2/7/09

"We are warriors by nature, all of biology is a constant struggle for survival (says Nietzsche) and in us are the life and death instinct. However, we are now the products of two people who were in turn products of two people before them (all of which were and have been consumers for as long as we've been sitting around due to the luxury effected by the Agricultural Revolution.) Having a child is no longer the culmination of have cleared ones forest and bested the beasts, but rather is handed down to us by our parents and our parents' parents who have done all this so long ago it is ingrained in us only through norms, irrational fears, and religious tomes. What was once a mighty warrior spirit is now a sense of consumerist thrift. We've gone from being stoic to being astute."

-------------------------------------------------------

How to facilitate a society not driven by ego:

Going back to my earlier writings, the ego is what drives one across many bounds: in the hunter-gatherer society one will undoubtedly differentiate him or herself from the others, from their surroundings, and resulting from the necessity to make sense of one's surroundings. I do not know of any culture in which all members were exactly identical, or in which being the exact same is praised (but, strangely, people will have both a desire to differentiate themselves from others but also to fit in within some reasonable bounds). There's a biological mechanism (or some roundabout way of ensuring diversity) as well as a psychological desire to feel the comfort of being similar to other people (lest the rampant fear of the unknown [which may or may not be a survival mechanism] take hold and render us paralyzed).

What is it that makes us strive for diversity?
First and foremost, I would say it is the necessity to establish ourselves as viable candidates for reproduction. It would not be in biology's best interest, given how often we encounter each other, if women mated with the first guy they found and therefore must erect a set of criteria for mate selection. However, personality is involved as well: there is more to selection than just physicality of a species.

Let's take a look at this aside from pure sexuality:
Society is driven, in some respects, by diversity. It is through trial and error we approach our system of government: despotism, monarchy, theology, republic, democracy, fascism, socialism, national socialism, communism, anarchy... To quote a quoter, "Democracy is the second-worst form of government, the worst being all the rest of them." Anarchy is not applicable, I fervently believe [and possibly I will expand on later], on a large scale. Capitalism, however, does not retain any sort of morals. Instead, it is based around the flow of labor across the globe (liquidated labor) and is a system based around a means to an ends, but these ends we seek are not provided for in any sort within this system. A business that panders social direction? Hmm.

The best form of government is one that provides food for people, gives them a purpose (the absolute best is one that provides a multitude of purposes one could choose from - it is absolutely hilarious how spot-on role-playing games are to how we want to approach our lives), and a general sense of meaning. Or perhaps not. I am a firm believe in Maslow's hierarchy of needs - after food, we need shelter, then we need a emotional/psychological/spiritual fulfillment. Where does the line of governance stop? Obviously if a government provides everything for us then we turn into products of a government and the sanctity of our lives are forfeit (which, I believe, is leading us down this path of moral disregard and pushing-the-boundaries of acceptable behavior & thought). If, on the other hand, there is no government then humanity might be wiped out (and there is something within us that does not want to see that). None of us have first-hand experience, or maybe some do, but history tells us that sedentary complacency is better than a physically active lifestyle of fearing for our survival. Perhaps this is what we want the most, but it is not is best for us. And I mean that on the deepest level: to each and every individual I find this rule applies - that it is a "less-malfeasable" lifestyle to live under predation than to be lazy kings on top of the food chain.

Anyway, getting back to a society free from the pitfalls of egoist pursuits, now that we've decided where it comes from and what the repercussions are from its onset. One important aspect of this communal living situation we've been discussing is how to fulfill the role of a teacher while not turning it in to some egoist pursuit. In this ideal situation, it seems that every member must be 100% free from insecurities - or, optimistically, have some way of dealing with them that does not lead to using status or natural attributes as a way of reassuring one's insecurities. I think the most secure member of this group is only such because he is physically attractive and has an active temperament, and allowing such a status to affect his level of security would be akin, analogous, to using one's intellect to construct a sense of self-worth (which would, just as physicality, be through a recognition of what one has compared to the having of which others do not). No los tienen.

One would have to construct their sense of self one hundred percent through the lens of society, and they could have no identity as anything other than an extension of that society. It is in this way we notice the similarity, or rather the existence, of having a government that provides everything for a person - turning them into a product of a system rather than having a system work for the people. We are, in essence, creating masters to rule over us rather than free ourselves from the "liberated malfeasance of capitalism." This leads me to conclude that the root of the ego (delta x, even as x approaches zero) is the sliver (delta y) of the preservation, or existence, of the self in the face of an all-encompassing government. Not to praise the opposite effect (having all ego and no government; I won't even touch upon that today), but there is a direct correlation if we are to look at a government as it approaches a total solution to "all our problems."

-------------------------------------

Story/Poem I'm writing, early draft:

Manuscript (1/3 of what is written, which is 2/3 done...):
"The sun opens on the land.
he pauses, as he has been out for hours.
Long has it been since he's questioned why he hunts
But old age has started to show its head

After he sees what might be a fresh kill,
Upon closer examination it appears to be a lion cub crushed by rocks
So young, what could have been a great warrior
Is now just food for vultures. But so it goes, I've accepted that long ago.

Over rocks, under branches, quiety; I've got it to an art
I'm good at what I do (and not without sacrifice) and am important to my community.
How long has it been, now, since my young son was killed?
Such is the way of things, such is the way of things; what good does thinking do?

Sniffs the air, a familiar smell:
The hunt is on!
I spot footprints, spread apart; the animal has no fear.
Crouching, I push forward."


Experiment with description:
"All that remains of this Promethean man is brute force and a penetrating gaze; his mind died with his son - his lifeblood - centuries ago. Peering wearily over the edge he spots a collection of rocks (brutish things) at the bottom; what God brings up inescapably comes down upon us; the crack of the benevolent master's holy whip. Cast under it, cast under the rubble this time, lies the mangled form of lion cub. So pure in its youth, what would have become a master of its domain has lost its ephemeral battle with the wretching forces that are. Centuries has this law gone unchallenged."


Expanding on first verse, story form:
"Slowly, but surely, the rising sun spills its benevolence over all it can touch; the mountains take their jagged morning rays across boulders, crags, and the occasional creature. For now, let's extend that to include our hero - a living creature - but put that notion in the back of your mind to revisit later. Already, he stands atop a cliff halfway up the mountain he calls Nebudchanezzar and takes a swig from the canteen he carries on his belt. He leans on his spear, supporting his aging frame, and feels the dirty water meander through his narrow body. Not surprisingly, the water does little to wake up his mind; it's been dead, or perhaps just sleeping, for many years now. But old age is starting to give one last kick.

His gaze follows the jagged decline of the cliff, and he notices something new. A smooth trail goes down to the bottom, indicating a fresh rockslide - and yes, at the bottom, a pile of boulders and other fragments stand, put together like a carnivorous cairn. And what is this marking? It's not so clear from where he stands, but after a minute there's no mistaking it: the tail of a lion protrudes - limp, like the ephemeral last stand of the spirit against the earth. Life here has been reduced to a struggle: not just against each other, but against Mother Earth itself. Only the strong survive, or so he thinks."