Wait a Zen (part 2)

Once again some questions will be asked, but first a brief overview should be given on the concept of existence. Or rather that which is also of the absence of the perception, or experience, by the sentient being, of this notion, it calls existence. Basically; existence as a separate entity that stands on its own. Which I consider it to be the higher plane found most relevant. For one to be sentient is merely a temporary state, and quite a coincidental affair. As in the programmed mind is subordinated to the realm (existence) outside of it, or what is perceived, or sensed by it. Subordinated as in controlled. Your mind is only capable of some things, and not all things.

Some would argue that all things are one, but to assume such a relation, to occur in reality, as in the divided self (split into two but being one), is to ignore the separate entities which they supposedly are. So there’s only that which is, and not that which is experienced, or transmitted through perceptual means. Why? Because anything (technically) can be experienced, but what is it other than a limited response by our senses – which includes our brain? So the totality of thought is the limitation of thought. As R.D Laing has stated: a man is only considered a schizophrenic if he perceives the same reality differently than his fellow men. As in it is to consider a man not as a single entity with its own unique point of view, as Nietzsche stated, as a conglomeration of information associated with the world he relates too, even outside of itself, in his own time, and space, but rather a person in denial, or misinformed, as to the nature of its human existence. Which he (man) clearly has an impression of, even though some, or all, may disagree.

Today I have come to an understanding, of what I think the cause of gravity is, and perhaps the cause of the reason why it exists. It’s because gravity is everywhere, and light gathers gravity, and light within itself is a particle of reality, it being found in space, and draws forth emblems, such as meteorites and comets to it, through its extensive power. It only assumes what it can contain, therefore I have concluded, that we weigh absolutely nothing, for we are only fragments of gravity.

So to assume that reality is brought forth by the sentient being’s senses, instead of this same reality giving birth to the sentient being that perceives it, is logically incorrect. It is a naturalist phenomenon, but only in a theoretical way. Basically nature (or God) has created man with all his physiological faculties, and not the other way around. The birth of man, is not the birth of nature (or God). We have to assume that nature (or God) has existed before the birth of man. For how long is irrelevant for now. How else has man come into existence? As an example: Your parents has given birth to you right? Meaning they had to exist at that point in time, and do what they did together, for you to be conceived. That is a historical fact. Even if all matter has existed, or has come into existence, at the exact same point in time, it is important to note, that the moment of creation is a precursor to the moment of existence. As in, what has come before, must have come before, even if miraculously. And what comes thereafter is all that exists, which is subtly erased, when it ceases to exist, at the exact same point in time even. Nature within itself can then through time alter itself, as in the laws that governs it, but the beginning of nature is still separate from that equation for it only started to exist then, and not resumed, unless nature is also non-nature. Nature (as in the scientific concept) also determines whether it is, or is not, through the exact laws that governs it, for it has to exist as is, for it to exist.

Consciousness is not solely the understanding of existence, but also that of non-existence.

We can say; we are human, but we can also say that we are not. That is what I mean with “nature” in the previous segment of these essays. As in, is the human race, capable of achieving unity, when it is literally impossible (through natural laws) to do so? We can assume many a thing, but we are not the air we breathe, the ground we walk on, the trees we climb, or the animals we eat. We have this strange notion of society, or a mass social gathering, as co-operating to achieve some utopian success (dream/goal), which is limited within its perspective, for it alters its course, and enforces onto others, including themselves, a certain way to perform in this given psychological and physiological state.

As I said, a sentient being, is a product of nature, or reality. Reality, or nature, is not a product of a sentient being. Just goes to show how powerful nature, or reality, is.

I’m pantheistic by trade. My god is nature. Not the nature that I perceive, but rather the nature that created me and allows me too exist.

The whole notion of human existence; the placard of superiority, or the conception of morality, ours; bears no relevance, or purpose, in the cosmic scheme of things. We are only aware of what it is, through our understanding, and experience, of what it is. Therefore; it can only be what we perceive it to be too us. Mysteries like religious deities, programmed through definition, and the absence of definition, is only limited to what it does, and does not do, in our understanding of it, and, the existential state, or qualm, it performs, or rather, can. Basically nature within itself, may not be interested in what we do, for it to do so, it has to understand, or consider, or even know, that we exist, and our actions, yet there is no culminating proof within the sciences that nature is sentient, or even considerate.

For example: can you perceive how a cat perceives reality? Or how a robot perceives reality? One can answer perhaps simply by stating in its own way, but cats may not perceive reality as a robot, for it to be able too. It ought to actually be sentient, which it may not be, if one were to consider the separation it bears onto itself in relation too us, and this reality which we perceive as humans, that communicate with each other, and the reality (nature), it occupies.

It may all seem jumbled up, but the main point is. Consciousness cannot be created, other than through natural (or supernatural) means, and it cannot be measured through conscious means. As in the example of the robot. It is not conscious, but it interacts with its environment (data) only in so far as it is allowed. How can it be conscious if we don’t know that it is, other than what we believe it to be? Robots may just as well be considered similar too rocks and plants. Sentient beings, even if programmed like robots, should exist as conscious beings for it to be conscious beings. So the definition, or description, of consciousness is awareness of itself. So how does a robot, for example, become conscious of itself, if it is not a conscious being? If consciousness is relation to an environment, then all things are conscious. But what is consciousness other than the mere association, or realization, of unconsciousness or non-consciousness? Non-consciousness has to exist for consciousness to exist. Non-consciousness is not non-existence.

Existence within itself is merely the description of itself. As in, the whole motive behind existence is for existence too exist. It is merely one thing after all, and not many things. So a black hole, star, planet, grasshopper etc. within it, is it (or part of), and not not it. So we are therefore, not separate of existence, so when we cease to exist (die), we still exist for we are only found still within existence (since existence is not sentiently/consciously defined). If existence were to cease to exist, we will only cease to exist then. Maybe we become part of oxygen, carbon, or whichever compound we are primitively a part of before that time.

The main premise of this introduction is to be found not in the descriptive state of existence, but rather how it may be seen, or experienced, beyond it. When one closes ones eyes what does one see? Is that what existence is? Nothingness. Is not seeing anything accumulated into nothingness? Non-perception, or non-experience? Let’s say for example; the notion of darkness is void, and that void cannot be described other than the realization, or perception of darkness; so to assume that through this understanding emptiness exists beyond reality perceived is perhaps a general possibility. Not seeing basically is seeing nothing. Non-experience is by definition still part of existence, for how else does one conclude that one does not see, even if there is nothing to see, but that one still sees?

Finally we must assume that for we find ourselves within existence, it is not our human created laws that governs it, or our ideas, but rather that which is external to us, for that is our internal (sensed) reality. We just coincidentally occupy the same universe (reality), or we only sense the external reality based on what our internal reality is capable of. So the external reality may not exist. In any case, to be governed by our created laws, is somewhat, in my opinion, degrading, and oppressive.

So let’s continue with the main exercise.

Question 1: What is the purpose of life in a reality not considering our existence within it?

First; this question is often asked by well meaning conservative (religious) people trying to understand why a nihilist, or existentialist, or atheist explains the reason to live, or stay alive, without invoking the need for a goal (direction), or a concept external to our lives (God(s)), as an excuse to give our individual lives (which is extremely complex already) meaning – as in validity. An atheist does not believe in a benevolent creator deity, or even a conscious entity finding interest in our lives, if it were too exist – and no need to worship. Instead they believe that if we were to be created for a purpose, then we have no choice whatsoever in the life we live here on Earth for it is preordained by an entity (coincidentally singular in most cases) that requires our attention and obedience for a life hereafter – which may be irrelevant – when one has so much to consider already apart from that. The atheist believes that we need to reach our own conclusion as to the nature of our existence, but technically it is of no consequence if we do not find it within our lifetime ourselves. Meaning is not found within some arbitrary event, or precursor to an event, that supposedly happens to all of us – karma. It seems that the religious only use the existence and worship of a God as an excuse for the things they have no control over, or even meaning to control, for it is for them irrelevant, and beyond their scope of miracle which they are capable of performing nonetheless within the exact same laws, as karma determines. They consider that life can only have meaning if there is a need for meaning, as well as a demand for meaning. Ask yourself; what is the purpose of having two legs, or five toes on each foot, or two eyes, when you can live without them in some sense, even though it may be an inconvenience, or benefit within itself? We make the most of it right? But what if one has no choice? Most of our creations as humans are so separate from nature in its original state, that we have assumed it is still natural, or it is some supernatural reason for giving us self-imposed importance based on our beliefs of this life, and the supposed one hereafter. Remember not all human laws are ordained (created, appreciated, condoned) by us all, and human laws do not escape all humans nonetheless. Basically we are only insofar human and not the God(s) we worship. We are also capable of entering a field of anomaly, and deny our human existence, and go back to the primitive existence that has been clearly expressed by humans in a natural surrounding (which is currently being destroyed for profit and luxury – think - Amazonian Rainforest) up till this point in time. First there was primitive man, then there was revelation (to primitive (technologically inept) man), then there was the incursion of man unto man for the sake of spreading this revelation (through missionary work), and then came the rise of imperialism and capitalism further exposing us all to conformation, and propaganda, prepared to control our existence apart from that which we do not practice such as suicide or flying (since we do not have wings – only planes do and some birds and insects). Coincidentally we only are human, and not all too human, for psychology is a study of man in totality, and not his behaviour singularly (which some use as bias towards the individual supposedly not fitting in well enough). We cannot assume that man must behave the same as his fellows just for being man – but that he does behave only the way he can behave.

Our opinions are limited to many things, and we cannot imagine to be with sight if we have no eyes. The argument of purpose in life is only an excuse for not having purpose in the first place. If there is no meaning (supposedly) then there must be meaning. Or if there is meaning (supposedly) then there must be no meaning rather. Or there can only be meaning in life for life has only meaning (or purpose) to begin with (which one cannot or must not deny).

For it is wicked there must be punishment (karma), and if there is no wickedness (in heaven – or possibly on Earth) then there is no punishment (or law against it). Coincidentally, I believe, that man utilizes his belief in the principles set out by existence (or God(s)) to assume that it affects us, and has only relevance onto us. Giving us more power, and credibility, than we should be allowed in the first place. Which is basically unfair.

Pantheism accepts the will of nature (its laws), and our nature (choices), but religion does not, or should I say the God(s) we worship, that has supposedly created us for some divine purpose (which may be to go to war with the Devil(s)) for all we know. And sadly, we only know so much, so therefore we cannot be too confident in the first place – or should be for relevant appropriateness in the given situation performed, or experienced. We must rather assume, that there is more to know, and more to do. Laziness has crept into our souls (through neo-liberalism and democracy) where we think hard work earns a wage or should - but only for humans. Does nature work hard? Does nature get a wage? Does nature have rights? (given to humans – or some humans – freely). Why help the poor and sick if we are also poor and sick, or rather are the poor and sick – but fail to realize it? We have only been subjected to this mental warfare, because we think that it is the most important part of our lives. To not die. Dying permanently is supposedly a curse, but then again we are so lucky to be alive in the first place.

So to sum this part up – man gave himself dominion over nature – for God has allowed him this in the first place (according to the majority of the human population) – which man can deny such as in the case of an atheist, or the primitive man, for they should be allowed too, for that is the purpose of worshipping a deity in the first place, right? You don’t have to worship a deity, for the deity should at least give you a choice. Like voting for one person over another – as an adult in a democratic state.

Life, as in existence, is extremely complex to behold due to the size of the thing, but that is only in comparison/relation too us. To argue that life is meaningless, due to this given fact of complexity surrounding us if there is no deity to give us relevance in scope, is to believe that the belief in God is meaningful, which it cannot be, for then that means non-belief in God is meaningless. As in without base or need in the first place. So one cannot not believe in God if it is meaningless, for meaninglessness is non-existent in a meaningful existence right? Meaningful as in fact, given, undeniable. If belief in meaningfulness is meaningful, then belief in meaninglessness is meaningless. That is not to say that God does not exist, it rather says that meaning exists, which is the basic premise of this thought experiment. If one were to empty the mind of beliefs, or thoughts basically (which do not have any substantial/physical properties), then does that make one perform a meaningless act? Is pacifism meaningless? As in ineffective? Then why call it that in the first place? If it is nothing in scope. Non-action. Inaction. Where is the fun in being what one is, if one were to be so distracted by reality, or God, and have no choice in the matter, but to be conscious of it? Why should we be conscious of meaningfulness in the first place if all that exists has a purpose, or meaning behind it? I am not saying that life is meaningful, I am just saying that meaning, as in purpose, is meaningless. Does that make me a negative person?

Remember, Adolf Hitler did not value human life, but he valued something else right – must have? What that is, only he, and his close confidantes, should know. But what if what Hitler did was meaningless? As in, we can to some point agree that violence and genocide serves no moral purpose – only due to Holocaust denialists. It is wanton destruction of sentient beings with emotions and lives of their own. If we were to say that murder is meaningless, does that make our observation meaningful? We can say that it is, but we can also say that it matters not, for the meaningless act practised by Adolf Hitler, the most despised man of all time, is to some extent – which means completely – meaningful. As in there is definition behind it, even if it is disgusting to consider – at first. For to consider meaninglessness in the guise of destruction is not negative, for the purpose of this act gives us more consideration for the Jews exterminated by this Nazi regime - which Adolf Hitler had full control over. Shame on him, because the lives of the Jews massacred were meaningful in totality, only because they were simply living their lives in any way they wished to at that point. Thoughts may be powerful, but they are only that, and if we are not allowed to discuss everything, then what was the point of those things existing in the first place? If meaning is the only thing too exist, then discussion on meaninglessness should also be allowed, or at least tolerated. We cannot ignore the past, but it is behind us. History is relevant - for it was – to ignore it is unjust. Though we only have the present to address (even in a historical context), and if we do not, then perhaps our lives are meaningless. Which means no God behind all that exists, if we were to assume he is the giver, or provider, of meaning in the first place. Not the belief in him, but he himself is the meaning. Or requirement. Discussing violence onto others is not solely the role of the justice system, it is our responsibility as common men also. It is not to dig up old skeletons, it is rather to acknowledge that the present we live in only means to us insofar it exists. Which it supposedly does in relation to a sentient being’s perception of it. If there were no sentient beings; existence or God(s) would have not been witnessed, or worshipped. For us to deny this, is to deny the genocidal acts done by Adolf Hitler onto the people of Europe. Especially the Jews. For he was anti-Semitic. It is not radical to claim this especially since all things have a reason for being. If Adolf Hitler did not commit these acts we wouldn’t even have this discussion in relation to the genocide committed during that period of our history by him.

Some would go as far as to say – be one with your saviour, and you will have no qualm. For it is said, it is easier. Ignorant of that reality, or possibility, one does not in any way reach that conclusion solely based on that direction in thought, or belief. Let’s assume that some things are real, and some things are not. The opposite is usually considered in such a case. So if I were to say that God exists because he has too, then the opposite is that he does not exist because he doesn’t have too. But if I were to say that God does not exist because he has too (not exist), then the opposite in this case will be, he does exist and he doesn’t need too (for some reason or another).

What is the opposite of spaghetti? Durum wheat – and not rice right? Or is it non-spaghetti? Or it can be anything else? I guess in the end, some things are communicable, and reliable, upon discovery, and others are not. For we discuss the notion of meaning does not make it meaningful to discuss it. Perhaps to discuss meaning needs a certain setting. Minimum wage in comparison to a slightly higher wage – which I think boils down to the same thing, since the minimum wage in my opinion is a criteria, and not a set amount - though I am obviously wrong definitively, for the term minimum is for example set on $5, and not $6. It makes sense to me at least, thinking about it like that. Some people even use it as a means to be disgruntled, not being paid the same wage as others. Fair enough. Let them complain – as if that helps. But if they were to understand that the person with a $6 wage isn’t actually making more money in reality, because what is a $1 difference, but a number/figure created by governments (and corporations – think lobbyists) to make more profit off of menial labour in the first place to a slight degree less, than what is expected, or legal, or moral, than the one making slightly more? There I said it! Basically the two parties meet in a category determined by their income. So the lower class is set. The middle class is working on it. And the upper class, well, they don’t care. It is comparative in the sense that one ought to not distinguish yet, for $6 may be the minimum wage next year, as if that will change our social cohesiveness and upbringing – or reality.

One earns what one does for ones keep. To compare it with someone else’s income is to be covetous (which seems irrelevant – but is a moral theory or dilemma - Biblical at least).

Now comes the restraints from those that expound and approve of democracy. They use means to protect its citizens in ways that are not democratic. This is the next question.

2. What does democracy have to do with anything – or everything?

What follows is merely my understanding of the social movement that has been created called democracy. It may be irrelevant, misleading, or utterly true. The choice is up to you Mr(s). bot.

But first a brief account or history of philosophy, a key ingredient for the recipe called democracy.

Philosophy is an act of refusal, as in to question the nature or acts of everything. It’s an early form of Western science. It is classically related to a man named Socrates, who has stated that man is only a philosopher if he chooses to be. For him it was his life. He made no money from it, but had some friends here and there that discussed the fundamental issues that they were aware of during that time of Greek society and the worlds beyond. Socrates is not to be confused as the founder of philosophy in general. That came from a man named Lao Tzu, that stated man is the only animal that thinks philosophy has no use. He was the first writer of the topic of sensitivity towards other beings, including plants. He realized that man must question his behaviour always for him to learn. That is why someone like Albert Einstein said to never stop questioning everything. So here we are in the year 2021, and quite rightly so, there are still philosophers abound. Now more than ever we are locked away as a genre of literature, and the eccentric university student. Socrates and Tzu have not studied philosophy, because they believed philosophy is not a form of thought (or way of thinking), it is rather what one thinks or thought. The questions that philosophy raises has nothing to do with but the essential matters in life. Now though, through capitalism especially, we have come to the conclusion that everything tedious is philosophy, and everything exciting is art or gossip or invention. Philosophers don’t have anything substantial to ignite interest in the general populace in relation to philosophy any more, because it is just ideas, and not actions – that can be purchased cheaply. Lao Tzu said famously, leave all things alone, and you will be one with all things. Meddle in the affairs of others (personally) and you will be consumed by time and energy. He was the founder of Taoism – which is actually not to be confused with that which it is not.

Where does democracy come into play after all of this? Well democracy is mainly a political phenomenon with a philosophical foundation. It claims, that for man to be free, all men must be free. In this sense all men must be treated the same, and no man must be left alone – quite literally. You can also perceive the opposite or irony in such a statement. If one enforces freedom, it ends up not being freedom. For freedom cannot be enforced. Freedom cannot be fought for. Freedom, in its entirety is not merely allowance to practice ones ideals and ideas, it is also to acknowledge that when one is free, one has no direction, or course to follow. One is merely part of the ocean of life. Freedom is not possible in a scientific reality, for science follows laws. It always explains what happens. To categorize science like that though is inconclusive, for science only are the laws, and not the practitioners or wizards behind it. Science has made man intelligent, but for that man has sacrificed his ego. He now only bows to himself and to God(s). He doesn’t worship freedom, for he does not know what it is any more. He doesn’t allow freedom to exist, for his version of freedom, in the year 2021, is to protect himself at all costs. And I do not mean it in an individual, or singular, sense. I mean completely and utterly he will commit genocidal acts for freedom – or has already. Freedom expressed in an allied sense is far less disturbing than Hitler’s version of freedom, but it is still not perfect. All we can do now is hope that the messiah returns. Amen.