Masters of the Universe

 
Technology takes us away from our true nature. The further we get from our true nature, the more lost we become.

The will - the universe, the life-force, the all, God - expresses all of its possibilities in its many manifestations. Things clash, bite, swoop, soar, glide, drop, run, trickle. Things are rooted, immovable; flowing and unplaceable.

Each manifestation is blessed with certain potentialities; certain things that it is "adapted" for, or meant to do. The Swallow is expert at gliding over the water but not at swimming on it. The Duck is not so agile in the air, but is good on the water.

The form of a 'thing' shows us what it is meant to do: its nature is displayed in its appearance.

Humans, as with all other creatures, have a certain range of potentialities; a nature. Our hands allow us to grab and manipulate, our legs to run; and so on. As with other things, there are limits to our potential; borders to our nature.

Our technology has allowed us to transcend our limits. 

Lacking wings, we cannot fly. It is not in our nature. And so we come up with devices that allow us to get round this limitation.

Through technology we mimic the potentialities of all other things. We go beyond the borders of our own nature - as defined by our bodies - and become something else. One way of seeing this is that we are like a child who has been given a gift. We are pleased with our gift, but notice that other children have also been given gifts, and that they are different to our own. We wonder about them and, slowly but surely, begin to covet them.

Through technology we aspire to become everything.

We are now king of the jungle. We have secured the top spot at the table. We are less at the mercy of our environment, more able to defend ourselves from danger. This appears to be a good thing for the individual; if we define "good" as being that which allows the individual - in the here and now - to live longer and more comfortably. It appears to be good for the species because it allows us to dominate the scene.

But this definition of "good" is fundamentally short-sighted. It is "good" in the way that junk food is "good"; in other words, good in the now. It gets lost in the taste of things, but does not see the long-term harm that these things will do.

The further we stray from our true nature, the bigger mess we find ourselves in. We do not understand the larger balance, and cannot hope to replicate it through technology. As we get further and further away from our nature, we are faced with more and more problems; and our answer is to medicate these problems with technology; high-tech short-term solutions that - being more technology - only serve to take us ever further away.

And so more problems spring up. Our answer: more technology!

In this way we find ourselves on an endless downwards spiral; no sooner have we patched up one hole then another two appear. Our battle is endless, and will always be endless. This is because of a simple truth that we refuse to collectively accept: that no amount of technology - regardless of how advanced it is - will allow us to reach the peak of the mountain from where we can see it all and understand it all.

No amount of technology will allow us to become God.

So whilst technology continues to be good for us - as individuals in the here and now - we are on a time limit. Just as a person can get away with eating junk food for a time without any serious consequences, eventually their bad habits will catch up with them. In acting in the interests of the individual in the here and now - in acting with a short-term mindset - we are neglecting the long-term picture. In practical terms, our short-sighted self-interest has negative consequences for our environment. We are fine - for now - but everything around us suffers.

The mind fools itself into thinking that it is fine, whilst the body slowly deteriorates.

Just as the person consuming junk food is "fine" - in other words - can go on consuming junk food - we, collectively, appear to be fine. This is because - like the junk food addict - we are choosing to ignore the signs that something is wrong. There are signs everywhere, but we cannot face them because they may force us to change our habits. Above all, we want to continue as we are: to go on eating, tasting, enjoying.

But there is only so much junk that a body can take. It will, eventually, give in.

We can define an organism as a system of 'things' that depend upon each other for their individual survival. The cells and organs of a body need each other; and we, as the body, need them. Inasmuch as we are reliant upon our environment for our survival - the creatures and life that surrounds us - then our organism expands to include all of this.

We are part of a larger 'body' - and we are taxing it to its limits.

It will give in.

And where will that leave the individual in the here and now?

Our answer to this threat is technology. We eat bad food and when problems arise we medicate them. And then we eat more bad food. More problems? More medication. We endlessly patch up a faulty machine. But there is only so much patching up we can do before the machine becomes irreparable.

We attempt to sever our reliance upon our environment - through technology - but lack the wisdom and insight to build a sustainable alternative. In jettisoning our current environment we assume the role of gods; but we do not see that compared to the wisdom of nature - the wisdom that permeates all things in the universe - we are merely hopeless children with expensive toys and inflated notions.

The answer to our problems is always staring us in the face; and it is simple. But it is the answer that none of us want to hear: stop eating junk food!

How we view this is probably dependent upon how far out we draw our borders. If our concern stretches no further than ourselves or our immediate family then we will not see the problem with any of this. Because, as we have seen, technology is good for the individual in the here and now.

We might be able to get away with our bad habits. But in doing so we pass a terrible legacy on to our children. We show them that we were too weak to defeat our addiction, and we pass the responsibility on to them. This is our gift to them.

The point will come when our body will give in: when we will have taxed our environment to the point where it can no longer support us.

Technology leads us down a never-ending spiral and at all times the answer is beneath our noses: stop doing the things that are bad for us.

We must remember our true nature.

We must stop running away from it - with all of its vulnerabilities - and come to terms with it.

Amongst other things, this means coming to terms with limitations, and ultimately, death. We must stop trying to defeat it, stop trying to lengthen our lives. Stop taking for granted that a longer life is always a good thing. It is only a good thing to a people that are growing ever more scared of dying.

To do this we must weave a culture that tells different stories. That accepts death and paints it in a positive light. We must create a culture that tells stories which encourage us to lead sustainable lives.

If the mainstream culture will not do this, then it is up to us to create our own sub-cultures - sanctuaries where new stories can be told, and new people created.

It is these people - with our help - that will bring us back to balance.

................................................................................................................................................................................

A trip abroad = a large juicy hamburger
An immersive computer game = a chocolate bar
The internet = a tub of ice cream
A film = a large popcorn

All these things taste good. But what are the long term consequences of our indulgence?

................................................................................................................................................................................

Related posts:-
Lines and Circles
The Real Thing 
Taking the Rough with the Smooth 
Small Scale/Large Scale
Small Mind/Large Mind
Everything is Connected 
The Earth's the Limit 
Part of a System
Guiding Fiction
Re-write It
Rights and Responsibilities
Live Forever?  
Fuck It

Short-term savings, long-term costs

Wal-Mart's lengthy struggle to open in New York City has hit fresh problems -- a controversial report that said America's biggest discounter does not just sell cheap, it makes neighborhoods poorer.

"The overwhelming weight of the independent research on the impact of Wal-Mart stores ... shows that Wal-Mart depresses area wages and labor benefits ... pushes out more retail jobs than it creates, and results in more retail vacancies," [...]

New York City Public Advocate Bill de Blasio calls a possible Wal-Mart store in New York "a Trojan horse."

"It looks appealing to a lot of families who are hurting but it turns into a big problem in the long term because of the net elimination of jobs," de Blasio said.

Despite the poverty in East New York and Brownsville, many residents are against the stores setting up here."It would be a disaster," said Mark Tanis, owner of an East New York shopping market about three miles from a proposed sites. "It would have a detrimental impact on our area."

Tanis said he fears a product he sells for $20 could sell for as little as $12 at Wal-Mart and drive him out of business.

East New York resident Darryl Williams, 43, echoed the view of many, saying, "Cheap things would be nice but if it's true that we'll end up with even fewer jobs, that's not good." Courtney Laidlaw, 22, who lives near the two possible locations said, "We have become a society of bargain shoppers and having a Wal-Mart locally will definitely be beneficial.

"The small businesses that can adapt to the socioeconomic times that we live in will find a way to survive. Wal-Mart is just an alternative destination, not the only destination."

In Brooklyn, one of the loudest anti-Wal-Mart voices has been City Councilman Charles Barron from East New York, who has been leading demonstrations.

"We don't need Wal-Mart (which) has a history of destroying the local economy and hurting it, not helping it," he said.

"Wal-Mart draws ire even in poor parts of Brooklyn", Yahoo News

................................................................................................................................................................................

Related posts:-
Beggars and Choosers

Beggars and Choosers

In a climate of mass unemployment, the "job" takes on inflated proportions. Its scarcity turns it into a precious metal, its possession promising salvation from the miseries of being out of work. Those in employment may feel lucky to have a job, and those who don't have one want one (or are at least told that they should want one). But is to have a job always a "good" thing?

If we are unemployed - and particularly if we are receiving state sponsored benefits - then it can seem as if we have no discretion when it comes to the type of job we do. We must take anything that comes our way, provided we are "capable" of doing it (presumably meaning that we are physically and mentally up to the task, not whether we are morally/ethically capable, or capable in any other sense).

If we follow this line of logic further then we arrive at the conclusion that every job is a worthy job; that every job deserves to exist if for no other reason than that it provides employment for the individual, and means that they no longer have to rely on state benefits. The job allows the individual to become an "functioning" member of the community - to contribute, in a way in which, presumably, the individual on benefits does not contribute.

If we adhere to this view then we must accept its implications. When every job is a worthy one, we accept the incursions that certain roles make into our lives. We are no longer, for example, allowed to become angry when we are bothered by telesales operatives ringing our house. We see that they are only doing their job, and that their job allows them to become an honorable and functioning member of the community. In a sense, we have demanded that they ring our house; just as we have demanded all other possibilities for employment, regardless of how they may impact on our quality of life.

In accepting this viewpoint we have thrown discretion out of the window, both for those who seek employment and for those who may be affected by it. In an environment in which "a job's a job" there is no room for discretion; it becomes a luxury that we cannot afford. Yet, to lose sight of discretion is to lose sight of the larger picture. If we care about our community, our society, and the direction in which it is headed, then discretion must always have a place, and not simply as a luxury of those who can "afford" it. It is illogical to, on the one hand complain about the dysfunction that is caused by certain roles within a society, whilst on the other insisting that "a job's a job" and "beggar's can't be choosers". Perhaps a mark of the responsible society is that everyone can - and should - be a chooser.

If we consider a role to be contributing towards a dysfunction that we see within our local or wider community, then we must not feel compelled to assume this role in order to regain our footing within the community. Whilst, on the surface, our employment may appear to be doing the community a service, it may actually, in the long run, be doing it damage. If it is our duty to the collectivity to keep its interests, as well as our own, in mind, then perhaps we should bear in mind that beggars - as with all others - must always be choosers.

Originally published 25/3/10

................................................................................................................................................................................

A moment’s silence, if you please, to mark the passing of the Big Society.

It had been in poor health for some time, but has finally been put out of its misery by the Work and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, during a TV interview on Sunday. 

A graduate was better employed stacking shelves, unpaid, in a supermarket, Duncan Smith argued, than doing voluntary work for a local museum. 

Duncan Smith was infuriated that an Appeal Court had upheld the case of Cait Reilly, a geology graduate who, in order to get her back-to-work payments, was forced to give up her voluntary work at a museum and stack shelves instead.

The truth is, Reilly had been behaving in precisely the way which Cameron used to recommend. The idea behind the Big Society was that it would wean people off dependency on the State, encourage neighbourliness and bring communities together. Volunteering for things – running a local museum, for example – would show that, beyond the nanny state and the harsh jobs market, there was another world of work where satisfaction mattered more than pay.

For many conservatives, these must have been dangerously liberal thoughts. If people like Cait Reilly began to discover that there was more to life than being an economic unit, then the whole market-based system of values would start to crumble.

Conservatives do love a shelf-stacker. It is a job which represents enterprise in a strangely pure and beautiful way. Successful industrialists like to recall that they started their brilliant careers stacking shelves; perhaps, during his gap year, Duncan Smith did some stacking himself.

“Smart people”, he said this weekend, should ask themselves when they were next unable to find something in a supermarket, whose job is more important – a geologist or a shelf-stacker.

An out-of-work person is better employed doing unpaid grunt-work so that a multinational business makes bigger profits, the thinking goes, than working in her community.

If the Big Society had meant anything, then the back-to-work scheme would have put real emphasis on the voluntary sector. It is there that job-seekers are most likely to learn useful values – a sense of engagement and responsibility.

As “smart people”, they might also conclude that being told to stack shelves for the benefit of Poundland in return for a government benefit is little more than an exercise in cynicism and exploitation.

[Terence Blacker]
From Independent 'i' newspaper, see here

................................................................................................................................................................................

Related posts:-
Short-term savings, long-term costs
Ownership 
Rights and Responsibilities
Negative Space
A Mature Society? 
Individual v Environment
Short term v Long term 
Addiction: the short and long of it 
Get Real

Search the Depths

[...] sometimes I feel that clients' complaints are similar to koans, at least for the therapist. 

One of the famous koans is: "Bringing both hands together quickly produces a clap. What is the sound with one hand?"  

It is obvious to anyone that you don't get the answer by rational thinking.

................................................................................................................................................................................

It seems as though a koan is given to create an opportunity to allow the whole person to relate to deeper consciousness, instead of relying on the superficial consciousness.

Let's think about this, using the example of a symptom that a client complains about. It is not possible to resolve this by rational thinking. Then the therapist asks for the client's free associations or for the client to focus on dreams.  

This means giving up looking for resolution from superficial consciousness and searching for the answer from one's depths. Both koan and symptom function similarly here.

However, in some mild case of hysteria, the client's complex or conflict in the unconscious becomes readily conscious and thus comes to resolution. If we look at this according to the koan and the Buddhist ideas, the client was given the koan (the symptom) and abandoned it in the middle, not reaching the depths of the psyche but turning back to the other direction, helped by the therapist.

That is to say, the therapist's effort actually took away the rare opportunity for a satori experience.

I like to think this way at times: when a client suffers a symptom, it's meaningful to resolve it - but also not to resolve it. 

Of course, the conscious appeal at the beginning is to resolve the symptom quickly, so we cannot forget about that. But I am facing the total being of the client and need to be cautious. My attitude needs to be flexible. Otherwise, I don't see the way the individuation process wants to go.

One's consciousness has to be as mobile as possible in order to move freely between the surface and the depths. Then one can see direction to go [...]

[Hayao Kawai]
Buddhism and the Art of Psychotherapy, p.131-2

................................................................................................................................................................................

Related posts:-
Empty Container
Wishy-washy
Entertaining Ideas
Negative Capability
Separations and Bridges
Step Toward Madness
Wild Things
Stay with the Image
I'm in Control
Small Mind/Large Mind 
Digging Deeper