The steps to start helping the world and yourself begins simply enough, recognizing
that there is a problem. Climate change is a problem regardless how you personally feel
about it. Income inequality is a problem whether or not you see it. the sheer number of
humans is a problem. Too many put their head in the sand and deny, deny and deny some more.
Denial is not and cannot be solution to anything. If the doctor told you, you had cancer.
Would the proper response be denial? Naw, the doctor doesn’t know what he is talking about or
saying, it isn’t possible because I feel great. Who would be so irresponsible as to ignore
a well trained doctor because it is inconvenient or doesn’t fit into our own personal narrative.
I can’t have cancer because I have a party to go to or my family needs me. We have not only
personal problem but we have larger scale problems and those larger scale problem needs solutions.
And those problems must first be recognized before they can be solved. So the first step is to
recognize we have problems and then we can begin the process of solving those problems.
The second step is to take responsibility for those problems even if you had nothing to do with
their creation. I think this is why people find denial a better solution than solving a problem.
They don’t want to be responsible for problems. Which leads us to
the third step which is growing up. Be an adult. Growing up means no more magical thinking,
no more hoping the problems will go away on their own, no more wishful thinking.
The issues of our day won’t go away or vanish because we wish them to. Our problems
for better or worse, are our problems. We didn’t ask for them and we don’t want them, but
as a responsible adult, it is our lot to take a stand and be responsible for what has happened.
This is helped by an recognition of the reality of our existence. We live in a finite universe
with finite resources. That is the bottom line and no amount of wishing or denial is going to
change that. we must deal with the reality of our situation as adults. NO MAGICAL THINKING.
The next step is ego. We make so many decisions based on ego and not on the reality of the
situation. Donald Trump is ego incarnate. You can see ego driven decisions watching him or
seeing the disasters left by bush Jr. which was all about ego. Invading Iraq was not about anything
more than ego let free and we are going to be paying for that ego driven mess for decades.
So many blunders are about ego. World war one and two are both ego driven wars. The ego’s
of Hitler and Stalin in WW2. Vietnam was also an ego driven war. We must be aware and
cognizant of our ego and our decisions.
Ok, the next step is a vision. We need a vision of where we are and where we
are going. Having a vision/plan of where we need to be is not just about “world peace”
or “having enough money to live on” or “ending world hunger” that is not a plan or a vision,
those are really just greeting cards. No, a vision/plan of where we need to be, must
be aware of past, present and future. We must become aware of our place in evolution and
in the universe. It takes an understanding and acceptance of the fact we have problems and
an awareness of where we want to be. The step that is needed is to create a plan that takes
us from the present (the problem) to the future (a solution). We can achieve this
by changing our viewpoint from an ant to an eagle. By that I mean, we tend to look at problems
like an ant. We are the ant and the issues look like immense issues because we are looking
at the ground, at close distance. To gain some distance, some perspective, we must look
at our selves and our problems from a bird’s eye view. Look at things not just from a limited
time period, but at a longer time frame. We must think in terms of not just days or weeks or months
but in terms of years and decades and centuries. What is our place in not only space but in terms of
time. What is required is a shift in how we look at ourselves and our world. Having a vision which
takes into account this new viewpoint is important. So many plans and idea’s are rooted into
a short time frame or a short vision of space. We must expand our vision to include past, present
and future and to include space and material and humanity. A bird’s eye view of where we are and
where we need to be.
I believe what people fail to understand is we have two tracks for which we
are responsible for. The first track is the evolution species track and the second track
is the personal one. Our first and main function is the first track which is the survival
and perpetuation of the species. That comes first because a look at nature of which we
are part of, says that the only goal of nature is the continuation of the species.
There is no other goal of nature. It is not to be happy or to avoid pain or to find money
or to be wise or witty or smart. The only goal of nature is the survival of the species.
That’s it and our focus must be on that first goal of nature for we are of, lock, stock and
barrel, of nature. All analysis of humans and life and philosophy must begin there. that
we are nature, born and bred. the second track of our lives is the personal one. The one that
says we find our personal goals and fulfill them. We may decide that the pursuit of money
is our own personal goal but that personal goal cannot and must not supersede the primary
function of humans which is the perpetuation and continuation of the our species.
In our drive for money, we have forgotten the primary goal of humans. In our quest to
fulfill ego, we have forsaken the only aspect of nature we must fulfill which is the survival
of the species. We are dependent on earth and its creatures to survive which is why we
must aid in earth survival and continuation. We cannot put our needs ahead of the survival
of the earth because that path leads to the failure of continuation of the species.
so we have several tracks we must follow if we are to go on as a species.
One: understand we are of earth and for us to survive, we must take care of the earth like
our species, our lives depend on it because our species and lives do depend on a working and
functioning earth.
Two: We must take responsibility for actions taken, regardless of who took those actions.
We are responsible for the earth regardless of how the earth was polluted or messed up.
We must do something because past generations failed to understand the importance of
maintaining the earth. Remember this because if we fuck up, the next generations get not
only the mess we inherited, but the mess we create. So each generation mess passes on
to the next generation and as a father, I say, we must clean up our mess for the next generation
because that is what parents do. We don’t leave our kids a mess for them to clean up.
We don’t leave them a big bill which is due in their lifetime, but we, we pay the bill that is due.
As parents we must put our children in the best position to succeed and leaving them not only our
mess but past generations mess is unfair to our children.
Three: we must have a vision for what we want to do. Not a personal vision of
losing weight or making money or visiting France but a vision of where we want
to lead our species to, what is our plan of action for our species going forward?
We must see the end and then create the plan which will allow us to reach that end.
Four: We each must become personally responsible. We each must become the adult in the
room. We must act like parents and responsible adults with every decision we make.
That decision might not be best for us personally but that is being an adult. Sometime
we must sacrifice our interests to help the next generation. My parents sacrificed to help
the kids succeed and we sacrificed to help my daughter to succeed and when she has children,
she will sacrifice to help her children to succeed. That is what parents do. We sacrifice to
help our children succeed. And being an adult and a parent means we sacrifice to help our
children, the next generation to succeed. This is true of us individually and true of us as
a species. We collectively must sacrifice to help the next generation succeed. That is what
successful parents do and what successful species do. There is no difference between being
parents and having the species go on. the same actions are required, being an adult and
a parent and having the species going on.
Five: the function of being human is not to finding pleasure or avoidance of pain but in
the continuation of the species. We need to rewrite what it means to be human. We need
to rewrite what it means to be an American. We need to rewrite what it means to be responsible.
For our responsibility is greater than ourselves and greater than our families.
Our responsibility is to something beyond ourselves. We no longer need god or religion because
we are adults and we and we alone are responsible for our actions and our behavior. We cannot
look to blame or to hold accountable any other beings such as god for who we are. We are
accountable for who we are and there is no possibility for us to hold god accountable. he
doesn’t exist but we do. And we and no one else can be responsible for us.
We have used many different ways “god” “ideologies” “religion” to avoid
responsibility for our actions or our inactions. It is always someone else’s
problem. Society or future generations or the past. We avoid taking an responsibility
for the world we live in and this can only go on so long before the bill needs to be paid.
To those who say, its not my problem or even worse refusing to acknowledge that there
is a problem or just going through live trying to be happy and ignoring everything going
on. The main role or function of human being is not to be happy, it is to continue the
species. Happiness has nothing to do with who we are or who we need to become or
the survival of the human race. This need to be happy is a false and dangerous idea because
it takes us away from what we need to do. It is a false idea because happiness becomes
a false goal, an unimportant goal, an unnecessary goal. We need to rethink what it means to
be human. What is the human condition?
We are beings who exists in a blind and chaotic universe and we were given
no choice in existing. You have many choices once you exist but in the most
fundamental choice we have, that of existence, we had no choice.
Here you are, you can do no other. Camus thought the most fundamental choice
we had was suicide. That is a legitimate thought. If we were not given a choice to exist,
we, at least have a choice, not to exist. But that is just a another way to avoid responsibility
and accountability.
our universe is random, chaotic, govern by chance. We try to overcome this by establishing
order in our world. Fly over the world and you see cities and farms and dams and levees,
all of which are attempts to establish order in our world. We also have religion and god and
ideologies that are also attempts to establish order in the universe. like any other system,
if we fail to put energy into the various systems, those systems will begin to suffer from disorder
which is another word for entropy. We see this today in which the GOP been attacking
the government as too big and by trying to shrink the government to a small enough size
to drown in a bathtub. This is actually bringing disorder and entropy into the country because
every system needs energy to maintain itself. The government is a system which needs energy
to go on and the GOP is starving the government which leads to growing chaos and disorder
which we see every day on the news. The actions of the GOP is leading to entropy and the death
of not just the government but the death of our American system. We have to rethink how
we see not just ourselves but our various systems such as government and institutions.
We must see systems in terms of entropy and energy and disorder and chaos.
this is why I oppose the GOP because their beliefs bring disorder, chaos, entropy.
We need systems. That is the basic entity of the universe, an system in which basic
functions are performed, be it the function of government or of bringing food to our table
or sports or playing games. Every thing is a system and subject to the basic laws of systems.
this is just another means of connection that the universe has because the universe is
connected and this particular connection is by systems. There are many, many other ways
to be connected.
So what is the human condition? We are connected, we have no choice
in our existence and we exist within systems, many different types of systems.
We must gear our thinking to being within systems and what is necessary to maintain
that system. It is no longer about being happy, but about keeping the system going, regardless
of the system in question.
Now some systems are “bad”. Slavery would be one system that most
people would agree is “bad”. But how would we “know” if the system
that we exist in is bad or not? Slavery is bad and yet it still exists in
wide parts of the world. What criteria would we use to determine that
a system is not useful or evil or bad? It is my contention that capitalism
is not useful and evil and bad, but what criteria would I use to justify
that belief? By showing how many billions of people that are not helped by
capitalism? Now one may show that those countries with capitalism have
the highest standard of living, but is that the criteria we should use?
Is an high GDP really the best evidence that a system is working? or useful?
do we judge our lives by a measure that by its very nature is flawed?
Do we judge our lives by money or GDP? is that really the standard we should be
using? I say, no and no again. Should we decide to use the number of people
who are happy? We have decided against using happiness as a standard and rightfully
so. So what is left? the only real standard left, which is does this system allow the
preservation and continuation of the species? And on that score, we can clearly answer
a big no. The system of capitalism is detrimental to humans and the planet we live on because
it uses up a vast number of resources and depends on using humans as a means to a goal which
is wealth, vast wealth which only a small number of people get. In capitalism, human beings
are cannon fodder for the wealthy, so they can maintain and get greater wealth. The capitalist
system has only value for the wealthy and has no value for anyone who is not in the 1%.
So we need to rethink how we look at the world and rethink it in terms of systems. Is
this system useful in the continuation of the species? If not, dump it. We can
find a means to determine if a system is good or bad by understanding if it is
useful for the continuation of the species. That is the criteria that matters, not
in terms of happiness or money made or GDP but does that system increase our
chance of continuation of the species. That is the new understanding.
so let us continue in our understanding of systems.
You have a system such as we have today which is a democracy and
a majority based system. Thus we reach agreement within the democracy
by a vote which is done via the majority. Majority rules. But what happens when
the system is subverted by ideologies. I point to the latest flap which is the kim davis
chick in KY who refused to sign marriage license of Gays on religious grounds. She is a civil
worker, a government worker who was elected to do the job of clerk. Now on what grounds does
she have to subject her religious views on those who do not hold her religious views?
As stated she is a civil servant which not a theological position but a system position and
that system is the political system we have established to conduct “the people’s business”.
Now mike Huckabee who is running for president says that she/others can “obey the law only
if its right” this is his defense of Mrs. Davis. To obey the law only if it is “right” and upon
what grounds are we to determine that a law is right? The whole premise of
what davis and Huckabee argue’s is that there is two laws, one is man’s law and the other
is god’s law and we are to, according to these two, obey god’s law before man’s law.
Now this extremely dubious idea has consequences such as I can obey a law as long as
it fits into my understand of god. So we have made laws subject to a person’s interpretation
of religion/god. In other words, laws are only to obey when it fits into our vision of god.
That is a dangerous ideal to follow because it make the system far more unstable and bleeds
out energy. Energy which can be used to maintain the system is now used for other purposes
and those purposes are not beneficial to the system. Which is to invite chaos and entropy into
the political system which is not able to maintain itself. This leads to the failure of the system.
In other words, this idea of man’s law and god’s law will lead to the failure of the political system
and bring about anarchy and anarchy not in a good or viable way. I for one, do not support the
dissolution of the political system without a viable replacement already in hand. When we
take energy out of the system, we increase the chance of entropy which leads to bringing
about chaos and randomness into the system. We threaten the system and ourselves when we
allow energy to dissipate into meaningless and pointless beliefs like god and religion.
This is an argument against religion and god. It takes away energy from the system and
helps bring about the dissolution of the system in this case our political system. Just as
christanity brought about the end of the roman empire, christanity will help bring about the
end of our current political system which is democracy.
As an former anarchist, I have read almost all the anarchists including Kropotkin.
I believe in his ideals more so than others and thus comes my self naming of Peter Kropotkin.
I actually believe anarchism is in the future, not in the present or past. I believe
it will occur with the advance of technology and we won’t have to work in the manner we
work today (or in the past). It will follow Marx when he says, (in which book I can’t remember)
In the morning, I work one job and in the afternoon another or maybe a third job or perhaps
I will be learning in school. For marx (in part) alienation comes from being tied to one job
day after day, year after year, for decades on end. Man for Kropotkin was more than
man was for Marx who believed along with Adam Smith that man was an economic person,
whereas Kropotkin believed that man was greater than his economic aspects. Man is not
the sum of economic activity, but the sum of all he/she is capable of and much more.
Alienation, this ideal of Marx is now present everywhere in the world.
We are not only alienated from our economic selves but we are alienated
from society and ourselves. This is shown by the way the religious right has
tried to influence society with the likes of Kim davis and other far right
evangelicals like Huckabee. They are so alienated from modern society they
actively try to fight such idea’s like gay marriage by any means necessary.
But personally, I believe we are an alienated society because the ideologies
that have been the driver of society for centuries, have become empty and silent.
Ideologies like manifest dynasty is dead given we have no more frontier left.
Ideologies like Catholicism no longer speak to us because the facts on the ground
no longer match the idea’s and ideals within Catholicism. Ideologies no longer
fit the facts on the ground and yet we have nothing to replace those faded ideologies
with anything else. The result is alienation. The old ideologies have failed but haven’t
been replace yet with new up to date ideologies. Think of the Greco-Roman empire from
300 BC to around 300 AD and you will see that the old ideologies that served the Greco-Roman
empire for century no longer fit the facts on the ground and they weren’t replaced by anything
until the rise of christanity, which became the de facto ideology of failing Greco-Roman empire.
As one or more ideologies fail, they need to be replace or we suffer from alienation.
the new ideologies have yet reached our ears. Nietzsche saw this when he wrote how
god was kill by man but the news hadn’t yet reached the ears of man. We, this modern
age, is suffering from massive alienation and yet we still haven’t heard the news yet.
the king is dead, long live the king.
alienation is also from the modern institutional use of Nihilism in such ideologies as
capitalism and corporatism that exist today. We recognize on some level that
that values that make us human are being actively being hunted down and destroyed
in the modern world. The modern world has no need for love, honest and true love,
no need for honor and no need for honesty and no need for faith or hope or charity
or any other value that makes us human. In the modern world, we just need to be robots
and do our job. any other value reduces our value as a worker. We are alienated on
so many different levels. We are alienated from our work, our values, our ideologies.
At work, we have dozens of older workers like myself who are just wasting time until
we can retire. Our only investment in work is our promised pension plan and given
how corporate America tends to steal pensions plan, we live in fear of working our whole
lives and having nothing to show for it. That is a profound alienation from work.
We are alienated from government because it is obvious government takes it orders from
big business and wealthy individuals. We have no say in our lives in either work or political matters.
We are cogs in the machine without any say or voice in the machine. We not only have no
input in the machine, the machine forces us to only have values that are important to the machine.
Being on time, compliance, quiet. those are the values wanted by the machine.
Recall I am in a union and the only two ways I can get fired is by stealing and
insubordination, failure to comply. The key component of the modern world is compliance
to management regardless of the rightness or wrongness of their orders. The value of religion
in the modern world is, it makes the religious feel like they have some say, some value in a
world that is irrelevant to people’s existence. If you comply to god, you at least get something
out of it, heaven whereas in the corporate world, you only get to keep your job. compliance has
no other value in the corporate world. This institutional nihilism must be gotten rid of before
it kills our world, literally kills the world.
We are alienated from everything and we have no solution so people flee to such
ideas like god even if god doesn’t exist because even a being that doesn’t exist has
more hope to it than the modern world of nihilism and despair and alienation.
reading up on the scientific method. Can we lay the scientific method
on top of philosophy and get “results”? Is the scientist the role model
for philosophy or as Socrates and Plato believed, the doctor is the role model for
philosophy? Kant tried to make philosophy “scientific” with his method but
by all accounts he failed. Can you take the scientific method and use it on
philosophy? Create a hypothesis and then find an experiment to prove or disprove
said hypothesis? Is it that easy? I would doubt it because generations of philosophers
have come down the pike and I haven’t hear of many, if any at all, using such methods.
Reading about Charles sanders pierce and I am beginning to see. He wrote that people
philosophize not to find the truth per se, but to remove doubt. To remove doubt?
that is not science, but what if we philosophize in a positive manner and use
philosophy to find the truth but who do we follow, the scientist or the doctor.
Nietzsche would use the doctor but then N. always did follow the Greeks.
time to get ready for work and so much to think about.
What if the failure of philosophy, that is so self-evident, is because of the
failure of philosophy to follow the right role model? Perhaps the
historian is the right role model? Or perhaps a new model is needed?
the strength of philosophy is in its only advantage over science, which
is philosophy ask, why? Why does the universe exist? The scientist can only
say, how the universe exists, but not why. The priest can say why, but there is no
method there, only faith and faith has proven itself to be a failure time and time again.
I had faith that… only to be disappointed yet again. I have seen believers, true believers
turn against their faith because the facts on the ground couldn’t be solved by faith or the
facts on the grounds went to a point where faith could no longer sustain it.
My gut instinct is the role model we want for philosophy is the doctor, but
only by researching the concept can we actually decide which role model is right for
philosophy and perhaps different aspects of philosophy need a different role model. The
area of logic is where the scientist is strongest, so there we follow the scientist. the area
of ethics might require the doctor. So we shift gears and follow the role model that
seems to fit the area being looked at.
I am breaking my usual habit and writing after work around 9:00 at night,
so if I sound different that is why.
I pose a question in my last post in which should the philosopher follow the
scientist or the historian or the doctor, when the philosopher does philosophy.
Ok, let us try this, following in the path of the historian, the question is;
what was the cause of the fall of the Roman empire?
Now I have studied this and the reasons are many,
among the most common reasons given is taxes (the unfair tax burden on the poor to
cover the wealthy and churches who paid no taxes, sound familiar?)
The economic burden of paying for a standing army.
the rise of Christanity which sap the vitality of the empire. (Edward Gibbon went with this one)
The problem of succession for the Caesars.
the barbarians who invaded Gaul and spain and finally Italy.
The diseases like the plague and other diseases that finally sap the empire.
You can go on for a while but you get the idea.
Now you can do the research and trust me, people have
researched the shit out of this one. But which truth is THE TRUTH about how
the empire fell. Clearly, many reasons contributed to the fall of Rome. so how do you
assigned blame as it were, to maybe one or two reasons? You can write whole books,
in fact, Gibbon’s decline and fall takes up 6 big volumes. You have Bury’s couple of volumes
on the same subject and those are books written centuries ago. So a historian must
take into account multitude of reasons to even come close to adequately covering the topic.
So the philosopher takes note of this. His question “what is the meaning of life?”
must and/or follow the historian. So you need to list all the possible reasons for the meaning of
life. You can almost divide it up into religious and non-religious meanings of life.
To praise god, to devote time to god, to do religious work in search of god, this list can
go on almost forever.
The non religious can go to finding happiness, to finding inner peace, to making a shitload
of money, traveling, to hell almost anything. the list is practically the list of everything
humans do. so you have to somehow narrow the list down or perhaps ask a question that is
not so vague. and so it works itself down. Asking question after question after question trying
to find a way to ask what is the meaning of life without making it so vague that it becomes
almost useless.
Ok, last night I tried to philosophize like a historian with this sentence,
“What is the meaning of life”, the problem turned on the word meaning
because anything can have any type of meaning. So we change the sentence,
“What is the purpose of life” This brings better clarity I believe.
So purpose is real point and as I spoke of earlier, the purpose of human beings
is to procreate and continue the species. The so called sex drive is really not about
sex at all, but about procreating and continuing the species, so says the biologist.
but the chemistry guy is going to say, that the sex drive is really not biology but
chemistry. It is hormones that power the “sex” drive and hormones are really about
chemistry. Now the physicist might say, not so fast, it is really is about …
So the scientists will say that it is their specialty which drive the purpose, be it
biology or chemistry or physics. but how do we escape the fact that the sciences
are in a better position to show us purpose. Science is more about the how, not the why.
Why something exist is not really up science alley. the how, yes, and where and who and
the what, yes, science does tell us these things, but why? No, science is rather bad at the why.
Science can tell that the BB occurred 13.8 billion years ago, but why, and there science fails us.
the historian can tell us the why, why did Rome fall or why did King John sign the Magna Carta.
Those why’s is something a historian can tell us but science cannot say a word about. Science
is about finding the truth of a physical situation, such as what is the truth about the revolution
of the truth. first science believed that the sun revolved around the earth. then science “discovered”
that the earth revolved around the sun and then we learned the earth revolved around the sun
at around 93 million miles in roughly a circle, roughly. but at no point does a why enter here.
Why does the earth rotate around the sun at about 93 million miles?
So science can answers some of our questions but not all. For example, what is a human being?
So a biologist is going to say, a human is a biological creature that came from other life and
life is billions of years old, or whatever shit a biologist is gonna say. Now the chemist is going
to say, a human being is a series of chemical reactions. The physicist is going to say, a human being
is… and a historian is going to say…and they will all be right about what a human being is,
but none of the scientist is able to say why a human being?
They can in great detail, go into what a human being is made of and what the biological processes
going on and what are the chemical processes going on, but not why?
so for each branch of science and a historian, they have their own definition of what a human being
is and for each, and they are right.
but none of them will be able to embrace the whole of what a human being is and finding that
whole is what a philosopher does. What is the whole of being human?
Next we talk about the doctor and the psychiatrist and their take on the whole business of
being human.
Ok, now we try to philosophize like a doctor or a psychiatrist.
Each as their own vision of what being human is like. From a psychiatrist standpoint,
a human is all about mind and a doctor is about the body.
As mentioned, the Greeks felt that there was a connection between
philosophy and medicine. Both Socrates and Plato, in fact the entire
philosophical community of ancient Greece, felt that “doing” philosophy
was like a doctor giving a diagnoses to society. Nietzsche carried on this
idea, because that is what N. did, follow the Greeks. So let us return to the question,
of “Why did Rome fall” from a doctor perspective. The doctor cannot make a
diagnoses without some understanding of what is the base condition of the subject.
for example, we cannot tell if someone is sick if we don’t know what their normal
day to day, base condition is. So for a doctor to tell if I am sick, she has to know
how I am day to day and my doctor has seen me for many years, so she
has blood work of me, and test on virtually every part of my body. So I complain
of a fever. She knows my basic operating condition and by testing, she can tell
if something is off, like my blood count or something is different than normal.
The doctor can also tell by knowledge that a flu is going around and that might
affect her diagnoses because of this knowledge. so for Socrates doctor to make
a diagnoses of society, they must know the normal state of society.
What would create an “illness” in society? What would an ill society look like?
A look at Roman history revels that quite often Rome was in some form or
another, civil war. If not Caesar making war on Mark Anthony, it was some
general on the frontier who declared themselves Caesar and then the current
Caesar would battle the wannabe Caesar until one would win and then quite
often on another front another wannabe would declare themselves Caesar and
then the cycle would repeat. This was the history of Rome from around 180 AD to
roughly the end of Rome around 476 AD. So from a illness perspective, is this perpetual
civil war, a sign of illness or a sign of business as usual? I would think that civil war was
a sign of illness. The society was ill and the civil war was a flu or a cold needing to
be fought over. You have to figure out what is the base of society health and then you
can figure out if the society is ill. Nietzsche felt the two healthiest times of humans
was the Greek period and the Renaissance. So we use those two examples as health for
human being and he felt that the sickness in society was during the Dark ages.
So we now have some idea of what we are looking for, are we healthy or are we in this
current time, ill? What would a healthy society look like and what do we look like?
Ok, to continue on, what would be the base for say, the American society?
Would the time period be during the civil war? No, that would be an illness,
think of a cold or flu. The body fighting itself would be an illness and so would
a nation fighting itself. In reviewing the last say, 100 years, I would say, the healthiest
period was the 1920’s. the next healthiest period would be the years between 1955 and
1965. Next would be the 1990’s. What do these years have in common? I would say, they
were years of hope and years of optimism. They were years of a vitalism. To my mind,
we have really had problems since the closing of the frontier. That moment which was decided
to be 1895, has had a major effect on the American psyche. As a country, the most decisive
moments were the civil war and the closing of the frontier. We have been lost without an agenda
since the closing of the frontier. So to broaden it out, each country has a base period where
it felt good. Just like when you feel good and feel healthy, everything flows and you don’t
have doubts or worries. You just do and the same goes for a country. It just flows and move
with a certainty. the mind and body are one. The agenda and the ideology are one.
A look at this time and place, right now, revels that we are at war with each other.
we are not one. we have no agenda and have lost our ideology. We are alienated from
each other. We have symptoms of an illness and what is the diagnoses? We are apart because
we have no common goal or common fight, so we unite the people with a common goal, common
fight by creating a common goal. That is best done with going into space. We use space as a
common denominator to unite people into a common goal. Not everyone will agree, but enough
will agree that will give us a common and valuable goal that we can achieve on. This common goal
is enough to create a situation where we feel good and healthy and we don’t have doubts or worries.
the mind and body are one and the agenda and ideology are one.
