Far from being some "mere abstraction", the reality of the "world" in which one lives is no less and no more than a being unto itself. It is alive in the same sense that any beings "within" it are live, and in the same sense that any being in which it lives is alive. Why people think that such an idea is an invention is similar to, but opposite from, the way that an idea may be thought to obtain a degree of reality which it does not possess. Hypostatization is the latter notion, but the former notion, which expresses the idea that one fails to duly recognize the reality of something that is real, is perhaps best captured by the term "derealization". The failure to realize something that is in fact real. Both are forms of delusion, or rather are extreme polar elements which are essential to the idea of any delusion.
But the nature of any entity is a certain degree of independence from other entities, that is the nature of the dignity of being, and manifests as the existing realm of phenomena that manifest between beings as their interactions. These transactions which occur between beings is not something arbitrary, but stems from their own inner nature, from each their own essence. When the essences of beings are able to flourish according to their characteristic properties, and are able to manifest the expression of their own living spirits, then they are a true and full, actual reality. And what is manifested between beings in that state is "cut from the same cloth" as what enables those transactions, the environmental conditions in which they are embedded. These conditions exist within them, between them, and beyond them.
The fullness of all these manifestations is not some abstraction of the mind which models them "at a distance", any more than is such a mentally constructed model a mere hallucination without reference. They are all actually mentalities articulating their own resources in a world which provides a context for their endeavors, and these manifestations are not merely observed events, just as there are no such things as "merely observed events". Such a truncated notion, that things are "merely objectivities" is a gross delusion in both aspects (as are all delusions suchlike). It is the hypostatization of a model beyond the scope of its relation to reality as just that, a model. It is also the derealization of the beings which are modeled, that is the modeler, the model, the and modeled.
The modeler is derealized in that some aspect of their being has to be negated from expression in order to deceive itself about the nature of its own thought process, so that such thought process cannot recognize properly its origin (its own self), its limits (its function), and its reference (the modeled beings in themselves). The origin of the thought process is in the self which models it, and also in the form of the referenced beings, entities, or events which are modeled, both of which serve to act as limits by the mode of relation which is functional, usually a form of cognition leading to some anticipated result in other or further relations between the being who models in thought the being modeled, and the being modeled, who manifested characteristics of its own nature.
What "goes on" in a world is a representation of that world, just as what goes on in an individual person within that world is such a representation for himself. I discussed in my series Contra Columnis Quintus that there is an essence of each being and kind of being, which expresses through modes and manners of its action and articulation. That reveals the character of that being, both as an individual and as the member of a class of beings. So it is essential to the further discussion of the nature of this world and its destiny. And there is a destiny for this world, as there is for each and every being. This world, this realm called "Earth", is not the original firmament, and it is not the final domain of reality, not by anything except the most tenuous and delusional stretch of the most unacquainted mentality. So, to use the colloquial expression "what's going on", we might ask just that question of the world in which we exist. I already said what was going on in many videos and writings, in one form or another, going at it from many angles, and ranging across many aspects. So I won't belabor the specifics here. Not even a short list. I'm going to discuss what's going on in this world using a template that will structure my statements in a way that schedules the understanding to reach the appropriate realization on its own, simply by adducing the relevant facts for themselves. That template will address the fundamental characteristics of transactions between beings in this world and relate those characteristics to principles of assessment. The primary principle I'll use is the one called "Justice", which I've well-defined as a condition of being wherein its expression of its true nature is not hindered in any way. Don't let that fool you into thinking I mean "anything goes". There is a logic to Justice which demands anything goes which is in accordance with the fullness of a being's nature. A being which is deficient in some way does not express nature truly "according to its kind" and attempts to act outside of the jurisdiction of Justice, a violation which is untenable to the very principle of being, and is a violation of being and beings, though speciously a fulfillment of its own agenda.
In order for a being to be able to flourish according to its nature, it must of course exist in the proper environment, in relation to the proper classes of other beings, and therefore must exist in a realm proper to it. Otherwise there cannot be a truly characteristic expression of its essence. Without that, there cannot be a world in the proper sense of the term, which requires some harmonic of such properly existing beings. Justice amounts to the necessary and obligatory facts of these relations where none are restricted by any other, since what they express is tantamount to the same thing. For example, "Liberty", when properly understood, embraces the Right to do whatever is in accordance with one's own nature, which is the true meaning of having a "will" and the "freedom" to express it, and hence the true meaning of having a "free will". There are degraded forms of the idea, just as there are ideas which are improperly labeled by that term. But what is at stake here is understanding that such an idea carries within it the necessary understanding that there is no such thing as the liberty to restrain liberty. The liberty of one being by its very nature does not contradict the liberty of another, when we are speaking of true and whole beings, whose forms of entity do not carry deficiencies in any way. The only way this can be different is through coercion, always as a result of the violation of the essential dignity of a being.
So if a being should find it must sustain itself by incorporating other beings, such as how a human being must ingest the substance of other living beings, that is one thing. But if one of these human beings does so in such a way that it takes the sustenance of another human being from him, then that is not a true expression of the liberty to survive by seeking sustenance, because it is doing something to another of his kind just as if he were not of the same kind. That is untenable, as an individual is only properly the expression of a kind of being, though he is also his own unique expression. And just as he would like the liberty to express his being, which partly consists in and requires sustaining his life through alimentary processes, he therefore cannot do so by violating that same Right as it is expressed by the same essence expressing simultaneously in another instance of Itself, in this case by frustrating the same expression of that essence in another of his kind. That's just a negative way of describing the principle, which is derived from the positive and complete form of that principle of Justice, which is best summed up by the term "To Each, His Own".
Understanding that "each" means "each person", and that a person is nothing other than what a mind is in the fullest sense of the term "mind", how could it be said that a person can express his own being if others, through their own arrogance and ignorance, decide that a person doesn't have a right to his own mind? Surely there will be specifics to the issuance of prohibitions to someone as to what they can have a right to think, say, or do with his own self , such that those who issue those prohibitions or who take incursive actions against someone's self-expression would declare that in fact they know better about such things. They would argue that the person in question is not fit to express themselves as they truly are because such expressions are "wrong" or are "dangerous" or are "harmful" or are a "threat". But of course that is something that begs a proper definition of what is "wrong" and "dangerous" and "harmful" and a "threat" in terms precise and also accurate enough to make such a thing so clear as to be a demonstration that what one person has done is, in itself and without any doubt, a harm to another person's right to do whatever it is they would prefer to do in the same class of actions. So I'll use a seemingly trite example to make it clear. Let's say someone doesn't want to engage in idle chitchat at work. Well, is engaging in idle chitchat a requirement of the job per se? Does not doing so prevent anyone else from doing so with another, willing person?
Think about that same seemingly petty example in another way. Is there not the matter of what it is that the person would rather do with his own mind, apart from the doing of work per se? Perhaps some people like to engage in banter and chitchat at work, and it doesn't stop them from doing their work properly and efficiently, and even helps them because they get a sort of kick out of that, so much so that their supervisor, who has the right to prohibit such, permits it. But perhaps some at work do not wish to, or do not wish to do so with the persons there who do wish to. Does it make any sense to then demand such out of someone who wishes only to perform his own tasks and get on with the rest of his life when his work is done? The situation should be clear to a mature and honest mind. Unless it is a requirement of the work, then it is not required of the worker. That's a sort of logic anyone can understand. Also, if it stems from the nature of being, and it is permitted, and it is not injurious to the work of himself or another, then it is his liberty to so engage in that extralaborious activity. Chewing gum, whistling, tap dancing, juggling, eating; hell, doing anything whatsoever, so long as it is in accord with the simple requirements mentioned. But this makes no positive requirement about what that sort of thing will be and be done, and it must simply stem from the nature of the person, just as the actions he takes to do his work per se stem from the nature of his work. To demand of him not to express his nature in that way is senseless unless it is consistent to his agreements for that job. To demand of another to engage in such, which is an expression of liberty peculiar to the inclinations and needs of the individual, is incoherent. It is not only not consistent with the proper the nature of the act, in that merely the outward form is demanded. It may very well be inconsistent with the nature of the person put upon to join in that act, which is a violation of his rightful liberty to express his own nature, and not be required to be the satellite of another's. This is all the worse considering certain aggravating factors which I've discussed at length in other writings, and can take the form of work mobbing, and other forms of criminal sabotage and mischief. It can be a form of evil inherent to the locality, but it can also be more systematic than even many involved will be compartmentalized to realize. The damage it can do is still the same, and the responsibility still lies with those who trespass the principles of Justice, regardless of pretense or pretext.
That example and its broader ranges indicate that there is an inequity. It is not that the person who won't behave according to the preferences of others is at fault, but rather that his right to behave according to his own wishes, on the same plane of consideration, is abrogated by being ignored and devalued for the sake of others who have exceeded the boundaries allowed by a true expression of liberty in justice. Yet these others do value their own preferences, don't they? It is unjust, plain and simple. As to the specifics of the actions involved, some will say "But that's the way people are". No, that's the way some people are. Some people are not that way. Or some people are that way, but only around certain other people, not those there who want to force fit the relationship. That's just debased. That's called being "dense". Instead of facing their own over-expansive, coercive behavior for what it is, they are simply willfully infringing on the right of the other to have their own mind. It is a disrespect for the dignity of another. It can go further than being dense, and we have someone trying to be a "buster" or "ball buster" or "balloon popper" or what have you, basically an asshole, a bully, an annoying and sabotaging son of a bitch, and so on. Yet surely if these disrespectful persons were put in the same situation they'd suddenly have all the empathy in the world for their own predicament, as usual. That also is the way only some people are. There are a lot of these people in the world, different classes of them according to what part of "to each his own" it is that they "don't get". It can be something as trite as bothering someone who's not interested, or it can be something as severe as trying to force others to view the world the same way that you do because you think your view is more correct and that if the other doesn't adopt the same view (or doesn't claim to), then it would be better if that person died (in various senses of "to die") because "their soul will go to hell". Just look at what happened to the Waldensians at Merindol, or ask a Waldensian what "Piedmont Easter" means. The summary of such events is a true depiction of "the way people are". The evil at work in these kinds of deeds is enough to condemn the world, but their frequency in the past up til this present day is astonishing. At both ends of the spectrum, there are those who think they are doing such things for "a good cause", and there are those who do it because they are following orders, and there are those who just enjoy a pleasure peculiar to such violence and who are themselves, in essence, "unjust, wicked, and evil".
I will venture to say that we are in a realm which has paid a whole lot of lip service to its respect for Justice, and makes much fanfare that it cares a lot about the dignity of each and every being, and sees all life as sacred, and hopes for a benign and even heavenly outcome for everyone, as much as can be hoped for according to whatever standards of divine justice they have dogmatically believed are actually real and just. I will also venture to say that the "Earth realm" has the most grisly, abhorrent, wretched, insipidly idiotic and truly unforgivable track record on the fulfillment end of that bargain.
Is this just what goes on "all over the place" and just something that happens chronically at a simmer, most of the time, bursting forth in an extremely evil episode here and there? If so, then this is a world of nothing but evil volcanic activity striving to reach the surface constantly, with a Mt. St. Helens for each patch land 100 miles square. But it is truly worse than that. It is systematic. This Earth realm, this one that is variously understood as being spherical or flat, floating in infinite space or extended on an infinite plane, resting on a cosmic turtle's back, or what have you; that is to say this place called "the world" for everyone living on it, above it, under it, and in it from Timbuctu to Dublin to De Moines, in all of its nation states, in each of its cities, and in every one of its localities and neighborhoods, is thoroughly designed, by those who wield the power of hegemony, to be systematically unjust. So unjust, according to the description of each kind of crime that exists, all of which taken to a metalevel, that it even has damn near reached perfection at being unjust. This is a reality which it seems most people are schizophrenically realizing and denying simultaneously. A world where those who participate in varying degrees of willingness and wittingness each play a perverse role in the inversion of Justice, so that those who promote the status quo also cover over or play down its operation as a cover for a demonic realm of action that goes on right around them, over them, under their feet and even under their own noses. It is a massive and vile racket, systematic and severe, and making up the greater portion by far of what exists as "the world".
But the consequences of such a condition are going to be in direct proportion to the antecedent causes, and are inexorable. What those consequences cannot fail to be is akin to the phenomena seen in a rubber band when it snaps back to the shape it prefers when it has been stretched beyond that limit, and then is suddenly released. But for this "world", it is going to be something more like what happens when two large celestial bodies attempt to occupy the same space. Those sorts of events are also similarly trite and profound extremes, like the examples of injustice to which I referred before. But they manifest a simple fact that transcends the question of who or what "made" this world or the universe. This simple fact also transcends the question of what people think is going to happen or hope is going to happen, and how they think that relates to what is going on or what they think is going on. It is simply going to be the necessary demonstration of the principle of Justice, that each must get what he truly deserves, each must reap as he has sown, and the entire realm of the Earth is no exception. And judging by the symptoms, the condition is quite near its peak. And I think it was not idly said, for it fulfills a true understanding of the moral metaphysics of Ultimate Reality, that when evil reaches its maximum expression, then it will time for the Destroyer of Evil to manifest in the world, and utterly destroy it with a sort of energy which cannot be survived by any elements which are corrupt, seeming to them like molten metal. But this will seem to the Righteous like a bath of warm milk does to an infant. For we deal here not with the "mundane" collision of opposing forces, but of antivalent essences.
No comments:
Post a Comment