Here. This is the sound
of the world becoming whole:
one breath at a time.

Here. This is the way
that the world becomes awake:
one eye at a time.

Here. This is the place
where birth and death coexist:
one process, not two.

Here. This is the time
that defines the entire world:
each moment of now.

Here. This is the song
that the whole world is singing:
each thing in harmony.

Here. This is the part
where you add your unique voice:
part of the whole choir.

Here. This is the tune
from a forgotten hymnal:
the music of life.

Here. This is the law
that the whole world must follow:
Embrace life, or die.

Here. This is the fact
that we want to overlook:
We don't own the world.

Here. This is the myth
that fuels our own destruction:
We are the whole world.

Here. This is the point
at which we each make a choice:
Living or dying.

25 AUG 2004

Once upon a time, although since as a dimension, time is a relatively unstable paradigm and cannot often be trusted to remain in the tense that one would expect, in a land far, far away [and distance too would seem but an illusion that our physical bodies must endure, but that our minds can easily dissolve with a modicum of effort], there was a very small planet that circled its medium density star - one tiny speck of dust in a mighty dustbowl of a universe.

It was a planet of contradictions. A planet of unusual propensities. A planet that called itself a world sometimes, but at other times felt like a planet.

The inhabitants of this strange planet who had an interest in such things at one point unanimously named it. Those who did not require a name for it seldom acknowledged such activities, regardless of how much circumstance their participants conferred upon them. They may have been thinking, "What's in a name?", but they also might not have even noticed. In the seventh-most widely spoken language of the inhabitants who populated (either by chance birth or through destiny motivated relocation) the most diverse range of climates, the planet was known as Arthel - well, the name was not actually a word in that language, but in a language that was used by a majority of the dominant inhabitants, a language no longer actively spoken on the planet, but revered as a way to escape the need to define things to the non-dominant inhabitants. You may already have begun to guess at some of the unusual propensities to which this planet was inclined.

The inhabitants of this planet, Arthel, were fortunate enough to have been able to develop, propagate and thereby populate it, thanks to a remarkable compatibility between their requirements for survival and the resources available from the environment in which they did these things. The significance of this fact cannot be overlooked - there were many other planets that would not have nurtured these inhabitants in such a successful manner. Many of these inhabitants marked this significance by embracing a sense of their own uniqueness, their innate skills; many others did not. Some of those who chose not to mark such things?were among those who had no "name" for their home - at least not one that was widely circulated or shared.

As one might typically expect on a planet that embraced contradiction and an air of "mystery", the species of inhabitant that was most abundant on Arthel did not "control" Arthel. It may be that they did not wish to control it, or it may be that they simply had no conceptualization of control with which to apply that construct. In either case, the primary inhabitants of the planet were not the most vociferous planetary residents. There was far too much planet, it can be assumed, to cause much of a reason for worry about which inhabitants got which resources. Think locally, you can almost hear them saying. Work with what you've got at hand. Of course, many of the majority inhabitants did not have "hands" - hands were an evolutionary development that concerned only a small number of Arthelans. Most Arthelans enjoyed other physical traits that more than compensated for opposable thumbs.

But it is the Arthelans with opposable thumbs that concern us in this story. This is their history, more than the history of Arthel, although the two are intertwined so closely that few can see light between the threads.

2003

When I reach the age of Elvis crucified
Two years and small change from now
I shall have been 33 years a missionary:
singing love songs to the deaf;
painting pictures for the blind;
copying manuscript parts to hand out
to a toneless, voiceless choir;
dancing for a stoic crowd
of cynical philosophers.

At that time, like Rimbaud,
I shall have been a serious poet
for seventeen years.

And like young Arthur, who cast aside
his disillusion and grandiose angst,
I shall endeavour to never preach
another sermon;

the prayer book from which I read,
the liturgy crafted lovingly from my own sweat,
the matins I have sung at dawn,
the vespers whispered to the fickle fingers
of twilight,

I shall renounce.

My voice, that grows tired of its own echo
in the empty hall,
My fingers, that have worn down the ivory keys
of life's tempered clavichord,
My mind, that seeks to claim some vain energy
by which to transform, incandescent,
the darkness;
these tools I will abandon.

In these score and thirteen years
with the coin of Caesar I have been paid:
the pennies of disillusion,
the nickels of apathy,
the dimes of indifference;
and within the span of the next 700 days, or so,
I shall have accumulated
the postage
to return to sender
what talents the gods have sent me,
unsolicited.

Unless, of course, I win the lottery.

Because, as Hemingway observed,
the rich are different from the rest of us:
they have money.

19 AUG 2004

and the children who think that summer ends
and somehow school and learning resume again
who do not yet realize the lessons
and the parents who think their fall begun
and somehow school and learning do not apply to those
who do not yet realize the lessons
and the rest of the living, breathing world
and every species that is born and dies
and knows no respite, no vacation
and wants none, having no understanding of those
who do not realize the lessons
only end temporarily, at best.

When does a dialogue with self cease being a monologue?

At what precise moment does the epiphany conceived of self-deliberation end its foolish premeditation on some inner change of being and address itself to the self in others, recognizing in external, living beings that same life force that propels it along the path of least resistance to its indeterminate conclusion?

When does that personal philosophy (or love of knowledge) come into being that requires the death of philology (knowledge of love, one could propose) and must of its own accord stand naked, alone and shivering on the mountain of endless esoteric academic masturbation and let loose its seed to propagate the action of love?

On what basis is the foundation for living laid?

On the cold and calculating pillars of what we think wisdom, but is in reality mere logic and more of the same false illusion separating the observer from the observed?

Or on the fetid swamp, crawling with unseen slime-in-the-making that marks its time of evolution simply absorbing the dry coastline and turning it to scores of miniature Atlantis fragments?

When does the monologue, the endless harangue against unseen foes and perceived slings and arrows that pierce the wondering mind with necessary doubt and wavering conviction, cease to be a speech released to the waiting air alone, and listen, beyond the echo of its own Doppler castings, to the response in the ears (any ears --- one's own, or someone else's) that comes back, like a Messiah encased in the triangulating pulse of myth's strange sonar, like a quiet ripple lost in the cascade of the sea at high tide?

At what precise moment does the angle of the jaw when open start to close the portal of the ears?

When does a dialogue with self cease being a monologue?

18 AUG 2004

Posted this evening to the Ishmael Community, a web community devoted to the principles set forth by Daniel Quinn in his books Ishmael, The Story of B, and Beyond Civilization, among others:

My question is the result of a conversation I had this evening with a couple of Latter Day Saint recruiters on my front lawn. I was able to describe for them very well (using the ammunition provided by your books) an alternative to their explanation of "how" things got this way, including acknowledgment from them of the accurate interpretation of the Tree of Knowledge and Cain and Abel. However, I found myself in a quandary when attempting to describe "why" our culture, as opposed to the lions and bears, the Maoris and Navajo, would choose to take divine right into their own hands and take their lives out of the hands of the gods. In other words, what was the impetus that caused the Takers to become Takers? The explanation in your books very clearly identifies the myths (now borrowed by the Takers) trying to explain "how" things got to where they are now, but what seems to be missing is "why" anyone would make what seems like a giant leap and decide they were above the law that brought them through the evolutionary chain. So I pose the question to you --- WHY did the Takers stop becoming Leavers? Where did this seed of self-delusion germinate? And more importantly, why would a group of Leavers (for that is what we all were, at some point) believe such a lunatic? Why would anyone assume that their way was right for everyone in the first place? There had to have been some event, some epiphany that led first to this ill-founded conclusion, and then to its growth into a shared delusion.

I'm just not sure what it is, and that information seems critical to expounding "why not".

Ah, I must admit that I admire their dedication. I wonder, however, that their missionary zeal carries them out into wild, uncharted areas at the edge of their map before they have taken their message to their direct neighbors. I speak, of course, of the dedicated young men in the bicycle messenger trade of the Church of the Latter Day Saints.

You may find it amusing that these gentlemen in cheap suits and humidity-limp shirts would wander to my doorstep in their proselytizing. They are different from the old African-American women peddling Jehovah as his Witnesses. To these, who hand out Watchtowers on such subjects as fraud, I can offer short comments like, "Hmmm ... don't you think it is ironic that you speak to me of fraud, who are taken in by the biggest fraud of them all ... that somehow, a lily-white Jesus and his Aryan-seeming friends and apostles/associates would convince you, a child of former slaves who has grown up in the shadow of racism, sexism and poverty, that it is not necessary to seek any kind of heaven here on earth (for that would require wresting it from the hands of rich, white men, I'm afraid), but that your reward shall come in a future paradise, while others reap theirs now ... that seems like a pretty clear case of fraud to me, my dear grandmother." And they pause, and shake their heads, and offer to pray for me, of course, but after I part company with them I am sure they are difficult for their pastors to handle.

Nay, the Mormon lads are of sterner stuff. And still, as I explain to them that mankind is gone astray from (G)od because they refuse to spit out the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, to place their lives, like the sparrow, lion, lamb and lilies of the field in the hands of God, and insist that they have the knowledge of who must die (all who would oppose them) and who must live (man, glorious man, who must have a purpose greater than the jellyfish or hyena). To explain that we are the culture of Cain, the mighty agriculturalist, whose story the Hebrews adopted but did not themselves write, whose meaning they have never quite understood --- the Caucasian farmers, who would kill off the hunter gathers and pastoralists, and for each white man slain would return death to the darker races sevenfold. I wonder, as they thank me for my well-thought out and logical explanation, on the spirit that fills their hearts --- that glory of righteousness that insists that mankind has a greater purpose than any other species,
and would prove it by claiming some character flaw. 'Tis not a character flaw, I tell them, but amnesia. That's why we need prophets and seers. To remind us that we don't know what we're doing. And still they seek after the "one true path" that is suitable for all persons, in all times, in all geographic locations. A hyena does not seek to live like a lion; nor does a lion seek to live like a hyena. I tell them this. And I quote them the gospels. And I mention that I admire their bucket of sea water; but it is not the whole ocean, nor does its galvanized rim surround the whole of any truth --- only a fragment.

Sadly, they may not visit me again. But they will send others. Those who refuse to live in the hands of the gods, but insist their own hands are divine, always do.

I pray for them. And for the proving ground that is this earth, the mere waystation on the way to greatness that will be consumed by their blundering and self-righteous dominion. I wonder how we managed to last this long, in free fall, thinking in defiance of the laws of gravity and aerodynamics that we have been flying under our own power.

I've only written one song that reminds me of how much I owe to John Prine, as a songwriter. And it's not really just his style alone --- there's a little Tom T. Hall thrown in for good measure, as well. This is another song from the Undertown Cycle (Frequent Reader, you will recall that's my attempt at Springsteen's Nebraska. Written, perhaps poignantly, shortly after my own divorce became final, this is one half of the picture.

Just leave me here, would you?
We all die alone
There's no one to call
And no movies been shown

Its all sentimental
That crap, anyway
So just leave me here
And move away.

Just leave me here, would you?
And go live your life
There's not much adventure
In being my wife

Its all a tradition
That stuff, anyway
So just go on
And be on your way.

Don't bother with crying
or clutching your hands
Just trust in your God
while he laughs at your plans

And teaches you lessons
you dont understand
That make you a woman or man,
And survive it the best that you can.

Just leave me here, would you?
No sense we both crack
Pack up all your memories
And please, don't look back

Its all sentimental,
That crap, anyway
So just drive off
And Ill be OK.

Just leave me here, would you?
Don't bother to call
And I wont leave the light on
For you in the hall

Its all a tradition,
That stuff, anyway
So just leave me
And move away.

Don't bother with weeping
or wringing your hands
Just trust in your God
that its part of His plan

And remember youll never
full well understand
Just what makes you a woman or man.
And start over, as long as you can.

1998

I wonder at the most auspicious times
that by some random system are proclaimed
and why those correspondences we find
ourselves at odds with should take all the blame

The moon, for instance, in its wane and wax;
The seasons, as they go and come again;
The numerals assigned like colored tacks
to calendars devised by human brains,

As if in the whole world mankind's belief
about the way the universe is made
means anything at all to a small leaf
or changes how it perceives light and shade.

I wonder how the world devoid of man
survived through countless eons and evolved
without the logic only we command,
and managed, with its riddles yet unsolved.

I ask the mockingbird to state its case
for choosing the best moment to proceed,
and swear I see a smile upon its face
that seems to say, "Why don't you learn to read

a book that needs no glossy title page,
that promises no esoteric lore,
that will not guarantee you center stage,
but may instruct you nonetheless, in more

than what you think important, or germaine?
What book, you ask, contains such heady stuff?
The book of life, that you seem to distain;
but against which, your knowledge is mere fluff."

I wonder at the most auspicious times
that by some special school are found and named.
It is no wonder that we act so blind.
That we think we have knowledge is to blame.

17 AUG 2004

It takes perhaps at most an entire day
depending on the company and scene,
but at some point there's nothing left to say
and words become superfluous, obscene.

It's not because the topics have run dry,
or even that some common ground is lost.
More to the point, it becomes hard to try
to fill the void when all don't share the cost.

And then, the simple comfort of two souls
that understand without the need to chat,
outside the ego's posturing controls,
becomes a treasured place of beauty that

rejects the more gregarious and finds
in silence, peace, for body, soul and mind.

17 AUG 2004

Last night a storm rolled slowly in
the thunder muffled by the air
so heavy, like a mortar's crack
or heavy rifle silenced with
a potato at its barrel end,
wrapped in layers of gauze;
it could only slowly make
its way along the pea-soup night
and felt that it was far away
instead of at our doorstep.
The rain was more like sour sky-sweat
that leaked from cloud-pores; it did not fall
but oozed out in the still air like
the world had run a marathon,
the moisture dripped along its brow
and heaving chest, coating hot and salty
the gasping, overheated ground.

10 AUG 2004

pietrosperoni, or the artist formerly known as fool_in_spirit has asked me to provide, in the Wiki version of the 9/11 report, my thoughts on the document. I plan on doing so, but the interim steps in which I get my thoughts together I will process here.

Let's start with the logical premise of the 9/11 report: That terrorism must be prevented from affecting the United States. The proposed method for doing that is to increase intelligence about terrorist organizations and their actions, and to increase security to deter those actions. I think that is the wrong method.

First, the most logical method for deterring terrorism is to reduce terrorism. The fact of the matter is that terrorist groups exist because at some level, there are world governments or other bodies politic that believe that these terrorists are justified in their purpose and actions. If this were not the case, they would be eliminated. Consentually, and globally. To accomplish this end, we must as a nation, and a consortium of nations, separate those who don't like us for the wong reasons, and those who don't like us for the right reasons.

The first group can only be eliminated by education. And that education must begin at home. If we are the leaders of the free world, we must lead by example. There is a reason why third-world countries focus their available budgets on military strength and neglect health care and education. The reason: becaus? we do it. Until our spending on education and healthcare is greater than our military expenditures, we cannot expect anyone else in the world to value education and healthcare more than military might. As a corollary, our education (both at home and abroad) must not present bias, or be combined with or contingent upon, other factors. For example, the delivery of 100,000 textbooks must not be coupled with the delivery of 100,000 cases of Coca-Cola. The delivery of 100,000 vaccine units must not be coupled with 100,000 Bibles. And so on. We're leading, as you might have guessed, to a discussion about doing right for its own sake --- or Dharma with no Karma. But that will be discussed in greater detail in a later post.

The second can only be eliminated by addressing these right reasons, admitting where there is fault on our part. In essence, this also relates to practicing what we preach. First, the United States must be accountable to international law. Second, any United States-based corporation or entity operating outside the United States MUST in its dealings outside the United States be required to adhere to either local law, or United States law, whichever is MORE restrictive. For example, child labor and minimum wage law in the United States must be applied to workers for American corporations outside the United States. That's only a beginning. Anti-trust legislation should also be in effect. If a company wishes to do business in or with the United States, it must follow its laws EVERYWHERE. And it must apply those laws evenly. For freedom of speech to be truly appreciated, it must include the right to say "Fuck the United States", at the most general, and "Fuck McDonalds" more specifically. In addition, IF we provide aid to one side of an argument (say, the Israelis), we must provide aid in equal proportion to the other side (say, the Palestinians). To do otherwise is not only to produce the impression of impropriety, it is to explicitly be unfair. Weapons or money for one side MUST equal money and weapons for the other side. Or more to the point, NOTHING for either side should they fail to conform to international law and/or their agreed upon conditions.
Of course, the delineation of groups that hate us into those that are misinformed versus those that are justified is dependent upon a single thing --- that we listen to what they are saying, and assume from the get-go that they have valid viewpoints. These viewpoints may be disproved. But to go into a discussion with the opinion that you are always right, and they are just ignorant and belligerent troublemakers, is NOT the answer. They may be right about us. And what does that say, if we are not willing to admit our faults, correct our leaders, corporations, policies, and actions where they are short-sighted, self-centered, bigoted, biased or otherwise detrimental?
If the United States is to actually be, rather than appear to be, the leader of the free world, it must remember one very important thing. The most powerful nation is not automatically the greatest nation. The greatest nation is the one that leads the world as a whole to a better future, not just itself. The greatest nation is the one that is the most admired, not the most feared, or hated. The greatest nation is the one that leads by example, not by coersion. The greatest nation is the one that wages war on the conditions under which terrorism appears to some to be the only viable option. The greatest nation does not declare a "war on terror". The greatest nation gives terrorists no basis. By ensuring that the entire world is a place in which terrorism is not justified. Not for the glory of the greatest nation. But for the progress, evolution, safety, happiness, and well-being of the entire planet.

More to come. I'm starting to feel like a speech writer.

We do not want to go and sit
for three long hours of this shit.
We do not think it well-spent time
to learn to walk the judging line
or show your beauty, just skin deep
to leeches, dilettantes and creeps.
Revealing if our wallets reach
quite deep enough, that's what they teach.

But we will drive, in monkey suits
and gag ourselves on their false fruits,
suppress our thoughts, lest they betray
the fact that we despise the way
these things are run, and come about,
attempting to smooth out the doubt
that if you have good looks and poise
(at least as deemed by vapid boys)
you don't need brains, or self, or sense
just ego and experience.

Alas, the time is drawing near -
hair washed, clothes pressed, complexion clear.

So off to some great hotel, we
advance to meet sad destiny.

In my back pocket rests a check
which writ, will debit self-respect
and add more funding to the cause
of empty, self-indulged applause.

There is no up-side to this thing.
There are no praises I would sing
to lift up pageants as some good.
I'd pull the plug, if I but could.

08 AUG 2004

Well, I have done it. Purchased the "official" 9/11 report. And read it through, at least at this time on a cursory level. I will re-read it in detail, of course.

There are a few things that trouble me. They are as follows:

1. A war on terrorism will not succeed. That is because terrorism is the symptom, not the cause. The cause is a state of global affairs that gives rise to the belief that terrorism is, for many, a justifiable and perhaps the only viable alternative to advance their agenda to the point where it will be considered.

2. If we are to engage the problem of alternatives to terrorism for those who now employ it as their sole means of communication, we have to start looking hard at the fact that we are a single human family. National "rights", and boundaries, really must have no meaning if we are to address, fairly and honestly, the grievances of one group of people versus another. The fact is, that as a human species, we are in effect a single family --- albeit in some cases only distant cousins.

This makes EVERY war in effect a civil war. Brother against brother --- for the majority of religions on this planet accept as one of their tenets some degree of universal brotherhood.

3. With respect to that universal brotherhood. The United States must make a statement to the world, and must lead the other "so-called" civilized nations in one very important point. We must accept Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Druidism, Wiccanism, Sufism, Voodoo, Santeria, Ba'hai, Sikhism, Confucianism, Atheism, and all the rest, as absolutely equally viable paths to that exclusively human (at least, human-claimed, for none of the other species that have evolved and existed for millions of years on this planet have found it necessary to indulge in the nuances of comparative theology) province, enlightenment. If we are capable of being enlightened (as we claim), then we need to accomplish it. That means returning spiritual truth where it belongs --- to each and every individual.

4. We need to focus our resources not on exerting our influence through military might, or covert operation, or corporate interest, but through demonstration of our principles by enforcing them upon ourselves. Eliminate special interests. Eliminate preconceived biases. Restore (or, rather, considering our own systematic programs of terrorism that checker our own historical national agenda --- vis a vis the Comanches, for exampl?) "justice for all." Not justice that meets our needs or serves the expediency of the moment, but justice that punishes our friends when guilty, and praises our enemies when they are courageous and in the right.

5. Finally, we need to think long and hard about something that G.I. Gurdjieff once said, that was almost echoed in Obama's recent speech at the Democratic convention: "As long as a single person is in prison, no one is free." No matter what the reason --- because prison population, like terrorism, is a symptom. And to address the cause, we cannot continue to just build more prisons and graveyards. Or schools that teach rigid ways of looking at the world. Or churches that preach hatred and xenophobia in the guise of building their own brand of "chosen people" to pit against the rest of the world.

Ah, I could go on.

Paraphrased (and adapted somewhat) from a wonderful book, The Telling, by Ursula K. Le Guin:

There were no "original" human words for God, gods, or the divine. The bureaucrats who formalized spirituality into "religions" made up words for "God" and installed state or cultural theism when they learned that a concept of deity was more important in the cultures or states they took as models. They saw that religion was a useful tool for those in power. But there was no native theism or deism. The word god, to authentic, original human beings, human beings living in accord with the laws that govern all life and to which human beings are not an exception, was a word without referrent. No capital letters. No creator, only creation. No eternal father to reward and punish, justify injustice, ordain cruelty, offer salvation. Eternity was not an endpoint but a continuity. Primal division of being into material and spirutal existed only as two-as-one, or one in two aspects. There was no hierarchy of Nature and Supernatural. No binary Dark/Light, Evil/Good, or Body/Soul. No afterlife, no rebirth, no immortal disembodied or reincarnated soul. No heavens, no hells. The original human system, the one that resulted in the evolution of the human species from neanderthal to cromagnon to homo erectus to homo sapiens to homo sapiens sapiens [a process which bureaucratic religions all insist was the point at which evolution ended, being no longer necessary, contrary to the principle that in order to progress, to survive, a species must evolve or die] was a spiritual discipline with spiritual goals, but they were exactly the same goals it sought for bodily and ethical well-being. Right action was its own reward. Dharma without karma.

The tap left running,
wasting water and money;
all claim it evil.

they watch it dripping,
blame who turned it, and cry
"How wrong! How shameful!"

No one moves to change
the sad scene; their sole action
is indignation.

Yet when someone tries
to turn the spigot's flow off,
they are reviled, too.

Is it the action,
or our own nothing done
that is upsetting?

So you can describe
how the world has become mad,
and with pride, complain.

Just being righteous
without fixing what is wrong
compounds the problem.

What glory is there
in being right about things
that make life ugly?

There is no changing
without risking ridicule.
You must at least try.

05 AUG 2004

Dear Postmaster General:

I live in what likes to call itself, at least in information generated by its tourist bureau, a major metropolitan area of the United States. New Orleans, Lousiana, to be precise. The local branch of my post office is located roughly seven blocks from my house. The delivery route for my neighborhood is approximately 8 city blocks square. Not much area, all things considered. And yet, the schedule for mail delivery to my residence on a daily basis varies from about 10:00 a.m. at best, to roughly 6:00 p.m. (today's delivery) to sometimes, not at all. That's right --- sometimes there is NO daily delivery. While there is a regular delivery person (who is very nice and personable), often our mail carrier is a substitute. Often, these substitutes do not even wear any piece of clothing identifying them as a USPS employee.

By contrast, when I lived in rural Ohio, on the Hardin and Wyandot County borders, I was approximately 10 miles from the nearest post office, and roughly 15 miles from any town with a population greater than 7000 people. My carrier's route was probably about 15 square miles. And yet, regardless of the weather (you know, neither rain nor sleet nor snow nor hail, etc.), you could set your watch by the arrival of the mail. It never varied more than 10 minutes either direction EVERY morning EVERY day.

This disparity in service seems strange to me.

Just thought you'd like to know. Not expecting anything whatsoever.

The world is suffering and pain
or so the Buddhists say
but with control of mind and flesh
for some, it goes away

Not for the tree, or rock or mouse
does this travail desist;
nay, 'tis for man, and man alone,
the top dog on the list

For man deserves a better fate
than to compete, and die;
and thus, all man's misguided myths
are built upon a lie.

The lie is whispered in our cribs:
that this world is our toy,
and that each field of grass is less
than one grand girl or boy

And so we use, abuse and waste
our time upon this earth.
Instead of finding balance,
giving back, we make it worse.

How did we get here? And what for?
These questions, our tales say,
end in the right of human might
that does not see the play

of life and death in which we're cast
where we believe our press
and act in spite of natural law
that teaches, more or less

That every thing that lives requires
the death of other things,
and in the end will make an end
of pawns, as well as kings

This suffering we dwell upon
disturbs us each, because
we think ourselves, mankind, exempt
from nature's violent flaws.

And so, we ponder future states
where all is just and fair
instead of realizing that
we are already there.

This world was not conceived for man
to do with as he please;
his grand appearance made less ripple
than a passing breeze.

To think your kind has rights to more
than any other type
is just misguided myth, not fact.
Please, don't believe the hype.

04 AUG 2004

From a recent thread over at buddhists:

What is our obsession with death?

For example, the other day, I was walking outside my house to find an immense amount of ants on the sidewalk, I was with my brother. His immediate reaction was to gather up mulch, pour lighter fluid on it, and burn the ants, as opposed to me blowing them back into the grass.

Why do you think we as human beings do this?

My reply as follows:

Quite simply, it is because our shared mythology as human beings, regardless of which "civilized" culture we call ourselves a member of, has instructed us that we have the power of gods --- to determine who has a right to live, and who has a right to die. We base our decisions, consciously or unconsciously, upon this premise - that what we think should live, lives, and what we think should die, dies. As best suits our needs at the moment, without any concept of balance or give and take. Because, of course, evolution ended with the appearance of homo sapiens sapiens. And this plane, or earthly existence, is not something of which we are an integral part --- it is only a proving ground in preparation for some "better" existence, in Heaven, Nirvana, outer space, whatever your religion calls it.

And from a little further in the conversation:

The point is, I think, that we attempt to enact the story we are told, in order to make it true. The basic story of "civilized" cultures, that is, cultures who are products of the agricultural revolution, is that the world is made for humans, and their role is to rule it (humans being the purpose for which the world was made, after all; they are the culmination of creation, according to our cultural mythos). The enactment of that story results in the attitude that we have the right to do with it whatever we like. And so we have done. And so the world is the way it is. We suffer because, according to our cultural mythology, we don't have enough power to control EVERYTHING. If we had no myth telling us to rule, or control, and lived according to the principles by which we became who we are (homo sapiens sapiens) there would be no suffering. There would be life and death, and acceptance of the fact that we are built of food, and in turn become food. Or something like that. Our behaving as gods is illustrated in the cultural maxim that humans, moreso than any other creature, deserve to live and not die. The end of thinking suffering is a burden does not require that suffering itself stops, but rather that we accept our place in the process of life and as a result do not cause others to suffer unnecessarily (in providing us food) and suffer only briefly when we are converted to food. Suffering in fact is a minor waystation. It is the avoidance of suffering when it is required that results in imbalance.

So often, the concept of education is limited to a model where information flows one way, from an educator to pupils, with the assumption that what is being taught is a set of static instructions that must be imparted in a specific way, with specific focus, disseminated from trained minds to shape and mold untrained ones. But in reality, learning does not REALLY occur that way. Wisdom, as opposed to book knowledge, is acquired by absorption, by immersion --- one could almost say, by contamination. And often, those who fulfill the "teacher" role end up learning more about their subject in the process than those who are labeled "students".

And it is only in the antiseptic, sterile halls of academia where one branch of knowledge is not intimately interconnected with other branches. Only in such a classroom is art separate from history, mathematics separate from philosophy, physics separate from spirituality.

Education is about learning as a multi-disciplinary pursuit. It must include self-teaching. It is about soaking up information from a variety of sources and acquiring the facility to interpret reality as an individual. For oneself. It is a step beyond the preconceived notions of how we learn, what we should be learning, and the ways in which those bits of scholarship fit together to construct the unique, complex and individual puzzle that is human existence.

It is also about "coming of age." Not as a poet, writer, philosopher, scientist, priest, historian, musician or any separately defined area of "expertise." But coming of age as a complete human being. With the goal of the lesson to learn the meaning of humanity. Not just its purpose, or its origins, or its current state of affairs. But to glean from the school of experience, the process of osmosis by which each separate occurrence or instance of data becomes part of a larger whole.

after reading, again, Daniel Quinn's Ishmael

What is the point to the great war
that we have waged three thousand years?
Have we discovered any more
than better ways to produce gears?

The revolution that gave birth
to so-called luxury and ease ---
has our great process on been worth
renouncing evolution? Please

Tell me the path we've named as right
that names us, humans, beyond laws
with which we learned to walk upright
and claimed as gods our noble cause:

To take for just ourselves, by right,
the entire world without remorse;
to judge what lives and what should die
and from the gods except our course.

To prove our story is not false,
the one that tells us we are kings,
we'll turn the world to a death waltz
and put an end to living things

But those that live include us, too;
At this war's end, we, the great hero,
must kill ourselves to see it through.
The end score - us, one, all things, zero.

03 AUG 2004