a new understanding of today, time and space.

K: good, you are learning…

Kropotkin

Not really, it’s how I’ve always been. But, it’s cute to have you misread me.

I have reached the part of my research where I must
begin my scientific aspect of my research into philosophy
because from the Renaissance to now, science drives
philosophy… scientific knowledge drives the philosophical
search… what is the meaning of reality in philosophy is driven
by what science tells us is reality…

let us look at science… I pick up a rock and wonder, what kind of rock
is this? I can examine the rock, weigh the rock, measure the rock in all kinds
of different ways… by research, I might even be able to find out where the rock came
from and what type of rock it is… but by myself without any resources, how do I
discover the “'facts” about this rock, how do I discover the “truth” about this rock…
as I said, I have done all the measuring I can with this rock… but unless I get some
outside information, I cannot discover the “facts” about this rock…
now let us say, I go to place that has rocks and in looking at the rock in this,
call it a rock show for identification purposes… I go to this show and find another
rock similar to my rock… I then find out the rock in question is a certain type of
rock from Italy… I can now compare my rock with the rock from Italy and see
what I can learn from it…I can compare and contrast my rock with the rock from
Italy and see what is the same and what is different…it is this comparing and
contrasting that allows me to better understand this rock and know the difference
between this rock and other rocks…as I couldn’t compare the rock to anything the
first time, because I had nothing to compare it to, I can now begin to compare my rock
with all kinds of rocks…especially with rocks from Italy…I find a different
rock from Italy and compare it to my rock and I discover that this second rock is
a different type of rock from my first Italian rock…and I can measure this rock in
all the possible ways and because I have knowledge gained from my first rock,
I can make some guesses about the second rock…the more rocks I can compare
and contrast, the more understanding about rocks I gain…the knowledge
I gain from these rocks come from comparing and contrasting them…after a while,
I can see a rock on the ground and know how that it is the same or different from the rocks
from Italy and how it is different…science to a great extent, is simply
comparing and contrasting things… you don’t know what an item is
in science until you can compare or contrast it to something, something similar
or something different…can you do a similar thing with philosophy?
I don’t know, let us compare and contrast and find out…

I declare that the purpose of human existence is happiness…

this is just like my first rock… I don’t have anything to compare or contrast with
it… I am not even sure I can measure it… how does one measure happiness?
so I find a second rock, a second idea… the declaration of independence in
which it is declared that the point is “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”…
well that second opinion is certainly certain… but as I compare and contrast,
I discover that some disagree with the notion that the “purpose of human existence
is happiness”… religious types for example, believe that the purpose of life is
finding salvation and redemption and then going to heaven…ummmmmmmmm…
I am now lead into another path as to the “purpose of human existence” so I
compare and contrast the two opposing opinions, is life about happiness or is
life about finding salvation…the religious types might argue that the two idea’s,
happiness and finding salvation are the exact same thing… another brick in the wall…
I compare and contrast the many different ways people find happiness and I compare
and contrast the many different ways people find salvation and redemption…
after much research and thinking, I reject both arguments… but I must now
present my alternative theory which means I must compare and contrast
other theories about the “purpose of human existence”… perhaps the purpose
of human existence is to eat cake and watch TV all day… after researching
that possibility, I see the flaws in just eating cake and watching TV all day…
I see I will grow obese and become sick, so I cannot honestly make that choice.
but it is only in comparing and contrasting these idea’s that I can make a
honest appraisal of my choices… so for philosophy to work, it must on
some level, engage in comparison and contrasting… you have the
prior work of philosophers and current works of philosophy and so you begin
to compare what philosophy you have with what has already been written
and by comparing and contrasting the two, you can better understand
philosophy and as with science, the more comparison and the more contrasting
with more philosophies and philosophers you have, the better understanding
you have of philosophy…so we have step one and what is step two?

Kropotkin

we have in science, a thought that the pathway to knowledge in the universe
is by mathematics… science operates via math…now we know that math is
is the tool we mentioned earlier which by measuring something we
can learn things… this measuring is done by math…
and by comparing and contrasting the various things we have measured, we can
get some idea about the thing we are curious about…
we have measured dogs and by our various math skills have concluded
that certain dogs only grow to a certain height and other dogs can grow
another height, but we know that there are of course, exceptions to every rule
we create… we say, that the German Shepard can grow up to 4 feet tall but
we know of German Shepard’s that are taller because out of all our rules,
there are always exceptions… we say the average man is 5 foot 7 inches tall…
BTW, I am 5’7 tall… but that is the average height… I am much taller then
my brother and my stepfather was much taller then me… a good deal of
science is really just saying things are roughly this dimension and this dimension,
in some form of measurement…Stars are this big and the average star in the
universe seems to be a brown dwarf, so we have a range of dimensions in everything
from galaxies to ants… everything has not a set in stone size, but a rough average size…

now can we take any of this and apply it to philosophy?
we can say, the average philosopher seems to have written
about knowledge and we can measure the amount of words a
philosopher has written about knowledge and compare and contrast
it to other philosophers… clearly some philosophers are much more concerned
about knowledge then other philosophers…and by measured the amount
of times they write about knowledge, we can get a sense of how concerned or
not concerned about knowledge they were…we know for example, Descartes
was very concerned about knowledge and wrote a great deal about knowledge
and someone like Camus was not that concerned about knowledge and we can
measured the differences between the two by how much they wrote about
knowledge… but can we discover a means to discern not how much about
knowledge they wrote but about their understanding about knowledge?
how do we judge Descartes understanding about knowledge?
how do we measure Descartes understanding about knowledge?
Does his understanding of knowledge have any value? is it worth reading
and how would you judge or know that? you would have to take the word
of someone else… for example, your philosophy professor says that, Descartes
is the greatest philosopher of all time… and you must read him to understand
philosophy…and I will quiz you on your understanding of Descartes understanding
of knowledge…so, to get a good grade, you “study” Descartes… but
would you use the scientific method of measuring him or would you use
the philosophical method? Wait a minute, there is a philosophical method?
you didn’t say that… so what is the philosophical method? and what is the
scientific method?

Kropotkin

I have a thought… human beings purpose is happiness…
is that a philosophy? No, it is an opinion, but certainly not
a philosophy… what does it need to become a philosophy?
just as I had my lone, single rock, I have this lone, single thought…
To make sense of it, I must compare and contrast it to similar thoughts.

So I spend my days, looking through dense pages of other philosophy and
other writings to compare and contrast my thought…I spend my days
seeing what other writers thought about the purpose of humans is
in being happy… as I read, I see it depends on whether the writer
in question is religious or not… the religious ones tend to disagree with
the basic premise that human existence is about happiness…ummmmm,
premise… isn’t that kinda like a hypotheses… a scientific hypotheses…
so, when I offer up a philosophical premise, it is kinda like a scientific hypotheses…
now, a scientific person would then try to test this theory…
how would you test this theory that the purpose of human existence is happiness?
and therein lies the philosophical problem… a philosophical person wouldn’t
try to test this theory that the purpose of human existence is happiness…
a philosophical person would try to reason it out… create arguments and counter
arguments (the philosophical method) to attempt to solve this issue of whether
the purpose of human existence is happiness…the idea is the philosophical method
is about rational arguments for or against a particular position… the scientific method
would go about and create an experiment to prove or disprove the theory/theses/premise…
so let us take out our scientific hat and think about a way to create a experiment to
prove or disprove our theses that the purpose of human beings is happiness…
now we reach Nietzsche… Nietzsche, you say… Nietzsche wasn’t a scientist…
nope, he wasn’t… what the hell does Nietzsche have to do with this? if you read
Nietzsche and I have… he often points out that life is an experiment…
What if, what if we conduct our experiment, our scientific experiment
on the question if the human being purpose is happiness, on ourselves…
this is what Nietzsche did in fact… he conducted his life as an experiment…
so instead of logical reasoning attempting to discover if the purpose of human beings
is happiness, we engage in that experiment ourselves… in your personal experience,
is the purpose of human beings to find happiness?

we engage in our lives to discover philosophical truths… we use our lives
as experiments in understanding what is the fundamental “truths” of our human
existence…the experiment we conduct is upon ourselves and the answers we
find we report to the world… this however means no more sleepwalking
through our lives as we have been… we are scientists engage in a experiment
and we must devote our time and energy trying to understand how our experiment
is going… that is how we convert a philosophical method into a scientific method…
we use our lives as the experiment…instead of just reasoning our way into a truth,
we live our way into the truth…a radical difference…

Kropotkin

What if human beings existence is to be the entertainment of reality. The cosmic butt of every joke. By rights, we should be exterminated like the plague we are; by rights, things would be fully in every right to wipe every single human from the face of existence; but what would they do then? They’d be bored as hell watching ants crawl and sand blow in the wind. Where are the idiot tool makers so trumped and hyped up on false egos and prides and ideas of rising to a destiny that reality never actually gave them, but was born and created by the very humans that refused the truth of reality and the same ones that did so many things in the name of God because they could get away with it, that we were meant to for so much greatness in eternity, when we are the cause of every evil, every idiocy, the most hated bastards in all of time and space. The bumbling clowns that where one or two throughout our species existence might get it right enough to grudgingly earn respect for themselves while killed and sacrificed by the rest of their ridiculous race of clowns and assholes.

Descartes has what is felt to be the “correct” philosophical method…
He reasoned and used logic in his attempt to create certainty in
our knowledge… he create a mind experiment… what if I
can’t trust my sense and I can’t trust outside matter and what if god
is evil and making me sense or see things that lead me to have
a wrong account of the universe… what is certain?
the certainty is Cogito ego sum… I think therefore I am…
I exist because there is a I to think… therefore I exist… as a brain,
not as a physical object, but as a thinking object…
now note, at no point does this become anything more then
a mental exercise… mental masturbation if you will…there
was no real world attempt or nothing attempting to connect
his thinking with the real world, the physical world…
now I don’t object to the use of a mind experiment because
Einstein for example, used them to help create his theory of relativity
and Newton for his physics, but they still were able to connect these
mind experiments with the real world and they were able to confirm the results
of these mind experiments with real world experiments and real world results…
but Descartes does neither… his mind experiment is just that and only that…
how can we trust a mind experiment that hasn’t been at least, tested in
the real world? the philosophical method to be of value must
have some real world testing or applications…philosophy to have
value must be grounded in the real world, so how do we ground philosophy
in the real world? I have mentioned one way, which is to use our own
lives as the experiment…I did this for years when I was an anarchist…
I didn’t just have a mental argument for anarchism, I lived the life…
I lived off the grid for years… no bank accounts, no car, no paychecks,
no fixed place to stay…off the grid as best as I could… and in the
day to day of being an anarchist, I learned what it meant to be anarchist
and that in part, is why I am not an anarchist today…
I took a theory and lived it in the real world and although the
theory had promise, the time wasn’t right for anarchism and I learned
that from my years being an anarchist…if we are to better understand
a theory, we must live out that theory in our day to day lives… those who
advocate for conservatism, live your days as that and you will see the failure of
conservatism because it fails on a community, state and federal level…
you cannot have everyone live as conservatives because society will fail
and collapse… you can have everyone live as liberals because the
state/society will be fine even though the individuals within it may have
issues IE, not get everything they think they deserve like happiness and salvation…
or blow jobs…if you look at real world applications of political theory,
then you have a better sense of what is political theory we can actually exist in
and live in…if you follow current events and the drive to destroy all our institutions,
the problem with that is once you succeed, now what? By destroying our institutions,
you have destroy the means of society to carry out its wishes… in other words,
it is a return to the solitary and brutish man of Hobbes? or was it Locke? Can’t remember…
and we created society and civilization and government to avoid all that…
so we must connect theory with reality and only then can we avoid some of the
issues we are going to hit very shortly…

Kropotkin

after a hellish week at work, I’m back…

as I work in a grocery store, we sell a lot of stuff and
of late, we have been selling a lot of Jewish Passover
material… as I am not Jewish, I don’t really know what
the various items are for… for example, challah bread and
Gefilte fish and Matzo… so I was thinking about this…
this Jewish, (and the Jews by no means are the only ones who do this,
they are just an example, I could have picked any number of groups for this example)
Jewish tradition is just one example of people who have traditions that reach
far into the past and give the present a sense of continuity… a link to the past
that make people feel safe and secure…this linkage from past to present then
with the young ones, also links the past to the future…traditional ceremonies
that link us firmly with our forefathers is a very human trait… it is almost a
safety net…and yet the problem becomes, as with any safety net,
it becomes a crutch… one depends on the past far too much and
it that prevents one from looking forward… this is the position of
the conservative… far too much dependence on the past and not enough
looking forward… the conservative would argue the opposite, that the
liberal spends too much time in the future and not enough time in the
past… but the past is the past and that means done and over with…
however with traditions like Passover and Christmas… we firmly
hold with the past, to the past and the question becomes simply this…
as we should hold to the past but we must commit to the future…
what guide should we use to know when we must use the past as
a guide or as a link and when should we look forward to the future…
it becomes a question of knowing when to look back and when to
look forward… the answer to whether to look past or forward
comes from the simple answer of having a flexible and adaptable
vision of who and what we are… in other words… when the situation
calls for it, we look back and when the situation calls for it, we look
forward and this requires us to have flexible and adaptable
ism’s and ideologies… in other words, we can’t have rigid and
inflexible ideologies… we can’t say, this is reality and
this is how we deal with this reality… as if one fixed viewpoint
of reality fits all reality… there is no absolute standard and
we must adapt to changing situations with a changing and adaptable
viewpoints of the universe… we get locked into thinking there
is but one way and one way only to approach how we are to live
our lives and there is not one way and one way only… there is a
multitudes of ways we can approach how to live and multitude
of ways to becoming more human… the idea there is but
one road becomes a trap because the one road has only
one way to go into the future whereas we must be able to travel
many different roads to reach the desired destination…
this is real strength… being able to find a new road when
finding a new road is called for… and when it is called for,
sticking on the old road may be the best path…
but one must be adaptable to understand this… the path
to god doesn’t need to be with traditional ceremonies like
Sabbath and Passover… the path to god may be another road…
and the path to becoming more human may requires us to
change paths in mid course and we must be adaptable enough
to see this… we get too locked in sometimes and think the
road has only one path into the future and from the past has
only one road leading to the present… but many roads are possible
and we have to become flexible enough to see this…
but becoming flexible and adaptable means we must rethink
what it means to be human and we need to rethink what it
means into the future …

Kropotkin

if the answer is relevance…
then what is the question?

The question is: what doesn’t philosophy have?

Philosophy doesn’t have any relevance for the average person
on the street… Philosophy doesn’t talk about anything that
has relevance for the average person…the last time philosophy
has had any relevance for the average person was when
existentialism was current and that was over 60 years ago…
Philosophy now is about deconstruction and language
and game theory… nothing the average person knows or cares about…

who am I? what is my purpose? what is my relationship to the state/ society/ civilization…
is there a god and what does that mean to me?
these are questions that the thinking person wonders about and philosophy
doesn’t answer…

so how is philosophy suppose to become “relevant”?

by understanding its purpose…
philosophers think about the “big” questions because the
average person either doesn’t have the time, the energy, the
ability or the desire to think about these questions…
We think about these big questions for those who cannot…
and we must provide honest answers because if we don’t, who will?

we cannot rely on dogmatic answers or answers from authority…
we must create new understanding of what is important for people AND
be able to explain what that understanding is and why it is important…

and why is this? because we live in a different world then say, even Nietzsche did
and we must explain the differences in terms of our changing world?

for example, we live in an age of tremendous income inequality,
so what is this and why is it important for us to have income equality…
in this, we touch not only philosophy but economics and political theory…
people might hear about the fact that 9 people have as much wealth
as half the population of planet earth but they don’t know what this means
and why it is important? Philosophers must be able to explain this income
inequality and why it is a hazard and a danger to everyone on planet earth…

we must search for answers even if no one listens to us…
because even they don’t understand why it is important, we know
why it is important and we must explain and understand the world in
such a way that the world can understand it… which means without
the jargon and technical language that makes philosophy incomprehensible to
everyone who is not academically trained…( which is why I keep my language
simple and understandable… the form of what we say is as important as what we say)

so what answers do you want?
and how would you find those answers?
and what format would you use to ask those questions
and answer those questions?

Kropotkin

a big picture look at where we are right now…

The question for the Greeks was about the good life:
what was the good life and how do we achieve it…

The question for the Medieval man was about salvation:
what was salvation and how do we achieve it…

the quest for the Modern man was answering the Greek question:
the good life is a theology called consumerism and we are all consumers
and that creates the good life…

but this consumerism creates many difficult problems as does
the associate problem of science…

if you look at modern ideologies from the last 500 years…
several things become clear… one: none of the modern ideologies
are concerned with the “individual”… all modern ideologies
are about collectivism of some sort and none of them are
concerned or deal with the individual… thus consumerism
and communism and socialism and democracy are all about the many,
not the one…what is MY place in the universe is answered by
you are one of the many who contribute the health of society by
your materialism… you are one of many… and that in a nutshell
is the ideologies of the last 500 years…you are one of many…
man is supplanted by humanity…science is about the classification
of the many… the one doesn’t enter into science because the one
cannot be the measurement and weighting and comparison and contrasting…
you need many for measuring and weighting and comparison and contrasting…
to build your model of the universe… you cannot do so on just one
representative… you need thousands, indeed the more things you weigh and
measure and test and contrast… the better the model of the universe you get…
which cannot happen with one…I… the one doesn’t enter into
consideration about the universe… I stand alone because as a single person
I am not considered… only as a group or a unit within many units or as
a consumer which is one of many or a democracy which is one of many or
as a comrade which is one of many or as a scientific measurement of
which I am one of many… but not me… Kropotkin, I am not thought about
or considered or brought into conscience… and that was the argument
those like Nietzsche or Ibsen or Kierkegaard…the one matters just
as much as the collectivism of the modern ideologies which include
both the economic and political theories of the modern age…
indeed those named above might argue that the one is more important
then the many of society…indeed one might write a history of
the world in terms of the ongoing battle between the one, the individual
and collectivism/the many…

the middle ages fell on the side of the one…
and the modern world falls on the side of the many…
but why cannot we answer both… that may be the question of
the modern age… how can we do justice to BOTH sides of
the equation… the individual and society…

faith/religion stands clearly on the side of the one…
and indeed aspects of the modern ideologies stand with
the ancient religion… communism does so when the adherents
of communism resort to appeal to revelation such as happens when
they resort to saying… what did Marx say? or the scientist when
he resorts to appealing to the “divine” authority of Darwin or Einstein…
but if they create an argument without appeal to authority, they
are not in religious mode… any appeal to authority is faith/religion
is religion and any argument that doesn’t appeal to
revealed religion is something else…
so which is why James is both right AND wrong about science…
if the argument that doesn’t resort to appeal of the authority is not
a religion and is science…so a appeal to the original founding fathers
as to the “correctness” of interpretation of the constitution is about
a religious appeal to authority…so any argument about what the founding
fathers meant is an religious argument. appeal to authority…
appeal to divine revelation which in this case is the founding fathers…

so we have in modern society a strong case to be made in which we are still
attached to “religious” appeals for our arguments…which is why
we still haven’t made any progress toward a solution for the problems
facing society… we are still invoking the name of divine revelation
in our arguments instead of creating new arguments which is not religion…

More in a bit…

Kropotkin

the medieval question was “how do we find salvation”
and the modern man answers… “through ideologies like consumerism
and communism”

finding salvation is an individual question, “How do I find salvation”
whereas it has becomes an collective question, “how do WE find salvation”
whereas that answer is… democracy and communism and consumerism…
we can find both an individual answer, I found salvation through…
AND a collective answer… WE found salvation through…
everything is an equation upon which we MUST create equality on
both sides of the equation or we have an unbalanced or unstable
equation and that leads to both a wrong answer in the equation
and an wrong answer in life, both individually and collectively…
the equation must balance out… be equal on both sides
so the modern ideologies have created unequal and unbalanced
equations whereas the scale is tipped on the side of collectivism
and not enough on the side of individualism… on the side of the “I”…

to rephrase the entire question…what is the meaning of life?

the individual or the collective?

the equation demands that both sides are equal and we don’t have
that right now…

“What is the truth”?

our equations must be equal on both sides or we will have failure…

more later…

Kropotkin

we have to create a balance in our equations…

how do we create a balance?

do we create a system such as Spinoza and Descartes
and Hegel and Kant?

or do we answer this question of balanced like Nietzsche and
Wittgenstein?

this question of format is an important one…

our modern science tells us that any system is
going to be incomplete because it cannot enter all
the necessary facts into such a system…ALL systems
are going to be incomplete… it is this incompleteness
that devotees of the religious, attack… Darwin/ evolution is
a system and by definition, incomplete as is gravity
as is any scientific theory…and this is the wedge that
opponents of science attack, the incompleteness of science…

as we cannot create a system that is complete and answers
all questions, so we cannot depend upon such systems as
democracies and communism and consumerism… as they
are themselves, incomplete…

how do we resolve our need for completeness of our systems
when they cannot be completed?

we return to the fact that the universe we live in is random,
chaotic, incomplete, unpredictable… so we live in a
random and incomplete and unpredictable universe and
we cannot compose or create a system to solve this
basic problem of randomness or incompleteness…

so we answer the question about creating a system by
not creating a system…we focused on particular problems
without resort to any overall system…like Nietzsche did…

we must balanced the scales without resort to a system…

a tough road but not an impossible one…

science is a means to measure, weigh, time objects in
the universe and philosophy is a means to interpret the
results of that weighing and measuring…

so we use philosophy to interpret the “answers” of science…
so science is not opposed to or opposite of philosophy,
science is just another aspect of the equation…
whereas science is on one side of the equation and
philosophy is the other side of the equation…

equality of equations is our goal, not necessarily
solving the equations, but balancing the equation
is the goal of philosophers…

Kropotkin

you have the idea of the equation…
A + B = C…1 + 1 = 2…

and you have individualism one side of the equation
collectivism, the other side of the equation…
like good is one side of the equation and
evil is the other side of the equation…
but as we have seen good vs evil is not
two distinct and opposite thoughts, but
as we view them from a long viewpoint, they
become two sides of the same coin and then
they become one…

individualism and collectivism are two
sides of the scale and then they become two
sides of the same coin and then they become one…
and they are no longer competitors but one and the same…

is this the mission of philosophy?

to take two distinct and opposing answers and
make them into one and the same…

Kropotkin

Have you ever had the feeling like nothing you say at all except one thing or two here and there has any value to it whatsoever?

It’s like, a working clock changes to suit the time, and they’re right a lot, but broken clocks are broken, still tell time accurately twice a day, reliable for that consistency at the least, but not much more.

You’re a broken clock, Krop. Just another broken clock.

K: even if what I am is a broken clock and am right twice a day, that
I am right twice a day is more then you… and I like those chances…

besides, I seriously doubt you understand what I am saying anyway…

I write for the future and not the past…
and you are the past…

Kropotkin

you have two types of understanding and analysis of the world,
one type is the platonic, intelligible, thinking, rational quest
for knowledge in which we think our way to knowledge

the other type is the sensible, experimental, physical,
sensory understanding of the world…

Descartes is a type of the first, platonic and rational…
Galileo is an example of the second whereas he understands
the world via experiments, sensory, physical understanding of the world…

Descartes mentally thinks about the world whereas
Galileo takes his understanding about the world from the world…

these two types of understanding or gathering knowledge are once
again two distinct and separate theories about how one gains
knowledge about the world… rationally or experimentally…

but yet once again, we have two and distinct and separate ideas
that when we examine, become two sides of the same coin
and then, with time, become one and the same…

Kropotkin

I am right almost every time I open my mouth; otherwise why would I open it? I don’t have the need to verbally expunge my diarrhea like you do.

K: ummm, I joined ILP in 2005 or 2006 and you joined in 2014…
I have 5537 post and you have 2053 post which means I
post 1.27 times a day and you post 2.13 times a day…
you post at a far greater rate then I have ever done…
and as far as being right, I lack the ego you have, I don’t pretend
to be “right” almost every time I open my mouth… I just am looking for the
right questions and from that will lead to the truth, I don’t pretend to
have the truth, I am just a modest seeker of the truth…
and there is a difference…

Kropotkin

I really don’t get why people like you fight so hard when all you have to do is realize that you’re just another idiot. What way could I argue what you said in any truth that hasn’t been seen a million times before? My own self, I’ve fought those ways too often to the point where I know them better than you and others do, but I’m glad for your insights on the matter so I can flesh it out fully.

I don’t need to argue with you on these points. It’s garbage, Kropotkin; absolute garbage. You’ve pushed out one, maybe two gems the entire time I’ve been here and believe me when I say that I’ve been paying attention to a lot of what goes on around me in all aspects of my existence.

Sorry if even when I’m flying by the seat of my pants, I still pull off being right more than you. Life is extremely, extremely unfair to all and it’s not even trying to be equal about it, that was my own personal fight in life. Never said any different. Sure, reality cheered on the sidelines while I fought for peace and equality, but it knew the score. Doesn’t give a fuck, just loves the fuck out of me.

another purpose of ism’s and ideologies are for the understanding
of the world… for example, communism is another method of understanding
the world… the basic tenant of communism is that man is an economic
being (this belief is shared by capitalism BTW) and communism interprets
the world in terms of the economic… man is a consumer and producer
and that is how communism understands man…

religion understand humans in terms of our relationship
with god… religion interprets man the world in terms
of the religious… man is a religious creature…

History understand humans in terms of our relationship with
movements and events of the past… we are our history…
man is a historical creature… history interprets man in terms
of the historical…

and they are all right… we are all of the above and even
more which is why they are incomplete because they
mistake the part of man as the whole… we have yet had
a theory of the FULL human experience because such a theory,
an ism of the world is, by definition, incomplete because no theory, system,
can cover all the necessary facts needed to complete the full theory/system…

to understand the world via science or via philosophy or via the religious
is bound to fail because it is going to be incomplete, it is a system and
systems can never be complete, but if we begin a much wider understanding
of the world in terms of more then just science or philosophy or religion,
we can come closer, not reach, but a closer to the truth understanding
of the universe and of human beings and of our relationship to the universe…

Kropotkin