An Allegory in Vapor: Introduction

Over the red sand of Kishatar, the largest moon of Xior, whose pale silver crescent shone on the pale black Xiorian craft, a looming invader approached. The eight skinny silver-skinned minds stood on a black disc without any defences--their guard was down.

Before them a hulking juggernaut coursed into their vision and halted. A gun poised itself in front of the black disk.

On board the juggernaut, with crimson steam in the air, white banners lined each corridor, and each white banner had, over time, absorbed that bloody air, and were stained pink around the edges. Admiral told the men to paint the corners red.

A man in a black uniform stood in the centre of the bridge. Many technicians and professionals sat in levels of semi-circles around him at terminals. He told them to open communications.

And he spoke, "Greetings. I have come to tell you all a tale that comes from Rex-Ballus: there was a snake and a rabbit. The rabbit wondered so many wondrous things, and the snake came to strike. When the rabbit forgot his guns, the snake had dinner that night. Tell me, Xiorians, are you snakes, or rabbits?" The silver-skinned Xiorians intently devoured every word. They smiled as one and said aloud: "We are rabbits."

The minds joked and laughed, and one rose his hands limply to his chin and revealed his front teeth--he truly did look like a rabbit. Xiorians have no canines.

A signal was made. A great light spilled out from the barrel of that gun, and the black disk was completely vaporised.

The Xiorians have a idiom for when some one dies. It means absolutely nothing.

The Necessity of Tyrants

There is a fine line between ubiquity and conflict. As long as something is not ubiquitous, it
is in conflict, weather it is a passive argument or a heated storm. For that very reason, I
don't recommend my point of view to the weak of heart or the soft of mind. Let that be a
warning.

Humanity needs to, as a community of communities, unite, emancipate, and adopt a universal
morality. As long as we are fighting against each other, progress will come at the cost of
life, liberty, and happiness. Not just fighting physically: in the case of wars, but
economically: the fuel for capitalism.


However, I can imagine that the idea of "universal morality" may confuse and scare some, but it
is really quite simple, and quite sane, and very secular. I will give an example of a universal
morality by expounding on the works of Immanual Kant. In Kant's moral philosophy the rule is
that before you do something, imagine a world in which every one did what you are considering.
So, lets say that you want to commit a simple crime of 'mala en se', murder: what happens in a
world where every one kills one another?

When you consider individual longevity in the sceme of humanity, each person's health needs to
be taken into order, every citizen of earth is contributing to society in some way, just the
same, if all of earth's citizens are terminating each other's lives, productivity plummets, and
humanity ceases to exist.

This development is, to any rational mind, negative. You can deduse right from wrong in a
similar fashion to most social issues. I say most, because there is a line between effeciveness
and liberty. Thus, some exceptions to Kant's universal morality must be in place to protect
people's freedoms -- namely, reproductive freedoms: people have the right to practice abortion,
because, until the child is born, it is technically a benign parasite (i.e. not a citizen) that
belongs to the mother and father. People have the right to not reproduce, because reproduction
is an activity that is reserved for those involved in a binding relationship. Therefore,
homosexuality is not immoral.

Of course, this view spawns some issues. According to the above rules, every binding
relationship MUST produce off spring. And every one MUST find a mate. But I do not see this as
an enormous issue. Most human beings long to find mates and copulate anyway.
In the days of tribal clans, humanity worked in small tight-knit communities, fighting each
other for resources or aligning themselves with fellow tribes with similar view points on the
vital issues of the day: religion, language, &c. The things that kept societies intact. Now, we
have a nearly universal truth baced in science, so religious thought has become obsolete. I
will not revisit this subject. There are more than 50 thousand translators and interpretors in
the U.S. alone, and one of three languages are spoken around the globe by almost every citizen:
English, Spanish, or Mandarin Chinese, as a native tongue or a second language. Thus, language
is not an issue either. So why are there still wars and fighting? The answer: we still fight
over resources. To use Kant's philosophy again, if we all fought each other in wars, just the
same with the case of murder, we would all be killed. How could we survive then as a nation if
we couldn't rob other nations of their resources?

Imagine Earth, a planet spinning, orbiting, pale blue and majestic, unique as all the life upon
it. On Earth there are creatures that, unlike most of the other creatures of the planet, have
learned to survive altruistically: by giving what is needed to each other, just for working for
a common good, that is, the good of the community. Every one of these creatures knows what they
must do to help, they know what they are good at, society never told them that something is
beyond reach, unless it is technically impossible. The creatures of earth govern themselves.
They are happy because they are social creatures, and they have made a system that works with
their social needs. They are all educated by each other, this is easy to do on Earth because
the only resource to spend is time now that information is so easily accessed. Goods are made
by individuals, and if the job is too big for individuals, they gather into groups and work on
the job together; weather they are painting a mural, designing an engine for motorvehicles, or
building factories to mass-produce toys, circuits, or tools. Every individual works and plays
on their own time; however, they also know they must work if they want society to work. And
there you are, you just finished a project with the help of your friends, and you are heading
home. Graffiti covers all of the ugly asphalt streets, and the walls of institutions long gone
which are buildings now used for stiching quilts, teaching the children, and doing research.
You stop at a house where an elderly man in a rocking chair sits on the porch smoking. You ask
him for a supply of wine an food for a party, and he goes into his stores. When he returns to
his chair, he speaks to you, "I'll bring it over ASAP," then asks, "How has your project been
coming along?" You tell him about your triumph, and depart, it's starting to get late and your
family is expecting you.

This is, of course, not the earth we live on today, but, perhaps, it will be, some day. We can
only hope that individuals within society learn to work with each other with out divisions,
authorities, and delusions.

BE A VIGILANTE, BE A SAGE, AND BE A WORKER.

A Profile of the Mountain

It has occurred to me, that I know very little.

Man has emancipated himself; he has separated himself from [atavism] and constituted himself a man; he has begun his distinctively human history and development by an act of disobedience and science-that is, by rebellion and by thought.

~Micheal Bakunin in God and the State


Not for the sake of humbleness, but for truth, I know so little: of the great well of the agua de la vida, I have had a sip, while my peers quaff it's contents, passionately, instinctively, rabidly. I'm not sure exactly what it is about the water of life that doesn't set right with me. Perhaps it's the sentiment that must be stirred in before hand, lest it settle on the bottom; or, maybe, it is its ghastly chill that seems both refreshing, and, yet, haunting; however, as I have said, I do not know what doesn't set right with the water of life, with me.

I could ramble on about insecurity, and self-worth, and other constructs, paradigms, social pariahs, et al, but I'd be lieing. I'd be lieing for the sake of -- not wanting to know -- but wanting to feign that I know, when in all truth, I have no clue. When it comes down to it, there are those who chose to go to the New World and drink that substance, that bile, that refuse: the agua de la vida, and there are those who went without, and either suffered, or lived in ignorance.

I wouldn't want to say that I'm a shut-in; I wouldn't want to say that I have no realistic knowledge of relationships, love, and devotion; I wouldn't want to: I must. Again and again and again I have become infuriated, for the sake of blindness. I have been as a deaf man listening to symphonies. I might understand the theory and written music, I might even feel the vibrations, but I am lost, and not because of a lack of knowledge, but because of a lack of something all together more important: Wisdom.

Wisdom seems like a thing of fairy tales to most: "The wise old sage" who gives a cache of worldly knowledge to the hero. The hero who promptly runs off to save the princess and over-throw the evil, and perhaps tyrannical, king. Who is this "wise old sage" anyway? Is he just some old bloke running around spouting allegories? Is he simply an artifact of plot? No. He's the hero's father, or, just as important, his primary paternal figure.

What does the hero do if he is never introduced to the "wise old sage"? Any amount of speculation cannot give a conclusive answer, but it's almost certain that with out the sage's wisdom and direction, the hero wouldn't save the princess. He would sit idly by, watching events unfold around him -- not waiting: he has nothing to wait for.

And because his father never got to introduce him to the agua de la vida, he would try to drink it himself -- and be burned by its coldness. However, that is also just speculation, and it is, therefore, not a conclusive answer. He could drink it, and he could become obsessive over it. Yearning for its soothing light shimmering off of its placid, cold, unforgiving surface. Longing for it to touch his lips, and hating it for dribbling through his small, delicate, piano-fingers.

However, that, too, is speculation.

When you take life and boil it down to contrived and cliche conclusions, it becomes easy to blame the wise old sage for never showing up and, thus, "ruining" the "hero's" life. If the sage only showed up and raised the hero, as he should have, the hero would have saved the princess and ended the reign of the tyrant king. If this; if that; if everything; then this; then that; then everything. It sure would have changed a lot, wouldn't it? However, sadly, any amount of speculation cannot give a conclusive answer.

He would see the sage fall, and, the hero's own personal hero slain, he would fall himself. He would fall into that pool of the agua de la vida, and die, drink, and die again. Or he would spring back, and using the wisdom that the sage gave him, he would rescue the princess; however, maybe the princess' hair is just a little less golden, or her lips are just a smidgen paler, and, maybe, she is just a bit placid, cold, unforgiving; as a drink from the well of the agua de la vida, she burns the hero with her coldness, and leaves him unsatisfied. He yearns for the harsh screams echoing off her bony, contorted, and still unforgiving face.

So, to boil life down to contrived and cliche conclusions again, with or with out Wisdom, there is still suffering: the suffering of the hero's peripeteia, or the suffering of the fool's ignorance -- but, this is, again, speculation.

In the misty mountain of the human experience, nothing can be known for sure. We have only generalizations, ambiguity, and non-sense to explain it. The waters of wisdom trickle down the mountain, into the foot-hills surrounding the mountain, where we all thrive on what freshness is left of the agua de la vida after it has rolled down the misty mountain of the human experience. I don't know if I trust it. The sage never told me to drink it. The sage never told me anything. Everyone else drinks it -- passionately, instinctively, rabidly; however, after close inspection, the water is filled with sediment, it smells faintly of rotting cabbage, sweat, and wood polish, and it stands stagnant here at the bottom of the mountain. I will go up into the mountain tomorrow, and discover its source, alone.

Alone is such a funny word. Isn't it funny? A-lone. a-LOne. The capital 'A' makes for some nice symbolism, so I suppose it's Appropriate. Like the mountain it's got a peak, the area designated for the gods on Olympus, where they would draw a line, straight across, denoting what is "ours", and what is "theirs". It's pretty cool actually, the only place you can see all the sides of the mountain from is the peak. The rest of us, the mortals, only see one side. Kinda sucks, huh?

Religion and Politics. Yes, I went there.

Usually, I refrain from sharing my views on most things unless I'm asked about them directly -- especially, religion and politics.

But, for the sake of bloggery, I will rant.

RELIGION?

Religion is often seen as one of those things that one has or has not. What I don't understand is how you can make something that is essentially subjective, and ultimately ephemeral, into something with real-world value, and thus something that you can "own" and use to define communities. It is primitive to do so. I will not fall to such memeological shenanigans.
However, I see the literary potential in the idea of a diety, and in the communal constructs based on a religious dogma, so I definitely do not wish to erase religion from our history. However, as a species, we can only move forward by not making the same mistakes.

POLITICS?

Well, we could do well enough with out it. The proposition of robot overlords aside, I'd say, no, I'm definitely not a fascist. However, I am an Anarchist, and I am a Socialist. I don't think that Government is necessary, as people should govern themselves. There is an ultimate moral abstract, it developed with our minds. In the same way that we don't need a god or a church to tell us what's right, we shouldn't need a government to enforce it.
However, I do not believe we are ready for this kind of government. Humanity is still very young. Perhaps, when all the world's militaries are disbanded, we will eventually develop into these socialist-anarchist communes. It's a radical view point, but I believe it is an ideal state. Individual freedoms for all, restricted only in the sense that natural morality restricts one from murder without guilt: those who do not feel guilt, or do not have these inhibitions, are not truly human.
As far as socialism goes, I'd say I'm less interested in "the battle for the working-class", as I am interested in equality and sharing. In this sense, ideas of value, beyond sentimentality, should be abolished. In this state there would be no currency, as nothing would need to be purchased. One is given what one needs from the community. People do what they want to do for a living, not what pays best, and not what is easiest. If one loves what they do, no matter their IQ, or their physical strength, they will succeed. In this way, a citizen may a acquire what knowledge they need from, not the government, not institutions, but from the community.

So that's scratching the surface. Have you questions? Have you additions? Have you become inflamed with rage? Feel free to comment. The later maybe ignored, unless you have something intelligible to say.

MOON

"The supreme good is like water,
which nourishes all things without trying to.
It is content with the low places that people disdain." ~Lao Tzu, Tao te Ching VIII



You are reading this, because, maybe, it piqued some interest, only a little; however it was enough to get you to click the link. The link then brought you here, and your mind interpreted the symbols on the screen into meanings, from concrete: "dog", "rock", and "feather"; to abstract: "to be", "good", and "what". 
Supposedly, human thought has no bounds; however, we think in words, and language does have bounds. Thought is bound by language. And language is made of words, which are organic units of information.

bit : byte :: letter : word

At an early age, we learn quickly.

  flexibility : venerability :: acuity : stagnation

We develop connections between our senses.

Round blue white soft Bright.
Flat long green Orange Red.
soft comfort rush Nervousness.

I've never said anything. At least, nothing with concrete meaning. However, the words are connected to senses. And the senses in combination are connected to more words, like "day, sky, sun", "leaf, autumn", and "love".

Heavy -- cold --

There are more than five senses. A world with only five senses doesn't have such depth.

When you read the word moon, what connections are made in your mind?

moon,

The Jedi, the Devil, and the Ugly.

"Ah, what a wonderful bird the frog are. When he sit, he stand almost. When he hop, he fly almost! And when he sit, he sit on what he ain't got almost." ~anonymous

When the first Star Wars film came out, I was -14 years old.

I saw the Star Wars movies at such an early age that they have been engraved in my memory. What has always brought me back to it has always been the enigma of the force. It never needed to be expounded on. It wasn't tied to any sort of complex dogma, or trudging along through a god-knows-what of complications and apologies. The force was as Lao Tzu's Tao: the intangible life-force that fuels all things natural, and the Jedi were as Taoists, trying to bring the force back into balance: into its natural state. In the same way that the force held the universe together, it spritzed the series with a healthy freshness and mysticism. As a youngling, confused about the world, loosing faith, and loosing interest, I found comfort in eastern religions. I discovered the Tao te Ching, and swiftly purchased a copy at my local bookstore. I read it cover to cover. I read it again. The wisdom within seemed so pure. I knew the Tao was something that "exists", just as a vacuum exists, or information exists, or the spoke of a wheel, the body of a glass, the space in a room...

[The Tao] is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities.

It wasn't long before I decided to "drop the dogma". I went on a religion hunt, as many have before me; including, a hero of mine, Aliester Crowley. Thelema became a primary focus, it seemed like all the world's religions mushed up into one convenient easy-to-swallow package.

"I'm happy with it, and there's no way I could be roped into religious squabbles: Do what-the-fuck thou wilt!" ~Myself, mistakenly.

 I quickly found out that Aliester Crowley was a little more popular among my elders than with my peers. Lets just say the reactions were less than favorable: epithets were slung, strange looks were given, &c. However, at this stage in my life, I yearned for discovery, I longed for understanding, and -- most of all -- I wanted them to give me their attention: I had something to say -- whatever it was -- and they were going to listen.

I chanced upon Discordianism. It was silly enough to keep my still budding attention span, and it held simple truths -- buried in Zen-like pseudo-spiritualism. It was within Eris' comforting embrace that I truly began to understand the concept of conflict. The Jedi and the Sith were in perpetual conflict. However, Jedi and Sith are both living beings, made up of medichlorians, just reacting to different stimuli. What makes one wrong and another right? Just the same, what makes a Taoist more or less right than, say, a Muslim? When dealing with such speculative information, how do you weed out the bad from the good? Truth be told, you can't. However, it's not all bad, conflict brings some of life's "greatest" moments, as well as its "lowest". Conflict is a Force that is always pushing us forward: weather it be "forward" in achievement, or Forward in time. Conflict springs from Chaos; Chaos springs from misunderstandings; misunderstandings spring from mystery; the universe is a mystery, and this probably won't change.

A serious young man found the conflicts of mid 20th Century America 
confusing.  He went to many people seeking a way of resolving within himself 
the discords that troubled him, but he remained troubled.
                                                           One night in a 
coffee house, a self-ordained Zen Master said to him, "go to the dilapidated 
mansion you will find at this address which I have written down for you.  Do 
not speak to those who live there; you must remain silent until the moon 
rises tomorrow night.  Go to the large room on the right of the main 
hallway, sit in the lotus position on top of the rubble in the northeast 
corner, face the corner, and meditate."
                                         He did just as the Zen Master 
instructed. His meditation was frequently interrupted by worries.  He 
worried whether or not the rest of the plumbing fixtures would fall from the 
second floor bathroom to join the pipes and other trash he was sitting on. 
He worried how would he know when the moon rose on the next night.  He 
worried about what the people who walked through the room said about him.

His worrying and meditation were disturbed when, as if in a test of his 
faith, ordure fell from the second floor onto him.  At that time two people 
walked into the room.  The first asked the second who the man was sitting 
there was.  The second replied "Some say he is a holy man. Others say he is 
a shithead."
              Hearing this, the man was enlightened.

 I'd say that "balance" is a greatly over-rated state of being.

I'd rather

roll

down the

hill,

than stand upon it.