And other Merits

"Hit me."
"What?"
*energized* "Hit me!"
	*Hits him*
"What the fuck...you son of a bitch"
	*Hits him again; repeatedly*
"Arghh...Stop it."
	*Can't stop himself now*
		*Kills him*
---------
The language barrier is a hard one to overcome. It's quite hard to establish a general consent about the meaning of a word, not to mention the aggregation of words into sentences and thus the interpretation of these words.
---------

"What happened to him?"
"He? I think i killed him."
"Oh...and why?"
"I don't know...ask him."
"..."
"If you'd want me to answer for him, i guess he would say that he killed himself. He asked for it."
"He wanted you to kill him?"
"With some reservation...yeah."
"I see...what did he say to you?"
"He wanted me to hook him up."
"So you gave him an uppercut?"
"Well, numbness is numbness. Plus, I didn't even charge him for that...Damn me...i should have charged him first."
"Probably should have."
"..."
"So...what you got?"
"What you need?"
"Whatever you got."
"Whatever you need."
"Something less numbing than what our friend here got."
"Less numbing, hm? That's gonna cost you."
"How much?"
"How much you ready to give up?"
"Excuse me?"
"Teeth or eyesight?"
"Tee.."
	*crack*

---------
The culture we live in generally has the mandate to establish a consent between subject and predicat. Not only the culture, but within the same culture, there a lots and lots of subgroups, down to the mother-child relation, which have developed a specific language which can hardly be understood by any outsider, considering he has not spent an immense time within the group, thus shaping the language he is conversating in. Meaning: whatever it is you are trying to understand: if you did not help to build this thing up you are trying to understand, you will never understand it. Following: You can never really understand anything the past has to offer, for the past has been build by other people; people with different consenses. Finally: You can always and only understand the present.
---------

"Heyyy...YOU."
	*tries to sneak away*
"Yeeah...hold it right there fella"
"What...you talkin to me granpa?"
"You can't just go around hitting people like that. What's the matter with you."
"No matter, Sir. Just mind."
"Don't get smart on me kid. I'll kill you."
"Wooohh...easy. That's some double standard right there old man."
	*Hits the kid*
"Aight granpa, you asked for...
	*Pulls out an old six-chamber*
"Woohh. Easy...easy. No need for that kind of heat."
"Sit your ass down."
"Aight."
	*Sits on the curb, his feet in the gutter.*
"Let me tell you something."
*Annoyed* "Here we go."

----------
This is a story about a kid, who, for which he had good reasons, thought, he was God. This is not the story of the longhaired hippy, who, after taking too much LSD went down into the rabbithole and never came back out again, but who stayed in the rabbithole, unable to get out, thinking he himself was Jesus Christ reborn.
Following (I think) was his logical way, resulting in the conclusion that he was God:
	1. God is everything existing and nonexisting
	2. The "I" of this kid (in his perspective, not in mine) was everything which could exist for him
	3. Conclusion: there is no logical difference between God and "I" (for him)
Thus he rationalized himself into being God. But he did not see, that it was good. What would you do, would you think (and maybe know) of yourself to be God? Whatever you'd want, i figure. Right? But, ask yourself: could you even do whatever you want, were you God? Is God free? Could he do bad things? Or would he just do whatever he would do, and "good and bad" would be formed through his acting, thus: whatever he would do, is good and whatever he would not do would be bad?
Let me tell you about what this kid did, after he logically concluded to be God. Well, he was a student of the philosophies. Being that, he sat in in seminars which would talk about God and the world, and was thus very happy, because he continuously thought, that by talking about God, his other classmates would in fact talk about him. This he enjoyed very much. Now, this was not so much a narcistic move, as a move which would help him to remember. See, as soon as he knew, subjectively, that he was God, he had already forgotten it again. He had to remind himself again and again, because he fell back, again and again, into old habits, bad habits.
One of these habits was, that in the same way he forgot that he was God, he also forgot about his body. How it sat in space, how inefficiently it was in this moment fighting against gravity, how his breath was flat and the weight on his shoulders heavy. He didn't even knew, that he had to remind himself that he was God. He simply forgot about his godly nature. Not like an old person would forget something, but the way somebody forgets something, because he didn't really care about it, because it was meaningless to him; lastly also because he didn't only not care for being God, he even despised to be God. One may say, he was an angry God.

--------------------

"You're back again?"
"Have I been here before?"
"Last year, if i remember...!?"
"I remember something. But was that really me?"
"If you remember it, it probably was you, yes."
"I'll come back to that one later."
"As you wish. Now, how can I help you?"
"I stumbled upon this guy, called himself Plotinus."
"And?"
"And i want to know what you think about him and his ideas...well, let's say: what I try to make out of his ideas."
"If I remember correctly, I'm a medical doctor of the psychologies and not a philosopher. Why do you insist to come here in order to discuss such matter?"
"So you heard of him?"
"No, but the name sounds oddly familiar to certain Greek ancient philosophers, thus I hypothesize he is a philosopher as well. Why do you come here?"
"A philosopher would misunderstand. Here I'm just a person, not sure if he's mad or not. Here I'm able to express my thoughts."
"Ever hypothesized that you come here, because I'm not a trained philosopher, and thus probably unable to stand any ground against your argumentation? Maybe you come here, because you know you would win the argument. Maybe the argument includes mental instability and thus, the reason why you really come here, is to verify your mental stability and de facto noncrazyness, logically i might add."
"Seems about right, Doc."
"God Almighty..."
"Present."

-------------------

We want to step out for a second, blend out of the small, yet seemingly quite spatial room, forget about the opposing chairs of doctor and patient. Let us rather look into (if "into" really fits the term) the mind which fills this place we would call a doctors office. In this mind, certain philosophical arguments are floating, which, would we follow their (doctor and patient) annoying and unfriendly way of conversation, would take an infinite amount of time to bring to the point. We rather want to follow some logical bits and bytes floating in this interconnected mind of two seemingly different people, brisk and short.

There are certain premises without which we can not start out our argumentation. We may come back to them, when we need to. We may just let them stand here. The conclusions will follow logically (hopefully)

P1: 	Every human being has a soul.
P1.1: 		The soul is the expression of God in the soulbearer
P1.2: 			God is Everything, One, Unchanging
C1.1:				In every human being is the same, unchanging, expression.
C1.2:					In every human being is something, which is homomorph to every other human being.

P2:	The "I think" is an expression of the soul.
C2:		The "I think" of A is homomorph to the "I think" of B.

P3:	Every thinking subject has an inherently unique time. (the only time existing for the subject)
P3.1		The "I think" of A and B never have any absolute point of relation.
C3:			The "I think" of A and B don't exist simultaneously.

P4: 	Time is infinite. (not fractal)
C4: 		The "I think" of A and B is differentiated by a potentially infinite time.
			###what is amount of time? time is in the mind of A, not outside of it. there would not be any time between A and B because there is only one time
				#the possibility then of an infinite time, no actuality.

P5:	Infinity contains the actuality of every possibility.
C5:		The "I think" of A and B is differentiated by the actuality of every possibility.

P6:	The soul is immortal.
P6.1		Immortality is untimely.
C6:			The soul is untimely.

P7:	The soul is 'reborn'.
P7.1:		As the soul is untimely, the same soul can exist in A and B.
C7:			As A and B are differentiated by the actuality of every possibility, the same soul does exist in A and B. (Whatever is possible, is actual)

P8: 	What we call 'soul' does not exist.
P8.1:		There does not exist any expression of God, only God.
C8: 			The "I think" of the soul does not exist, only God.
C8.1				"I" am God.

--------------
"You get what I'm talking about?"
"No?!"
"My point is: there is no such thing as an external God, or whatever you want to call it. Some figure in the sky, creating things. It's all within me. And for you: within you."
"I thought it's only in you."
"Well, that's the point where subjectivity becomes objectivity. Everyone can say it for himself. Subjectively."
"I am God?"
"No. I am God!"
"Well...no. I AM GOD!"
-------------

The Chinese have such a thing, an expression, a way of life. They call it 無为（wú wèi), literally meaning: no origin of causality. It teaches about harmony within. The whole thing, the All, doesn't change. It's a constant, of neither balance nor unbalance. Nothing is happening, if you think about the whole thing. If you think about, what some may call, God. There is no causal origin and no causal effect. This harmony, this unity, is within everyone and everything. If something, whatever is his nature, acts accordingly this it's nature, then it can be called :in harmony.
Now, how could one be said to be in disharmony? How can anything existing be said to be in disharmony? Does it not exist because it is precisely in harmony? Something inharmonious would not exist, right? Well this harmony but is hard to destroy. It has it's own will within. Thus it could be said: "a man is living in disharmony", but not: "a man is in disharmony." Life in disharmony will degenerate. Life in harmony will strive.
Think about intuition. If a person intuitively likes another person, but decides not to get to know the other person, he could be said to act disharmonious. If a person only thinks about the possibilities of his action or inaction, then he can be called to be in disharmony.
Take the classical example of utilitarianism: a train is rolling down a hill. The rail is splitting into two lines. The train will go on line A and line B, killing either 1 person, or 5 persons. Which track the train will take if we don't look, is undecidable. It can go either way. We now could telepathically decide for the train to go either A or B. We but must only look. The look alone will decide the harmonious way of action. If we but decide for the train to go into line A or B, then there is disharmony in work. We can not say, as an outside person, what the right way for another person would be. We can not say, that killing one person is better than killing five persons. We can not say, because only the subject, which is in the moment of this situation, can decide. Or for that matter: can not decide. If he is in harmony that is.

------------

Consciousness can, be definition it seems, only be singular. There is no consciousness of person A and person B. There is only one consciousness, shared by person A and B. Or, subjectively, there is only one consciousness: the I. This consciousness is a shared entity, and inherent in every living and nonliving thing. A stone can be called conscious, a tree can be called conscious. But we should not think, that the stone should now start to develop a language, similar to the human language. For, it would not be a stone, would it start talking in human tongue. It would be a human then. It's not in the nature of the stone, to talk in human tongue. It's not what's making the stone conscious. This is similar in everything. Consciousness is nothing less than the nature of the thing. A human can only, if at all, call another human being conscious, for he can relate with the other human being. But in the end: he can only call himself conscious.
There is no limit to the consciousness of anything. There are no boundaries of consciousness between any objects of perception. And, if one is in harmony, one can be able to transcend this subjective consciousness one seems to have, and one is able to be enlighted. Enlightenment now, is nothing which is happening only once. One can not be said to become enlighted, from which point on one is enlighted in all eternity. As one can become enlighted, one can become unenlightened. For, if enlightenment is a higher form of consciousness, how would one remember about this higher form of consciousness? It would be equal to a being living in a (seemingly) 3D world, after having died in a 5D world. How could he remember about the 5D world? He can not, for his thoughts are shaped by the 3D world. His a priori construct can be called a 3D world. How would he be able to transcend this 3D world?
What then is happening to the enlighted being, once it is not enlighted anymore? How does unenlightenment happen? As enlightenment can be called the perfect harmony of the thing, then unenlightenment could be said to follow from disharmonious acts. Disharmonious acts again will follow if 無为 is not practiced.
Enlightenment is nothing which does follow once a person has lived a certain amount of time. Some people may be called enlighted, without them knowing about the enlightenment, for they lived in harmony from the day they were born. They would not know such thing as living in disharmony. If one is consciousness of the enlightenment, one can be said to have lived in disharmony before and that one now lives in harmony. Being conscious of the enlightenment is not the goal of education. The goal of education is to not be conscious of the enlightenment. It is up to the parents, to the family and to the state to educate a person in such a way, that he is not conscious of his enlightenment.
(Think about the Movie "Matrix". Think about Neo. As Morpheus is giving Neo the red pill, in order to pull him out of the matrix, he is mentioning, that it is unusual to pull someone out of the matrix at such an high age. Most people would be pulled out of the matrix when they were still babies, so that they would not remember about the pulling out and thus about the shift of perspective. For it is hard to forget about all the Gewohnheiten one has accumulated, living a certain amount of time.)
The enlightenment at a high age can be called a very disharmonious act, even if it is happening for harmony to establish itself. Sometimes, encircling a higher multitude of beings, this is what is called a revolution.

-----------

"This whole the I being God thing. There is still something i can't get my head around."
"Which is?"
"Are there not in fact two Gods existing?"
"We're talking dialectics."
"Hmm. The outside is the inside. If I am God inside, the outside world is God as well."
"But there can only be one God no? By definition."
"Which means? That once I am God inside, there is no more difference between outside and inside?"
"That's some way to express it, yes."
"And another way?"
"Even if your not God, meaning, if your not consciously God, there is no difference between outside and inside. If your a criminal, the world will be a criminal world. If you are a liar, the world will be full of liars. If you deceive, you will be among deceivers. If you love the inside, your self, you will find love everywhere. Moreover...if you're not conscious, the outside world will not be conscious. Finally: if your enlightened, everybody will be enlightens. This is what makes the I God, and thus King. You are in control of the outside world, of everything happening, as long as you are in control of the inside world."
"It's kind of ironic..."
"What is?"
"You tell me that I can say for myself that I am God, whilst you know that your subjective I is the only thing existing for you, and thus that you are God."
"Well..."
"You would not try to deceive me, would you?"
"Well, I am not telling someone else that he is God, that's for sure."
"???"
"Do you think there is any difference, between me and you?"
"Am i talking to myself here?"
"One could argue, yes."
"But there is space dividing us. How could we be the same?"
"There is not only space dividing us, but, more importantly, time."
"Yes?"
"Think about a pantheism. Think about infinite regress. About the universe in a grain of dust. What would stop my I to be your I?"
"We talk to each other. We exist independently, in the same time."
"In the same time?"
"See that clock ticking? It's the same time for both of us. Almost 9pm."
"It really is not."
"Maybe your watch is off."
"I'm looking at the same clock. But it's not the same time."
"..."
"There is no such thing as an outside time. Time is only inward. Relativity taught us that space itself does have an inherent timeframe, no two particles share the same timeframe."
"Our I as well?"
"Sure. How can it not be?"
"Because your conscious I can not be put into any point of space. You can not say that your I is here or there. You could say it's in your brain, but is really is not. It can not be."
"It's everywhere then?"
"Ye...wait. What?"
"My I is thus everywhere. In my brain, in your brain. In this cup of tea. In the leaves and water which make the tea. Everywhere."
----------------

Concerning Wu Wei:
It seems, that there is not a simple, singular thing as wu wei, but wu wei, at least in praxis, seems to have certain levels. Once you master the first level, you will recognize the second level. Once you mastered the second level, you will master the third etc.
The first level seems to be: to act somehow reflexive. A situation presents itself, and you act on it, without thinking. For example, a piece of paper slips from the table, and you catch it. That's a reflex.
The second level now is not to let the paper slip at all from the table. It's about knowing what will happen, and act in order to either let the situation not occur, or to prepare for the occurrence of the situation. The piece of paper should not at all be in a situation where it could slip from the table.
Another example is the cleaning of the house: If you recognize that the house is dirty, you would naturally clean the house. But if you don't make the house dirty after all, then you don't have to clean the house.
This should be reflected upon carefully.

----------------

We said before that being in harmony is an equivalent to being his nature. Now, human seems to have a chosen relationship to the nature which is presented to him. He is able to control much of the planet he lives upon. He is able to use it's materials, in order to advance in knowledge, in technology etc. Thus human thinks, naturally, that he is somewhat the master over the earth, over the other animals. But is he?
The perspective game is a hard one to play, when relating to another person, how hard is it even when you try to relate to another animal?
We may postulate, that every animal except human is naturally living a harmonious life with it's environment. It never takes more than it needs for the daily struggle of survival. It procreates naturally. It dies without hesitation if it must, and fights to his death for the survival of his kin.
Human thinks is is smarter than an animal, because he can develop a language and a technology. Because he does not understand nature, but tries everything in order to understand it.
Now, imagine, that every animal tries to understand nature. And it does everything in it's power to understand it. And whatever his means, he will be able to understand it in totale.
The human f.e. derives a theory of chaos for the universe. The butterfly can on on side of the world flap his wings, and on the other side of the world create a wind strong enough to pluck houses out of their fundament, to flood streets and bring despair to a lot of human beings.
Now imagine, that a butterfly, as every living being, is able to understand the universe. And imagine, that a butterfly knows, that his wingbatting would create a storm. How would we know that is is not so? Everything is connected.
Imagine, that the human species is in fact the stupidest creation of God, and not a picture of his allmightiness.
Imagine that an animal is able to understand the human being. It's purpose, as we somehow understand the purpose of a butterfly. That the cattle we raise and bring to the slaughterhouse does not need our pity, but that the cattle has much more pity for human than we think. That the cattle knows what is going to happen to him, that it is powerless to change much about it. But that it accepts it. That is screams in sight of his death not out of fear, but in order to wake the human being up. To create a flame in the human being holding the nailgun, which would someday burn across the globe.
We developed a society where human beings have pity for other animals. But this pity is not actually pity for the animal. It's pity for himself. It's pity for his species.
Human has pity for dying species, species which would soon leave this planet for good. Die out. And he goes out and creates charities to save the planet and to save the dying living. And he thinks that he is master over them, that he decides when a certain animal has to extinguish and when it is allowed to live on. Everyday, we hear, so many thousand species are dying for good. And people are schelted for they are the perpetrator. And people have pity for the dying. And thinks to see, that he is the one responsible for all this death and misery around him. And he forgets about the misery he creates under his own kin.
See, nature will find a way. It always does. Life will prevail. Always. But shortsighted man thinks that he is God, and that he is to decide what nature is allowed and not allowed to do. And he forgets that the earth was once a ball of fire, that the air we breath was almost pure carbondioxid. And that life managed to strife out of this ball of fire.
And in his shortsightedness, in his godcomplex (we may just call it that way), he is responsible for the well-being of the earth. That he is responsible when the earth cools down and when the earth heats up. And he forgets that the earth is orbiting a huge ball of plasma, probably able to destroy life on earth if it bursts, and that this orbit is not a regular, static one. He thinks that the Sun is as hot as it always is, that the orbiting radius is the same as it always is, and that whatever is happening on the earth MUST be his doing.
And he forgets that he developed the chaos theory. He applicates it when is suits him, and forgets about it when it suits him.
Earth is not to save. The climate is not so save. It can't be saved. It's above anything we could try to comprehend. We should rather save ourself.
Climate change is just another catch phrase. Created by the power which rules this planet. Created by the market. Not exactly judging about it. Just mentioning. Why? In order for humans to consume what other humans manufactured and hold a monopol over. Climate change is probably the best advertisement strategy in human history. To this green. Do that green. Buy the green stuff....Well, no. What about not buying the stuff at all? That would be 'green'.
But not to consume is not an option. Less consumers is not an option. Not yet. Maybe one day it will be. Right now, the premise is: more consumers, which means, more people into the rich countries. More production, more people to taste the paradise on earth, and buy it's products. Don't think that immigration is equal to "humanitarian help". It really is not. People are propagated to come into the rich countries, because 1: they don't consume much in the poor country, they would probably be a lot happier there, if not advertisement of the 'civilization' would reach them. 2: they can help to build stuff which can be consumed and by building the stuff, they turn into consumers themselves. They as well become addicted to the stuff they build. The only humanitarian crisis we have right now, is that the rich countries don't produce enough children in order to satisfy the market. Thus they get imported. It's pure logic. It's the markets bidding. And advertisement covers up for it.
The first article of consumationland is: "Every human being is born free and thus is allowed to consume whatever he wants, whenever he wants. Stopping another human being from consumation is punishable by death." Yes, that sounds about right. But death really is not in favour of the market. Thus we need to abolish the death sentence. Punishing by death is no longer allowed. Under punishment of death. The better option is: build a prison, give the person a life sentence, thus he consumes a healthy 80 years. The best option is: don't build a prison, but build a factory which looks like a prison.
You can't stop the market. Noone can. Once in motion is will eat through everything and everyone. The premise is: constant development. Constant economical advancement. GDP has to go up. Always. But it can't. It tries to, but the ecological crisis is part of the blueprint of the market.
Now, there is one thing the market as we know it, has not yet adapted into it's advertisements. For it would, if it would advertise it, destroy itself. It would be a suicide.
This thing is what we nowadays know as drugs. More precisely: recreational drugs and psychedelic substances.
Which is why they are not allowed to sell, and not allowed to plant in your home. For the fear is, that recreational druguse will tame this beast of endless consumption.
Which is also the reason why, if it will be allowed one day, it would be under strict marketsurveillance. The market would probably be allowed to sell it, the pharmacy maybe. But to create a paradise of substances in you own garden will be strictly forbidden.

We don't judge the market here. We don't say that the market is a bad thing. We just want to find out what it does. Why things are how they are. We don't say they should or even could be otherwise. It's a simple game of power. The market rules over the law, not the other way around. The law has to catch the market, but it never will. Why? Because it's more or less a bad version of the market trying to catch the good version of the market. It's like a program which tries to take over it's programming environment. It can't.

Everyone has to be equal in order for the market to show it's true powers. Everyone must be equal to consume the same stuff. Finally, equality. The market our savior. The advertisement prophecised our salvation. Woman is now equal to man. Which is logically not really reasonable. For "woman" does not equal "man". Maybe we should change the language too. Not more differentiation should be allowed. Woman and man can be subsumed under "consumer", or for the male origin of consumer: "consuming life organism".
Woman has to be equal to man. If it would not be so, there would be 50% of the potential market, which do not consume to it's full potential. And 50% which does not produce to it's full potential. Hidden under the cloak of human rights, is in reality the market. "Women are repressed", translated means as much as: "the market is repressed".
Woman is no longer supposed to want what she always wanted. She now is supposed to want what man wants. Which thought basically is an invention of man. Man decided: woman should think that she is supposed to be equal to man. And women fall for it. They now want to create what man creates. They want to create machines, programs, etc. What they don't want to create anymore, is the masterpiece of human art; the creation of another human being. Not just the creation of an animal, but the creation, as in education and nurture, of a human being.
Which is of course only a very broad and simplified explanation of a given problem.
A funny thing in this feminism thing is: they use the methods of the patriarchal society in order to propagate the feminism. They use what they hate, in order to create the opposite of what they hate: what they should also hate. Which is not in general a bad thing: for many people try to fight against the thing they are caught in, using the advantages of the thing they are caught in. They would be stupid not to. So did Marx study, using what means he got from a few centuries of capitalism and imperialism. But if he created a better alternative, a more human alternative, may be open for debate. Maybe he was just a necessary product of human disharmony, the other end of the spectrum, in order for harmony to establish itself. But does this not create more disharmony in the first place? If the spectrum gets broader and broader, does it not become more and more disharmonious? It then would not really be the end of dialectics, but the very production of dialectics. And dialectics means disharmony. Which is probably what the ruling power wants: more disharmony.