posted November 09, 2009 09:47 PM         

How old are you?

I believe you're in your 30s, but I'm not certain. If you are (or older), then were you always "on a mission" like you seem to be now? If not, what led up to your awakening? And what was your life like before it?

posted November 13, 2009 06:52 PM         

All this attention is truly encouraging to me, and if what I have to say, or if the way I have to say it, disturbs, offends, or annoys you, then the best course of action you can take is probably to just ignore me. I'll only say more provocative things, more provocatively, and drift ever deeper into my fantasy of being some sort of meaningful voice in the world. Of course, if you want to promote that fantasy, -- if you believe in it, as I do, and want to encourage it to become a reality, -- then, by all means, take part in my discussions, ask me questions, scrutinize my arguments, and present your own arguments up to be scrutinized in their turn.

Together, we can create a world, or a corner, in which controversy is welcome, and controversial things are openly discussed. And where this is done, not with the most stern and puritanical sensitivity to custom, but with a free, playful jocularity that, yet, does not negate the sincerity of our good intent. A world (or a corner) in which a person may be appreciated, first and foremost, for who she is, and only secondarily for what she contributes to society. Where the neurological differences and predispositions of people are recognized and accepted as fact -- long before any attempt is made to evaluate their respective worth, or to impose pressure on the people to alter these fundamental dispositions, seemingly randomly, accorded to them by Nature, or The Grace of God. Where people are allowed to be themselves; where the deepest dreamers are allowed, nay, encouraged to dream as deeply as their souls will allow, and the shallowest men of action are encouraged to manifest, if never to fully comprehend, the best of these dreams. Where the dexterity of mind and the breadth of soul necessary to envision a variety of possibilities is celebrated; just as proudly as we celebrate the fortitude required to plod determinedly along in the manifesting of any one of those possibilities. Where the various strengths and weakness we all possess are respected, and attention is directed towards the creation of a society based on ideals of cooperation and collaboration; as opposed to the present ideals of competition and conquest. Where the intrigues and indulgences of insanely wealthy (i.e. greedy) white-collar criminals are not met with more tolerance than the psychedelic transports of experimental dreamers and bi-polar protoshamans. Where playfully celebrating ourselves (or what God has given us) is not tabooed as "arrogance". And where slandering people's motives whenever we disagree with their position is not accepted as commonplace. Can you picture it?

Okay, Dervish,
I'll take the bait.

I don't know if I'm an idealist, or something else entirely, and I don't know what criteria we would be using to define our terms, anyway. There is a difference between Sagittarian idealism (which precedes the experience of Capricornian disillusionment) and Aquarian idealism (which transcends it). I think that's probably what interests you, but I'm not sure what I can say about it. I've been depressed for most of my life, and I still visit the underworld on a fairly regular basis. If I stand for ideals, or what may seem like pipedream visions, it's probably because I see that I have no real choice. I can criticize myself, as many others do, or I can embrace and defend myself. It's kind of a no-brainer. Self-destruct, or allow myself to be what I am, and learn to love it. I chose the latter. And whether or not the world decides that I am "entitled" to believe in my dreams, and to live as I believe, the fact remains that I am a gryphon, -- or some, as-yet-unimagined creature, -- living in the body of a man; whom the world still persists in calling a figment. Whether or not they believe in me, I know that I am real. And I'm going to continue to be myself, and if people want to call it a campaign, or a mission, so be it. It's still just me.

Standing up, and speaking up for themselves, is something most people can do without being too conspicuous, I think. When I do it, its something else. In a way, it is a mission. But it's not like I'm setting out on a quest, or confronting people in the street, or in the synagogues, in order to convert them. It's more like I'm just doing my thing, and then people are coming up to me and telling me that I'm getting in their way, lol, and that I'm confronting them, lol. I'm just being myself. I'm starting threads about things that interest me; that I agree with and/or think about. I'm wording them in ways that keep me interested. I want to write threads that I would want to read. That's it. That's all. If I call it a mission, well, it's because it is a mission. But I didn't make it that way. That's just what it is. I didn't set out on it. I just saw that it was happening. That's how I see it... today.

posted November 14, 2009 02:40 PM         

rather than wishing we could live in a world where "playfully celebrate" and pump-up each other's dysfunction. instability and neurosis - whether it be Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Sociopathy or whathaveyou, I think it would be better to dream of and work towards a world in which we were all healthier and healed of these imbalances, chemical, soul or otherwise. One in which we could truly express our gifts openly, honestly and freely and healthily because we are healed. One in which we recongnize imbalances for what they are and don't use them and twist them into other things to try and make us into something more special or try to use them to some sort of false advantage.

Celebrating each other's illnesses might make for an even uglier world than we have today. There is no way that could work. Personally I wouldnt want to live in such a world of delusion - full of people more delusional than they already are, and would rather live with people who were healthy and more easily living their truth. Without the masks, lies, baggage and sickness. I would especially not want to live with people who mistakenly thought these abberations were helping them and not working on facing them, healing and becoming truly aware and free.

And I'll go so far as to say that living in a world where we would be celebrating each other's unhealthy quirks and mental illnesses and expecting that to somehow come to bring harmony to us all and the planet, is just plain impossible and dumb.

What would work is a world in which we dont even have to "tolerate" each other, because there is no need to - love flows freely because people have become purer, more heart-centered and closer to their true natures. So tolerance would naturally fall out of the equation.

What you would like is a world in which people are healthy, sane and operating from their highest selves. I think youve confused a few things, like embracing your dysfunction for something divine. When what is really in order is Health of the species.

posted November 14, 2009 06:22 PM         

quote:

---

And where slandering people's motives whenever we disagree with their position is not accepted as commonplace.

---

...the shallowest men of action are encouraged to manifest...

Calling manifestors shallow isn't directly questioning their motives, but it's implied.

And this:

Where the various strengths and weakness we all possess are respected, and attention is directed towards the creation of a society based on ideals of cooperation and collaboration; as opposed to the present ideals of competition and conquest.

I think it's kind of non-sequitter to glamorize the thinker to the detriment of the worker, and then suggest there shouldn't be competition.

"I'm not competing with you; I'm just saying I'm better than you. That's all."

It's natural that the idea of ridding the land of competition won't work. Competition is inborn, and part of the cycle of life. People aren't happy giving up the positions of stature they once commanded. The cutting edge architect of the 1960's having spent all this time perfecting his/her technique is bound to be eclipsed by some younger talent that thinks about things in a more modern way. Or even regionally. The town priest might seem like a supremely adequate representative of his job until some visiting priest proves naturally better at some aspect of priesthood. Cutting out competition would require that no one ever be proud about who they are. It would also suggest that no one ever strive to be better, because if you feel like you shouldn't be in competition with anyone, then you're free to do nothing to improve yourself.

"I'm not trying to be as polite as you. We're not in competition. Now if you don't mind I'm going to continue taking a crap on these lovely flowers. Respect."

Just doesn't work.

You did say it was an ideal, though, and that's an important distinction, which I didn't tackle at all above. However, it should be plain that while competition is an ideal for some, it is also just a simple fact of life regardless of whether you hold it as an ideal or not. It's essentially unavoidable.

posted November 14, 2009 07:40 PM         

but what is the difference between a soccer game and life? people compete on the field and for the most part don't take it personally if they are better than some and worse than others at the game. but without competition there would be no game at all.

that is not the same as calling a half-back LESS than a forward player.

posted November 15, 2009 11:35 AM         

Ouch. Well, first, let me thank you for giving your honest take on this. I'll try to keep my response short and not repeat things you've already heard me say. Firstly, I'm not in a position to know what constitutes mental illness and what constitutes individuality. I know many people have placed themselves in such a position, often for dubious reasons, but I regularly find myself in disagreement with their assessments. I think there are many things that we label as mental illness which are, in fact, just instances of diversity which our culture has not prepared us to understand and incorporate into our schemes. I think we should always struggle for greater health and integration within ourselves, but, for me, that much sort of goes without saying here. It's an ideal we've all embraced from the beginning, and folks have been pushing it, and inching it along, for millenia. But it's this emphasis on perfection, and on a "one-size-fits-all" vision of what it means to be perfect, -- or smart, or good, or active, or healthy, -- that has really gotten us into a lot of hot water. There really is a very narrow idea in our culture of what it means to be healthy. But what I find interesting is how many people, who I would consider very sick, are never exposed to the stigma of mental illness, but are accepted and assimilated into the community or society without difficulty, simply because the community or society is itself mentally ill. It's fine to aim for ideals, but we ought to be careful not to value some ideals so much more than others. For instance, it seems to me that the ideal of being active is praised much more highly than the ideal of being relfective; and that an excess of the former is generally tolerated, or not even recognized, or recognized as a strength, while an excess of the latter mostly gets subjected to stigma and often poverty. It might be best if we sought to discourage either excess, as opposed to promoting acceptance of both; or, as I like to do, promoting the one that's presently less socially acceptable (and more in need of being promoted). But that strikes me as overly idealistic; it seems like an instance of "making The Perfect the enemy of The Good". So, instead, I argue in favor of being more tolerant of the excesses with which, I believe, we are too intolerant, and being less tolerant of the ones with which, I believe, we are too tolerant. Mental illness is such a tricky thing. Who are the sickest among us? And who gets to make that decision? The meat-eaters? If you ask me, they're among the sickest we have. But, then, maybe that's because I'm the sick one. Or maybe its because I'm well. No way to be objective, really. We just have to fight for what we see, and hope that we aren't the ones who need glasses.

MUCH madness is divinest sense
To a discerning eye;
Much sense the starkest madness.
’T is the majority
In this, as all, prevails.
Assent, and you are sane;
Demur,—you ’re straightway dangerous,
And handled with a chain.

~ emily dickinson

AG,

When I draw a spectrum, and at one end of the spectrum I place "the shallowest man of action", why do you have to assume I'm saying that all men of action are shallow? On the contrary. I do think there is a corrolation between reflection and depth, but I'd say that the person who only reflects, though deeper, is not necessarily any better, or any less imbalanced, than the person who only, or primarily, acts. What interests me is the extent to which the latter type is embraced, and the former disenfranchised, by our society. I think they both have strengths which can be utilized, and weaknesses which can be understood, accepted, and tolerated.

As for competition, I agree, it will always have a part, and an important one, to play. But it ought not to be, as it is today, accorded the place of highest prominence. There should be a base-level of cooperation. People should be taken care of, and provided with the necessities of life. There's more than enough labor and resources to make this happen. The people who contribute more, and the ones who prevail in competition, should have privileges made available to them, sure. The ones who do not contribute in recognized ways, or who do not prevail in competition, should not have privileges made available to them; or, if they have been made available, they ought to be taken away. But what I am arguing for is that all people, regardless of their health, and regardless of the extent to which society has valued their contribution, should be entitled to basic rights; under which I include: the right to (nutritious) food, shelter, and medical care. I hope this helps to clarify my position for you.

kat,

quote:

---

nothing wrong with being different, but...as long as it is "romantic" to stick out like a sore thumb, one is in competition with the rest of the (bland, implied) world

---

Indeed, one is. But, then, competition, in the sense you are using it, is unavoidable. And I think it may be equally unavoidable for some people to stick out like sore thumbs. In which case, they may as well learn to see their excesses as romantic expressions of individuality. It's either that, or self-pity.

quote:

---

but what is the difference between a soccer game and life? people compete on the field and for the most part don't take it personally if they are better than some and worse than others at the game. but without competition there would be no game at all.

that is not the same as calling a half-back LESS than a forward player.

---

Very well said. The problem is that, all too often, people do equate success with being better. Maybe not so much in a soccer game, but in society. It makes no difference if soccer is not your best sport, or if the present organization of society does not favor your strengths -- you are a loser, and you are less than the others. At least, that's how most people see it. And if you say, "I'm not even playing soccer. I'm playing another sport entirely. And I'm not losing. I'm winning," people will say you're just a deluded loser, not living in the real world. You are judged according to the rules of soccer; it makes no difference how good your arm is, if you can't kick.

quote:

---

competition does not have to be about ego or domination. it can be part of the spirit of the game of life, and it can run alongside cooperation quite handily.

---

Again, well said. But it's important not to value people, first and foremost, according to how well they play soccer; or how well they compete under the present paradigms. Not only are we not talking about fundamental worth, but, we are not even talking about a kind of worth that necessarily endures outside of a given society. But we can see changes in history, where the entire game changed. Te people who were the biggest losers on the soccer field become the biggest winners on the basketball court, and vice-versa. It's important to reflect on these things, and to remember that the value people have within a certain society is not universal, but temporal. In fact, it seems to be the nature of imbalance that the qualities we undervalue today, or in this millenia, will be the most sought after tomorrow, or in the next millenia. Something to keep in mind.

Dervish,

I became Vegan only recently. I struggled with it for over a decade and a half. As soon as I began to think for myself, I began to realize that eating meat is wrong. It took a long time, though, for this realization to cross completely over into my conscious mind, as there was a great deal of unconscious resistance; on account of well-embedded bad habits and bad influences. I'm not sure what made the final difference for me, but it may have been the documentary, "Earthlings", which gave me a good, solid look at the issue, so that I had to fully acknowledge it consciously. But I was also in a place where I was ready and willing to look at the documentary (and the issue). I'm sure there are several things that motivate my "zeal", some more noble than others. I suspect that part of the reason I wish to expose the vice of meat-eating is that I myself have been forced to defend vices of my own which do not begin to compare to meat-eating, in terms of the needless suffering caused. The imbalance disturbs me, and I wish to correct it for, admittedly, selfish reasons. But I have other motives with are genuinely noble. I genuinely feel compassion for these animals, along with a powerful desire to protect them; mostly by bringing attention to their unnecessary suffering. Apart from this, I have a bowl chart (not counting Chiron), which inclines me to fight for a cause, and to look for causes worth fighting for. Part of the "zeal", I think, is fuelled by my excitement at having found a cause that I can get behind, 100%. I may have selfish reasons for taking up a cause, but, ultimately, I let myself off the leash, and throw myself into it the way I do, only because I know this cause is a truly worthy one.

posted November 15, 2009 11:50 AM         

I thought you were ignoring me.

quote:

---

homicide

---

You mean, like eating meat,
regardless of the unimaginable suffering
which this act inflicts unnecessarily
on gentle animals and their families?*

I'd agree, that's deep derangement.

posted November 15, 2009 02:11 PM         

People of action are probably embraced because they show the courage to do something, even if that courage is accidental or unintentional. Everyone knows people that struggle with inaction, so the person seemingly living their dream seems impressive. Of course we don't always know the other areas in which that person is failing miserably.

I agree with you regarding the idea that people should be afforded food, shelter and medical care as a basic human right. However, it is a more difficult proposition if there are limited resources.

posted November 15, 2009 04:23 PM         

Or wait!!! I think you've really made me think here, wow you blew my mind I've become completely dislodged from my narrow and closed in point of thinking. Why, I never considered all these multifaceted perspectives to the world. Thank you for opening my eyes oh prophet of the internets!!!