Complexity is a boon to Terrorists, Multinationals and News/Market Makers

we are falling head long into an era of defacto-communism. security and financial threats are causing us to infuse the federal govt. with more and more power. the federalization of airlines, border and market security, as well as gov't. bailouts of failing companies, will have us waking up a communist country. case in point; because the financial markets have become so diffused by derivatives (implemented by middlemen to usurp wealth) so as to be almost completely detached from the individual consumer/investor. therefore, miscalculated valuations of securities cause (supposed) severe central bank collapses* , enter the "Fed". secondly, physical security is also in question. with bureau (Homeland Security) stacked on top of bureau (FBI, CIA, NSA, State/Local Police ect.), the efficiency needed in prevention and reaction is hampered (another example of a derivative/complexity problem)*. every business/reasonable-minded person can understand the diminishing returns of added complexity*. the problem is that large, slow and wealthy institutions are unwilling (or unable; due to stockholder pressures and/or gov't. regulations) to scratch the current trends and simplify*....enter private equity, exit Dow Jones! Dow Jones is the equivalent of the daily "Terror Threat Level"; an agent of fear mongering/economic terrorism! (so is the daily local/national news for that matter). we are living in a time where "news" is the impetus for economic volatility (instead of the other way around). therefore news-makers have the power to create/destroy the wealth of nations. John Kerry once said, "we need to treat terrorism like a mere nuisance." to do otherwise gives terrorists (economic or islamofacist/CIA assets) the power to actually end our democracy.

*this is conventional logic made null by the superstructure known as "multinational corporations"

The love affair with the lie of individualism

modern western philosophers such as Locke, professed individualism and personal sovereignty, while oxymoronically espousing God's sovereignty. it is this paradoxical idealism that created the United States and sealed it's fate simultaneously. all rationalizations of avarice, disguised as manifest destiny extend from these precepts. a nation of individuals is no nation at all. the "American Dream" propaganda deeply veils the establishment of a new creation in the earth; a corporate superstructure, that usurps all previously known powers and establishments. two men can no longer barter for sustainability, because this new power provides all reference and value. the freedom myth of America extends far into our psyche, making it hard to reconcile that the very establishment of a society marks the beginning of the end of freedom. by definition, a society has norms, boundaries and customs, these are all forms of control; the antithesis of freedom.

Why do we form societies? One word; fear. We (humans) believe that we must control variables, establish knowns therefore create for ourselves a rational reality, however absurd. We fear unknowns and are predisposed to avoid the pain of confronting random events. war is the confluence of avarice and fear, with the stated purpose of ensuring security and sustainability (another paradoxical paradigm. war begets more war decreasing both security and sustainability).

as we look through the looking glass we see this corporate superstructure in all its unconscious mechanics. the rise and fall of civilizations are synchronous to market ebbs and flows. all humans are chattel and human endeavors are inconsequential. the dynamo powering this mechanism is human fear. fear is the devourer of freedom. in the history of man and cosmopolitan metropolises, there are very few things that can be agreed upon. unfortunately these things are fear and greed. these are the building blocks of societies, societies that ultimately crush humanity, and we did it to ourselves.

See this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jufT3v1roaU

The Wool Being Pulled Over Your Eyes!

Pimp Mentality

What's going' on. There seems to be a big disconnect in the man-woman thing these days. They don't understand us and we will never understand them. What is the cause for all this confusion? Well in the following paragraphs I will attempt to diagnose the problem and offer some prescriptions.

Let's start a couple of generations back. There were, in those times, very established gender roles. For good or bad people knew where they stood and knew what was expected of them. Then there were the 60’s. Free love, women's lib, and the turning on its head of traditional belief structures. This was partly due to an unveiling of long standing male-dominated structures. Women wanted equality, minorities wanted it too. As these transformations are taking place for what seemed at the time to be for good, caused an upheaval in cultural norms that are still reverberating till this day.

As the decade came to an end and the fervor of liberty was replaced by narcotic-induced apathy. As a result (intentiality can be argued) we started down the path of reassertion of power by men. This was systematically implemented in an accidental and opportunistic way. Because of the previously mentioned upheaval, many women were disillusioned and lacked the generational support to deal with their new found liberty. They were self-conscious, and generally lacked the confidence to seize the moment. Opportunistically rouge men preyed on these women. Now in the 70's we start to see an exploitive paradigm shaping.

For generations past a pimp was looked at as a loser, a leach ect. But because of the new exploitive culture and the fact that most men at this point were feeling a little disenfranchised because of the new women's movement, it is plausible to conceive how men could applaud such activities. Why, because it showed masculine power. Think about it. If you're a man who is having trouble dealing with your woman and all her new (potential, not yet fully realized) empowerment, at the same time remembering your father's domination, you tend to appreciate a man who can "control" a woman's mind in this most extreme way.

So now you have pimps as heroes. (We all know how groupie-ish women are; if it doesn't apply don't get mad). Women love men with power no matter from where it is derived. Men are looking up to pimps; women want to be next to them (which in turn makes men look up to them even more). With the perceived de-masculinity of males, blurred gender roles and an exploitive paradigm in place, you have the seeds sown for a cultural collapse.

Men imitate the best (or what we conceive is the best) and memorize the rest. So a new generation of men imitating the pimps we know (or the ones we see on TV and in movies). Add this to the fact of less and less fathers in the home, showing their young sons how to be real men; the results are evident.

Let's now begin the scientific analysis of the "Pimp Mentality". A pimp (from my studies at the Street University and Hustlin' Graduate School) is some one who uses slick talk to sell (in this case a woman) a dream. What is so insidious about it is that we all know women love to dream. To do this your "game" has to maintain a suspension of disbelief. You have to deceive the victim by being perceived as being a “Trusted Adviser” or “Manager” all the while usurping more influence over time. The other main idea is to appear to have the well being of your victim in mind. I would go further in detail but I don't want this article to turn into Pimping 101.

The pimping started as an attempt to re-empower the male, recapturing control of the woman (and of course, financial gain). But the "Pimp Mentality" has many ancillary negative social implications; Men looking to find gain off of the backs of women (pun intended), men not pursuing their own personal development, women being turned onto whorish behaviors, simultaneously being sold a dream that will never become reality. Who (besides Richard Gere) is going to marry a whore.

Male Generation X’ers who for the most part grew up in a fatherless home, are looking up to pimps, drug dealers and other dreads of society. They also have an under-developed sense of self, combined with the schizophrenic battle between traditional male roles and this new pimp mentality. This ideology is now coming up against a new type of woman. This new woman is second-generation liberated with support to help her esteem (see Oprah), which renders the Gen-X male figuratively (and literally) impotent. He has spent his formative years hanging out, drinking cheap beer, smoking weed and banging easy young women. To maintain the fundamental man-woman symbiosis, he will have to employ the pimp mentality (as the only social arrow in a depleted intellectual quiver). There are other derivatives in play here: Asexuality; as a result of the inability of this Gen X male to fully understand his role in this dialectic.

This is the self-inflicted and perpetuated cross we must bear. How do we resolve this great divide? The man-woman chasm must be forded. To do that we as men have to repent of this "pimp mentality". We must take the time to evaluate ourselves, realizing that we are intellectually under-developed, socially inept, and spiritually bankrupt. Unless we break the cycle of fatherlessness, by teaching our young men to develop themselves, pursue goals and wait for maturity before engaging in sexual activity, we as a people will be victims of social Darwinism.

- the thelosopher

what is the matrix?

The current corporate free-market paradigm is usurping the common good. The common good is an idea predicated on economic and/or political non-influence. The free-market enables the evil of greed to persist unchecked (either intentionally or unintentionally). Governments are in place to first serve and protect it's citizens. How can an altruistic ideal government come into existence when it consistently operates at the behest of corporations (i.e. economic/political interests)? (public) Corporations are cannibalistic in that they are made up of the public (via interest and/or employment of) while simultaneously saprophytically digesting it. It is a parasitic symbiotic relationship rather than a mutualistic one, in that the usable byproduct of the corporate entity is not equal in value to its consumption. This free-market cycle of ossification and regeneration will persist until the public completely disengages, demanding a more equitable enterprise. This antipathy could be a backlash to the current oppressive economic phlebotomy, or preferably, the result of rational choice; realizing the insanity of such a barren matrix.

A corporation is the personification of an egoistic entity without the compunction of a human. Therefore it will consume unconsciously, devoid of inherent malice or empathy.

For confirmation and added support for this thesis check out: http://www.thecorporation.com/ and http://www.storyofstuff.com/

About a boy

I wanted to talk about love, life and the pursuit of spiritual enlightenment. But in my research all i was able to come up with is a bunch of clichés that everybody already knows. We know everything. So then i decided to create a piece of 'art'. i figured that telling you all about love, life and spiritual enlightenment would be an exercise in redundancy, in that the reference material on those topics fill libraries. Generalities are usually lost on individuals. Case in point, if i say the word flower, a very general platonic form, inevitability each individual will think of a specific flower that references what they see as that form in their own consciousness. For me, a rose, for you a tulip. This is where art comes in. Art has the ability to take a general form/idea strip away al traces of it, forcing the observer to stretch their imagination to recapture it. This is a journey into the individual subconsciousness. When someone says they didn’t like a piece of art what their really saying is that they don't like the place in their own mind the art took them. Although i must admit we would have to agree on what could be considered art.

So i thought that to be art the story should be an individual story that the forms/ ideas would have to be extracted via that subconscious journey i was speaking of. Otherwise you’re doing a religious, academic, psychological, sociological study to be published and studied. What i wanted was a story that was like music in that it inspired thought not dogma. But how do you talk about something without using dialectic structures, facts, premises, arguments that lead to synthesis. If you know anything about 'Hegel's Dialectic' you know that this leads to knowhere (intentional misspelling). This realization, was very unnerving to a sophist such as myself. i recognized that true reality lies in art. This is because forms are unknowable and unseeable and more importantly unapprehendable. Therefore truth lies in each individual cognitive representation.

i guess i like forms because they promise infinity. The journey to recapture a form could take forever. While to me, pragmatic acceptance of empirical knowledge seems like death. In that where can you go from there? Even if you keep discovering new facts it just means you die frequently.

i guess this is why i've never written a book or built a house or had a family. i would always be unhappy with that stasis, always searching for perfection. i'm not alone in this. Albert Einstein himself was not satisfied with the theory of relativity, he was still searching for the theory of everything and died without realizing it. i believe that endless search guides him in eternity. The seeker to me, is humble and not in love with his own ideas, knowing he doesn't know it all. A pragmatist is content, almost enviable in his ability to accept reality, and seemingly sublimate his sense of self. i really believe that there is a balance that is struck between the idealist and the pragmatist. In that the idealist can push man forward while the pragmatist is able to capitalize on achievements. Both helping mankind.

So i figure if i create a great piece of art it could possibly capture the forms i search for and represent the journey itself. i've written poetry but unless its the 'Iliad and the Odyssey' in scope it doesn't quite capture enough of the forms i search for. When i start to write a book i tend to cultivate ideas in such short fashion the journey is missed. Then i thought that a film would do. But who would watch a movie that offered so many ideas. First of all it would be a life-time long and you would end up missing the point because the viewer/observer would not have gone on their own journey therefore negating their own existence (in the Spinoza sense of existence).

What’s the answer? I meditated on it and realized that a body of work fully represents both a subconscious journey and forms via cognitive apprehension. It is also pragmatic in that it capitalizes on accomplishments, creating points in space-time that form a line. Consciousness is the apprehension of points in space-time. Consciousness negates enlightenment because if you are capturing points in space-time then you’re missing the line or more importantly the pattern or the form the line makes. The purpose of my art would be to to illuminate a form, line or pattern thereby enlightening the observer. Prophets, enlightened ones and our Messiah, in my opinion had the ability to be unconscious for times, enabling them to see points, lines and the patterns connecting them, therefore seeing into the future and the past (linear space-time). Most importantly, they had the ability to articulate those patterns to the masses via artistic expressions.

my theory is that, existence by definition, is a disturbance. If something doesn’t disturb a natural stasis (thus creating a relative reference) it cannot be cognitively apprehended. Man’s doom is his insistence to exist. In this vain he disturbs natural stases which by effect, puts in motion events that will lead to his destruction. And because he also seeks consciousness he cannot see his own folly. The key to sustainable life (everlasting life) is to stop trying to exist and just be, symbiotically coexisting with your environment. This, to me, is the highest level of thinking. The id needs, the ego knows how to get it, and the super-ego knows how to get it without ultimate destruction. i submit that it is the holy spirit, the unconsciousness that when tapped into or when it taps into you, reveals those forms that put you on a journey to recapture them, leading your being to eternity. The very essence of love, life and the pursuit of spiritual enlightenment.

-the thelosopher

A computer is the attempt by man to put concepts in a vacuum, void of desires and perceptions of pain. If constructed adequately it could yield pure reason. Leading to truths, that if understood and applied by humans, would have the potential to be infinitely good, or infinitely evil.

Locke prefaced his masterwork "Essay" with a rhetorically understated "Epistle to the Reader." In it he points to his awareness that the need for a systematic investigation of human understanding first arose in the context of a friendly, but unproductive discussion of other issues. Any intellectual has had this same thought as they attempt a dialog, whose goal is to reach an understanding, only to realize that people inherently percieve unequally. To have a productive discussion, agreements have to be made as to how arguments will be constructed, and what variables will be evaluated. At that point, truth most times magically appears without any more effort.

The purpose of a life is to realize itself, and its connection to the whole/universe. This is both empirical/pragmatic (in the William James, and Charles Sanders Peirce sense of the words), and intuitive. Realization begins with an experience and ends with intuit conception. Birth, in the humanistic sense of the word begins at conception (when sperm and egg unite). I submit that in the Spinoza sense of the word (which I concur with), you are born/conceived when you cease to be acted upon externally. This can only occur when your actions are guided from within. This is an application of reason apart from previous perceptions. You are then 'born again'. Everything is now new, and possible.

Freedom, what is it? Freedom can be defined as the human capacity to act (or not act) as we choose or prefer, without external compulsion or restraint. Slavery could be considered an antonym of freedom. Which could be defined as no ability to act (or not to act) because of compulsion and/or restraint (I would add real or perceived compulsion and/or restraint).
Now the question is, are you free or do you have freedom?
It can be said that all human behavior is a result of desire or the avoidance of what is perceived to be pain (any undesired feeling mental/physical). It stands to reason that behavior determined by desire and/or the avoidance of pain is slavery, unless those motives are from within. In the Spinoza dissertation called, "Of substance and Existence", he asserts (and I concur) that a substance that exists (conceived) cannot be acted upon externally. So he deduces that when something can be acted upon externally (hence not free or having freedom), it ceases to exist, or more importantly never did. The question now is, how can one act internally, or be conceived. Something that would come into existence has no perceptions (which come from the external), only truth. Truth is obtained by reasoning a concept/idea/effect back to its cause. Then one can can have an intuition/deduction of the concept/idea/effect of the whole, and therefore its place in it. Motives then become intrinsic, actions free(or having freedom) which serves itself and the whole simultaneously, which is the natural expression of the essence of God. I submit that freedom as we know it, is an inadequate perception of what it truly is. Freedom is a form, and by that definition does not exist in the physical realm (like a circle, a square or any point in space) it can only be represented in the physical world. There are steps that can be taken to reach freedom and thus be born again. Eradicate opinions, reason/test ideas, releasing truth. After you see truth a lie will never have a home with you. At that point you will have intuition into everything that was, is, and will ever be.

-the thelosopher

This is for all you horribly dressed people I run into on a daily basis. Now I will admit, that the midwest is not known for being a pillar of fashion (Chicago excepted). But there is T.V., the internet and any number of magazines to refer to. Bottom line, no excuse! As a founding member of Urban Sophisticate, I may have the blessing of superior fashion sense, though I would admit that I was not born with this talent. So as any good Christian should do, I will share my gift with you. First, and foremost, as with anything else you must "know thyself". What does this philosophical mumbo-jumbo have to do with fashion? Well, by knowing yourself, you can eliminate 99% of fashion trends out there. Therefore you have a mangeable amount of clothing choices to make. More specifically, know your personality (style) and build (cut).
The number one concideration is situation; what to wear comes down to what you're going to be doing and where. This includes conciderations in fabrics and colors (and cut depending on how much skin can be exposed). Vocabulary word: Apropos. You should be mindful of fashion trends, then find a way to sublimate your style into the current movement. You have to look at couture with a practical eye. Take away elements that will work in the real world. The only people who can wear the clothes diplayed on runways are famous people. Remember art imitates life, not the other way around. As the thelosopher, one might ask, why do you care about fashion. To that, I say, when you are at peace and one with yourself your outer appearance is a reflection of your inner self. My philosophy is that when this is true, we then we bring into existance the "aestetic truth'. So that what you see is the truth. That would be heaven on earth.

I often write on my blogs and contribute to others as well. A common theme I've noticed is that everyone thinks that they have to be funny (I admit I am guilty of this myself). Even if the subject matter is not necessarily humerous. So I ask myself, what is wrong with presenting a serious matter as serious and not being aplogetic about it. 'Cause when you think about it the issues facing man these days are very serious and require serious discourse. This very issue came up today when my girlfriend was taking some magnesium citrate. She complained about it's taste, so I responded with a quip about how sometimes you have to swallow that bitter pill if you want to get well. Let's get well.

I am part of the duo that is bringing you film philosophy. books along with myself are engaged in an attempt to find truths and the philosophies hidden in the new form of intellectual sublimation, which is film and movies. So I invite all sophisticated movie watchers to check us out @ www.filmphilos.blogspot.com . Bring with you, your thinking caps and personal experiences.

All knowlege and reason lies in the hearts of men. All absolutes are temporary. Information is a toy in the hands of babes. Picked up and manipulated, only to be tossed aside for a new shinier one. Most dogmas ane flights of fancy, perpetuated on the world as truths, through emperical doctrine. Moralities and norms are the clothes on your back. Faith is the only continuum, a cerebral tatoo. Objectivity is unnatural, so it is not a stretch to call it supernatural. Philosophies and -isms, stem from a discontent. There will, as long as men are men, be thesies, antithesies, and synthesies. The vanity of men is absolute, he is not happy with just being. The validity of an opinion lies in the robustness of your vanity. While the validity of a truth bears witness of itself. Democracy sits on top of a slippery slope toward tyrannical rule. It celebrates individualism and power. When any great sustainable society has to be built around the common good. By the very nature of man, inevitably corruption wil creep in . Remember your childhood. You would spend 3 hours building something only to destroy it. We are all children. Anything created by man will for not long last. If only man could keep his ambition for dominion within the borders of his epidermis, but be connected to the trancendental time-space known as mankind. Every word is a two-edged sword. Only peace can wield it effectively. Consciousness is knowing, and the beginning of strife. It is the other 2/3 of all agony man encounters. Knowlege is the light. We now see, and are forever in our sins.

- the thelosopher

America was not formed by highly idealized oppressed people from europe. It was formed by self-justified greedy people who wanted to be free to make as much money as they could.
Reference link