"O" originally said:
I see that this noncompassion is a direct reflection from these fellow human beings whom have been largely de-individualized (as Aldous Huxley discussed in his _Brave New World--Revisited), at least *when it counts*; and instead of attacking them for their alienation, i would rather explore and find ways to intervene, in order to inspire and evolve their mind-set.
"F" replied:
Yes, I think you're right. We're back to en-framing as subtle programming. I don't think we're in a position to tell anyone what's what, but all communication should be mind-bending.
"O":
Right on! And we're in need of a lot of practice, tho i'm not willing to try to get anyone to "follow" me on this; just say, hey, if we wanna arm our desires, we iz gonna hafta not only see that the arting of ourselves is happening *rite* now (but is it our best?), but also see that it's an on-going process of desire arming; for me, this means, keeping my heart open to *all possibilities* --not as a "rule" but as an input i happen to like.
"F" challenged:
The other day, a jehovah witness elder came by to capture my soul to serve in the kingdom after armageden. I didn't tell him I was an atheist, (that would have ended the communication right then and there) but put my thumb into his chest and said "the man said the kingdom's here". Then I said it was my impression it was all about love, and in a loving relationship, where is there room for subservience and rulership? I politely suggested the kingdom of heaven was created in the image and likeness of man's kingdoms on earth. He said my points were interesting, but he had to go, grabbed his watchtower and sped away. Did I go too far? Probably his thinking hasn't changed one iota. One can only hope.
"O":
Me, i wouldn't look at the situation like that. i'm learning to look at the institutional mind-set that runs many of these people. They are really a kind of a soldier ("god's soldier, perhaps) when they're out there in their formal uniforms (really, it's like that, you know) with the intent to basically recruit!
So i want to look at that dynamic. Stand back a ways and look at what's going on, not only the immediate (or microcosm). And compare them with other formally organized folks. Say a social worker. So you've got a human being basically being tooled by an ideological/rigid way of seeing themselves and others. Why? Partly they want community in a community-less society. Partly they want to share their beliefs, so far; what has made a difference in their lives.
Okay, so you see that bigger picture.
And maybe you say this stuff outright. Maybe you don't "beat around the bush"; maybe you validate yourself to be the master of your own poetic language and you "wing it" according to how heavily armed your desires are!
So you don't bridge well, perhaps, right off. Maybe you don't bridge at all. The trick is, you play with these ideahz, you "wear" your desires and you have fun, and at the same time you see the value of seeing the other human being as yourself, only likely a little more strategically challenged.
The depth of it is that since they are human beings, they likely *also* have something to gift you/us. But we're not going to see it as poisoned as so many of us are already by state-subordinated religion (or, in the case of Jehova's Witnesses, hierarchically-challenged religion). So we see the value of pivoting beyond the confines of their language and norms, and experiment with our own!
Making sense? (i better watch myself, eh? if i start making "too much" sense so openly, the war-habituated are gonna label me as a "charismatic" type and find a way to silence my ass, rite? But it is, after all, a path of what i call "spirit-uality"; we all gotta go some way...and why not "go" if we gotta, with our desires as fully armed and as deeply accurate as we dare?!)
"F" said:
There are, however, some situations when one must shoot the coyote who's molesting your sheep: "Off the pig!" even while feeling bad about it.
"O":
i dissent. We *could* learn from, say, the likes of Ken Carey where he suggests that the excellence of human intelligence could be used towards ENHANCEMENT of the natural world. So what creative angle might we come up with?
Me, i'm envisioning a situation where friendship is made with the coyotes (while empathizing with the context of their situation--we being the invaders of their territory, after all), by feeding them a portion of the pot, so to speak; yet not letting them have control, like we already do with dogs.
We colonized folks have been led to believe that there are no grey areas "possible" and so we give our power away, systematically!
Is there a POSSIBLE way to live in harmony with those we assume we cannot (and must fall back on the human stupidity of killing and maiming)?[b] Pre-colonized folks the world over thought so, and that's how we got dogs in the first place! (yeee-haaa, this is so fun!)[/b]
...btw, i sense your 'dark' humor; but alas, you're seeing that there's more to this shit than you may've expected,,,,heh heh!
(or perhaps we're "simply" having a little PRACTICE between ourselves! A little fencing/word swordplay to see each other more clearly?! Now, how to take such creativity into realms we assumed were "impossible"?!!)
No comments:
Post a Comment