Opposite side to the ‘rights are a wrong’ argument

And why it fails (or, don’t worry, be happy (and sad))
Whenever human beings put a name or number to some experience we have, or object we find within our environment, it essentially defines an absolute characteristic or quality of that environment. The more defined these names become the closer we get to this absolute.

The better we are able to arrange these names in sequence the better we understand the environment and the better we are at manipulating it, being as it is not the really real but a collection of names arranged in sequence.

We are special in the universe because only we perform the activity of naming. The goal is to name everything and record all possible sequences of names so that we may master the universe. Once this is achieved there will be no more pain for we will simply eradicate all such sequences from the story we have thus far uncovered.

Imagine a well-managed train station. Materials have been taken from the environment and changed into tracks, rolling stock, a platform, waiting room and ticket booth. Humans have been trained for the various roles of conductor, manager, driver, cleaner, engineer etc.

Once people use the station they become customers. They may form a union to protect their interests, much as the drivers and conductors may do. The special roles and status gained by these people may define them over and above their simple existence as humans (which of course they all secretly still share).

The station will take on special meaning itself as the source from which rules and regulations (laws) are generated. Its very existence may variably be worshipped, protected, feared or honoured.

It will begin to take the shape of a reality for those who now depend on it yet underwriting it all is the same basic environment which must be now be managed as just another resource required by the station: the station is still a product of the natural environment and not a self-reproducing environment in-its-self. 

The station grows and requires more of the basic reality. What must be denied is difference or any other form of reality that can challenge the stations existence. Change must be halted and all matter given over to the stations perpetuation. This can be accomplished through language – through the naming of things: a tree becomes a resource for coffee stirrers. Humans become customers and managers and the two differentiate themselves by these titles over and above what they share in common.

The question is: at the point at which the station accomplishes its goal and no evil can challenge its benevolence in providing all these people with meaning and purpose in their lives; with nothing to measure the station against but faded memories, how can we tell, any longer, whether it is good?

The station (language) becomes the reality, all is aligned to its needs and anything that is ‘other’ disappears. The universe crystallises into a substrate of inert data. The story is complete.

There is no possibility of argument against it. It is justified and western civilisation cheers! Unfortunately it ends in inertia by denying the very possibility that brought it about: it ceases to function.

The universe is not a complete sentence but an open dialogue.

Simon Leake

Breeze

Without a face

Without a body

You can see

Its expression

Always through

What it touches:

Ripples on the pond;

Leaves clapping limply

In the tree.

For us, embodied souls

This will also be the case

In these words

I am writing

The effluence, the impression

This echo of love.


Simon Leake

The Importance of our Artists

The bourgeoisie is alive and well. So are their downtrodden serfs: Y'know, those who are so used to being told what to do that they no longer know what they want to do. Such ambitionless people are open to exploitation. And people in 'survival mode' are the least capable of any ambition.

Clearly we need to encourage the powerless to be powerful. But where does this begin? Where does self-empowerment and risen consciousness take its root?The powerless, from within themselves, must produce great artists - and indeed they do. But let us sing louder praises for these artists of the resistance.

These artists are spontaneous, true, genuine, and they are the voice of the people, not only through their actual art, but also in their very being. The greatest of rebels is not the activist, nor the petty criminal. It is the artist.

The artists of the powerful create meaningless art. Such drivel exists only to demonstrate their decadence, and thus power. Modernist abstract art is the height of this. It is perfect for the corporate world, which thrives on meaninglessness, telling goalless people what to do. The artists of the powerful create whatever they are told, or whatever they think is going to sell. This is the art of authority. 'Art for art's sake', it is really 'art for the status quo's sake'.

The artists of the resistance are soul-enthused with a desire for change. They are the only ones capable of expression for they have something very urgent to express: 'We are in the shit, we don't want to be in it!'

This they express not through appeals to pity, but through encouragement to magnificence. And they are exemplars of this magnificence, for they will spend more time on art, and less on mere survival. This is how genius is born - through self-sacrifice and questing into realms of heroic discomfort. Those who truly succeed in life will push forward with their goals even when they aren't totally secure; they will risk losing 'normality' for a passionate project.

The artists of the resistance 'humanize' all of us who are powerless. The best means of  melting the unequal distribution of power in society is not to blandly show how much we are suffering all the time: that makes us look weak and pathetic. It is much better to show that we are not a different species to the bourgeoisie; that we are creative and that we have decadent moments. It is only by simplifying us, the powerless, that they can exploit us with a clear conscience. Dehumanization is impossible when art is flowing. The full flowering complexity of a person is best expressed by their art, their stories, their creativity. But even though we can be decadent, we are better than our 'rulers', because we do not crush others for our own benefit. We crush a few for the benefit of all! Our artistic decadence is in the service of civilization, and never will we allow it to devolve into their monstrous and cynical crap.

The underclass - all of us who are not of a ruling class - need pride (individualistic and collective) to be recognised as human beings, and the herald of this pride is the artist. The art is not directly useful to our survival, but shows that we are civilized and capable, intelligent and creative, colourful and human. Even on the brink of poverty one can still be a patron of philosophy and art and music. To be poor and artistic is to demonstrate more of a belief in these things as pure entities. For the rich being involved in the arts does not involve living in poverty. That is what makes poorer purer, we must live ideals, we must make more sacrifices, we must live things as ends in themselves.

 A fine example to conclude with are the sapeurs of Congo. These enterprising souls, surrounded by desperate circumstances and less-than-ideal infrastructure, stand out like colourful beacons of hope. To show pictures of the Congolese suffering, or pleas for aid and assistance, does not make us fully recognise them as people. It removes them from our sphere of experience and makes them something abstract. But a sapeur, magnificent as a peacock, by his singular example demonstrates an artistic aspect of humanity we would not expect from such circumstances. He shows us that the Congolese have the same desires, vices and virtues that we do; that they are just as creative and capable, and this makes us realize our common humanity. So don't go around saying artists and philosophers and the like are useless. They can save the world, and they do it by the effortless means of their very existence.

Philosophas n da hood

Socrates - The lyfe where you don't look at s*** ain't worth s*** fam

William of Okham - You sh'unt have loads of s*** in ur ting if you don't need it, get me

Camus - There is only one serious problem in da hood ov lyfe, and thatz whether or not fools be 'brap-braping' theyself or not

Nietzsche: I don't follow da herd; I do wot i gota do 2 reach mah dream init.

Heraclitus: nothin is da same cos da world is alwayz changing

Epicurus: b happy wif wot u got cos da more money u get da mor problems u get

Plato: close ur eyes n open ur mind 2 see da real truth - get me!

John Locke: If u ain't got property u ain't got s***

Kant: yeh but wot wud happen if everyone did dat?

Sartre: alwayz b tru 2 urself so u can control ur lyfe; dere ain't no meaning out dere so cre8 ur own

Heidegger: live ur lyfe day by day cos u neva kno what 2moro may bring

Leibniz: look inside urself n u can find da entire universe.


Sel Funkbadger and Big Bobby M