Ornamental Tangles Un-USAn

War Of Vicarious Entanglements

Revolution, Civility and Culture

USA has been through three stages of domestic conflict in its short history. The first was the Revolutionary War, the second was the Civil War, and the third is the Culture War, still occurring but in an entirely different format than the other two. We’ll call them Revolution, Civility and Culture.

Enough has been described about Revolution, it’s political and international complexities, and the woven fabric of citizenship aftermath. Civility is also a highly breached subject, much too racial and distant from now, although there’s still a modest, underground, skin-toned swell awaiting release. Culture, well, that’s a story I’m currently a part of and it’s very near a conclusion.

Culture began in the 1950’s, following World War II. Such a war was internationally-assembled, not factoring in the sobriety of a local, systemic birth of opposing culture from conception. While we tend to have a general understanding USA is far superior, since the late 1970’s we’ve also been aware of it’s demise. It took the 20 years prior to implant the idea into popular mind. As a federal response, from the decade of my birth until now we’ve been offered a well-controlled, virtual reality.

Observations made about who utterly controls USAn culture is gender-specific, and also relies on environmental constraint and psychological brevity. Culture is near the point where and when my resources are needed to help explain what brevity we’re intending. No talk of the opposite sex or green living, I promise.

Repeatedly, I make references to media. At its core sense, media’s anything advocating communication with a tool, and today’s tools are of joint sophistication. This movement was designed for the latest epoch, starting with the advent of mass telecommunications and thereby inheriting our current mass. I’m part of the mess, you’re part of it and so are they.

Without getting inclusive, I refrain from referencing they’s. This vicarious entanglement was suggested by various psychologists, biologists and physicists with the advent of industrialization as a root cause for mental inequality. Today, there are many more, restrained scholars embracing the upcoming brevity as part of the transition to USA’s mental consequence. But they don’t know how to let go, and neither do I.

I’m troubled. Not in some time have I been troubled with dynamic paranoia. The eyes are too deceiving for patterns and I struggle with originality in the face of direct influence. Working to evade the rubble of intimate concerns, we drudge on after minutes  – no, hours of lapse. It can’t be because of you, can it? My mind curses through a list of names but I can’t call out and expect a response from the horde.

This is the battle frontier. A list of my symbols avoiding yours in the next column. My excuse for communicative restraint is ‘the time isn’t right’. There’s a particular balance deemed necessary before I make contact, but if I were to ask “who is like…?” what would your answer be? Taught to embrace only one after leaving to embrace all, we’re owned by ideas. Each idea traced back to the simply-coded progenitors using pure, glowing expressions to emphasize evident, human limits. I can’t ask myself the question.

Here we step into idolatry again. Revolution, Civility. Their names purse my lip’s tongue.

To suggest an activity suspicious coming from countries other than my own is self-ridicule. To crucify the one’s next door for tone difference, simply heinous. Destroying the distance between attributional intelligence, absolutely necessary. While retaining a personal balance, the social balance will fall. It has to. So many with the capability to remove themselves from media at a moment’s notice is gritty primality at its best. But it’s more than the evasion of civilized nourishment guiding Culture’s demise, it’s ejecting vicarious entanglement as a method of symbolically interacting from our minds. Some are over-prepared for the ejection of particular mediums – if not all electronics – but can they adapt their pragmatic efficiency for survival to the level earlier generations have lived and developed through? I speak to a pinnacle in the future, a meaning and livelihood of past drive and current beauty, where sufficiency by candlelight and warmth by hearth doesn’t resound exoticism.

The fuzzy, wuzzy buzz is static in this fine post-party celebration. A mass amount of cosmic weight has been lifted by a minutae of noise and the freeing of spirits. It’s that darn, pesky projection of soul driving everlong down awe alley. No where else to go. Sit and wait and someone will turn the boat around because it doesn’t go in reverse. The fables of paralogy, ahh! is what I think they meant.

It’s my intention to introduce the conflict then fight back with alternative approaches. A diverse confusion symbolized Revolution’s and Civility’s ends, but Culture’s end must be teleologically-significant if a whole-hearted transformation sets USA on fire. The medium must be a wholly different presence of process, one engrained in the flesh that feels pain and sees texture not microdots. Culture won’t end today, but there’s an impending, civil revolution tapping from the other side of your screen.

Candid: Material Life

Since Then…

…gum, starch, spices and me no longer free…

A Long Beach, A Hydrocarbon-Blue Skyline

 

CHemiCly deranged in the LBC…

In Response To

“Anarcho-Primitivism: The Green Scare in Green Political Theory”

I was looking through some of the faces that appeared in the End:Civ documentary I mentioned and came across a man named Michael Becker. He’s a political science professor at an institution in California, but more important to me was his research interest: “philosophical and tactical parallels between the Zapatistas and the Earth Liberation Front, drawing on Deleuze’s conception of the rhizome.” I was immediately drawn to contact him and ask him about his work. He got back to me quickly, and I to him as fast, and then he sent me a paper which can be downloaded at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1580329. Overall, it’s a great paper.

Selections from the paper are composed in italics and taken as is, while my questions and responses follow. As a sidenote, I don’t necessarily expect returned responses. My logic is oft-flawed when compared to the article or the “special” tone of my words aren’t respective. Either way, the discussions cease and I’m left to conjure accusations.

“Cybernetic life dispenses with a basic dialectical tension between civilization and primitive existence that has always appeared in the consciousness of civilized cultures. For AI and genetics engineers, such a split simply does not exist.” I think there’s a cleverer way to defeat those we assume are against our values. Why select engineers as inhumane, when if fact they could be doing some great work outside of their obviously irrational career choice? I’m nitpicking about your selection of techies to criticize because I’m aware of your knowledge of rhizomes and each individual’s potential to supersede conventional judgments.

“Mainstream green political theorists and organizations repudiate attacks against institutions and offer rewards for the capture of radical environmentalists. But it is not so much the tactics that are the target of green political theorists and organizations. Rather, it is the suggestion of a return to the primitive — the healing of the wound that is abstraction, a wound that tears us from the world and tears the world to pieces.” I find inherent fault in the line “healing of the wound that is abstraction”, which suggests civilization is based on intangibility. This isn’t the case, is it? Everything we are afforded via media is available to us if we follow a particular path or are given the option of steps to obtain civilized treasures. The spectacular surround is abstract – advertising, currency, political infrastructure, representative democracy – but the outcome (the relationships you’ve mentioned to me) are very real, albeit dependent upon a classy, faceless, superficial facade of messages. Not siding with green theorists by any means, but green anarchists, and anarchists in general, need abstraction to put the world back together again once we destroy civilization.

“Humans are a biological species belonging to a particular taxonomic order and characterized by certain physiological functions. But humans are the only type of creature that can be characterized as a moral agent because each aspect of our existence–from the general life pattern to specific rules, even to the question of whether to continue to exist as a species or not–is allegedly open to deliberation and choice. Our human existence as a teleological center of life is unique to say the least in that even our continued species existence is open to choice. By contrast, non-human creatures are incapable of choice and thus can only be considered as moral subjects.” This is a pretty heavy transition to make from Paul Taylor’s “free will and autonomy”. How are humans the only type of creature able to be characterized as “moral agent” through deliberation and choice when it’s still unclear the level of deliberation and choice nonhuman animals have? There are many species with the capability to choose, and choose based on social or community thinking, even if their options are limited to what is resourcefully available. We’re in the same circumstance as they in a discussion of choice, but they’re more aware of their resources since they have a firsthand account of obtaining them.

I realize there’s some academic logic of sarcasm you build throughout your paper (such as the paragraph above) which then leads to great critiques in the footnotes (i.e. Mill, Chomsky, Bookchin). I’m curious why your passages on Taylor’s paper can’t be as passionately oppositional as the footnotes and still retain the traditional, academic framework through language and content? I understand the necessary format for academic critique, and while your context and emotion are engaging, the structural expectation journals demand is confusing, unexciting and immature. Why not hit them hard right away instead of waiting until there’s some sort of logical build expectedly inherent in academic writing?

“The hierarchy of humans and nature is duplicated within human cultures. All cultures are equal. But some cultures are more equal than others, an equation solved for by rational and enlightened members of higher cultures. Thus both the lives and natural environments of wild plants and animals and the activities of persons engaging in lower cultural activities must give way to the interests of those engaging in higher level cultural activities. Civ-centrism in Taylor turns out to be the ten thousand year old tradition of the manifest destiny of of a certain type of human existence.” Are higher and lower cultures based on rational and logical distinctions alone? Is this the standard for “most” people who distinguish between cultural groups? Or at least those within such discourse? And fantastic final sentence, which has gotten me thinking about the taxonomy of humanity. Is it possible there are separate Homo species not purely sapiens, evolved to either support Civ or Prim? I know this isn’t a duality, but I offer it as an example. I also know a few thinkers are serious about Homo academicus, Homo novus or Homo economicus, but is it possible to use traditional anthropological taxonomy to honestly and fairly distinguish between modern human groupings? Is this not the direction anarchists aim to go? From a psychological perspective, it seems like the only serious option if a movement toward ending civilization is inevitable – a forced cleaving of basic human interaction into its rightful groupings.

“That ‘nature,’ is socially constructed is evident in its shifting, socially contextualized meanings. In the western tradition nature first relates primarily to religious concerns about a realm of evil, a place of the devil’s snares. As civilization becomes more secularly oriented nature is transformed into a chaotic place as opposed to orderly society and, later still, a reserve of inert ‘resources’ waiting to be tapped, available for the fueling of civilization. Finally, nature becomes a sign within a semiotic system of accelerating and rigidly controlled commodification. Nature is a point of sale with ‘natural’ foods, ‘nature’ adventures, and accompanying ‘outdoor’ products. Advertising for and consuming each product and service contains the slight thrill of experiencing something external, alien, dangerous and forbidden. The continuing theme in each of these iterations of the concept of nature as wilderness is that nature is a threat and its intrusion into civilization a form of deviance. Fantastic description of “nature” and its perceptual steps through human history. Is it possible we’re still in the battle between nature-as-chaos and nature-as-commodity, and the end result will be a choice between the two? Nature-as-evil is on its way out, though USA is a little behind the rest of the world, right? With current geological and meteorological events in New Zealand, Japan and a wintered USA, nature is recruiting chaos consistently (or visa versa, as I prefer it), yet our solution tends to be the next step, semiotic. Unfortunately, I still see nature, chaos and semiotic as signs which we can’t get away from, which is why I’m interested in your living activity.

“Where Taylor and green political theory would like to absorb all understanding and experience into civilization, anarcho-primitivists want to destroy it.” For my own, personal curiosity, is it possible for anarcho-primitivists to absorb all understanding and experience primitively? I mean, we still use Iron, Bronze, Industrial and Information Age tekne readily and hypocritically (that’s why I enjoy Derrick Jensen – he’s self-aware of his hypocrisy). Do you have the confidence and means to survive without the 10,000 years or so of civilized human culture? What is suitable for retention and what is not? Is it truly a matter of judgment? Is that all we have to offer or is there a clear plan of action and use? This is always where I’m held up, looking for those completely autonomous and independent within USA. Seems we envy our past tribal cultures and the few remaining tribal cultures worldwide.

“Rousseau describes the primitive soul as one which “gives itself up to entirely to to the consciousness of its present existence, without any thought of even the nearest futurity.” (Rousseau, 190) By contrast, civilization revolves around planning of the most grandiose ‘futurity’: large scale agriculture, urban planning, military training and expeditions, bureaucratic control of the population, exploration of earth and distant space. Planning, of this magnitude, requires detachment of self from an abstract conception of a potentially transformed space (the conquest of ‘nature’) stretching out over an abstractly configured temporality.” I’m unclear why planning of the magnitude of “large scale agriculture, urban planning, military training…” and so on requires detachment of self from space and time? Does it have to do with conscience, with a self of true, moral authority? I tend to see a direct attachment of the self to abstract conceptions of time and space, for if one was directly engaged in the process of destroying huge swaths of land, uprooting underrepresented groups, murdering civilians, arresting crying housewives, and destroying slugs with each step or dark matter with each rocket-fueled propulsion, they might not actually want to do it. There’s a major disconnect of self between the actual events undertaken and the conceptual planning of those paying others to due such things. Again, this brings me back to finding people who can speak at our level of discourse, but also live as pure examples of that discourse. Not everyone is doing what harms the life we love, right?

And while I like Zerzan, and his and your discussions of Time, a simple understanding of Einstein’s general theory of relativity (albeit, he was a nuclear agent), clarifies time fairly easily.

“Time marks an initial break in consciousness as the literal sense of thinking conjoined with what is thought. Time creates a tear in a mode of thought that had always been one with the field of perception. Memory now can serve a segmented, disembodied field of consciousness that separates perception and perceived and treats the latter as an isolated instance of separate, abstract cognition. Time opens intellectual space for a mode of representative and symbolic thought that can hold the thing represented in a temporal state of suspension. The re- presented image of the ‘thing’ now exists in a cognitively independent space separate from its primal occurrence, the latter being the field in which the perceiver is co-present. It is only in this state of literally suspended animation, a lifeless, soulless state, that the living elements of the primal field can be set up as ‘objects’ by a ‘subject’ who will master them. The decisive aspects of civilization–abstract language including writing, number, art as an attempt at recuperating lost presence, specialization and division of labor–all stem originally from a sort of intellectual killing field, reified time.” Wow! This is some heavy shit, sooo good! First off, how do you make the logical, or psychological transition from Time to Memory? Memory doesn’t necessarily have any relationship to time, being selected experiences rather than linear transitions from then to now. Don’t we tend to remember events, people, places and things based on their importance, their usefulness to another aspect of who we are? So, memory can be recruited to serve perception as its serial accomplice, or in parallel, if we wish or learn it as such. The line before, “Time creates a tear in a mode of thought that had always been one with the field of perception,” is awesomely-stated and reminds me of Julian Jaynes’ bicameral mind. He posits that our consciousness prior to civilization consisted of schizophrenic symptoms, whereby we would hear audible voices representing gods of nature – flora, fauna, terra, aqua. As we increased in population and social pressures deemed dependency more central in our lives, order and organization aided in the development of hierarchy, writing, etc. (as you mention in your final sentence above) and those gods or voices of nature became local audibles – kings, lords, family, etc. – until finally it became our own voice. The “intellectual killing field” has been established and our “intellect” is now civilized as “logos”. I’m also a bit alienated by the consideration that my creativity (whether by painting, writing, speaking, crafting, plowing, growing) is reified time, some illusory instance for what action needs to be happening. I know the distinction between “civilized  planning” and “livable planning” is there, but it’s not obvious and could be.

Your transition from the very workable, thoughtful discussion of reified spacetime to agriculture is not clear to me though the semiotic is. I feel there’s a stretch to include agriculture as our divergence from primitive, hunter-gatherer lifestyle because it has been declared so by anthropologists, sociologists and psychologists alike. What’s more fundamental than the need to enclose space and do it to appease our sense of controlled time? What about the simple act of eating? Not everyone was farming, and in fact, there are several cultures who don’t today. They’re hunters, fishers and gatherers, maybe grazers. Could it be agriculture is the bane, the intellectual slip up we resort to when finding the canary in a dark place, post-destruction? How are we going to support the new order of humanity when civilization has crashed and millions, hundreds of millions, have perished?

“Throughout his writing Derek [Derrick] Jensen has noted the similarity between the abusive parent and the abuse of nature. Since the violence of civilization is inevitable we desensitize ourselves to the suffering of the plant and animal world just as the child shuts down his natural emotional response to the incidents of child abuse. The horror is too vivid to acknowledge and confront.” I’d have to go back and read his excerpts, but could we look at it from the parent’s perspective; something so loved as a child should also be synonymous to that of nonhuman organisms, yet we can beat a child into submission and hence, can beat everything which supports our physical survival into submission as well, stating it’s for their own good and our continued existence as “dad”.

“From the moment of the first agri-culture forward those who have mastered agricultural knowledge become similarly separated from the human, animate tools employed in the drudgery of tilling. Domestication and the process of selective breeding immediately appears among humans.” Do you have evidence for selective breeding coming from those mastering “agricultural knowledge? I see Ur is the default culture, but is there no prior evidence of lineage, either matrilineal or patrilineal, being of importance to either early civilized or primitive cultures and selective breeding being the form with which to conserve genes or family?

“Primitive cultures are rooted in myths. Civilizations are based on lies.” Aren’t they both fabrications?

I loved this paper because it had me on high alert and flexed my ability to think about levels of radical, activist thinking I don’t often consider. I produce obvious retort, as opposed to scholarly vocabulary and academic embattlement, opting to express immediate feelings about the dense, unnecessary lingo defaulted to. There’s an expectation I’m supposed to see a person of stature – a person with a doctorate – as an expert and immediately support and honor their standing as one who has also experienced the false hierarchy we’re all made to survive. Maybe I should be nice, maybe I should kiss some ass, but I’m getting pretty tired of having to do that in order to make some distanced relationship work to my advantage. Lethargy within the frame of academic writing and discourse has always been the problem. Select the small thinker and step on the toes of those above. If they’re known and seen, they’re not doing what they’re supposed to be doing. I wait for an honest exchange and I’m still waiting. Someone gets to know what’s happening.

Tracing Humanity in the Civilized Mentality

Synaesthesizing Feelings of Synthesis

Humanity is the single most important idea of our lives. If every culture, religion or state dissolve imaginary boundaries and feel humans as one colossal group intended to maintain happiness, self-interests we serve are irrelevant. Humans follow a specific course through history – prehistory and modern history – and unintentional lessons have been learned. They’re lessons given to us by inside and outside of ourselves.

We’ve learned killing kills the killer quicker. We’ve learned selfishness make us happy at the cost of others. We’ve learned technology has caused us longterm pain at the expense of giving thirty more years to consider how to prevent it. Thirty years compared to millions of people before and after today who live their lives without the fear of death or loss of happiness. Make a judgment as to which might be better.

Are we certain life will end without human influence? If the answer is yes, then why do all the work of extending human life?

It is the civilized mentality we now commonly think with.

When our collective viewpoint was replaced by an individual and private condition of survival, singularity spread because it appeared easier and was forced more readily. Years later we return to the difficulty of knowing how it helped us. We still can’t find a way to reconnect, if indeed we ever were connected.

Is this what our civilized mentality asks for – a continuous rise and fall? What about the linear path we have always been so confident about? What about  growth? Are they also as irrelevant as selves?

What is irrelevant is humanity – the group mentality that started us off. Instead of reciprocity as a means of survival, humans grew in number to fend. This kind of population explosion is a strategy to keep humanity alive, irrespective of personal interest. Blame it on human nature, but don’t define it with humanity.

The survivalist concept – carbon-copied by thinkers who can be dust-binned together – relies on the notions of domestication, agriculture and hierarchy. Human endeavor first provided, then forced possibilities for increased population. In our modern era we see real innovations are few and far between, and now for a select group of individuals to discover a way to increase their numbers seems counterintuitive. The mixing of cultures and the increase in population was the creative force behind the development of domestication, agriculture and hierarchy. Population increase and civilized lifestyles most certainly co-developed. The question unanswered is: which one began the first steps toward the history we’ve tried to establish for ourselves?

Humanity was the bond that kept people together. It’s still the word we use to describe the special unity a person has to another person which nothing else can claim. It’s only a word now. Many people felt it and others pondered the reasons why they did feel it. It was more important than freedom, happiness, life or death. It meant there was someone else who could feel the same things as you did.

When humanity was felt, we also lived synaesthetically – taking or perceiving, and knowing or cognizing, the beauty of life outside of us with a connective feeling or sense. When we couldn’t explain the sensory crossover we went elsewhere, deciding to develop a civilized mentality to explain and attach temporary meanings to the this newly formed capacity.

So what happened?

There were those who altogether neglected the connection, instead serving diminutive beliefs in things – matter, energy, laws, egos, beliefs, truths and wars. They chose to defend civilized mentality rather than humanity as a whole. But it’s always been humanity that has provided the connection, the synaesthesis.

How is it so important to humanity?

Synaesthesis (sin-ass-thee-sis) is experiencing the integration of sensation and mentation in mutual communication.

The common senses, mentally known and studied, are: sight, sound, touch, taste and smell; and their degree of importance to people are ordered similarly, unless absent. There are four lesser known senses – balance, movement, pain and heat – which do not receive so much attention. It could either be because the receptors are less physically obvious than eyes, ears and so on, or they are infrequently used, such as pain reception. We strive to avoid pain. Rudolf Steiner, an Austrian scholar and Anthroposophist with Rosicrucian leanings, suggested three more beyond the nine: language, thought and ego. Beyond Steiner, Guy Murchie recently described up to thirty-two possible senses. Even further beyond are the numerous latent senses we’ve evolved through which other species use readily to maintain successful cohabitation with humanity.

Taken physically, sense is feeling light, vibration, pressure change, chemicals, gravity, movement and heat, as well as the structure of communicated thought, ideological patterns such as ration and intuition, and people not yourself. Though the latter three are presently more difficult to explain as senses, they are nonetheless felt physically in synaesthesis. Beyond this conscious utilitarian array is a vast unconscious array of incarnations only experienced through mentation.

Mentation is the summation of two or many of the senses resulting in perception and cognition. Perception is a philosophical and psychological concept often debated over, but primarily means the conscious or attentive processing of sensation. It is taking all the senses of an object and using them to identify what that object is. Cognition is putting meaning to the object, relating a thought and getting to know the object beyond identification.

If sensation and mentation are simultaneously acknowledged, often done by consciousness training and cognitive transferability, the interaction can initiate a mutual communication – at the level nonhuman animals have with nature or nature with earth. It can be just as understandable with other humans. It can be felt as real as a hug or a kiss is felt. We were once aware of this connection, as nonhumans are, and will slowly return to a similar fluency. The most comfortable aspect of recognizing the connection is the ability to shift between being yourself and being a part of the mutuality.

Recognizing this feeling can be as simple as saying, “I can see because my eyes are open, and I think them open because I’m directing my attention to them.” Imagine seeing and hearing at the same time you’re thinking about seeing and hearing – this is synaesthesia physically, and best described mentally by Georg Hegel’s dialectical synthesis. Recite the simple referential statement when you feel the deepest recoil.

Clinically, the experience of synaesthesia is considered mentally disordering and involuntary. It includes the integration of colors and numbers, which is less sensory and more cognitive. Hegel’s dialectic, based on investigating the truth of opinions, suggests contradictions in thought – thesis and antithesis – are part of a synthesis, or combined truth.

If feeling light and sound by being able to see and hear are combined as a mental synthesis – meaning they can be perceived as the same matter and energy philosophically –  a moment of synaesthesis will occur. Both synaesthesis and synthesis are commonly combined behaviors in life.

How does it work? Reading aloud is one example.

Typically, we understand vision and hearing to be two different senses and often contrast them as primary and secondary. In fact, they receive the same physical matter and energy if you synthesize it enough. The wave-particle duality is a traditional separation of matter, though the matter and energy of light seems to have its own form of interchangeable mutuality. Often, physics and math are analytical, separating things into their parts then continuing to investigate subatomically and abstractly. Of course, quantum matter and energy behave synthetically in nature, and especially in humans – both physically and mentally.

The difficult parts to understand aren’t the theories and conditional judgments. What is most difficult is consciously adjusting your mind to recognize the integration of sights and sounds when doing something like reading. You pay attention to the content of the written piece, not considering you’re looking at it, hearing it and touching the keyboard to scroll it. But if you could recognize all four actions at one time, the experience might be one you’ve never had before. It’s not as hard as it sounds. Just re-read from the top, but aloud this time.

Did you understand it a little better the second go-around?

Imagine we take this a step further by incorporating all of our senses into a single behavior. This action could be called life – every single moment of your conscious day and preconscious night. But instead of focusing on specific acts or knowledge such as typing at a computer, taking bites of chocolate, or trying to define life, we should focus on our fingers pressing keys as we watch the letters join to form a word we are thinking of spelling. Or we hold the piece of chocolate between two fingers, noticing our saliva increasing, place it into our mouth, and taste the cocoa, which can only taste like chocolate and not sugar. These are synaesthetic moments of life; beautiful moments we pass up for less meaningful half-truths. They are still as separate from the whole as atoms are from matter, but are mutual experiences connecting our sensation, mentation and humanity stronger than anything nonhuman can.

Think about life now.

Could it be the synthesis of every moment in our days and years before we die? Does it include good, evil, matter, energy, war, conflict, homelessness and destruction? Ideas are hard to experience and harder to define. Should it include these things if it presently doesn’t? Will they make life more complete if they are included? How do I feel as connected to humanity as I do to the keyboard I touched and the words I just read? Or to the chocolate only my mouth and brain know are chocolate?

It’s still not as difficult as you think, but there is one thing that keeps getting in the way, and it’s inside of you. It’s your civilized mentality.

Our civilized mentality has been a constant impairment to the ability of conscious awareness. Most people find it hard to recognize because of belief and knowledge systems which continually occlude the feeling. Beliefs and knowledge are safe and stable, offering humanity an easy way around the perils of actually having to oppose the fun and selfish parts of life in order to sense and mind it. If we believe an idea we don’t accept anything else. If we know something we don’t have to search anymore.

“Ah, ma. I don’t wanna,” is what we tell her again and again. Life, nature and the earth, the realistic trinity which created humanity, won’t take that excuse anymore. But at least it warns us death, destruction and disaster may come to humanity and our civilized mentalities sooner than we think.

Civilized mentalities are historically chronicled as such:

Myth was ousted by philosophy

Philosophy was ousted by religion.

Religion was ousted by science.

Science was ousted by technology.

What will technology be ousted by?

We still have the opportunity to answer this question.

Each of these belief systems occluded an opposing and mutual pattern of feeling:

Myth was the antithesis of humanity.

Philosophy was the antithesis of craft.

Religion was the antithesis of learning.

Science was the antithesis of creativity.

Technology is the antithesis of humanity.

The pattern seems to start over again.

And each area uncovered certain shortcomings about itself:

Myth exemplified humanity’s insignificance.

Philosophy exemplified human’s fallibility.

Religion exemplified supernatural intangibility.

Science exemplified empirical susceptibility.

Technology exemplifies progressive frailty.

We’ve had plenty of time to deal with inconsequentiality and to realize we have a very important part to play in humanity.

The civilized mentality has followed a particular course of brain function:

Feeling – Knowing – Believing – Experiencing – Rationalizing – Feeling

The first feeling was sensory feeling, like connecting to the earth, plants, nonhuman animals and celestial bodies through myth. The second coming of feeling is emotional feeling, like connecting synaesthetically to humanity, life, nature and earth again with the most personal encounters and memories of each.

Now is the time to sequester technology. So, what opposes technology?

Read it aloud. You have the synaesthesis to do so.

Humanity (has)

heart (due to)

passion (is)

love (forming)

unity (is)

cooperation (through)

tradition (from)

ancestors (mimicking)

nature (whose purpose is)

sustainability (for)

earth (and)

life (and)

humanity.