posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 06:02 PM
That believed its consciousness was a different "thing" from its body, so much so that one individual of this species - a prominent one - thought
the body and all of external reality was a "mere extension" - he called it "rex extensa" - of the mind which produced it.
Within this species, many minds - particularly those minds which possessed lots of material stuff and wanted to possess more of that stuff, a lunatic
fantasy of separation emerged. These female and male members of this quarky species could not let go of what they had, although, quite naturally, when
this bifurcation first occurred - when elites separated themselves from non-elites - at some long forgotten era which the body, alone, can properly
remember, whispers its teleodynamic ideal - perhaps the "quantum potential" of a past, seeking to bring itself back to a state of coherence.
There was a place called "Eden" - pleasure in the Hebrew language. But in the east, there was Shambhalla, in the west, a place long ago known as
"Atlantis". Each one of them thought the image corresponded to the reality - the technological Greeks conceived a technologically savy Atlantis; the
Asians, likewise, seem to have produced an excess of imagination; the nomadic tribes which made up the Hebrews, on the other hand, had a more
realistic sense - by which I mean, they desisted from glamorizing or exaggerating the image that was suggested - of Humans living within a context,
shaped by that context, and that that shaping led to a deepening of relation. This is all of an interpersonal nature - which is to say, acknowledges
all the material elements that go into generating the "gestalt" phenomenon that is the Human being. A garden - a "pre-civiliezed" state - nothing
more than Humans in Nature. If any such state existed, the continent of Africa would have had to have been its location - perhaps in the southern
Sahara, in regions where ancient lakes once existed, and this species - surrounded by tropical Forests, lived in paradise...
Keep in mind: shame is an interrupter of feeling and being: it forces self-consciousness, and ultimately, occludes itself as it provides the
functional coordinative base with the fear dynamics that extend from it. These creatures set up social systems of government and power that made them
too excited - active minded - which is to say, built their sense of meaning from the phenomenological perspective of succeeding, changing others, the
world, and feeling the strength that comes from those configurations, without its necessary opposite - passive mindedness i.e. how it feels
when others hurt us. These Humans were phenomenologically blinded by social processes which deafened their guilt with the explosive feelings of
fantasy, erupting from an unconscious they naively connected with, and allowed themselves to existentially entrained with.
Humans become most aware of themselves through pain - particularly social and emotional pain. All Humans are exquisitely sensitive to the social
signals of their environment, and remarkably responsive - whether unconsciously, or consciously (as an anxiety-thought) - to the suggestive signs of
others - worrying, oftentimes, that so-and-so is aggressing against them, to which they immediately self-organize to their usual defense - some, more
anxious-ambivalent, feeling so many emotions, prefer - or need - dissociation i.e. not thinking or being related to something, in order to achieve
homeostasis. Others, those much-desired "extroverts", actually dissociate in a much "quieter" way, such that their normal phenomenological
experience of consciousness 'keeps out' negative feelings and thoughts - and so a passive sense of experiencing-self - and allow an almost full,
hyper-identification with the self-states - experiences of "ways of being you" - to the point that they are hypnotized and become "one" with the
idolatrous image - idolatrous, because every experience of self is ontologically subject to a self-other complementarity, whereby energy - metabolic
"pumps" - derive from the others who originally animated your self-other template.
These Humans became viciously mean to those who disagreed with them, because, of course, once again, they were being just as animal-like as the other
animals of the world: fear. Fear, anxiety, strangely enough, could even be imagined by the powerful as "stronger" than love. Yet this obviously
gainsaid - contradicted - the reality of the Human beings existence, and reflexive dependence, on living in a kind and good way with other Human
beings. The reflex - the normal 'arch', of Human identity, is goodness - reciprocity, and, in a deeper way, a sense of mindful consideration of the
wellbeing of others.
A big problem, I think, is with the very notion of a city - or at least as the city has operated and been used since ancient times, and continues to
operate into the present day. The political philosopher Leo Strauss seems to get it - in the wrong sense - with his own writings, with titles such as
'The City and Man', and 'Thoughts on Machiavelli' (he thinks highly of him').
To just get a sense of Strauss' reasoning process, here is his own justification for what he calls "liberal nihilism'. There is a bad nihilism:
The first was a "brutal" nihilism, expressed in Nazi and Marxist regimes. In On Tyranny, he wrote that these ideologies, both descendants of
Enlightenment thought, tried to destroy all traditions, history, ethics, and moral standards and replace them by force under which nature and mankind
are subjugated and conquered.
The second type—the "gentle" nihilism expressed in Western liberal democracies—was a kind of value-free aimlessness and a hedonistic
"permissive egalitarianism", which he saw as permeating the fabric of contemporary American society
Do you see how little sense that means? "Value-free aimlessness" and a "hedonistic permissive egalitarianism". Is there not a basic logic problem
here? Isn't hedonism the expression of an emotion - and isn't the preference for that emotion what we mean by "value"?
Second of all: there is no 'gentle nihilism'. Not caring creates climate change, kills species, destroys environments, and Human worlds. It is a
truly pathetic selfishness that every Human needs to fight against - because, ultimately, since choice, and the power to inhibit is always within us,
we are always accountable to the self that we create - ontologically.
It is a risky gamble indeed to live a life that is opposite from the dynamics suggested by nature - our source of being.