Primary Truth

How do you crave?
To be, or to exist
not at all.
My mind often desires
to stretch itself
out to its full length,
as I wish to
reform my very core
into a shape
entirely unrecognizable.
In this separation
do I connect myself
to something apart,
or is it insensible –
a wasteful endeavor?
It could be salvation,
the one action
that can bring
the Mariana Trench
to the surface
where I will stare at it
as one would a mirror;
externalizing the self,
eternalizing the flesh.

-the ambassador

Exclusive vs. Elusive Truth

I agree with much of what the colonel said in his last post. I was especially struck by his assertion that we must strive for what the truth is while simultaneously recognizing that we are most likely wrong.

This is correct - truth, in the cosmological sense in which we've been discussing it, is most likely ultimately elusive. I disagree, however, that these truths are beyond our minds. While it is true that we have self-imposed constraints on our minds, the idea is not to stop there. Instead, I would say that we need to work on removing some of these constraints.

It is through methods such as the taoist path or buddhist meditation that we can learn to begin to "think outside the box," as it were. Truth is not exclusive, however elusive it might be. What we must do is find the particular path that will lead us to our own particular truth.

This is why the concepts of Out There, the Peace, and the Fear are not a religion, they are simply a way of conceptualizing the universe. It is not about getting to some ill-defined heaven, or even about any kind of afterlife. As such, it is not about "eternal reward," but happiness in the here and now.

-the ambassador

The world is so small today
What if we didn't know what we know?
We could ask, what's out there?
Now we think we know what's out there
Do we?
Stay on our shores and maintain peace
Or stay on our shores and hoard peace
Look at the moon
The fingers chase the moon
Each from their own shore


I forget what this is from, but I will find out and post it at a later date.

-the colonel

Certainly what the ambassador was getting at in his last post was important. He used Rousseau to point out that we cannot truly look at anything objectively. (I suppose this is really just the way I interpretted what he said, none the less...) Rousseau uses his discussion of the state of nature to draw this conclusion. He says we can never imagine what the state of nature was like because we already have ideas of what it should be (basically).

I think this applies to all aspects of life, including the Peace, Fear, Tao and all intangible things we have been discussing. (I would like to take this time to point out that the path is not by any means an actual path in the physical or even mental state. 'Path' is a rough translation of 'tao' and should be thought of more as our relationship to the universe around us.)

Objects have different meanings to different cultures. Even colors have different meanings, such as black being worn for a death in the west while is is worn for a wedding in other parts of the world. This may seem like a major digression, but bare with me - hopefully it shall come full circle.

Like these different symbolic meanings from culture to culture, the aspect of reality that we started this discourse on, are subject to different meanings based upon people's own interpretations and the interpretations of those around them.

How easy it would be then, to say, "Alas, there is no answer - there is no truth!"

This statement would be nothing more than a naive sentiment and absurd excuse to free ones mind of tiresome intellect.

We will never know the Peace, the Fear, the Tao. We will only know that they are. Perhaps that is the only, absolute, truth.

We must acknowledge them, and even try to define them as we are doing here. Ultimately, however, we must keep in mind that they are far beyond the self imposed constraints of our mind.

There must then be an acceptance (by each of us) that we are, not possibly, but probably wrong.

"Those who know do not say. Those who say do not know." - Lao Tzu ("the Old Boy), Tao Te Ching

-the colonel

Outside Looking In

I ended my last post on the thought that actions springing from the Fear move us further away from inner peace and, more generally, the Peace. But this concept (the Peace) has been entirely unreachable for me up to this point. I haven't even really begun to see what it would entail, and today I think I began to understand why.

Rousseau wrote that it is impossible to know what the true state of nature is, because to ask any question about it is to necessarily distance ourselves from it. By looking at the state of nature from outside it, we automatically impose some ideas that we hold to be normal. However, those same norms in the state of nature could very well be abnormal.

To bring this back to a discussion of the Peace, I'm starting to believe that it is impossible to truly know what the Peace entails. To ask any questions about it is to recognize that we are not there yet, and this recognition brings with it the same conditions that a similar recognition of being outside a state of nature brings. We can only know, I suppose, that the Peace is completely outside our current existence, to the point that we cannot even begin to conceptualize it.

Moving beyond this, the Peace is then something to strive for precisely because it removes us from the conditions of physical existence. There are no shortcuts to the Peace, and even the idea of a path (which the colonel and I have been discussing) is inadequate because it indicates logical start and end points. This is not to say, however, that the taoist path itself is inadequate. Instead it is entirely useful in terms of moving toward the Peace because it offers ways of attaining and honing your inner peace.

-the ambassador

Finding the Symbolic

I would agree with the colonel on the point that inner peace is a way to close the gap between people. Relations between people should be based on mutual trust, and if you are prone to distrust even yourself then you are far less likely to trust others.

However, I do not think that communalism has to follow inner peace, or vice versa. Communalism is a step in and of itself out of a society based on separating individuals and into one based on individuals acting collectively and self-sufficiently on a small scale. A couple things of real value would come out of this:

We could stop depending on the system to take care of our needs and start depending on each other. This, in turn, would bring the idea of a symbolic relationship back into the norm. When the symbolic is re-established (and this may sound oxymoronic on its surface, but Lacanian psychoanalysis tends to back it up - more on that later) some symbolic distance is created between individual subjects, and relationships of real meaning and intimacy become possible again. This is not to say that they aren't possible now, they are simply less likely.

In answer to the colonel's last few questions, I would affirm that yes, the Fear is inherently negative, and it is also entirely unavoidable. While it may not necessarily drive us toward the Peace, attaining inner peace will help block the effects of the Fear.

I found an example of what I would call manifestation of the Fear today while reading an introductory book on Buddhism. They are, in Buddhism, the "three bad roots" which all bad actions spring from. Greed, hatred and delusion are all particular manifestations of the Fear. Actions based on these things, in the specific cosmology I'm contextualizing it in, would bring one further away from inner peace and Peace itself.

Anyway, my brain session is being interrupted by an appointment.
Until next time,
-the ambassador

The ambassador asks about distance at the end of his last post. This is an interesting question in a time when "the world is getting smaller" and "the world is at your finger tips" are such common beliefs, or at least sayings. Call me a Luddite if you will, but I must say one way in which to shorten this distance might be to kill our computers.

Even now as I say this I am on a computer, in a sense shortening the distance between the ambassador and I. But we are not actually coming any closer. In fact it seems like ages since I have actually communicated with the ambassador without some medium between us.

We cannot of course kill our computers (besides them not actually having a life to take) it would be taking a step back in the development of culture, which seems impossible. This is obviously a very tangile cure for what I think is an intangible distance.

To answer in an intangible way (a more truthful way at that) I say that inner peace is the way to close the gap between people. At this point, it is imperitive to draw a distinction between an individuals self interest and an individuals path. I do not have a distinct definition of the two yet, but one is based on societal values, the other is based on a greater truth, perhaps the Peace.

I do think communalism should be a goal. I do not beleive inner peace will be found through communalism however. In fact I beleive the opposite. Through inner peace the individual will realize that communalism is essential to the Tao/Out There/Peace.

If one is at peace with onself, one will be at peace with his surroundings. The search for acceptance in far lands will cease to exist.

Finally, I am intrigued by the Fear. The ambassador says that the Fear is, I assume, inherently negative. Is it something we should avoid? Or is it an unavoidable force that perhaps drives us toward the Peace?

-the colonel

Paths, Peace and Community

In response to the colonel's last post, I'm going to see if I can flesh out the intertwinings and divergences of my cosmology with taoism.

The idea of the Path, which I had not considered before, is entirely helpful in understanding Out There. I am not sure, due to my unfamiliarity with taoist thought, if the Path is a singular term meant to offer guidance to all, or more uniquely shaped depending on the subject. When applied to my ideas, however, I believe that it is the latter. The Path is singular to an individual. In a previous brainstorm that I never got around to posting, I wrote that one must align themselves with "the cosmic whole" - I had yet to develop a concept of Out There - in order to know inner peace. This is not to preach homogeneity, however, there are myriad paths (and some non-paths) that lead to the Peace.

I do believe in a flow of energy akin to yin and yang, and to these ideas I would attach no "good" or "evil" labels. They are, instead, simply positive and negative in the mathematical sense, not morally or ethically. This is where I diverge from taoism, though. The Fear is indeed negative, and not mathematically. The Fear produces reactions in those it affects which can be destructive both to the particular subject and to humanity as a whole. While it may not necessarily be evil, it is most certainly dangerous.

I have started to think that one of the ways in which subjects today might reach the Peace, or at least inner peace, is through a sense of community like the one the colonel hinted at toward the end of his post. Politically speaking, I find myself more and more drawn to communalism - which is to say, relatively small societies based on self-sufficiency and mutual respect among their inhabitants.

In answer to the question ending the colonel's post, I would say there are actually two answers. The first is, simply, yes, there is a difference. Inner peace is individual, Peace itself cannot in any way be individual. On the other hand - no. They are not different. I gave some thought to this, and in the sense that each subject is a microcosm of Out There, inner peace for an individual can represent the Peace on a larger scale. I'm sure that sometime in the future I'll have to qualify this again, but for now it'll do.

Finally, going back to the idea of communalism - is it possible? Is a shift of society to living in smaller, close-knit and self sufficient communities still doable given the massive distance between subjects in today's world? I had a conversation about this the other day, and the only answer I could get was that it was "easier said than done." Well, fucking right it is. But take a look at the history of mother earth tell me that we've only ever done what is easy. It would be ridiculous to believe that we always take the easy way out - that view, in my humble opinion, is a result of the distance we feel between ourselves and others. We are essentially self-interested, but that doesn't mean that the terms of the conversation cannot be changed to rip the self-interested door off its hinges and clear the way to believing in ourselves - with an emphasis on "our" - again.

So. What creates this distance? Is there any way to remedy it?

-the ambassador

The ambassador alludes (perhaps subconsciously) to concepts that are similar to many religions. I eagerly saw the relationship between what he said and Taoism for I have recently immersed myself in the Tao Te Ching and other writings on the background of Taoism.

It would be premature for me to align the ambassadors thoughts too closely to Taoism because it seems that his recent muse temporarily took refuge some place other than his explored mind before it reached completion.

However, due to the restraints on my own mind, will attempt to follow his musing from the perspective of an aspiring Taoist.

The Tao, which means path, is kin to the concept of Out There. It is the path that leads us through Out There in search, or perhaps in avoidance, of the Peace and the Fear.

The Peace and the Fear are kin to the concept of yin and yang. These are the two opposing forces of Out There that are always in harmony. The most common understanding of yin and yang is the balance between good and evil in the universe. That, however, is just the tip of the ice berg, so to speak.

The yin and yang are like energy - they can neither be created nor destroyed. They will always exist and must always exist. They are mutaully arising and inseperable. They are not, however, necessarily good or evil and although the word fear has a certain connotation of something dangerous or, evil, I do not think that the ambassador necessarily means the Fear is inherently a bad thing.

Taoism offers a two conecpts: Te (the power) and Wu-wei (inaction). Both concepts introduce the idea of sharing and/or attaining what the ambassador might call the Peace. One is predominently individualistic while the other is communistic (clearly not the political theory of communism, rather the idea of bettering the community).

Is there a difference between inner peace and the Peace?

-the colonel

I, alone, cannot know Peace

I'm going to attempt to put up some posts on my philosophical musings, which will be a mix of literary insensibility and an actual try for truth. For those of you who can bear with me, well done; for those of you who cannot, don't worry too much, I often can't follow myself. Dialectically speaking, of course. Anyway, here goes:

It had been quite some time since I last put effort into clearing my mind. It is a rewiring of the brain, or, to be precise, a process of self-performed (as in performative, not performance) lobotomy. Although I was only under for seven minutes in this most recent attempt (and took nearly 45 minutes just to prepare), I have started to remember why I first tried to find the center of this labyrinth I call a mind.

The Peace. The Fear. Out There. Three concepts I have, quite literally, stumbled upon while meandering among the cells I call home. Out There is simply the whole. Not one of us escapes the confines (although that is a terrible word for it, there is absolutely nothing confining about Out There - there are only self- and societally-imposed constraints) of Out There.

Also contained within Out There are two things: The Peace and the Fear. The Peace is something I have yet to fully wrap my feeble mind around, but I do feel confident that I'm inching ever closer. If I don't accidentally trip a wire leading to a massive implosion, I am sure I will someday know the Peace.

The Fear, on the other hand, is something we all know all too well. It is what concrete fears spring from - and as such is difficult to delineate into a single coherent concept. The Fear evolves, as we do, but it is far more adept at doing so. It is, in fact, able to manifest itself in particular ways for each and every one of us. Much of how the Fear works is dependent on each individual's genetics (in other words, some of the Fear is bred into us), but it is also affected by environmental input.

The Peace, it would seem to me, is not particular to any one of us. It is instead reachable only through the combined efforts of all. Inner peace, a separate and yet intimately connected idea, is necessary before the Peace can be attained. There are many impostors of both inner peace and the Peace itself - though when it is reached, all else that came before will pale in comparison.

-the ambassador

Can you have your cake and eat it too?

The recent debate was not much more than John McCain proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the recent Rolling Stone profile of McCain's absurdly spoiled life and pathetic attempted to be as great a man as his father and grandfather was absolutely true. He was rude, arrogant, angry and downright stupid.
McCain looked like a man struggling for life in the face of the gallows - spuing idiotic lies and being so ambiguish it was enough to make an iron stomach churn in nausea.
Barack Obama, although intelligent, on the ball and well spoken as usual, came off as a man who knew he had won. His shit eating grin suggested to the viewer, "Hey, it's in the bag, let's have some fun!" Well Obama, Americans do love an underdog so let's not celebrate prematurely.
This would be a concern if the republican candidate was at least somewhat better at playing the game of politics than McCain who has ridden his familial military history to where he is today.
Despite polls that show citizens believe McCain has been airing more negative ads, he tried to claim that Obama has spent more moeny than anytime in history on negative campaigns (two minutes later he claimed since Nixon, but that's neither here nor there).
McCain is the man guilty of spewing slander. His supporters are actually afraid of an Obama presidency because he is an "A-rab." Even when one thinks McCain has thrown enough mud, he digs a little deeper to make an indirect accusation that Obama is a socialist, saying Obama wants to "spread the wealth around" by taxing the rich and giving to the poor.
Good for Barack Robinhood Obama!
We shan't place the entirety of blame of the weathered shoulders of McCain however. He is jsut an effect of the societal problem at hand, which is that of a deep rooted fear of socialism dating back to the days of McCarthy.
I say to this, America, can we have it both ways?
As the ambassador pointed out recently, the $700 billion bailout is precisely socialism for the rich. By the way, both candidates supported the bailout. Therefore is McCain...oh no, can I say it? a socialist?
The bailout plan is clearly a move to allow the government to step in and control the "free market." Can we have it both ways? To one minute practice socialism and another denounce the idea based on a 1950's mentality of fear of the Soviets? For McCain to one minute throw a lifeline to to the rish who fucked up in the first place, and then try to smear Obama's reputation by suggesting he is a socialist?
At least Obama is consistent, socialist or not.
Perhaps that is the only way for us to be truly free however. Maybe that is the one hint of hope in our system, that ability to fuse many political ideologies in order to make our own twisted logic work.

Georgia and Press Freedom

Just to follow up on my previous post "Know Your Friends," there was a good article in the New York Times today, News Media Feel Limits to Georgia's Democracy. Although Georgia has the support of both the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates and has been pictured as the essential "good guy" in region of instability, the lack of a truly free press is, well, troubling to say the least.

John Mill wrote that a free press is essential to a free society. All ideas deserve to be voiced, even if they come from the lunatic fringe. A country lacking freedom of the press, then, is a country lacking real democracy. Maybe we should be less supportive of regimes called "semiauthoritarian" by experts, and more open to the possibility that yes, even our "friends" can do wrong.