The problem with politics is that if you're outside of the extremely narrow boundaries of allowable opinion, you just don't even count. If you're getting all your information from the mainstream media you probably won't be outside of this narrow range. But if you are outside then nothing you do is going to change anything. All your political actions are pretty much futile.

You're not going to stop any wars. You're not going to stop international monetary fund structural adjustment loans. You're not going to cause a socialist democratic revolution. You're not going to cause a restructuring of our mainstream media. It will continue to be owned by billionaires who will in turn decide what the vast majority of people are going to think.

One thing that's nice about Edward's Free to be Human is that he takes what was to me basically a political thing (Herman and Chomsky's media propaganda model) and suggests a way that any two people who recognize it's existence should be able to just in how they interact with one another, perhaps make some positive differences.

Maybe.

It's too abstract though.
-
Dreaming of fame. Sadly I feel more creative when I do this. Although rarely do it anymore. To dream of fame is like dreaming of being the/an alpha male. It's unfortunate to realize how much of creativity can be tied into such things. I think. I guess. But if one truly took away all such crude absurdities, would there be anything left?

There is perhaps some other way of looking at it. Fame doesn't necessarily equal alpha male ape at all. My thinking has been too crude. It could equal having the power to make positive change for example. Failure after failure. Not thinking well. Recognizing how haphazard my process is.
-
Ate a huge meal. Haven't fasted last few weeks because it was problematic with two hours runs.
-
Need to not forget to write about issue of stalking. What percentage of stalkees bear some responsibility? (Which isn't to say the futile activity of stalking someone is justified.) How come all I ever hear is stalkers demonized, said to be mentally ill, etc and no one ever speaks up to say that the situation can be more complex? Surely people realize it can be more complex. I think people are afraid that they'll be suspected of being a stalker themselves if they attempt to add any complexities to the issue. So instead they conform and shut up.

Free To Be Human

The real choice is between obediance and expulsion. For this reason, there is a powerful tendency for people to want to believe that their thoughts and behavior at work are voluntary-the alternative, of perceiving the actual conflict, is simply too painful. Indeed, this struggle with conformity will be painful to the extent to which they are aware of their own conflicting inner needs, thoughts and desires. A person will suffer more intensely the more he or she is strong and independent. Given the apparent hopelessness of resistance, there is a powerful and continuous incentive for individuals to become less aware of their own feelings, beliefs and needs. Indeed, the only rational solution for an individual may often be to become dead inside, to become alienated from his or her feelings and desires. And it is exactly this internal deadness which has been declared the great sickness of modern man... pg 36 (David Edwards, Free to be Human)

I suppose I hadn't very coherently thought about how the nonconspiratorial way in which the mainstream media only allows an extremely narrow range of allowable debate, is exactly how virtually all of us are forced (generally to a somewhat lesser extent) to conform in whatever job we're doing...

The MSM though. They are our 'culture'. Whatever record we manage to leave behind... there they are. All on video and short of entirely blowing up the whole planet there will surely be left plenty of videos of them; the banter between the weatherman and the news anchor, between Bush and the friendly reporters. There is our culture. The decision to keep it light. To pretend. The Fake Smile. Etc.

'They (the public) ought to be sitting alone in front of the TV and having drilled into their heads the message, which says the only value in life is to have more commodities or live like that rich, middle class family you're watching and to have nice values like harmony and Americanism. That's all there is in life. You may think in your own head that there's got to be something more in life than this, but since you're watching the tube alone you assume, I must be crazy, because that's all that's going on over there. And since there is no organisation permitted-that's absolutely crucial-you never have a way of finding out whether you are crazy, and you just assume it, because it's the natural thing to assume.' (Chomsky, Spectacular Achievements of Media Propaganda)
-
In the light of the evidence of reality-distortion provided by the propaganda model, it seems reasonable to suggest that the vast majority of modern neuroses are not at all rooted in repression of childhood trauma or sexual drives, but in a violent individual/social conflict between the desire of human beings to live and think in reasonably sane and rational ways and the requirement of our society that we live and think in ways which are absurd. Given the extent to which reality is filtered to fit the corporate need, it seems hardly imaginable that anyone today could have the independence of mind to form a balanced, realistic, sane view of the world-on which human happiness and sanity surely depend. (Edwards, Free to be Human)
-
Hillman goes on to argue that our obsession with childhood, feelings and relationships in the absense of concern for the world around us leads us to place an impossible burden of expectation on our relationships, which consequently disintegrate under that weight. The most notable non-material obsession of our society is, after all, the dream of romantic love as an answer to all our troubles. When we listen to the endless stream of love songs, we hear continuous references to 'eternity','truth','dreaming','searching','the promised land' and so on, and this is surely the sound of the search for truth banished to the only permissible realm-the personal.

Unfortunately no romance can ever provide an adequate answer to a life lived in a society of dramatically limited freedom. 'All you need is love!', in fact, is an economically 'correct' fiction which, like green consumerism, corporate responsibility and the Western 'yearning for freedom and human rights', serves to divert genuine concern, genuine searching, into a harmless cul-de-sac while appearing to be a genuine message of hope for humanity.

Psychotherapy has been transformed into a similar mechanism for diversion, as Hillman seems to argue: "Psychology, working with yourself, could that be part of the disease, not part of the cure?"

Certainly, and we might suggest that the reason that psychotherapy has persisted with its irrational approach, rather than seeking rational norms for sanity, is because that search is in profound conflict with the propaganda system, which requires an essentially insane set of presupposed (but not explicitly stated-becase absurd) norms for the successful functioning of corporate consumerism. (Edwards, Free to be Human)
-
'Here I could not agree with Freud. He considered the cause of the repression to be a sexual trauma. From my practice, however, I was familiar with numerous cases of neurosis in which the question of sexuality played a subordinate part, other factors standing in the foreground-for example, the problem of social adaptation, of oppression by tragic circumstances of life, prestige considerations and so on.' (Carl Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections pg 170)
-
'Both the 'economic' man and the 'sexual' man are convenient fabrications whose alleged nature-isolated, asocial, greedy and competitive-makes Capitalism appear as the system which corresponds perfectly to human nature, and places it beyond the reach of criticism. (Erich Fromm, The Sane Society pg 77)
-
Like Chomsky, Fromm has the tragi-comic distinction of being sufficiently accurate in his analysis to know that he would be declared absurd and irrelevant. Thus, he too, has been consigned to the Lutheran 'zoo' along with Copernicus, Chomsky, and all the other 'asses who dare to speak out against the limits of 'respectable' discourse. We spend our time well when we consider that this fate befell Fromm-an outstandingly clear and rational thinker-within the 'science' devoted to explosing lies! (Edward, Free to be Human)
-
...We have all, no doubt, been criticized for discussing something that is 'too deep', whether we are discussing matters psychological, philosophical, religious, environmental-anything that attempts to go to the root of problems. We all sense where the limit is. We know when we are steping over the line and when we can expect a sarcastic aside, or groan, from someone around us. We may even make a self deprecatory joke to pre-empt the diapproval. Similarly, when listening to other people, we immediately sense when the conversation has stepped over the mark and will elicit disapproval, when it has become too 'serious' or 'deep'. We might ask who, or what, is setting the tolerable limits of 'depth'?

The answer is that they are set by the same framing conditions on which our system depends; the same system which maintains the near-uniform frivolity on our magazine shelves and in our television schedules; the same system that depends on our commitment to light-hearted, frivolous consumption. The simply fact is that our culture needs to be infused with a 'buying environment', it needs to be swamped in 'muzak' encouraging us to have fun-and fun requires that we do not consider anything too seriously. For were we to do so, the version of common-sense reality to which we are continually encouraged to adhere (that fun, status and consumption are everything) would be revealed for the childish absurdity that it is. (Edwards, Free to be Human)

private tyrannies searching online
Couldn't find the similar article talking about how you should avoid ever saying anything critical about any employer you've ever had when you're online. Was thinking about that last night at the same time watching some corporate commercial going on about education for the younger generation; one young girl saying how she has learned 'to ask why?' Except of course when it comes to any action any corporation ever takes. Then, you better not ask why, lest you end up not getting fed.

We do have an insane set of social norms which we do not actually state out loud because they are clearly insane. Out loud we say one thing but it's understood-or you better learn to understand it-that what is said out loud is not what how you're actually expected to act. This applies first and most clearly to journalists in the MSM. And this is what unfortunately 95%+ of people just don't understand. Thus they figure there is no meaningful bias in the MSM or absurdly they believe the MSM when it complains of itself that it's too liberal. Because they think the alternative would mean a conspiracy.

But then you go for a job interview and it's understood-among other things-that you are quite simply expected to lie about certain things. You never ever admit to not having liked any job you've ever had. The boss doesn't say, "I expect you to lie and tell me every job was wonderful." It's just understood. It's no conspiracy. But if to you it's not understood then you won't be working in that job.

And so for me I recall an interview where I refused to take part in that absurdity and admitted to a R&D company that I had not enjoyed working for Toyota. Now, the reality of Toyota (in Kentucky) is that everyone hated it. Absolutely hated it. It was incredibly bad. To sit there and pretend that, "Oh yes! What a fun job that was!" Instead I attempted to assume my potential boss wasn't utterly retarded and could comprehend that there are actually bad jobs out there.

I didn't get the job. In fact I could quickly tell I had really bothered him by saying I disliked this past job. I was expected to adhere to the unspoken insane social norms and I failed.

I was glad I didn't get it though, the little fucker. I choose to be a slave instead of a slavemaster. But in some cases I'll take being free to starve.

One more time, but with feeling!



I listen with microphones and a 20 pound mini puma from thighs to ear adding his loud purrs to the music.

Holding a cat is like holding a sophisticated amoeba. It's like holding a piece of our roots; remembering the animals that to a large extent we still are. This one acts as if he's got siamese in him. But I bred him because his dad was so smart. (Yes, I know the proper vegan stance on breeding but among other things (don't entirely agree with it) I wasn't vegan back then.) I picked out his dad from a litter because he sat there looking so intelligent. It is an ability we have from an evolutionary standpoint to be able to see to some extent what people are and this cat looked so smart. And most certainly one can (or at least I can) look at an animal and tell about how smart they are. I guess (apparently) not everyone is as good at this. I love to do it. Seeing and contemplating the intelligence in the eyes of animals gives me a strange thrill. Why? (The mystery? Love of intelligence. Love of our animal roots, etc.)

This one (Loki) is so talkative and loving. Loki loves his cat tv (bird feeders) and tries to talk to the birds just like his dad did. He loves hard and then leaves you alone.

I love how he and his mom and sister remind me of our distant roots. But I hate that they're carnivores. Vegan cat food just isn't perfected yet. As of now cats do need meat to survive.

I've chased chickens around a coop to be slaughtered. They know to run. I remember clearly looking a caught chicken in the eyes. It was afraid. That's enough to know. Cows and pigs much more so than chickens. They have personalities. They feel pain.

I think about what I'm doing when I eat. The less you think, the less you exist. I ate meat for 30 years ridiculously thinking it was necessary for good health and that whole time I felt a little disgusted with myself. I know full well what it is to be a meat eater. It's about not thinking. The key to it is to be oblivious, to be stupid, to simply have a big blank spot where your understanding would be. And that blank spot is more disgusting and revolting than the corpses touching your lips. When I realized I didn't need to eat meat or boob juice or chicken periods I was so happy. There was no, "Gee, this might be hard, better make it a gradual process." The process was instant and permanent. (Well except for a bit of boob juice here and there in chocolate etc as being 'pure' would be a pain in the ass where I live.)

It is still the most happiest thing in my life. I don't have to kill anyone (well OK bugs here and there incidentally, etc) in order to continue living myself. How wonderful. How awful when I thought otherwise. I literally had the anguish as in the Anne Rice vampire books.

But still I must turn a piece of my mind off too; as I don't know a single vegan in my real world. So focusing on just how empty people's minds are would just be torturous; especially when they see me, when they see that not only do I not look like I'm about to keel over but that I most likely could kick their ass with one arm tied behind my back. Like politics, it is ultimately beyond the pale.

In politics you can be shocked and morally outraged over and over and over again and eventually, what are you accomplishing?

What makes a Chomsky continue on?

Morals are ultimately utilitarian/consequentialist in nature. IMO they are self interest with some degree of long term forethought. We attempt to predict the future. We attempt to foresee the consequences and on that basis we decide the most moral action. But then of course it's impossible to actually predict the future. The biggest problem of all is knowing how much future there will be. Furthermore actually calculating the most moral action could be very complex from day to day so although the basis of our moral codes are consequentialist, in our day to day living we end up following what looks more like an absolute code.

And with respect to this absolute code, when we 'do the right thing' we can then feel pride with ourselves for having done so. We can feel good about ourselves. We can feel that we've played the game well.

Someone like Chomsky must feel such pride in himself. And so he just keeps repeating the same stuff over and over again. Not much has actually been accomplished but as he sees it, there's not much else he can do.

If I were prominent as political gadfly like Chomsky perhaps I'd do the same. But some of these other people with their little leftist blogs which I skim here and there. It's harder to see what keeps them going. What keeps them so shocked and all. At some point I would think they ought to stray back to consequentialism... instead of being 'deontologial'. All that being shocked isn't changing anything. People keep on treating each other with the same indifference as they do to animals.

Keeping it deontoligical I guess you can continue to feel pride for 'doing the right thing'. Step out to the bigger consequentialist picture and the only reason left I can think of is just feeling pride about being erudite and knowledgeable.

Neither does much for me. But although I'm curious why they bother and don't do so myself and thus (obviously) think it wrong (but not closemindedly), I'm still glad someone is. Personally talking about imperialism in whatever it's guise has become beyond the pale to me though, for the most part.

Beyond the pale in the sense of being a moral outrage overload I suppose. I prefer to be morally outraged about things that aren't so obvious. Because with being less obvious you can at least entertain the hope that people just haven't yet understood it, and once they do, then instead of the indifference they've shown with veganism and politics (veganism just straight up indifference for the vast majority and for politics, too indifferent to ever go beyond the TV and other media owned by the billionaires to hear a different point of view) then maybe (not!) they'd actually change.