This is the third of nine articles that lay out guiding, foundational principles for this project:
Why do so many people want you to see things as they do?
Consider the varying fields of creative expression and journalism, especially in this age of the Internet. We can observe that at the core, many writers, artists, content producers, and just your average user of social media are conveying this:
I feel bad about the world in this specific way; please join me in feeling bad about the world in the exact same way that I do.
Many will try to convince others to join in sharing their world view. Often with great vitriol.
People get emotional about such things because they well up from our deepest rooted survival instincts. So this has a very biological component.
We want to know that enough people around us are like us.
That they think and act like us, and thus can reasonably be expected to band together with us, especially when we are under duress.
Even when living in a time of relative peace and prosperity, these instincts remain. Having one’s beliefs challenged, and thus possibly changed, is to risk a metaphorical death that many people have not developed the equipment to handle.
What I can pledge as the author of this project is that I will do my best to denote when I am discussing my personal tastes, versus the forms and principles that transcend those tastes.
The very notion of “personal taste” is not carte blanche to declare that all choices and predilections are equal–but that’s for another time.
When I write or make videos describing sicknesses in the world and ways to recalibrate, I’m doing my best to not blindly impose my own tastes or personal make up. Of course the style through which these ideas express is my own and will necessarily have its own mark; we all have our own approach, and that of course keeps things interesting and dynamic. I also have specific interests reflecting groups I’m part of and the context of the times. No one equally cares about all events and circumstances on every corner of the earth.
I also understand and appreciate that there exists a necessary spectrum of talents, skills, potentials, personality types, and varying strategies to handle situations and process information. This range is found both inside of individuals, and outside in the wider world where many individuals come together to form the body of a culture and society.
The world would not work if everyone were a philosopher, or everyone were a warrior, or everyone were a scientist, or everyone were a laborer.
But it does behoove us to parse through the topography of human life, understanding where the points of connection and union are, and where the boundaries need to be. That way we can arrive at greater harmony, and people can experience fulfillment and meaning.
Fulfillment and meaning can include, but goes beyond, the contemporary, especially American, pursuit of happiness and comfort as the highest ideal.
Harmonious living has personal implications (experiencing harmony within yourself) and external implications (harmony manifesting in the broader realms of family, community, culture, nation, the world at large). This notion is developed more in the following articles.
I have never felt a great urge to impose my opinions on others, and though I’ve always been a communicator, I find myself somewhat of a reluctant Internet commentator/writer/vlogger/whatever. I have a creative background, and the natural flexibility for considering opposing views that often accompanies a creative temperament.
In short, I do not wish to add to the tyranny of “should.”
When we hear others dogmatically and one-dimensionally proclaim,
“all people should be like this”…
… “life should be like that”…
…it often reveals a lack of maturity, depth, and developed boundaries. Boundaries in one sense are the ability to say and hear “no.” Sometimes that’s the best way to say “yes” to other things.
Even within small, homogenous communities–even within families of course–different types of individuals with different aims exist.
To say we all must be one way reveals a childish wish to make the world seem safer/more manageable by attempting to make everyone else like you.
Globalists and extreme chauvinists alike can slip into this immature and authoritarian stance, just from different angles. For even if you defeat your current enemy, the energy of fear and the momentum of perpetual conflict will then route you towards setting your sights upon the next perceived enemy.
Upon toppling the “patriarchy,” the radical leftist would then seek to devour those perceived as less radical leftists, and/or more “privileged” groups.
The extreme chauvinist, upon one day realizing his ideal nation-state, would then begin to more vehemently advocate for his home region, then home town, then home street, etc.
Our tribalist urges (see even violence over sports) need counterbalance.
Likewise, our universalist urges need counterbalance; the following foundational articles will outline the interplay between universal and localized urges to love and protect.
Masculine aggression (understood fundamentally as an outward thrust into the world) must be funneled properly and used towards rightful ends.
Feminine vanity (understood as an inward pull to be admired, chosen, and also, draw in the vulnerable) must also be funneled and balanced properly.
As an aside: note how the masculine/feminine principles express even in our anatomy; nature reveals itself on all levels.
Untempered power–whether it’s sought by violently thrusting out and attacking others, or by the seduction of drawing others in to then destroy them (or to masochistically allow them to destroy you)–just wants more power. This becomes a motivating force in and of itself. That’s one definition of the perversion we call “evil.”
Taken ad infinitum, this destructive impulse, power for power’s sake, ultimately leads to solipsism, and even suicide, literal or figurative.
We must always exercise vigilance so that our habits and actions do not take on a life of their own, continuing past serving the aims they were originally created for.
The only This vs. That which means anything in the final analysis is the truth vs. lies.
Truth is animated by the power of love (that is, love in its whole sense, discussed in the final foundational article). Lies are animated by the love of power itself–as opposed to wielding power in service to truth, love, duty.
All good lies contain kernels of truth, or perversions of the truth. Which, in a roundabout, shadowy way, only serves to prove the ultimate power and finality of truth.
But as indicated above, truth expresses itself in differing ways. This is what Traditionalist writer Frithjof Schoun termed “the relative absolute.”
So there will be much to discuss…
This concludes the third of nine foundational articles for this project. The next post in this series is Layers of Consciousness