls and ripples or flows. It is nothing like a river, all the life has gone from it. We do the same thing to ourselves whenever we say "me." We trap ourselves in a bottle and think we know what we are talking about. But the real "me" is a swirling and ever changing thing.

Now we deal with this by saying things like "I am happy" or "I am angry." We take the swirling self and we stick it in a bottle of "me." The bottle or "I" is fixed, and through the bottle goes things like happiness or anger. Through this self goes thoughts, emotions, feelings, smells, tastes all sorts of things but the bottle remains the same. But we have questioned the logic here already. What is a wave without water, what is a river without water. What is the bottle of self without feelings and emotions and thoughts?

The proper way to see this is not a bottle with swirling feelings and thoughts inside, but rather when we see these thoughts and feelings we use them to deduce a bottle. Watching waves on a lakes shore there is nothing but water, and we deduce the presence of waves from the movements in the water. The waves don't exist outside the water.



Likewise we deduce the presence of a self from the movements we see around us. When Descartes said:

"I think therefore I am"

He was using the presence of thoughts to see a self, but there is no self separate from thoughts any more than there is a wave separate from water.

This is not the say the waves and selves do not exist, but they only exist as long as the phenomena from which they are made. There is nothing substantial or fixed or permanent to a wave, it is simply something that water does.

So now we can ask does a wave get Born and Die? Did Jesus get Born and Die? Did Buddha get Born and Die? Do I get Born and Die?

The answer is Yes if we continue to think that a wave exists separate from the water. But then you have that silly situation when the wave hits the shore and we think that it somehow continues as a "ghost" or a "soul" somewhere in the shoreline. And likewise we think that somehow the wave "entered" the water like a soul enters a body somewhere across the lake and motivated the water to behave like this like a mole burrowing through the earth. There is no mole to a wave, there is just wave.

It is true the energy of the wave gets converted into other things like sound or heat or moves some sand on the shore. But the wave is gone! It has died. And so it appears that death does happen. But where did the wave go? It was converted into other things so in another sense it didn't die, it only changed. But we can no longer see a wave rippling on the water and so we stick with the idea it died.

Yet we already analysed this. The wave was something that the water was doing, not a bit of water but the whole water. The wave was "in" the water on one side of the lake, and it appeared to move across the lake like a "soul" to water on the near side of the lake. And yet we already said that a wave cannot exist without water. This process by which some water in a wave shape causes another bit of water next door to have a wave shape is what we need to get used to. The wave is born and dies in each bit of water in turn. That is how it appears to move. The movement of a wave across a lake is an illusion just like the illusion that is exploited to make films and animations that make us believe that a mouse is talking and moving across the screen. Its an illusion.

And in the same way that this is an illusion, the idea that it dies and is born is also an illusion. It does not exist like we want to think about it.

And the same is true of the self. When someone calls our name, its just a plastic bottle, or a photo that snap shots us for a split second but it doesn't capture us. We can't be captured, we are a flowing, ever changing thing, like a wave flowing through water. It is worse when we try to snapshot ourselves. We can do this obsessively and really mess our lives up as we try to force ourselves into a definable shape, "I AM" we say as though we are like a fixed wave. But the moment we do this, we then face death. Thinking the wrong way we get stuck with this bottle holding what we think is us, and then all we can see is death when this bottle becomes empty as the stuff inside changes and stop being what we thought it was.

People give us a name. This is probably the start of it. We start to form a bottle that has this name, and we start to see everything that happens as going on either inside or outside this bottle. And we get more and more used to this bottle so it becomes fixed. And then we start to wonder what becomes of this bottle when all the stuff inside stops and we die. This gives us that sense of the "void" or the "blackness" of Death. But it's a mistake. There is no fixed bottle going through life with us. There is no fixed self, inside which we live and our life gets played out. And there is no fixed outside either. When Pink Floyd sing about "the wall" its the walls of this bottle that they are referring to. And if the bottle gets too fixed our life becomes stifled and we feel cut off from the world around us. Its all a mistake. 

Our name, our identity, what people think of us, what we think of ourselves, what we have done, what we like, what we don't like, when we were born, when we think we will die, what other people think we have done, what we believe, what we think, what we think we are, who we think we are, what our parents think of us, who our parents think we are, our philosophy, our religion, : every single one of these, and many more are all just bottles or snapshots that try to contain an ever changing being. It cannot be contained. As Buddha says it cannot be defined.

"Like a flame that has been blown out by a strong wind goes to rest and cannot be defined, just so the sage who is freed from name and body goes to rest and cannot be defined." Buddha: Sutta Nipāta

Being undefined is the secret at the heart of life that we don't like to face. We grasp for definition, not realising that the grasp itself cannot be defined. This grasping comes from nowhere, if we could watch the nature of the grasping rather than what we reach for we would see our own indefinable nature. Its initially unsettling, and can cause a feeling of "groundlessness." But there is no gravity here, we will not fall, there is nowhere to fall. We just are where we always have been, quite safe, at peace.

Sunyata is another name for this, and while this is often translated as "emptiness", it is equally "fullness". The state of undefined is also a state of pure potential. Because we are nothing, we can be anything and everything. It is pure freedom, without any grasping for form. The wave passes through the water without ever being anything. A photo can make it look like it was at a particular point on the lake at a time, but we know this is an illusion: "it" was never there, nothing was passing through.

A physicist may say well there was something there: the potential energy stored in the wave that was dissipated as the wave collapsed, and the kinetic energy that was driving the next wave. But this is the weird thing about energy, while it has an exact numerical magnitude, you cannot ever get a jar of energy. It is always in some form like a wave, or the sound of waves as they hit the shore.

The world is not completely chaotic and random, freedom does not mean we explode in a state of chaos and randomness, it just means that the energy right Now can take any form. The problem we have is that we think in terms of the forms, not the energy. We want to be "rich", we think we are "useless", we think we will "die": these are just the containers or the forms and we struggle to fill those containers. But its the wrong way around. WE ARE UNDEFINED, and even if we find ourselves in a bottle of "rich" or "dead" we are still UNDEFINED. But usually we struggle with these containers and we either think we are in the wrong one, or don't want to leave one. Not understanding that we are undefinable we get stuck and controlled by containers. When someone hates you, it has nothing to do with you, you are undefined, but that container of hate might become a hazard if we get stuck in it. Just let the wave move on.

This is not to say that we can just breeze through life without a care for anyone or anything and just avoid containers. Waves do ripple water, our self takes on forms, it is just that we are not those forms and change is certain. We cannot really get stuck, although we try to. That is suffering.

With a correct understanding we start to make the right choices. We don't behave as though we are stuck in a bottle, or trying to get into another, we realise we are undefinable and being outside the bottles is the right place to be, its the original place. Richard Rohr says this well with his "bubbles." In fact historically it was probably reading him recently that started this new path for me.

When we are happy outside the bottles, then we are more than "The Ship of Theseus" and the wood can be many thing other than just a ship that carried Theseus, then we know freedom. Indeed the multiple possibilities of that wood are its freedom. It doesn't have the remain in the bottle of the "Ship of Theseus" indeed it can't.

A Buddhist story tells of a pilgrimage to see a Buddha set high on a mountain. The weather changed and the group of pilgrims are plunged into driving sleet and freezing weather. Too far to turn back the monk leading them pushes on to the statue. When they arrive the monk breaks off the huge arms of the wooden statue and starts to make a fire. The pilgrims are disgusted that he is defacing a Buddha. He simply replies that it is not a Buddha it is a fire. So it is with containers. Stuck with the containers we don't see the infinite possibility that the undefined offers us every moment.

I believe right now that this is what Jesus was teaching us. On the Cross he beat death by refusing to defend "himself", and refusing to hold vengeance for his oppressors. He forgave, and he died as a no body. He did not try to be someone. Since his death he has become "Someone" very big, but this is the opposite of the point of a random person born in a stable. The wave that has since become the legend of Jesus at the time moved on effortlessly. Likewise the wave started effortlessly. Altho the moment it became visible was his baptism by John the Baptist when the Holy Ghost entered his body. But this is only metaphorical in this interpretation. Jesus began his journey like a wave: nothing entered and nothing left; yet there was a wave. So in fact the virgin birth story of Cbristmas is a story that attempts to say that no seed was planted in Mary by man. Jesus had no seed, he had no mortal origins, and that lack of a seed accompanies him through to his death where no seed was lost. Without seed, no one was born and no one died. This is how it is for us all, but without following his example we believe in ourselves not God and we believe there is a seed, a soul, a self within us, planted by the Devil to make us rebel against God who says we are free and not bound to this world. God says we are free; we have no seed; we abide always in Heaven from before we are born until after we die.

Merry Xmas.








Tuesday, 14 December 2021

Antimony, Peace and the Core Doctrine of Buddhism and Religion

 In antiquity they were called Antimonies that is unresolvable contradictions. The latest is the battle waging between those who say that SARS2 is safe based upon the low mortality and the predictable way that it affects the elderly and those with underlying conditions while being virtually irrelevant to the rest of the population, and those who actually do suffer and die from it. This is the classic problem for politicians wielding power over a group of people but needing never-the-less to be sensitive to individuals. When Individuals and Group come into conflict what do you do? This is the essence of politics, and corrupt governments are seen as those who place too much importance on certain individuals at the expense of the group.


So what do you do with Antimony? The existence of such things and the answer is the key to freedom and non-suffering.

How does an antimony become a problem and how does conflict arise from it?

Buddha says "avoid extremes" and "follow the middle path." This is not a literally statement of crude moderation. For example if 8000 calories a day is a lot and 0 is the lowest then eat exactly 4000 calories. You would die unless living a life of extreme hard work. It's a subtle philosophical statement.

It means use extremes like lighthouses to navigate the good water in between. The better we get at navigating the good water the less we need the light houses. Indeed for the wise they never need the light houses, they know good water as they sail it. But that takes a very subtle attention to detail.

The point about the middle way, the good water, is that it is featureless. There are no big waves to struggle against, their are no tricky currents, it is good and good means we have nothing to pick out and attach to. Peace is very bewildering to those who are fixated on lighthouses and extremes.

The world is like a circle with points placed on opposite sides of the circumference. We like to sit in that circle and hold on to one or the other of these opposite. We fight hard over the side we have got stuck to. Sometimes we move into the middle to sit between opposites, but we are still trapped within the circle. But what is outside the circle? We can just let go and not accept these opposites and just take up a position outside the circle. Soon as we move away the circle of opposites becomes just a point itself. The whole world of conflict and extremes becomes just a single point of suffering far far away. But it is very hard to do this.

They call it groundlessness. Being at peace means there is nothing to grasp onto, it can feel like floating in space and can at times be confusing and unsettling as we learn not to hold on to things. As we sail perfect waters, losing sight of the lighthouses upon the rocks, may give us a sense of fear as we no longer know where we are, but not seeing light houses is a sign we are in good waters. Not having familiar things to hold on to is a sign of freedom and goodness.

At the root here is this need to grasp. We actually like suffering and big waves cos then we know where we are. We like our lives full of ups and down, and turmoil, and having lighthouses and navigating the rocky shores gives us a sense of achievement and control. We always have a story to tell, we are interesting, we are somebody. We can hold tight to all these things and know for sure where we are. But this is not peace or freedom. and eventually we will be drawn onto the rocks where our suffering will only magnify. Its hard to sail out into the ocean and the peaceful waters; peace is actually the hardest thing. Not struggling searching and grasping is the hardest thing. So why is this?

What lies at the root of all this struggle is the Self. This sits inside that circle bouncing around like a ball bearing in a Pin Ball machine. It pings from this side to that side, joining groups, taking up opinions and ideas struggling against a world that is both wonderful at times and beastly and oppressive at other times. On minute we are in love with someone who makes the whole world make sense, and the next we hate them and want to be as far away as possible. Or vice versa. Constant swinging between extremes. Why do we do this?

Well the real question is how do we come to be here or there? Who actually decides that someone is lovable or hateful? How do we side with one side of an argument or perspective. A reader may say of what is written here, "what a load of nonsense" or they make say "yes I've read this before its sounds right, I agree" or they may just get bored and head off, or they may get excited and want to read more. Rare will be the reader who brings their own freedom to this text and walks away clearer without taking this text with them. This text is really for the bin. Its just words on a page. But some readers may use it to become further away from themselves. And that is another antimony. But why will most readers either take or reject this, or get bored or excited? What "thing" is moving towards or away from this text? That thing is the centre of the whole problem.

When we take sides in an antimony something is moving imperceptibly from one place to another. I said in the summer that this is like a ship casting its anchor into the sea bed. The real point of that was to move attention from the ship to the anchor. When we take sides in an argument it can get very emotional and heated because in reality what has happened is that "I" have taken sides and we defend that side like its a house with us inside. If the house falls then we fall. Its that imperceptible movement of ourselves to one side that causes the problem. But the anchor analogy points to the key point, we are not IN the house we have only cast our anchor into the house. we have not actually take sides, we have only cast an anchor into one side or the other. Like any ship we can uncast and sail off. We are actually free, it is just the anchor that binds us. That anchor is called "attachment" in Buddhism.

If we rewrite the circle analogy above with anchors we see the solution to antimonies much better. Whether we are inside the circle or outside the circle is not the point (reminds me of the film Meet the Fockers and the de Niro's Circle of Trust). The point is not whether we are inside or outside, the point is where we place our anchor. It is the anchor that sticks us to one side of an antimony or the other. It is good enough just to see this because by focusing on the anchor we let go of the ship: who knows where the ship is, its the anchor that decides which port we are in.

So middle path is like this, we do not actually know where we are, we are always at peace, we do not take side, we are not stuck this way or that way. All this conflict and opposites, confusion, difficulty and suffering, all the light houses and rocks all come from where we cast our anchor. If we keep our mind on the anchor we have achieved already the hardest thing which is to realise that we are always free. If its just the anchor that makes an antimony double sides then just up anchor.

So going back to Covid. It is true there are 2 sides to this. Globally its of no real problem, there are plenty of diseases which cause far more harm, but for those in hospital and their families it is a time of great difficulty. Both are true. We can cast our anchor one way or the other, or neither! There is no objective way to solve this, there is no fixed guide book, but if the politician makes sure not to set his anchor in either side they will make the best possible decisions. Problems occur when the Politicians stops being free and casts their anchor into one side o the other. This is not the job of politicians, its the job of lobbyists. But really we all benefit from being able to cast our anchors freely or not at all.

This incidentally answers probably my longest held childhood question. If Adults know everything then why have they not written the definitive guide to life. Why is there no book I can read to tell me what to do with life? If there is no book then doesn't it mean I can do anything? But obviously some people are happier with their life than others, and we criticise many people for how they live - especially criminals. So we have an antimony again: while we are free, there are nevertheless better way and worse ways to live life. The point is to live a good life we much learn to cast our anchors very freely, or not at all and not be stuck in port by an anchor we can't pull up. That was the book I was looking for as a child, that the skill to life was not to look for definitive answers but to remain free and judge every moment of my life without prejudice or from a fixed harbour. Be free to sail the oceans far away from lighthouses and the troubles of extremes. In a world abide in the Peace you already have, Always.

Examples of fixed anchors are people stuck with views like "I have the best partner", "I have the worst partner", "I am amazing", "I am rotten", "I exist", "I wish I did not exist"... etc we all probably have some strong fixed ideas about our life. These light houses are just where we have placed our anchors. Our lives are not really fixed like this, any one can up anchor at any time and cast in a different port. So the person who thinks their life sucks just needs to get bored with that port and up anchor. Simply by casting the anchor again they will find that same life suddenly seems different, the possibilities are different, the whole meaning and shape of their life changes simply by moving anchor. Its as easy as that, or as hard. Being free is very bewildering at first.

Friday, 10 December 2021

Capitalism and Religion

There must be books written in this, but I've never seen any.

Everything arguably is about suffering. When we change position in our seat to get comfortable we are simply responding to a small amount of suffering. All the way up to engaging in a huge war to defeat some enemy is about fulfilling gnawing ambition.

Perhaps there is a proactive version of this reactive stance, that sometimes we don't let the suffering come and push us, but we are motivated by some ideals or knowledge of what is right.

I'm not thinking it out now, but is there any difference between a drug addict seeking their next high, and a drug addict running away from the void left by the low. Is desire really just the other side of the coin to suffering?

Anyway suffering is right in there in life. In Buddhism it would be the key crack in our existence that upsets everything and stops us from finding peace.

Not all is over though. In meditation we can quickly find non-suffering states. The problem of course is that meditation cannot go on forever. We must use meditation to discover what the real cause of suffering is.

Now religion in general has always been about suffering. In the Abrahamic religions suffering comes from God and you appease God by following His Law. Most other religions operate like this with sacrifices and incantations said to the god to gain favour and hope they will be kind and avert suffering. Buddhism as mentioned is the same, but with the slight adjustment that we can get to the end of suffering through diligent perfection of ourselves without a god being an integral part. Where other religions have suffering coming from a vengeful god, Buddhism may ask for help from other beings but understands that the suffering come from within not without. This is actually quite subtle. Both East and West have the same idea: Karma and Sin. Karma means 'action' and Sin means 'missing the mark' but they refer to the same thing. When our actions are unskilful (akusala) then undesirable outcomes arise, and when we Sin the same. The only difference is that the arising of unwelcome occurrences in Buddhism comes from "cause and effect" and is just a law of the universe: if you do X then Y will happen. While in the West a God decides what the outcome is. If you have done well and favoured the God then good outcomes happen, and otherwise you are punished. It is a subtle difference. But the East has another level to this that at the very root of all this suffering is a very subtle akusala thought namely "Self" from which all suffering arises. The wise do not have this thought and so are free from suffering. But this has a parallel in the West that submission to the will of God is the same as ignoring the Self. So there is really no difference between the strains of thought. 

Now what of Capitalism. Capitalism has been a variant of this very same endeavour. It is about reducing suffering. Particularly through the application of science and technology to fix our suffering. Its like Buddhism in this sense. We do not need to ask for help from divine beings as mankind has the ability to fix this problem itself. Such thinking began in the Renaissance where the accumulation of human knowledge by then (presumably because of writing) started to create a belief that "we can do it." Now people live in ever more comfortable conditions through the precise application of science and technology and also through the creation of an economy that promotes material production, labour and sales. When we suffer these days we just go and buy something or hire someone to fix it.

But isn't this masking the problem. When we buy something it never really fixes the problem, it just kicks the can down the road. The very act of getting up and going out to shop can become a problem in itself. And there is the work required to pay for it. And Capitalists aren't really interested in fixing the problem, it creates more wealth if they can keep you coming back. But without being cynical about Capitalism, could Capitalism really solve suffering itself? Could our lives just becomes so comfortable that suffering becomes a thing of the Past?

It's an ironic thing. In my lifetime I have seen extraordinary changes in welfare. My parents lived through a destructive war where there was unbelievable suffering throughout Europe. And in the years afterwards rationing still existed. Hunger was an every day thing even in the 1st world. People were cold all the time without air conditioning, proper insulation or efficient heating. When people fell ill it often meant death. And work in the 1st world was often manual, repetitive and unfulfilling. All these problems have now been exported to the 3rd world. And yet even after exporting all these difficulties we are stull left with suffering in the West.

Now a new wave of psychological insights is taken hold and a drive for happiness and mental wellbeing. At the top level mental health has taken centre stage in the West. And yet 1 in 10 children are self harming and anti-depressant use is on the rise. I hear again and again there is no substitute for physical exercise. For all the advances of the West a walk is still the best form of medicine.

But could we solve all these things with enough time and endeavour? Well I suspect no. The reason is that we live in a world motivated by suffering itself. Remove the suffering and the world stops.

This is why religions focus on Compassion and Kindness. If you wish to end suffering you need to also shift the reason for being alive from just suffering to something else, and particularly expand your focus from just yourself to other people. When Buddha ended suffering he ended up sitting under a tree for 6 weeks. In his words "there was nothing left to do." Capitalism would end over night if we ended suffering, the human world would literally stop. The Natural world would keep ticking just as it always has, but humans would suddenly stop.

What is needed is a shift to a global attitude, away from the day to day suffering of just me the individual. True I'll still change my seating posture to gain a bit more comfort, that is as natural as the sun rising in the morning, but my goal is no longer concern for the pain, it is rather a deep desire to end suffering in general. I may change seating position to help my body, but equally I will get a cushion for someone else I see who is uncomfortable. In my mind there is no difference. We end suffering. Interestingly with this mind Capitalism and Religion becomes the same. But the economics is slightly different. Gone is the investment for personal gain, or the entrepreneurial spirit driven by a desire for personal betterment and wealth.

What is all this Capitalist wealth for anyway? To end our suffering? But if you need Capitalist investment and wealth to end suffering then what are you going to sell and who is going to buy? Surely you need to buy and sell to end suffering? In which case why the investment? Investment in industry is just a way of magnify your wealth so you can spend even more and end even more of your suffering. But that means that industry is built upon foundations that are secondary to what it does, and that is the weakness of Capitalism. An economy must only be based upon sales and needs. Which means that private investment is a weak link.

An economy becomes driven by need and a desire to help one another. Science and Technology still grow, humans still live full and active lives but their heart is set upon All and not Me.

So Capitalism can learn from Religion and Religion can learn from Capitalism. But as usual the two are at war and everyone will lose.

Wednesday, 1 December 2021

Wow The West actually is fully brainwashed: proof

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcFbF9b9ONQ

There we go Om-icron is the AMERICAN pronunciation. Yet the actual pronunciation of Greek letter Omicron is Oh-micron. This underlines everything suspected about THE EMPIRE. The entire European "free" media over night switched from 2500 years of pronouncing it Oh-mikron to Om-icron. This proves the extent of the BRAINWASHING.

It means that whenever you listen to any media in the West you may think you are listening to lots of different opinions from many different sources, but at root they all come from the SAME AMERICAN source.

Now this is just a pronunciation but it shows that media are completely obedient to their sources even down to pronunciation, and they all have the same sources. If pronunciation is so dictated we can assume the content is too. This is why America gets almost no criticism in the western press while its open season on America's enemies. The Western Press is just the propaganda tool of America.

This means that those in power can literally get the whole western media to parrot the same thing at the same time everywhere.

This is why everyone has identical ideas about what is important and what views they should have, suspiciously they are the same as those of America and the Western Empire.

Now this leaves the Pandemic in dangerous territory. What is true and what is brainwashing? Well anything that made you afraid is definitely brainwashing (amygdala hijack is central to any sales), just like the 45 minute claim about Iraq, or North Korea nuclear capability.

Anyway books can be written on brainwashing, but if anyone still had any doubt that we live behind a propaganda wall that should be gone now.

It means that we must think for ourselves and never automatically believe anything we hear, especially when it comes at us like a uniform wall of media. That is propaganda.

We live in a Democracy in the West, and to maintain this we must reject the totalitarian tool of mass brainwashing which is what the media is.

This does not mean we just reject everything "mainstream" like some people do. There is no formula here. It is best to consume the mainstream but just be critical. We can for instance find out what The Empire is trying to brainwash us with just by examining what they are doing in the mainstream media. What does the media want me to believe? That question will tell us everything we need to know about those in Power. That is more useful to us than a 100 years of alternative conspiracy theory.

Friday, 29 October 2021

Quick review of Self, Individual, Subject/Object, Reflexivity

So in West we have got ourselves in a bit of a mix up.

We have Science which seeks to find the "universal truth" this is true for everyone. This links to ideas of Democracy, Law, Rights and Freedom. There is a universal Law that applies to everyone. This is also the Public realm. This is the realm favoured by Socialists.

Then we have Individualism, Private, Relativity and Subjectivity which bestows ultimate weight to private, personal and individual experiences. This is the realm favoured by Capitalists and Romantics who place their own wealth, feelings, experiences above the Universal. Libertarians and Libertines favour this side too. Anarchists too.

Art falls into a complex relationship. Some say the artists is trying to express their private feelings and thoughts, but if they are that private then what use are they to other people? The artist must be expressing something universal to make it of anything other than private temporary value.

There is an unhappy marriage where Private world reigns until the individual encroaches upon the "rights of another individual" where upon the Universal must be invoked.

There is a 3rd option between Universal and Solipsistic and that is Interpersonal. The interpersonal is a Universal that exists between individuals. It does not then exclude the possibility of other groups having their own Universal, but it does exclude the possibility of private individuals hijacking the Universal and claiming it for themselves. This embodies the true dialectical complexity of Individual and Group, that neither exists without the other and that both are interdependent. Groups are made of individuals who then recognised the individuals within the Groups. And likewise Universal is recognised by the individuals within the group...  

What has been raised in this blog this year is something very obvious but not widely recognised. The self we are talking is not a thing along side other things, it is the special relationship a self has with itself. It is this bizarre thing which makes an individual see themselves as more special than another individual.

It is none other than narcissism. When we consider ourselves we are caught like Narcissus by our reflection. Unlike other people's reflection, the reflection of our self raises this interesting thought called "self". But the "self" thought is really triggered not by a thing called self, but by the relationship between our self and our self. Its not the reflection that matters to Narcissus, everything has a reflection, but that this reflection if of the person who is seeing. It is this self-relationship that is the basis of ALL Western ideas. And what we will show eventually is that this self-relationship is nothing. Just like the reflection itself which is just a mirage on water, the relationship of that to itself is even more phantasmagorical.

But just for now its worth just identifying this self-relationship being the object of fascination in the West and not our actual self.

To make that a bit clearer. Lots of people know me. But only one of them IS me. So me is not the point, its the relationship between me and myself that is the basis of EVERYTHING in the West. Its the root of the Religion here. Where G-d once stood now stands and equally improbable and imaginary self.

Just as Nietzsche said "God is Dead" I now proclaim that "I am Dead."

And in that seeming (but not) contradiction I'll leave this.

==

Having added the section on Interpersonal the reflections of Narcissus become all the more complex. And this related to SRH. Quick recap: SRH was just the name given to a number of problems I noticed with self reference, that there seemed to be a Law of dependency that limited the "freedom" of a system that was self referential. For instance like M.C.Escher type drawings, the foundations of a castle cannot be upon that castle. Things MUST be founded upon things that are not themselves. SRH and the impossibility of self-foundation should be a warning to Narcissus. When he sees his reflection he gets that sudden "wow" moment as he realises that the reflection of not of a stranger but of the person who is seeing it. Most animals fail this test and always think their reflection is a stranger. But for some animals and humans they can get the "wow" and combine the object that they see (the objective) and the person doing the seeing (the subjective) in a new thought The SelfConscious Self. In Hegelian Dialectics this is a moment of Aufhebung where a new synthesis unifies the seeming contradictions of Object and Subject. Its a tremendous moment for the mind. But it comes with risks.

Looking into the eyes of the "seer" as we gaze into a mirror we enter a loop. I am seeing, and what I am seeing is I. The object of seeing is the seer. It appears self sufficient. As lomng as I gaze upon myself I have no need for the rest of the universe. The object is proof that I exist, and that I am seeing it is proof that I exist. As object of my own gaze I am solid and existing. I can reflect upon that being and see it as myself, and that being embodies the consciousness and awareness that is reflecting. Its a perfect thing to take home and cherish. The Self.

But Narcissus should consider Descartes. What if Descartes Demon was making up the reflection. We can do that these days. Consider being in 3D virtual reality with your avatar. When you get to a "mirror" and look you see a "reflection" of your avatar, perfectly rendered to look like you. You stare into the eyes and your avatar looks at you. You look away and your avatar looks away. You stare back into the reflected eyes of your avatar and start to pursue the realisation that the avatar really is you, what you are looking at is the thing that is doing the looking. Yet its not even a thing, it's just pixels on a screen constructed from data in a GPU and using input data from eye trackers in a headset. Yet its enough to trigger the self-reflexive thoughts about "me" having the ability to see, and so I start to think about myself as a real entity. Then it becomes Descartes, but instead of a mirror, we are using the existence of thoughts (rather than reflections) to deduce the presence of a thinker (or seer).

I guess what is central to this mirror illusion is the coincidence between what I see and what I do. When I move my eyes left, the reflection goes left, and when I look into my eyes the eyes of the reflection look directly at me. Its this way in which the reflection copies me which leads me to think it "IS" me. Its obviously just a flat reflection. I add the fact it is "me" with some creative imagination. Just as Descartes added the fact those thoughts belong to some "I" with some creative imagination. But it does trigger this idea of "self" and, as analysed already, what is critical about self is not the self itself-- everyone has one of those--its the relationship of the this self to itself. The picking myself out of a photo moment. Its an interesting moment to pick our self out of a photo, or have someone call our name, or have someone love us and no one else, but it has no ontological value. That is to say we are not finding anything new in this moment. We already know there are people on this planet, and we know we are a person so one of them is us. No big deal. When we get to know our self it is the same as getting to know anyone. The feeling that there is some deep thing to discover within our self, or that our self is special, or that this relationship we have with our self will ever grow fruit: all these beliefs are what keep Narcissus staring at his flat empty reflection in the pool. We can see he is wasting his time staring at the water, but in his mind a kaleidoscope of self-reflections open up a well of possibility that he will eventually realise once he falls in is bottomless, dark and empty. Like so many illusions it is fascinating, but its fake.

And this is the essence of what has ended up being called "Good." There is no such thing as good, all there is, is the empty, pointless pursuit of self. People like Narcissus who waste their time on their reflections become a bore to other people and become dysfunctional because their world revolves around this fake bottomless dark well. Perhaps such people can share time because at least they understand the fascination of each others dark wells, but ultimately they are just sharing wasted empty time revolving around a mirage. When you see what is called "evil" there are always 2 sides. There is the negative impulse--perhaps anger and hatred, or greed, or lust-- but then it is always married to self-interest to become evil. Many people get angry and what to hurt someone else, but they are not so obsessed with themselves and so they simply ignore themselves for not being helpful and let the anger go. But for Narcissus there is only the self, so when it gets angry it appears to consume the whole world. Given that you can see why when things are going well Narcissus is happy because his success and joy fills the whole world. The reflection is young, heathy, beautiful, happy, successful the world is a good place. But if anything happens to that reflection the whole world changes. Obvious nonsense, it doesn't even matter if we die in reality: every day 70,000,000 people die, but in Narcissus' world of 1 that death becomes everything. And this is the whole danger of this self illusion, and the way it so easily gets trapped in a relationship of just one between itself and itself.


Sunday, 17 October 2021

Fixed Points and Cycles

Stealing a frame from 3blue1brown's video which points out that each region of the set has its own properties. In the case highlighted it cycles around 3 values. We already noticed that each region is built around a fixed point solution to an order of depth of the equation. The central cardioid is the fixed point for the 1st iteration. Values contract to a limit. The circular region is built around fixed points to the second iteration, and the system cycles between 2 values. Shown is a fixed point to the 3rd iteration and this has 3 values.

Hypothesis: the number of values the set cycles between is equal to the number of iterations of the equation the local fixed point solves. 





Saturday, 16 October 2021

Racism

"Racism" as an idea has come under heavy criticism in this blog. Its just another example of people not thinking at all.

Quite a few races have people who think they are superior: Jews and Whites being the best examples. But "being better" is just nonsense in general. It all depends what metric you use. Some races on average are faster, taller, more intelligent etc but who cares anyway.

The real issue of race comes down to territory. And this is where the nonsense really kicks off.

So they say that all people came from Africa. Some races want to believe they are different and have their own origins. It doesn't really matter, the point is people have migrated over time. The Chinese say never die in the village you were born. We move.

The point becomes problematic when people start to "belong" and be "defined" by a place. In the UK we have the ridiculous situation of lots of people who are born in UK, who are British who would join the army and fight for their country, take part in Olympic games under the British flag and yet call themselves African or Indian or Chinese. How can someone who calls England their home be Chinese? Its actually impossible. What does it mean?

Now the real nonsense starts. They may say "I look Chinese." What! You look like a country? They mean the people from this country look like this. Which means even some Chinese think they are not from England and then quite rightly the English say well why not go home? Its not a nasty question its just a fact. Someone who thinks they are "Chinese" belongs in China. Now they may say I want to be British in which case why this "I am Chinese" stuff, just forget about China it far way and irrelevant to you.

So they may have the habit of eating with chop sticks while the broad custom in UK is to use a knife and fork. Well just see how that goes. Pointless trying to buy chop sticks in a UK supermarket, the person who wants chopsticks is just going to have to get knife and fork. Not difficult. Now they may really be accustomed to chop sticks and perhaps start up a trade in chop sticks. It won't do very well not may people use them. Perhaps they will start a massive advertising campaign to change UK customs. But then they will face the same resistance that they have to using a knife and fork but it will be larger and in reverse. Its easier just to use knife and fork. After all that is what all UK people have to learn to do. Now its possible that UK customs will change to chop stick but it takes centuries for things like this to happen. For the immigrant its easier to change themselves, after all they do live in a different country now no point in pretending they do not. So what is the point of talking out China it makes no sense if they want to live in UK.

To put that another way an immigrant who DOES NOT want to change needs to recognise the other half of this that the communities of that country are NOT going to accept them with EQUAL FORCE. Its a give and take situation. Why, the locals will argue, should we change to accept this person if they will not change to accept us. Newton's 3rd Law of motion, and we are talking about people's motion here. And once the locals of any country start to see a resistant people turning up who do not care for their customs and ways of life then you are going to see the spread of hostility. And when people turn up who are obsessed with their own countries and identify with them, it will only encourage the locals to become obsessed with their country and identity more strongly with it. In UK the local people are normally blamed with racism, but actually the immigrants must be EQUALLY racist. SO what is called "racism" actually starts with immigrants not making the transition to their new country and trying to hold on their old identity. This fuels the locals to do the same and division and distrust starts. There is a calculus of human psychology here no-one and everyone is to blame.

But then you get the nomadic people like the Bedouin, Gypsies or Jews who have no land. For true nomads they have no fixed location or identity from the land, their tribe is within. The Jews claim to be wandering like Moses but really they have formed territories before but for whatever reason they have always been enslaved or invaded. And G-d promised them the land of Israel which seems to have been a place in the Bible. Everything would be fine, but the Jews it seems are a bit two faced. On one hand they say they have no desire for physical land, but on the other they have Zionism. I think Anti-Jews have been primarily motivated by a fear of Zionism. And this morphed into Anti-Communism which is essentially the same. The fear from people who have a land is that the Jews (or anyone) will undermine their country and society and take it over. This is exactly what the Americans thought of Communism and its an idea that is identical to National Socialism. The Russian Revolution was closely linked to Jewish communities in Russia. Marx was a Jew. Now quite where you draw the line between a reasonable fear of sedition and treachery and actual racial prejudice is difficult. But Zionism in the 19th and 20th Century certainly did nothing to help the Jewish cause. Which is ironic since now The Holocaust is used to justify Zionism, despite Zionism starting decades before Nazism ever existed.

So there is a mess. People make no sense. No one wants to think about it. Everyone else is to blame. And as a result nothing really improves and everyone is confused. I suppose just through sheer necessity all people will one day start to actually think about this subject, rather than just use it to leverage power against other races like currently happens.

===

So what is the solution? if I do some thinking. There are a few options:

(1) People are not allowed to identify with countries. This means that there are no English, Chinese, Indians, Africans. No Black or White. Everyone must treat each other as human beings and equals. Picking out ethnic regional features becomes a hate crime. So an African calling themselves African or Black is actually a hate crime because it implies they are different from someone who is White and English. And once these divisions occur then people are inclined to not see each other as equals. An African Black is more likely to feel affinity for another African Black and less for an White English. That is a hate crime when based upon ethnic regional differences. It doesn't mean we have to like everyone, but if you like someone just because they share your ethnic features or come from your country that is pure hate of others.

(2) This seems a shame. People do have identity with their places of origin, or their ethnic tribes and characteristics. In UK we have the MOBO awards which celebrate music of Black origin. This is entirely Racist as it excludes music of White origin on pure racial grounds. But it seems harsh to ban the MOBO awards. But it does then mean we needs a MOWO awards that celebrates music of White Origin. And it means that England is celebrated as a White country and people who are not White in the UK know that they are immigrants from countries like China and India and Africa. I believe this is really what everyone wants. Blacks love to celebrate their Blackness and Whites love to celebrate their Whiteness. But as we have seen in history this can lead to problems. England is a White country and Black are immigrants. And it is quite right that many Blacks actually feel more affinity for Africa than they do UK. So what they really feel in their heart is that Africa is home. So when a White person says "Go Home" they know perfectly well what it means, it means listen to your heart. The mistake the White person may make is to think that all Black people feel strong affinity for Africa. But this is the mistake that MOBO awards make that plenty of Black people make White music and your skin colour actually has nothing to do with the music you make or like. Soul music is often thought by Blacks to be Black music but what nonsense is this. Music can't have a colour and anyone can learn any music. "Blacks have rhythm" is actually a racist thing to say, but many Blacks themselves effectively believe and promote this racial stereotype. Its going to be a long and tough struggle when everyone is as racist as everyone else. Hard for a Black to appeal to "racism" when they to their core are as racist as the next person. "Racism" is nonsense there is no such thing. If we want to freedom to respect racial and ethnic differences them immigrants must also acknowledge that they are immigrants in a country that does things differently. If something is Black and African then something is White and English. And if you live in England then you live in a White country. There are two sides to everything.

So in summary there are 2 ways to go about this. (1) is to focus on equality and ban the promotion of racial and ethnic differences. This means MOBO Awards get banned. Music is just music and everyone can appreciate everyone's music without reference to anything ethnic or racial. The music of England is just the music of the people in England it is no longer African or Welsh or Classical. But the moment people want to appeal to ethnicity or region then unfortunately White England becomes a feature too and immigrants become different from their mother country. If they are happy to accept that they are foreigners with a different culture from another place then this makes sense, but the moment that people from other countries and cultures want to someone think that this is more important than the country and culture they live in then there is going to be obvious friction. Why the local people will argue should be accept you if you will not accept us. I think this is essentially the problem the Jews have. They think its fine to move to a country and just set up little Judah without any reference to the land in which they settle. But the local people will say if you do not have any respect or regard for and our ways of life then why should we respect Judah?

This is actually an act of war. When an invading people seek to bulldoze the local people out of the way and just replace them with their own world view they will meet extremely strong armed resistance. This is war. Normally when you immigrate to a country you engage in a complex interaction with the local people which changes you and them. Everyone plays the game, everyone respects everyone, everyone is interested in everyone, everyone cooperates. But the moment an immigrant groups refuses to change or interact then they will be repelled. Again if you won't change then why should we. So the resistance the Jews always experience is really just  reflection of the intensity and stubbornness of their own identity. Its been such a problem of the centuries that the only solution the Zionists can think of is just to isolate themselves in a country and kick out everyone else. Not an unfamiliar solution if we look at what the Nazis tried to do.

So really the only way forward is for everyone to have a bit more respect for everyone else. Not cry "racism" the first time anyone stereotypes you negatively. If everyone who thinks they've experienced racism is honest they will realise that this just reflects their own strong attachment to their own identity and their secret rejection of other people. If you reject other people, they will reject you. You may think its harmless to lock yourself away in some community but that rejection of other people is the seed from which your persecution will come. It's quite logical. You reject other people, they will reject you. A community is a complex thing requiring give and take.

I'm not sure the current climate here in UK is really improving things. All I can see is people becoming ever more obsessed about their racial and ethnic identity. One day this is going to extend to the White English majority and when they start making programs about Whites and the English I think the immigrants are going to start to feel very disempowered and regret their obsession with their difference.

 

Tuesday, 12 October 2021

Cryptocurrency is Capitalism and so suffers from the same problems as Capitalism

https://insights.glassnode.com/bitcoin-supply-distribution/?fbclid=IwAR0C6lvTv8sgDQpd7gOp-5bz3Iv-Zlkz0qZswJ72NgJLPtC6SMFbsIvtsIw

Crypto currency is much touted as the saviour of the masses rescuing them from the corrupt elite banking system but unfortunately it works by free market and so obey Pareto Distribution (80:20 rule) and so is inherently unequal and unfair. In Bitcoin in Feb 2021 2% controlled 71.5% meaning 98% squabble over the remaining 28.5%. And this will just get worse and worse cos the shrimps are most likely to need their money and so sell, and the humpbacks most likely to have gained spare cash and so invest. Whatever the benefits of Crypto they are being reaped by the wealthy. One day people will realise that the problem is Capitalism itself and Adam Smith was the Prophet of the most evil system ever launched on the human race.

Mandelbrot Fixed points, Non-Self and Poverty

Have I never blogged on this before?

Firstly what have fixed points to do with poverty? It's to do with Self. It is hypothesised that the experience of "self" is an artefact that occurs when the brain tries to process its own output. At the singularity you have Descartes and similar meditations where the direct output like "thoughts" or even "consciousness" is being taken as input. It is quite an illusion even the great Descartes took the self to be a real thing.

I struggle with Heiddeggar's Dasein. For him "mineness" and "thereness" are essential features of Dasein. There is truth to this, but we must be careful not to go too far and instate a "self" that is "me" and "here." "Thereness" suggests, if we are not careful, that there is something "here." And "mineness" suggests, if we are not careful, that there is an owner or a thinker or doer-- the same mistake made by Descartes.

The truth is that we don't need to add anything to the world it is exactly as it already is. The whole problem with Western Civilisation is that it feels the need to "add" something. That something is a mistake.

This is most obvious when we think about our own death. For me the essence of the mistake is the sense that death "takes us away from the party." We think "oh no when I die I never get to see the world again, I must say good bye to everyone, and I will never get to see or enjoy all the things I look forward to in the future." He's a silly example. I want to see Halley's Comet but there is a good chance I will die before it comes around again. In this sense Death will rob me of seeing Halley's Comet. But this is the essence of the mistake that the "mental fixed point" creates. If we look very carefully where am I? So we can study Buddhism and we can intellectually understand that there is no self - I mean point at it? Its no where. And yet the mystery thing still owns everything. It owns that realisation, it owns qualities like its a success or a failure, it owns memories and experiences and it even owns its consciousness. In Buddhism the phantom thing its even looking forward to getting Enlightened! What a ridiculous dream that is. How can something that doesn't exist get enlightened! And even when we think great I understand that I don't exist am I enlightened yet, we are still looking to own. The whole world is illuminated by this lighthouse of shines from "My Self." But look again the light doesn't come from the lighthouse: it comes from the World (sort of - that doesn't produce light either but 1st things first). There is no need to invent a Private Personal Lighthouse to illuminate the world, it just does it all by itself. It is not ours. There is no need for a Self! Its an illusion that comes from fixed points. So Death robs us of nothing cos nothing was owned in the first place. And my future and the things I look forward to that will never happen when I die were never mine in the first place. There is no loss, because there was never anyone gaining. We firmly just let the world be without adding anything. All those monuments, and gravestones to people as though "someone" was actually lost are a mistake. Indeed the person is no longer with us, but there is no "loss." That sense of loss comes from a fixation on a fixed point. The fixed points of self is not just ours, but we project onto other people too. We think inside them is an unchanging singularity that fixes them in the world, around which their world rotates. An absolute point by which space and time are measured relative to them. Its an illusion created by fixed points.

And what has that to do with poverty and this blog. Well if there is no one to own anything then there is no such thing as wealth and poverty. There is just the world. 

And so to Mandelbrot fixed points. A quick rendition of the famous set. C -> C^2+P where C and P are complex numbers (a+b i) with P being a constant which becomes the position in the 2D array of the set. Black are points which are stable or remain finite, and the colours are the number of cycles taken for C to explode out beyond 2.


If we initialise C=P then the 1st order fixed point solves: P= P^2+P. In other words simply the root of P^2=0.
If we expand this:
a^2 - b^2 + 2 a b i
So the root solves the system: {a= a^2 - b^2, b=2ab} which has just one value (0,0).
Indeed b=ai also solves this but we want only real values.
Now 2nd Order solves (iterating 1ce) gives a second Fixed point at (-1, 0).
3rd Order ((P^2+P)^2+P)^2+P=P:

(0, 0), (-1.75488, 0), (-0.122561, -0.744862), (-0.122561, 0.744862)

Here are the 5 fixed points found so far up to Order 3 circled in white.




As can be seen there is a bifurcation with each iteration. It is a bifurcation because this is a square function and so the root proliferate by an order of 2. The fixed points are the stable points. I wonder if this root finding exercise was continued to infinity it would find all the points in the set (the black points).


All the real roots/fixed points of the Mandelbrot 6th iteration. Solving the equation:
(((((a + b i)^2 + (a + b i))^2 + (a + b i))^2 + (a + b i))^2 + (a + b i))^2 + (a + b i) == 0

But what everyone is most interested in, cos of the pretty patterns, is the behaviour of the points that are unstable and escape to infinity (the coloured points). There is continuous behaviour here as they seem linked by contours of same escape value (the bands) that orbit the fixed points. I'll just note here that these patterns are created around the fixed points and the need to obey the fixed points is what gives fractals their structure. And so I hypothesis it is with much more complex dynamic systems like the brain. The fixed points that occur when self-reflecting provide the structure around which thought and human experience orbit. But they are just artefacts of a dynamic system. And that gives us an insight into not taking them so seriously. Things like the fixed point of self are just artefacts they are not fundamental. 

 


Done it: proof that Jewish thinking is limited. Spent most of the day avoiding triggering ChatGPT but it got there.

So previously I was accused of Anti-Semitism but done carefully ChatGPT will go there. The point in simple terms is that being a Jew binds y...