Representation

It is infuriating to think that the great United States of America was built upon the cry for “no taxation without representation”. This article will largely ignore the fundamental injustices that taxation suggests in favor of revealing the misguidance of representation. The very thing held dear to U.S. democracy is the same conceptual tyrant beating us into submission.

We pride ourselves for living within “freedom” – I’ll use this moment to mention here that this pride has been used to manipulate us into believing that it is our duty to the rest of the world to share it, by any means necessary.

The idea that we have to go teach people how to be free is kind of a funny idea.

Noam Chomsky

Why is this pride important to recognize? Looking at U.S. democracy as it was intended, our freedoms are obtained through the list of tolerable and intolerable actions defined by those chosen to represent our interests as citizens. Not only does that definition of democracy give the current affairs of the United States too much credit, it leads to the question – how can we possibly take pride in decisions that were not made by us but rather were made for us? The decisions, the decisive list of tolerable and intolerable acts, the laws of the land, are not made for us but rather against us. Again, I will defer a more elaborate examination of this concept in an effort to limit the discussion of the established corporatism underlying modern policy.

We have no basis for pride in our freedom. We are demanded to live in ways to support corporate interest rather than self-determined human life. We are demanded to defer the creation of legislature to those deemed more equipped to make decisions that affect life rather than allowing those that are actually affected by the policy, make the policy. This concept is too simple for it to be achieved within the modern world order. It should also mean its utter destruction.

Deferring the boundaries of our lives to others parallels deferring our lives to others. Deferring to others is not in our best interest. It leads to a funnel of power drawing away from us, to those to which we defer our lives. When we are faced with a proclaimed leader, we must end their leadership – effectively ending their power of authority (control) over the lives of otherwise self-determined individuals. It is critical to realize and to always remember that the concept of representation has no regard for your interests unless you are representing yourself and the preservation of self-determination.

Advertisements

Controversy As Kin

We live in a world of travesty, hope, loss and love. We live in a cancer equally terminal and benign. We live within order and chaos, division as well as solidarity. We live in a world of controversy. I am not referring to the conflicts of opinion and behavior but of recognition.

Each of us, at least in the Western world, are confined to a standard within which we compete for favor. The people give way to the bottom line and our attentions misdirected. Our lives are defined by limitations and a series of moments both ignored and exploited. The bane of our existence is ourselves. While we have crafted countless masks, the conflict within us is ever present.

We are employed for the service industry yet we ultimately serve the industry as we window shop our sense of self. In this way, as in many other ways, we are all on public display. Our greatest weakness is not the various forms of our fragility but our consistency – the habit we share to abide by the name of civilization to our own peril. Yet, many do not recognize this.

We don’t see the poisoned waters. We don’t see the strong-arming and intimidation rampant in the conflicts of race, gender, money and authority. We don’t see the slavery in the industrial complex in which we all play a part. Instead, we see the Jones’ greener grass, the many obligations of our ailing lives, and the temporary joys manifested through consumerism.

We are equal in our oppression, differentiated by our suffering and connected in our impact. When we recognize this, we can move past the primitive struggles within controversy and move towards the compassion that joins our differences. This in turn will provide us the means of complete liberation.

Trepidation of the Living

Define “life”. What does it mean to you? Is it sitting behind a computer screen for 40+ hours a week? Does it mean following the commands of every person above you in the Hierarchy of Life? Does it mean that there’s only what is now and never what could be?

I am afraid of living up to what the world expects from me. I never want to and I am beginning to believe I never will. What does this mean for me? What does it mean to never live up to expectations? This of course depends on what the expectations are. My greatest grievances come from the expectations set upon me by work. I am expected to follow the commands of my superiors in the name of “the client”, “the money”, “the project” or “the company”. The allowance I have for myself in this situation is severely restricted.

I must work. I must obtain an income. I churn and burn as billions of others do. Just as those that do the commanding. We play just as much a part as those that create the chains we become as the global market. I want out. I want no part of this charade; this facade in which we work so hard to live. I am only here because of our economic system and I am too afraid to leave.

I wonder who I would meet. Would it be more lonely than the life I left behind? Would I even survive? Without the rest of the collective, would being outside the system simply leave me with nothing? Who am I leaving behind? No one would come with me. There are people out there that want their “creature comforts” too much to leave that behind and start living.

The excuses come in waves. The more we know the more excuses we make. None of us know the truth for the truth is too vast if it is to exist at all. We have yet to evolve into beings capable of physically and mentally living as a different, preexisting being. We have our bodies and our minds – the consciousness we commonly think of as “ourselves”. We cannot, however, consciously become the consciousness of someone else’s self. If we also consider that knowledge is only what is interpreted by our perceptions of experience, we can see that none of us can really know a thing. What excuses can be made when the best we are capable of doing as a human race is acting like we know things?

This is why the world is enslaved. We think mass producing everything from guns to gravestones is the proper way; the way of our society; the way of the world. The fact is, there are no facts, there is no fiction, no truth no lie. These are simply judgments placed upon otherwise neutral phenomenon. Our mindless existence is equally manufactured and enforced by the institutions in which we attempt to survive. Fear is the glue that holds it together.

Relation Mesh

Our lives are a series of moments. Each second is a simultaneous beginning and ending of an unfathomable range of moments made up of an equally unfathomable range of criterion. The moments with the most impact however, are defined by our relationship to them. The relation we have to the moments of our lives define the impact. Therefore, the moments with the most impact are those which are performed purposely towards the desired relations.

There are a number of ways we can relate to the moments of our lives:

Active disregard for others

We can spend each moment selfishly asking ourselves, “what do I get out of this moment” or by possessives, “this moment is my own”. These are examples of actively disregarding our relation to others and the bidirectional impact we have on each other.

Insincere regard for others

We can spend each moment looking at how we can show others we care more for them and less for ourselves. This is actually rooted in selfishness (usually defined as fulfillment). Here we have nothing more than a managed perception stemmed from the desire for external validation.

Balanced consideration of others

We can spend each moment coming up with a “healthy balance” between ourselves and others. This one is simply misguided. There is no in between as there is no actual distinction to use for defining the considerations to balance without ignoring our connections to each other.

Active understanding of our relations to others

We can leverage each moment for the greatest impact to each moment. By understanding our relation to others we can leverage the power that lies within us through the moments we provide for ourselves, and those provided to us by external circumstances.

The examples provided above are simply targets to direct our connectivity. There is more to this, however, than mere direction. Our connectivity is actually defined by a number of things primarily made up by the functional roles our connects play and the confinement that this approach to relationships forces us to live within.

Reach

We need to consider our daily impact on our relationships. Our impact is far from limited to what is in front of us. We make an impact on the world every moment we live. It is not only us, not only our direct contacts and recent acquaintances, it is also the impact that our connections have on others.

This is not simply a taste of transitive impact. Our impact is not something that can be inherited. Its effects abound, felt through those we touch from the most compassionate to the kamikaze. This in turn envelopes others in a similar way. The impact we have on each moment of our lives forever alters each subsequent moment.

Collective

Our relationships are not generally thought of as connected. Rather they are placed in categories such as family or colleague. The extent of the relation is limited to the functional role of the relationship such as brother, father, painter, assistant, etc. As we further the division, increasing the number of pigeonholes we can live within, the less connected we become.

What if we could connect to those outside of the functional relationships in our lives? What if we could perform regardless of our imposed divisions? Disregard our functional roles as they relate to ourselves and others. Look at others as not only a brother, sister, family or foe; not writer, culprit, or Average Joe. Rather a collective relation made up of distinct individuals with their own impact.

Our impact on ourselves is the epicenter of our impact on the world. This ultimately means our relations are networked. To fully realize our network we need to connect the dots. Connecting the dots of our relations means recognizing our impact on our neighbors near and far. Only then can we start to see our relation mesh, the relational fabric that connects everyone and everything throughout the multiverse.

Family Dynamic

I think we can agree that families and the support they provide can be substantially beneficial. There have been various types of families, structured in equally various ways. Largely in what I’ll call the North, the type of family has trended towards cutting connections rather than building them.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, family is a group consisting of a parent and child living together in a household. Although we prefer to extend the definition, the Oxford Dictionary has a couple categories of families based on the hierarchies of the parent-child relationship:

One, the nuclear family, consists of “a couple and their dependent children, regarded as a basic social unit.” Here we have the parent-child relationship as the building blocks for society. Don’t talk to strangers though – we build societies (read markets) not relationships with others.

The other, the extended family, is one that “extends beyond the nuclear family, including grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other relatives, who all live nearby or in one household.” The extended family provides more room for relationships but the reach of such relationships do not extend much past the next town.

So far, we tend to have our own family. It is common in today’s cultures to combine families, to a limited extent, in order to perpetuate the family. This is commonly known as “marriage”. Your family is not my family unless we are related through blood or marriage.

Throughout the family structure, there are embedded support structures. The support provided throughout the family is dependent on the power distribution. In our patriarchal society, a man is usually the “head of household”. This status indicates the top of the power distribution of the family.

The hierarchical power distribution within a family is dependent on the structure of the family; those with the most power within the family tend to play the role of a director. These members of the family will determine what support is needed, how support should be applied, and who should receive such support.

These support decisions are generally dictated by our assumption of the duty of blood. For simplicity we’ll generalize a blood relative as one that exists within your family structure and is directly related to you through blood ancestry. The opposite being non-blood relatives that include those that enter your family through marriage. The priority of support commonly begins with blood relatives.

The types of support available is most complete within the duty of blood and are subsequently reduced as the relation becomes less important.

The phenomenon of hierarchical support distribution and the preference of blood is usually referred to as family loyalty. This justification is enforced through the family’s power distribution and maintained through the categorization of relationships. Whether you are a brother, sister, parent or all three, you are defined by that category and with it, expectations for the role.

We can’t be blamed for setting such expectations – we have been trained in our subjugation since civilization. We can, however, be blamed for continuing to respect those expectations, not fighting against them and not helping to relieve others from the relational bottlenecks that occur because of them. It is clear that our application of the family dynamic has excluded too many for too long. Welcome to the family!

Coordination & Unity

à la Control. The massive capacity we have for cooperation has been exploited to the tune of capitalism. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) sings along to a more grave notion of “policy over people”. It is the epitome of how the love of money-making has taken over the world. OPEC is the consolidation of efforts towards the control of oil markets specifically towards policy-making. “Coordinate & Unify!”

OPEC “Our Mission”

In accordance with its Statute, the mission of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is to coordinate and unify the petroleum policies of its
Member Countries and ensure the stabilization of oil markets in order to secure an efficient, economic and regular supply of petroleum to consumers, a steady income to producers and a fair return on capital for those investing in the petroleum industry.