Chance is a word for laws not yet recognised or known.
Friday, 4 November 2016
If employment consisted only in doing tasks, even merely for the purpose of making money for someone else and being compensated by a salary, then it would be a breeze.
However there is a human element in the workplace which means dealing with nagging and moody bosses, lazy colleagues, arsy customers and negative social interactions including bullying which cause stress in the mind and the nervous system.
Jobs can also place a great deal of pressure on people to meet impossible targets, be everything to everyone, be happy and smiley at all times whilst not compensating monetarily for all this emotional labour and often not valuing the hard work of employees in keeping the business running.
If you look up global statistics on happiness in work they are ridiculously low and I'm sure many would envy my lifestyle of not having to worry about money, having unlimited time (which, unlike money, is a true currency), not having to get up at some unholy hour to go to a job, and indulging in creative pursuits and whatever takes my fancy generally.
I can understand the bitter hatred of workers against welfare claimants like myself, especially when some tax supported claimants are financially better off and have it comparatively easy compared to the long suffering labouring population.
It is the curse of employment, which is all the more a curse because of the immorality of monetary exploitation and human beings preying on others for the sake of profit, that has always made me lean towards thinkers who dreamt of a mutual aid economic system where people perform tasks that actually perform a genuine service for others and where monetary or physical slavery is non-existent.
Apart from attending to basic necessities such as food, shelter, healthcare, which people would gladly do anyway, work should be voluntary and were humanity more enlightened and moral than it is now, and consequently more free, a mutual aid economy could potentially work (pardon the pun) for the benefit of all without the theft of taxation let alone the even worse theft of time and freedom for the sake of having to make money.
I do follow with interest attempts at creating grassroots, community-based currencies be it non central bank money or time banks where there are no winners (i.e. predators) or losers (i.e. prey) but only the desire to see that others are provided for and cared for in exchange for their services to the community.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."Only fools who've fallen prey to false economic worldviews and other false idols not to mention human predators themselves need take issue with this quote from the maligned Karl Marx for all the flaws in his theorising.
Natural Law, like truth, is simple. The more moral human beings are, the more freedom manifests in the world and the more happy the human community. While French essayist de La Rochefoucauld had it right when he wrote
"We all have strength enough to endure the misfortunes of others"a deeper insight into Natural Law is expressed as follows
"As one suffers, all suffer"because a moral, i.e. enlightened, community would not simply endure the suffering of one of its members but address it.
I have spent many years in the university system but despite this I never formally obtained a degree because I had my fill so to speak before the final exams. Although many will agree that it is an overrated institution I do not think it is overrated due to a lack of teaching hours, pastoral care, jobs on the other side, unjustified expense but because despite the very significant amount of work I put into my academic life, gaining at times first class grades for both essays and exams, I felt that all this effort contributed next to zero to my personal enlightenment and found, conversely, that it made many students more unenlightened, conformist, superficial and neurotic than they would otherwise be had they not gone at all and listened to their hearts instead.
Modern universities are increasingly career-focused institutions wrapped up in the satanic monetary game of a civilisation gone mad and inevitably perpetuate the largely parasitical non entity that is academic discourse which at bottom represents institutionalised knowledge of a dubious and often short-lived value. And rarely does it speak truth to power or question consensus reality.
There are good aspects to university education if teachers and researchers happen to be enlightened - institutions are only ever as good as the individuals who comprise them - but in my experience that is rarely the case. Essentially you get what you put in studying-wise but I would say that the added value provided by the institution as compared to reading books, self-study, thoughtful conversation and online research is very low. Also the stringency of the outcome that is the exam result makes one lose sight of the purpose of doing a course in the first place: to learn and gain knowledge about a subject for its own sake.
The more you focus on the goal rather than the process itself the longer it will take for you to reach the goal as some Zen master once told his pupil. And as a student colleague of mine once told me about his experience after three years of successful study grade-wise (my subject was Ancient Greek and Latin literature) he had learnt nothing about what the course was meant to be about but a great deal about how to do well in exams.
University never provided me with moral or philosophical guidance and I had to dig deep and hard within academic literature to find the occasional enlightened statement or observation. If the goal of university was genuinely to enlighten and encourage rightful action over wrongdoing then I would be glad of its existence but it is way too trapped in the psychopathic game of control and conformity to be of lasting value unless outstanding individuals steer it toward a more enlightened and belligerent path. For truth is belligerent.
Romantic relationships are not an exact science. However I came across this rather apposite advice called the '3 C's' that need to be there for a relationship to potentially work:
- Compatibility: if you and your partner's sensibilities clash too much this could spell trouble in the medium to long term and end up in minsunderstandings, arguments and general interpersonal neurosis
- Commitment: cheating on a partner is a form of betrayal unless they've given you the green light. Even then it could lead to hurt for the party you're cheating with. And they do say two's company, three's a crowd for a reason.
- Companionship: ideally a successful relationship results in both partners being mutually respecting life companions, happy or at least not unhappy in each other's company, weathering the good times and the bad together as a unit and providing mutual support, morally, emotionally and financially.
Great sex is of course a bonus, and not a negligible one at that, but I do not see it as an essential component to a great or even moderately successful relationship, if one of these C's is missing. If having kids is an utmost priority for one partner and not for the other this could spell trouble but I would put that problem in the first category 'Compatibility'. Some people are of the opinion that no sex means no relationship but I am not of that persuasion.
To take this post a little deeper I would say that a relationship based in truth, a true relationship so to speak, is the ideal.
"Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediment."['True' in this case potentially meaning both enlightened and faithful.]
For this to occur both partners must know themselves and be enlightened.
Erotic love (έρως), even love of one's neighbour (φιλία) are not equal to the love of truth (ἀγάπη) which I view as the ideal basis for a successful relationship.
From a current affairs and news analysis perspective, I would say journalist James Corbett from corbettreport.com comes a close second.
I find that these two researchers complement each other well, for James is slow and often reluctant to engage in philosophical speculation if not to do with factual reality and Passio is sometimes lacking in factual knowledge, preferring esoteric and more obscure strands of analysis.
And of course there are plenty of enlightened individuals online and in the world doing the Great Work of awakening minds and showing the path of authentic morality and σωφροσύνη.
I choose these two because they were the most instrumental in my own personal coming to consciousness.
Other notable speakers and writers are Richard Grove from tragedyandhope.com and the author of jaysanalysis.com.
I would draw the line at vlogger Stefan Molyneux whose discourse clashes with my sensibility.
But each to their own.
It amuses me no end that the international value of our monetary currency which determines what and how much we can purchase or transfer abroad is determined by what are essentially speculative gamblers on worldwide currency markets.
Money being in its essence fake anyway (as opposed to mon-eye, spiritual awakening) it goes to show the extent to which our societies are not only unenlightened but downright insane.
In fact it's not only currency markets that are downright insane but all speculative markets based on the solipsistic belief that perception is reality and reality is perception.
Such a belief, in its current phoney almighty status, and its hourly application worldwide through the thoughts, emotions and actions of so many traders and business people will surely translate into murderous and dire consequences for all, even those innocent of taking part in it.
Ignore cosmic law at your own (and others') peril. Financial and personal bubbles will always wind up bursting.
As Nietzsche once observed, sparing people shame is the sign of a humane sensibility.
It is also a good way to determine whether someone is potential friend material, say, for example, by admitting that you are jobless and on welfare or a sexual virgin or some other embarrassing truth and they don't look down on you for that or make a sny comment.
For all his magnetic charm and the facile entertainment provided by his TV show, Jeremy Kyle does essentially make a living from putting people to shame, including for being on benefits and being sexually promiscuous.
He acts as though nobody ever fucks up in life, including himself, and that the hapless individuals who get publicly humiliated on his show somehow deserve to be talked down to and judged - by him of all people.
Entertainment is not enlightenment, to say the least.
Daily Mail writers and editors probably secretly laugh at the gullibility of their readership and the same applies to Sun workers as well as all the usual suspects.
In fact this secret laughter is perhaps not reserved to newspapers or even media outlets such as Fox News and Time magazine but I suspect applies across the entirety of real centres of power and influence.
Researcher Mark Passio who used to be a priest in the Church of Satan which happens to be populated by extremely powerful and influential figures in society regularly reminds his listening audience of the belly laughs he heard from these so-called sorcerers of consciousness who love to manipulate their way to power and stay there by all the (immoral) means at their disposal.
These belly laughs, you will have guessed it, were at the expense of the unsuspecting masses who lap up their garbage and buy into their lies.
I'm no mathematical wizard. That said, I did very well in my end of school maths exam and had fun solving a problem on this blog several years ago (Maths with Calvin).
Mathematics has been said to be god's language to man and there is undoubtedly a purity about its logic and much satisfaction to be gained from engaging with its ideas.
I however feel that the aura around mathematics as being the highest form of knowledge slightly over-stretched not to say overrated.
In my perception, the fact that mathematics uses symbolic language that is hard to access and happens to have technological and scientific applications leads to the erroneous view that truth is mathematics or, at the least, logic.
I can see the attraction this idea holds for many, particularly of a left-brain and unintuitive disposition, but I see it as potentially being a barrier to self-enlightenment in the sense of people giving up on introspective labour on the grounds that it is not exact like mathematics and will always be subject to disagreement.
As controversial but pet philosopher of mine Martin Heidegger used to state repeatedly in his lectures, being himself relatively proficient in the science, exactitude is not the same thing as truth, that which is, and mathematical science is no more rigorous than other fields of human thought and activity like history, philology, philosophy or art which are not as exact as mathematics but require an equivalent level of mental application and dedication.
It is very convenient for those who want to prevent people from getting in touch with themselves and questioning the world around them to make the equation mathematics = truth in so far as high-end mathematics is restrictive in its accessibility and people will simply give up on even attempting to master it and carry on leading lives that avoid questioning the world they live in, thinking this to be a waste of time since lacking the quality of mathematical precision.
Many creative people crave attention and this is understandable. Energy flows through attention, it's flattering to the ego and of course with attention and popularity comes the very real possibility of making money out of being creative.
I for one have at last come to appreciate the fact that I receive very little attention, whether it be this blog, my youtube piano videos, my Facebook posts and so forth. Why? It gives me more creative freedom and also the ability to edit and improve previous creations almost unnoticed, slowly but surely building a better-quality body of work for posterity to enjoy.
I feel blissfully free of the pressure that comes with people's expectations in my output, the unwanted publicity, and the fact that many will not identify and perhaps criticise my brand of sensibility such as in personal blog comments which fail to grasp the intention and spiritual content of my communications.
I also intensely dislike the emotional reactions that come with strong or even moderate disagreement, especially when the disagreement is based on a simple misunderstanding, a lack of spiritual discernment and self-knowledge or, worse still, a clash of egos.
Ego attachment is an unhealthy trait preventing self-realisation and often develops into pride, which has been described as the actual opposite of authentic self-esteem.
My basic position regarding pride was perhaps best and most amusingly expressed by the character of Marcellus Wallace in the movie Pulp Fiction
"Fuck pride. It always hurts. It never helps."Pride as caused by ego-attachment also prevents personal growth and flourishing because you need to accept that you may be wrong and have been in error in order to make progress up the Mountain of Enlightenment and achieve a good level of personal sovereignty.
As Mark Passio rightly states in his podcast series, the three most powerful words in the English language are:
"I was wrong"since uttering these words signals the beginning of your understanding that truth lies outside of your ego.
Contrary to popular belief, truth is always simple. Key insights into the laws of nature and psychology can be expressed in the simplest of terms that (almost) everyone can grasp.
And in my opinion simple but true insights always bear repeating.
The perception that truth has to be complicated in my view stems from spiritual confusion and a lack of discernment as to how cosmic law really works.
All that being said, simplicity is not the same as something being easy to fully grasp or express.
Obfuscating simplicity with complexity is of course a technique of mind control, putting people off from engaging in thoughtful and introspective labour due to reasons of perceived intellectual inadequacy.
"The splendour of the simple"should not be underestimated. Nor should the authority of such a thinker as Isaac Newton when he said
"Nature is pleased with simplicity and nature is no dummy."To this we may add both an excerpt from the twelfth chapter of the Confession Fraternitatis belonging to the Rosicrucian order:
"Believe us, Truth is simple and unconcealed, while falsehood is complex, deeply hidden, proud, and its fictitious worldly knowledge, seemingly aglitter with godly luster, is often mistaken for divine wisdom."and Friedrich Nietzsche's observation according to which:
"Heads fully mature, finally, love truth also where it appears plain and simple and is boring to ordinary people: they have noticed that truth is accustomed to impart its highest spiritual possessions with an air of simplicity.Yet, he later wrote,
"the simplest things are very complicated - a fact at which one can never cease to marvel."See later blog post Complexity in Simplicity for more elaboration on this last point.