i'm one with the universe and you're not: group and individual

Ever wonder if the much-discussed division between the individual on one hand and the collective group on the other is a false division, a false dichotomy?

It seems fairly obvious to me that we are all interconnected with the people, things and world around us, and that what we do usually seems to come back to us through some sort of cause and effect. Therefore, i would claim that there is no point in trying to separate oneself from the universal oneness, or to harbor illusions of making one's personal separate consciousness immortal, because we are irreversibly part of the universal oneness just as a consequence of being alive, and there is no other way to be.

At the same time, those individualists who still feel uncomfortable with this should not dispair. Taking some vocabulary from certain turn-of-the-century British heroin-addicted brewery heirs, I think it might make sense to talk about the idea of the "True Self". According to this theory similar to that of Rousseau, we can say that whatever it is that gives your True Self its jollies is in line with everybody else's True Self anyway. The stuff you think you want to do that goes against other people is probably not your True Self, in this idea. I don't have any more proof for this than certain British heroin junkies did, but I figure it's about as good as any a way to trick yourself into doing what's best for you and everyone else in the long term -- and I do believe it is better in the LONG long term to be moral.

(i'm using some relatively esoteric terms here, and i hope you don't mind -- i got the "True Self" stuff from the crazy-ass Thelemites -- not that i'm into that, don't freak out. i've just been poking around the net looking for religious perspectives on individuality and the whole.)

Now, you may think the True Self stuff is a bunch of bullshit and that only the regular old self -- which has desires contrary to others -- actually exists. Okay, whatever -- i can't argue metaphysics that well. But for me personally (so to speak), Buddhism and personal experience have both shown me that following this normal everyday self after its every passing whim and screech for immidiate indulgence is not going to make me happy, and is not my idea of a viable religious-philosophical path.

At any rate, i figure that even if there is no such thing as a True Self out there on the astral plane eating Doritos with Aiwass, then i still don't see why we people can't find some balance between what we all want to some degree that we're all -- not really "only sort of happy," that's not what i mean -- but satisfactorally happy, to the extent that whatever other things you want can be forgotten about. Most of the stuff we want is not stuff that we actually need to live, and only the necessary stuff will be too insistent on our desires. Even if nobody really wanted to, as it turns out, reality all by its fucking self makes us compromise with each other and with certain external factors anyway, in terms of getting what we want.

If one's True Self -- or however you think of it -- does not truly desire anything (at least to a pressing degree) that would stand in the way of anyone else's True Self (and again, i can't prove this is true, but i figure that some balance can be achieved) then how is that different that being absorbed into the Right-Hand-Path Brahma-plasma that all the Randians are so scared of?

i had an idea a while ago. i think maybe the Buddhists and others are right -- that the individual ego, or self, is indeed the thing that most hampers one's own freedom, and that to be truly free, one must be free of this ego. However, i wonder if maybe the only person that can free one from one's ego is oneself.

By this i mean, only you can free you from yourself. No government or religious hierarchy or any outside authority (to use everyday, samsara terms) can get rid of the atman-monkey riding on your back but you. i am drawn to this idea because it's paradoxical, which means i don't understand it, and since i don't understand it, i can pretend i do. Or is that paradoxical?

After you have been liberated from all outside tyranny and oppression, the single most oppressive force acting to keep you enslaved -- unhappy and with your full potential unrealized -- is yourself. But while authorites have tried to save people from themselves -- or at least pretended to while fleecing them -- that doesn't work. When you've been freed of everything else, there is still the chains of yourself, and paradoxically, only you can break them.

At any rate, i don't like government or authority too much -- although i'm holding off on proclaiming myself an anarchist because of the suspicion that some of this necessary evil might in fact be necessary. And no, I don't particularly want the "mob" or "herd" to keep me from doing things I want that don't hurt anybody. I never said the masses weren't stupid -- it's just that we're all part of the masses, and we're all about equally as stupid when you look at every part of the IQ test. Most of the time, though, I've noticed that "mob" actions to keep free-spirited individualist hippie mallgoths (not too much unlike myself in spirit) from burning the flag and smoking weed while having sex with same-gender partners -- or to keep black people from voting, to use a more important example -- there usually is some sort of small, elite group or elite individual behind the whole oppression. I can't say this is always true in history, but I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find a "poor-majority-oppressing-the-Nietzschean-minority" without some other Nietzschean minority egging the majority on.

I could probably write a whole damn book about why elitism in general is wrong. Or, if "wrong" rubs you wrong", we can use Buddhist terminology more digestible for nihilists -- let's say "unskillful", not to mention irrational. No, I do not think we should keep down individuals' natural talents like Diana Moon Glompers in the story "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut I just think that no one can be trusted totally with deciding for the course of another's life, and that we have no neutrally objective way of deciding who should be the Nietzschean god-kings fit to rule the sheep. Because of these considerations, we must allow each individual to have as much say over his or her own life as socially possible, with some sort of democratic-ish compromise taking place in whatever situations where we must act collectively or interact with others' personal space.

But what if the "sheep" are not fit to rule themselves after all? Well, I would ask this: if you aren't going to feel good enough about most people to let them rule themselves, then why would you care about them enough to try to rule them for their own good? If you would rule people with an iron fist, you are at least misanthropic enough to leave them alone and let them ruin their own lives. If you care enough about them to want to rule them for their own good, then (a) you would let them rule themselves, and (b) you wouldn't be under the elitist-crowd-hater umbrella anyway. Why would such an altruist wuss let people rule themselves? Because said wuss would not consider him- or herself up to the task of ruling them -- 'cause after all, nihilists as well as bible-thumpers and jaded half-buddhists are pessimistic about human nature, including one's own. And if you're not pessimistic in this way (though i think one should be pessimistic) then one would believe in democracy for the old lefty reasons.

Suffice to say that it doesn't seem to make sense to uphold individualism for the blessed Ubermensch few and then turn around and say that, since nature doesn't care about individuals, we should feel free to eugenically prune the societal tree anytime the philosopher kings think that some random so-and-so has bad genes to blame for falling short of the Zaranthusra/Fountainhead ideal. Triage will be triage as far as utilitarian necessity goes in dire survival situations. This, however, does not mean kill the cross-eyed guy.Oh, yeah; since when is any society in the world at large primarily controlled at present by the power of sheep keeping the Zaranthusras down? Seems to me like we have plenty of elitism in society as it is. Or if you think it's not elitist enough, you probably would agree that most people are selfish enough. Whether you think that's good, bad or indifferent, widespread selfishness does not denote that the masses have been kept from embracing Nietzschean dreams by christian ideas like Nietzsche thought.

Speaking of Nietzsche and company, it should be noted that his nth-generation acolyte LaVey admitted that his own whole Halloween setup was just Ayn Rand with spooky rituals - you dress it in a suit and call the devil God, and you got yourself a Republican think-tank. You might not think that's bad, but think - nobody can function going through life without any delayed gratification, which is really what any rational right-hand-path "abstinence" is all about. The same with forgiveness versus revenge: sure you can defend yourself if your life is in danger, and in some select cases it might be judged expedient to retaliate to stop further attacks. But on the whole, an eye for an eye really does make the whole goddamn world blind, not to mention fucking up the middle east with all the religious-war shit I thought Nietzsche and co. looked down on.

In the end, I'll just go back to my Ninja-Turtles-level understanding of the yin and yang and say, hey, it's a balance of opposites. Individuals need each other, and the "collective" -- to whatever extent it exists -- needs individuals to make it up. And I still like the idea that no one can free you from yourself but you.


-----

"Of old there were certain things that realized oneness:/ The heavens in realizing oneness became clear;/ The earth in realizing oneness became stable;/ The numinous in realizing oneness became animated ... Thus for something to be noble it must take the humble as its root;/ For something to be high it must take the low as its foundation."

Daodejing Chapter 39

a minor note on the labor theory of value (not long enough to be boring)

The following -- after the astericks and in italics in this blog -- comes from the geolibertarianism FAQ that i have a link to in my "links" section. It discusses the land value tax (LVT), which means a 100% tax on all rents taken from land, ideally to replace all other taxes:

* * * * *

7. Isn't the LVT based on Karl Marx's labor theory of value?
No. Karl Marx’s labor theory of value asserts that the value of an object is a result of the labor expended to produce it. Henry George flat-out rejected this view:
"It is never the amount of labor that has been exerted in bringing a thing into being that determines its value, but always the amount of labor that will be rendered in exchange for it." -- The Science of Political Economy, p. 253
Why, then, do some mistakenly identify Marx's labor theory of value as being one of the core premises of the LVT? Because many LVT-advocates often describe land value as being produced by the community, and, in so doing, unwittingly sacrifice clarity for brevity. What they actually mean is this. It's not that members of the surrounding community produce land value itself, but that they produce the goods and services which give rise to that value. Max Hirsch put it this way:
"The value of labour-products is the measure of the service which their rightful owner has rendered to the community. The value of land is the measure of the service which the community is expected to render to the owners of land." -- Democracy vs. Socialism, p. 348

* * * * *

I'd always based my core ideas about property rights on something similar to, or derived from, an admittedly vulgar understanding of the labor theory of value. As a note, i have to agree with the above that, yes, strictly speaking labor does not actually determine the value that others will pay for an item of property in a market exchange.
However, i consider this to be a determination of price rather than value as such. What i personally mean when i think about labor bringing forth the value of produced property, i mean its use for people. That is, you cannot make use of some material from nature until you expend some energy -- some labor -- in bringing it somehow out of nature, essentially "producing" a finished product. I think this would probably include, although obviously to a small extent, even the labor expended to pick an apple off a tree, for example -- in addition to, say, taking metal from the ground to make automobiles or whatever. So technically, both George and Marx are correct.

update on the buddhism thing (remember that?)

If you look over my postings (if anyone is looking, or if anyone cares for some unknown reason), you will see that many of my early postings had to do with my exploration into Buddhism and my questions regarding that. Then, you'd have seen that i switched after a while to talk about other topics equally as hippie-related, but not Buddhist. You may have wondered if i gave the whole thing up (again, if you're reading and if you care). you might even have chalked it down to me using buddhism as a passing fad that a stupid spoiled hippie brat doesn't have the discipline to stick with. You're probably right, but i'll get to that.
Basically, several things happened. First, i've gone through a period when i didn't force myself to meditate very much, because i am undisciplined and have a short attention span (exactly what meditation would help if i did it, of course). You see, because i'd rather my parents not find out i'm meditating (they freaked when i became a born-again christian in high school), so i have to meditate when they don't know, usually at night, since during the day i want to do other stuff anyway. but at night, i like to stay up -- either hanging with my friends or, if at home, watching Adult Swim on Cartoon Network or even typing on the Internet like i am now :-). When i get done with that, it's ususally later than i should stay up for sleep reasons (at least on weeknights), and so i go to bed without meditating so i get enough sleep to function. And yes, i've wondered if i should give up adult swim altogether (i typed the first part of this now before it comes on; the second time, as i am sitting down to finish this on a different night, it is Friday and Adult Swim isn't on). The basic point is that i don't really want to meditate.
Also, when i do try to meditate, i don't or can't concentrate at all, which i know is normal, but still.
i can blame this all on my undiscipline (which is undoubtably part of it), but it doesn't help that i have real reservations. While some Buddhist apologists claim that "real" Buddhism addresses these reservations, the problems still appear widespread. Some problems:

1. The problem with the whole Third Noble Truth, the end of craving and suffering, becoming an arhat or buddha. i admit, i still don't know the difference between nirvana and satori, but basically, i do not believe it is possible to get rid of all the craving, desire, aversion, and ignorance that leads to suffering. i am convinced that these are the causes, but do not think we can short-circuit them completely. Most troubling, the basic gist of this teaching is that when one becomes totally awakened in this way, one no longer does wrong deeds -- one is basically infallible. Now, the only buddhists i know of that do not believe in this nirvana are those in the Japanese school of Soto Zen -- and even in their case, i don't know if all Soto folks disbelieve in nirvana or just downplay its importance. Brad Warner, a Soto Zen guy , insists that this infallibility and total cessation of craving is a load of bullshit, as is so obvious. His Japanese teacher, Gudo Nishijima, teaches this too, though again, i don't know if all the Soto teachers do. Of course, there are several kind of agnostic western Buddhists who don't believe in this either, like that guy (Stephen? or Richard?) Bachelor and that British dude who wrote The New Buddhism. Being western hippies, though, they of course do not represent the authentic teachings of anybody ever.

2. Sometimes i feel really bad about this next point. i just don't think it is even a good idea to totally get rid of all desire or aversion, even if it were possible. i mean, obviously you can't just live like anton lavey or a standard authority figure and just do whatever you want -- like i said, i know craving and aversion are the sources of suffering.
i just think that in the right situations, they may be good or even necessary in small, controlled doses, and the point is learning to control them and try to see things as they really are -- selfless and interconnected -- so that we can do that. Now, i've read before that some ancient eastern sages -- i don't remember who -- have taught that it is sometimes necessary to go against the rules of the Eightfold Noble Path in order to act ethically in some situations. i'm not sure if this is the same thing as what i'm leaning toward. Some western Buddhists have jumped on this too -- James H. Austin, author of Zen and the Brain, says (to paraphrase majorly) that when the big ego is taken out of the picture, a smaller, unobtrusive ego remains. Again, i don't know how orthodox that is.

3. Kind of related to the above is the idea of intrinsic goodness in human nature, which is more crap. i hate that whole question, because although i tend to agree with political conservatives that human nature is nasty, i find myself leaning policy-wise and ideal-wise toward the leftist stuff that supposedly depends for its bedrock on the buddhistic idea of a good human nature.
Actually, to be more specific: i sort of doubt human nature can totally be known, and to the extent i think it can be, i don't believe that this human nature is totally sinful or nasty like in Christian original sin (although the original-sin doctrine has an obvious grain of truth, i agree with the Rouseauian chimp-lovers that the doctrine overall is fucked up --- Augustine of Hippo was basically an over-intellectual dweeb like me, and since when do people like us know anything?) I kind of lean toward the Jewish idea of a dual human nature, the yetzer ha-tov and the yetzer ha-ra, the good nature and bad nature respectively.
In short, i believe people are basically self-centered and individualistic, but that they also have instincts for group preservation and for attachment to other individuals. Such self-giving instincts can be especially strengthened when it is in the best interest of the individual to do what's best for others. i think thatin the long run (particularly when dealing with whatever happens after death; call it a hunch), it truly is in the best interests of the individual to care for others, since from a truly objective standpoint, we are all interconnected and lacking essential selfhood. i suspect that human self-preservation instincts may be turned in the direction of this larger interconnected-hippie-holistic-whole to some extent, but not entirely. But again, who cares what i think? i'm the fucking reincarnation of fucking Saint Augustine the Hippie of Hippo or something.

Oaybe it doesn't matter if some of these original authentic teachings of Buddhism are wrong, and we hippies can just choose those parts of the teachings we do believe. However, if we do that, then (a) why call it Buddhism? and (b) how will we know how much of the proverbial baby's bathwater to throw out?
Also, most feedback i've gotten from reading has tended to say that you gotta pick a spiritual path and stick to it, without all that New Age mixing-and-matching, which is basically undisciplined bourgeois shit with no deep understanding of any one tradition. Fine, but if we leave out whatever we want, how is that different?
Plus, if Buddhism is not "the true religion", then what does meditation actually accomplish? It doesn't bring us to nirvana, 'cause that doesn't exist. Brad Warner and the Soto Zen school say meditation should be done for its own sake, because meditation essentially is enlightenment. i've kind of been operating on this theory when i have been meditating. i guess i'll stick with that, even as i wonder if it does me any good. That probably means it's not a sin if i decide i don't want to meditate before i go to sleep tonight, and that somehow makes me more receptive to the notion.
Oh, my Marine friend in the guard with the Purple Heart is risking his life, so none of this bourgeois spiritual-search crap of mine actually matters. But hey, it's a fucking blog.

fyi

i'm not whining or complaining, and i don't expect anybody (if anybody sees this blog) to care, but i figured i ought to record that my father currently has cancer. He's getting chemo and radiation (he started today), and he's in good health otherwise. like i said, i'm not boo-hooing (i'm staying optimistic, at least as far as not thinking about it too much). just thought it ought to be recorded for cyber-posterity.

A thought experiment on the war on terror

There's no point, I've decided long ago, for me personally to belabor whether the war in Iraq is justified or not. It's happening, and it's not gonna stop from kids protesting. I've probably stated somewhere that I (honestly!) have a legitimate medical condition that prohibits me from joining the military. (Okay, I take Paxil for obsessive-compulsive disorder). Since I'm not fighting, and my friend Chris is, for me to criticize the war could disappoint him and would just make me look bad. However, since I'm not fighting, and my friend Chris is, there is no way I can stand on the sidelines like a college Republican chickenhawk and talk about the Iraq war being a noble cause. Personally, in my heart I wouldn't mind every Iraqi dying if my friend Chris were guaranteed to come home safe -- even though in my brain, I know that Iraqis are just human beings too and I wish them well. My personal feelings on that matter do not add to my internal debate on the war's overall justification. Therefore, no point in me weighing in either way.

As regards the larger U.S.-led war on Islamic terrorists (remember that), my feelings are similar but maybe a bit more chickenhawk. I don't want any other Americans to get blown up by terrorists, and if bombing Afghanistan is necessary to keep that from happening, my reptilian brain considers that acceptable. There is the question of whether bombing innocent civilians across the ocean actually will reduce terrorist attacks on Americans, but again, I'm just a hippie with a medical deferral, so whatever my opinion is is probably wrong.

Having no opinion on the war on terror or the war in Iraq, I nonetheless thought I'd do a little thought experiment. This thought experiment is specifically for supporters of the war, but will hopefully help clarify the thinking of the opponents of the war as well. The experiment I've come up with will probably seem most relevant to American conservatives who, like me, live in the "red states" (God bless Ohio!). The point of this experiment is to help pro-war fellow Americans see why anyone in their right mind might oppose the war on terror/Iraq war.

In this experiment, I'd like you to imagine that the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks happened during the presidency of Bill Clinton. Instead of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, let's say it was the United Nations building that was hit with airplanes, with thousands of people killed (I don't know off the top of my head if the UN building holds thousands, but I assume it does). Also -- and this is most important -- instead of Muslims from oversees, the attacks were orchestrated and performed by American members of the Christian Identity movement.

The Christian Identity movement was semi-big news in the '90s. They were a white-supremacist movement who considered themselves to be Christian. The basis of their beliefs was that the original Israelites had been white people, that Christianity is a religion meant only for white people, that modern Jews are basically just faking being Israelites so they can go about their liberal-elite-Jewish-banker-Communist-world-domination plot. They think nonwhites are bad, et cetera -- you've heard this before. They also hold what has come to be seen as basically conservative Christian positions on culture-war issues -- they oppose abortion as murder and they hate gays. They're some of the folks you heard who blew up the abortion clinics and gay bars in the '90s.

Anyway, when the Christian Identity people pilot planes into the New York UN building, killing thousands, everybody in the country is pretty upset. The victims included not only a bunch of foreign diplomats and Frenchies we don't normally care much about, but also regular Americans we do normally care about -- I don't know, maybe they were in the buildings next door. Okay, so all Americans (and foreign people) are upset by this, even conservative Americans -- they may have never liked the UN much, but hey, people are people, and they really didn't need to get killed -- plus real Americans died too. The segment of the American populace most pissed off, though, is the American liberals, who clamor for harsh measures to be taken against the so-called "redneck terrorists." Bill Clinton -- who just recently, let's say, won a very close election with a big 'ol hanging chad controversy -- comes on TV and announces to America and the world that the terrorists will be punished. "These terrorists tried to destroy the unity of nations," Clinton says, "but the world stands together as one, stronger than ever. Whoever is not with this united world is against us."

To this end, Clinton and the surviving delegates of the UN and represented countries form a military alliance. Bomber planes -- maybe U.S. planes under a UN mandate, whatever -- are sent to drop bombs on the hideouts of the Christian Identity movement remote wilderness areas of the Southern and Western United States. Of course, many people who are not in Christian Identity are killed and/or seriously injured by the bombings, but the people in the blues states figure that -- and I quote a New York editorial from this imaginary parallel universe -- "It's them or us. Besides, it is widely known that these rednecks are known to hold several ideas similar to those of Christian Identity -- they may not bomb abortion clinics or gay bars, but they do oppose abortion and gay rights. Plus, all those ignorant people want if they got what they want would be a theocracy that would oppress women." So goes the logic, and the bombing continues.

Soon Clinton moves troops -- UN, U.S., take your pick -- into the bombed areas to apprehend and neutralize those of the right-wing terrorists who remain from the bombing runs. Picture the whole shebang with curfews, mistaken shootings, maybe some prisoner mistreatment -- you get the idea. Then Clinton gets a big idea. There is another racist group, called the World Church of the Creator. The name is misleading, because unlike Christian Identity, the World Church of the Creator folks do not consider themselves Christian -- the Creator the name refers to is the white race. Clinton produces some evidence that World Church has been working with Christian Identity and may have even helped the UN attack. Some protests are heard, saying that World Church doesn't even like Christianity, while Christian Identity considers Hitler -- whom the World Churchers admire -- to be too pagan and socialistic. Some find it hard to believe these two groups, bad as they each are, would work together. Nonetheless, Clinton insists the two groups' shared hatred of nonwhites, of the United Nations, and of liberalism in general means that they would cooperate despite their differences. Thus, Clinton sends planes and troops in blue helmets to attack and occupy World Church of the Creator bases throughout the country, killing more innocents, largely in the red states, and taking troops and resources away even from Christian Identity areas. Through all this, people in the areas under military pressure are subjected to the whole curfew-shooting-thing, especially if they are known to be religiously conservative Christians. After all, New Yorkers and Angelenos do not know how many Christian Identity racists are hiding behind the facade of supposedly innocent non-racist Christianity. Conservative Christian leaders protest that not all born-again or evangelical Christians are racist -- in fact, the vast majority are not racist at all, listening to DC Talk and all that. But in vain. Meanwhile, non-Christian conservatives (lower-tax agnostic minarchists, Jews like David Horowitz, et cetera) begin to protest what is being done to their Christian political brethren. In response, several liberal pundits and citizens speculate that these secular conservatives may have more in common with those religious and/or racist terrorists than they let on. "If you're not with us of the united world against the redneck terrorists, you're against us," the liberals say. Furthermore, many liberals insist that Clinton is by far the greatest president ever, and applaud his faith in one world of love. Through all this, conservatives of all stripes -- both non-terrorist, non-racist Christians and secular-minded conservatives -- honestly feel nothing but contempt for those racist killers, but it is so obvious that the liberals and Clinton and the UN are out of control ...

I could go on with this imaginary description, I guess, but I don't think I need to. If you who are reading this are a conservative and/or support the current war on terror and/or war in Iraq, this description is not expected nor intended to change your mind. However, it just might help you see that liberals who oppose the war and criticize the administration of George W. Bush are not necessarily conspiring with bin Laden to destroy America. If you're an opponent of the war and of Bush, please do not think I am on your side, either. And finally -- yes, I am aware that the current real war does not have blue-states being bombed, so of course my thought experiment is not perfectly analogous. I did not intend to suggest that blue-staters under Bush have suffered at all like the foreigners killed in the war on terror (as well as our own American soldiers, of course). I just wanted you conservatives to see how a hippie like me -- not me, but like me -- could come to the conclusion that the war on terror could be wrong without being evil. That's all.