The illusion of illusion, or go kick a stone

The Vedas inform us that all that is around us is maya, illusion, if you will. That's a huge pill for many to swallow. We resort to Dr. Johnson's infamous refutation of Bishop Berkeley's immaterialist philosophy -- the first argumentum ad lapidem -- in which he kicked a rather large stone and exclaimed, "I refute it thus." That has settled the case for most of us, I suppose for the ensuing almost 300 years. But maybe it really hasn't resolved the issue at all.

For adherents of that latter-day religion known as Materialism, it absolutely conclusive, but like the zealous adherents of most religions, it is easier to ignore what doesn't fit into one's belief system than it is to accept what challenges it. It turns out that roughly 68% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. What's worse, even within that unrepresentative 5%, modern physics has shown us that atoms are not all that solid and consist mostly of empty space. Yes, there are explanations for the solidity, but they are, at the moment, our best guesses as to how things work. And that is fine.

There is nothing wrong with best guesses as long as we don't forget that's what they are: guesses. Too often, though, we simply forget, or we convince ourselves that what we experience as reality is reality as it really is. On the one hand, that helps get us through the day without major inconveniences and injuries, but on the other hand, it gets in the way as soon as we have no more stones to kick. At least this is the case with our experience of natural phenomena. Our experience of reality, in other words, works just fine and it only becomes problematic when we think that our experience is the only valid experience. Quite often it is not only helpful, but illuminating, to seriously exchange experiences with others. More often than not, we end up realizing that we have more in common than separates us.

What works for natural phenomena becomes more difficult when we're dealing with human phenomena; that is things that people do and say. Just this morning I read that Trump's newly fired campaign manager laundered his ill-gotten (or not properly reported) gains through a Washington lobbying firm with close ties to Clinton. And though underreported at the time, it is now fairly clear that Trump and Bill Clinton had a nice chat very shortly before the Donald decided to make his presidential bid. It would seem there's more empty space in a hydrogen atom than there is between the two separate parties vying for the world's allegedly most powerful office. The dismay I expressed a couple weeks ago seems somehow justified.

This isn't the only example of things not really being the way we are led to believe they are. In fact, it would seem that most of what we're being told, at least on mainstream and quasi-mainstream media is less news than it is ... well, for lack of a better word, propaganda. Personally, I'm not at all pleased with this development, and I'll be the first to admit that trying to find "real" news, or the "true" story (by which I mean the one that simply corresponds most completely to all known facts, or sometimes even "fairly reliable news" or an "insightful" story demands more time, energy, and effort than most of us can reasonably be expected to expend. It shouldn't have to be so hard to figure out life in this day and age, even if most of what I'm forced to hear about day in and day out is rather far-removed from my everyday reality.

The above is simply an example. I'm not condoning nor condemning. I'm convinced that everyone involved in every single aspect of this latest political mess believed that they were doing what needed to be done and that they believed their reasons were both reasonable and worthwhile. Once you take a step back from it all, however, it all looks pretty sleazy and messy, and, ultimately, extraordinarily dangerous and deadly, but I'm not convinced there's a secret cabal (the notoriously infamous "they") who are out to get us. By the same token, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Clinton and Trump have much more in common with each other than either (or both) of them have with me, and I don't think it would difficult to make the case that their interests are very different from mine.

Now, don't get me wrong: it's not that I think that either of them, or any of those inside our outside the spotlight of political activity is reasonable or even respectable. I have -- for as long as I can remember -- had an intense suspicion of anyone who maintained, directly or indirectly, that s/he knew better what was good for me than I did myself. Those who on occasion did -- my parents, for example -- just didn't tell me that they knew, they demonstrated that knowledge, they kicked stones. And so, now in my old age, if you're just telling me, not showing me, well, then you're just spouting hot air, and I needed take that too seriously, unless you're spewing so much of it that it's contributing to global warming and then I'm forced to get involved.

Who knows, perhaps some of those humanitarian interventions we hear about all the time aren't really so humanitarian after all? Could it be that national and foreign policies are more often driven by desire for profit than a desire to help? Is it possible that some of that providing support for democratic forces elsewhere is a mere distraction from the destruction of democratic inclinations at home? Could it be that most of what we're being told simply doesn't square with most of what is actually being done? I have a rapidly growing suspicion that there is increasing disconnect between words and deeds ... not just in America, not just in Germany, not just in the corporate world, but everywhere I turn. There is a whole lot of illusion out there, that's for sure. It could even be that when we're dealing with human phenomena, illusion is the best we can hope for. I don't necessarily want to think that, and I'm pretty sure that isn't the case, and one thing is certain: that's not necessarily a comforting thought.

And so, once again, I find myself in a situation in which, like I argued a few posts ago, you just have to let go. When dealing with human phenomena, it could very well be that taking the old adage, actions speak louder than words, seriously may be the human equivalent of kicking stones. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to turn off the TV. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to put down that newsprint bludgeon you like to beat others over the head with. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to just let the yappers go on yapping and the screamers go on screaming. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to take a closer look at what the yappers and screamers are doing, and not just listen to what they're saying.

Maybe, just maybe, it's time to take a deep breath and a step back from all of that and allow a little common sense and actual experience back into your life. Kick a few stones, or maybe, just maybe, start thinking for yourself.

If you can't turn around, at least turn the wheel

Although I don't know how many times I have to say it before it becomes clear, it should be dawning on you -- even if ever so slightly -- that we can't go on with "business as usual", as if "business" were a good metaphor for anything.

The difference between what we say and what we do is huge. The difference between what we know would be good for us all and what we have is huge. The difference between what we believe and what is real is huge. The days of small-step changes are, well, for the most part behind us, if they even exist any more at all.

Don't you just hate it when that happens? Here we are, like frogs in the pot of water, thinking that things aren't as bad as everyone says and that with a tweak here, a small adjustment there; a declaration of commitment here and a gee-wouldn't-it-be-nice there; with a mere "return" to some odd values that were never actually there; well, then things would just be peachy keen and the world would be a nice place again. The water's boiling, however, and if we weren't frogs, our goose would be cooked.

But hey, as George Orwell once said, "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." And he also said, "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." George was a wise man, and insightful on top of everything else. No, don't get me wrong: I'm not comparing myself to him in any way. I think he got it, and I like to think I understand what he's saying. I'm not (yet) despised by many (OK, a few, but who isn't), and for the most part those who don't want anything to do with me feel that way for reasons much more personal than whether whatever I say might have some similarity with "the truth". Fair enough. What I am thinking, though, is that in these days and times, even looking for the truth is close to revolutionary. I've never really thought of myself as such, but with each passing day, I find myself closer than I would have ever imagined.

Revolutionaries are a strange breed, that's for sure. You've got your Lenins, your purveyors of the guillotine-driven French Revolution, the slave-owners-seeking-freedom types of the American Revolution ... hell, all advocates of violent revolution have been short-lived, ending up like the despots they drove out (the Beelzebub-Devil problematic, as I like to call it). On the other hand, there are the Mandelas, the Gandhis, and Jesus, just to name the most well-known, who knew that if you want real change -- even necessary change -- you've got to find it in yourself first. And who is really ready for that?

And that, dear reader, is the rub: Folks much smarter and wiser than me (e.g., Buckminster Fuller, Jacques Fresco, Jim Hurtak, Stan Tenen, Valentin Tomberg, Gar Alperovitz, E.F. Schumacher, Erich Fromm, Jean Gebser, just to name a few) have all made the case that any and all real change starts with ourselves. We can't wait for others to set the tone. We can't wait for others to show us the way. We can't wait for others to take the lead. We can't wait for others at all.

I know -- and believe it or not, I understand -- that not many of you are willing to (radically) "turn around". I wish you could, but I know that's expecting too much. Given that we now think what we've always thought, we've simply got just more of what we've always got. Nevertheless, you can make a start, and this start involves simply stopping to think what you think and take a step back to give it a good look-over. Regardless of how compressed time-frames are becoming, the least you can do is ask yourself whether there might be other options for a better future available.

I pledged but not necessarily allegiance ...

As I noted last time, saying the words is just a way of "talking the talk". The real test of anything we say is whether we're willing to act on it ... to "walk the walk", to keep in tune with the rhyming metaphor.

I know lots of talkers. Lots. At the moment we're talking about American talkers, but I'm here to tell you: mutatis mutandis (a Latin phrase that means, "all the relevant changes having been made") what I'm saying here applies everywhere else I've ever been as well, and beyond. Again, this is one of those cases in which my fellow countrypeople carry their obsessions on their sleeve, but they're really not as exceptional as they might like to think they are. No, what I'm looking for are "walkers": people who are willing to put into practice what they preach, folks who are willing to do, not just say.

Even once we get past that swearing-one's-allegiance-to-a-piece-of-cloth thing and leave the realm of the actual for the more ethereal realm of the possible, what does this "oath" require? Assuming that the sayers are serious about that "one-nation" stuff, how long does it take for it all to break down? Two more words, as Fate would have it.

The original pledge, written by a fascist-friendly Baptist pastor who wanted to have it said with right arms extended forward (yes, as in "Sieg, heil"), didn't include the "under God" part. That was a 1954-we've-got-to-distance-ourselves-from-those-atheistic-Commies addition. If it's included, what does it mean for Americans today? If it's an essential or mandatory part, then, quite simply, no atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, Taoist, and, conceivably, Moslem (though the stretch is not far) can say it in good conscience. I don't know how many of these there are in America, but it's more than a handful. There are those who insist that the phrase be included, even if it excludes so many fellow "patriots". Personally, I think we can leave it out because it wasn't there to begin with, and since the Commie threat has passed, it's doubly unneeded, but that's just my own little view of things.

No, what interests me more than anything else is what follows, that short little phrase, "indivisible, with liberty and justice for all". When I look across the Pond these days, I see anything but something "indivisible": right and left, Democrats and Republicans, gun nuts and concerned citizens, North and South, East and West, the racial divide, and the treatment of immigrants -- just to name the most obvious -- point to anything but indivisibility. Which talkers are doing anything about that?

The very last six words, though, are the killer: in a country that recognizes "affluenza" as a disease, that has a disproportional number of minorities in prison, most often for negligible offenses, that has the starkest income inequality in the Western world (and is in the top 3 worldwide) and that is home to the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the CIA and NSA, that has the most militarized police force in the "free world", well, I have to ask myself, what are the pledgers doing about this?

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that all those "rising to defend the pledge" are actually just doing their part to ensure that nothing about it holds true. It's just so much hot air. What we should be doing is protecting and helping the weak and maligned, seeking ways to come together, and speaking truth to power. But we're not. We're wishing for the "good old days" that were never really good, and are nothing but old.

The way out of the darkness is not behind you, it's in front of you.

I pledge allegiance ...

These are the opening words of a statement than every American school child was expected to render each and every day of school at one time. It probably persists today, but I don't know, for I'm not there. What I do know, however, is that more than just a few friends of mine bring it up again and again (on Facebook, for example) and there is a strong feeling that it's not being pushed hard enough.

It is, therefore, time to take a look at this pledge and ask ourselves just what is being said, and, in addition, whether we should be pledging it at all.

Note bene: for my non-American readers, this is an exercise in examining something Americans think is important. Consider it a lesson in cultural studies, or Landeskunde, as my German friends would say. In the next post, I'll take another look at it from a broader, more inclusive perspective.

The pledge, as originally written, is as follows:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation [under God] indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

First of all, a flag is a piece of cloth, in most cases, and it is, at best, a physical representation of an idea or an ideal. It doesn't matter which. What we find, first and foremost, however, is an oath to a mere piece of matter which has been, somehow, in some inexplicable way, be endowed with almost religious significance. Immediately, though, we are informed that the same degree of devotion, of submission, is to the republic that the flag is meant to symbolize, namely the USA. This entity is then described as a singular, united, unified "nation", which as of 1954 by legislative decree is imbued with divine oversight, that ascribes to and practices "liberty" (freedom in a political sense) and "justice" (equal treatment before the law) for all.

It's a nice sentiment, but is it applicable? When the pledge is expressed, it's a matter of "talking the talk". But, putting it into practice would be a matter of "walking the walk". But that's a topic for next time.

No, at the moment the question that is plaguing me, is how so many people who either believe or would like to believe that the United States was founded on sound, Christian principles, reconcile this pledge with their beliefs. Think about it:

1. There are numerous places in the Bible, especially the New Testament, that strongly indicate one shouldn't be swearing oaths.
2. While it is on the surface, at least, a pledge, it certainly sounds like an "oath", especially when you consider what the law proscribes for desecrating the symbol, let alone the "republic for which it stands".
3. The discrepancy between what it describes ("liberty and justice for all") and what is reality (one of the greatest disparities between rich and poor, the inordinate number of people of color who receive harsher punishments, even for lesser crimes, the repeated attempts to modify, say, voting laws to discriminate against those same people of color, the drastic differences in adjudication between "those well off" and others (e.g., "affluenza")

I have to wonder about how people get these things together in their minds. For the moment, I think it's enough for you to think about.

Yes, this is the pledge that many, many Americans hold to be sacrosanct, but before we even look at it in a critical way, questions present themselves that every one of us should be required to think about seriously.

The case of the classified data

Recently, and not for the first time, conservative heads were exploding because emails from/to Hillary Clinton were discovered that contained classified information. Some things simply make me chuckle.

First, a disclaimer: I could care less that Hillary Clinton is involved. I'm not convinced she's presidential material (her husband proved he wasn't) and she hasn't really ever accomplished anything that makes me think she could handle the job in a respectful and humanly decent manner. (The last US President who managed that was Jimmy Carter, but we all know how his administration has been spun. End of digression.) So, this isn't about her, it's all about the accusation, and I don't care who's making it.

At the beginning of my working career, I ended up being an intelligence analyst at the edge of the Free World (5 km as the crow flies from the Iron Curtain) at the height of the Cold War. I wore civilian clothes and was primarily charged with gathering intelligence from any and all sources, even exploiting my contacts, whenever and wherever possible. In a sense, I was the "spy who was out in the cold". An important part of my "job" was conducting "liaison" with local national agencies in order to gather, what I was told was highly sensitive information that was vital for the national security of the US of A. Fair enough.

At least once a week, my partner and I would travel out to the railroad crossing point between East and West to get the word on what was slipping over and across the border. The border police were great guys: friendly, helpful, always positive, appreciative of the fact that we could speak the local language, and they were generous. They went through every train that came out of the Eastern Zone and gathered up all the newspapers, for example, that the travellers left behind (litter-leavers know have no national allegiance). We dutifully took these back to our office, where the miraculous happened.

Our "product", so to speak, were "intelligence reports": the more you submitted, the higher you were rated, and we were no slackers, I can assure you. Out came the "form" (everything in the military has a form), the key data was filled in (in triplicate, of course), and the newspapers were simply attached. Everything, however, that left our office was, by policy, classified SECRET. And so, the form was stamped SECRET at the top and bottom of every page, and each and every page of the attachments (i.e., the newspapers) were stamped SECRET as well. This was all bundled together into a double-enveloped package, stamped appropriately, then paper-taped across every edge of tape and on every seam before being taken up to the mailroom for sending to our "customer", the translation detachment at our next-higher echelon of authority. There, once received, droves of translators translated every single headline and word and stamped every page they produced with SECRET on top and bottom of the page. And the translations were reworked as well into "reports" all of which were classified at least SECRET, though those reports in which the analysts believed to see something "important" were classified at higher levels. It would take a total of about 40 years for our newspapers to eventually be unclassified, but in the interim, the national security of the USA would not be compromised.

Yeah, I love it when journalists play the "classified" card. They have no idea what it means. I have some idea and I can tell you that most of what I saw classified were things anybody anywhere with even the slightest amount of interest could have collected for themselves.

But they didn't. Why? Because the "secrets" weren't worth the paper they were written on.

Banking on an apology

In all fairness, I think I owe any of you who actually read (and even tried to understand) the last 10 posts an apology. No really.

How utterly boring was that? Honestly. What amazes me more than anything else - well, other than I wrote it, and more so that some of you read it - is that it was that we exchanged our society for this: an illusory lunacy, full of lies, deceit and dishonesty, leading only to so-called material wealth (in this case, money), and for this some folks are willing to not only lie, cheat, and steal, they are ready to kill and maim as well.

You think I'm joking?

You may not know anyone personally -- or maybe you do -- who lost so much in the crash that they threw themselves out a window or chomped down on a gun barrel "inadvertently" pulling the trigger, but there are people who did just that. There were people who simply lost their homes, were thrown to the wolves on the street, who are now living in a tent city or under a bridge, who may have caught an incurable illness as a result. Hell, there are people with major health issues now who can't afford insurance or care, who worked hard all their lives and have a mere pittance to exist on now that they are old and unproductive and have been more or less thrown on the scrap heap. Societies, at least in principle, represented morals and values and discussions were conducted against a backdrop of what was reasonable and desirable for everyone, for the community-at-large. Economies have no room for values, morals, or - heaven forbid! - concern for the well-being of others. Economies are simply about money, no more and no less.

Societies were composed of members; economies are composed of competitors. And even though we don't like to, and try hard as hell to, avoid thinking of it that way, that is also part of what it means to live in a world in which money is simply more important than people and a few choice legal rights are far more important than any human rights will ever be.

I say the world we live in, because it's just the space in which we find ourselves, it's not a society. At least not anymore. I suppose it could be, if we wanted it to be, but I really don't see a lot of indication that that's what's on the horizon.

Much Ado About Nothing

I have to take a break from the public/private thread ... just for today, and in reality, it's not all that far off target. Three days ago Facebook went "public". I'm not exactly sure what that means, really. It's a private company that is now held by different private persons (but not very different from who was holding it before). According to reports, there are now a good number of tens-millionaires that there weren't before. And yes, there are a number of newly minted paper-billionaires in the crowd as well, but I'm not sure what is "public" about that. Talking about the stock market and public makes about as much sense as talking about the public in relation to the Freemasons. But that doesn't stop us from getting excited, does it?

So what actually happened on Thursday? Well, take away the hype and the private fortunes and what's left? Right. Nothing. I didn't feel the earth miss a beat in its rotation. The Messiah didn't arrive. Cancer wasn't cured and neither was AIDS. And for those of you who think the stock market has something to do with the economy as a whole or its "health", well, I suppose you just have to go on living your illusion. Facebook -- at the moment -- is the most highly "valued" company in the world. And the only question that comes to my mind is "so?" Oh, don't get me wrong. There are no sour grapes here. Whether Mr. Zuckerberg is a pauper or billionaire makes no difference to me. Money is money and you're either beholden to it or your not. It doesn't make people people. Too often, it turns them into un-people, so let's hope this fate doesn't befall Mr. Z.

No, I'm just surprised by all the airtime such a non-event gets. Facebook is an advertising platform (when seen as a business, which it really is). Whether people can get in touch with old friends or post silly pictures of themselves or out themselves in ways they never would in person doesn't really matter. People are that way, and just being able to accumulate a good number of them in one place is attractive go advertisers. OK, some, like GM, got tired of no return on investment and pulled out. That Facebook generates only about one-seventh of the revenues of Goldman-Sachs (another peach of a company, considering how much public money went into them), it's now twice as "valuable". I think it's time we started reconsidering what we really mean when we use certain words. So, what is it that they really do as a business. It would seem very little.

And that's where this is all going to end, I'm sure. If the banks hadn't jumped in to the tune of about $300 million on that first day, the stock price would have closed lower than it started ... oh, by the way, that's considered a bust on Wall Street. What some people won't do to keep the illusion going. And, in the end, who's going to end up paying for all of this? You guessed it, the public. That's what going public is apparently all about.