A taste of TROONATNOOR

Welcome to your first steps to comprehending TROONATNOOR

Posted on May 24, 2013. Filed under: A taste of TROONATNOOR |

my photo
TROONATNOOR

Please use the link just across to your right, to my posts ´A taste of TROONATNOOR` for some good short posts that will soon let you know what I am all about. I have taught English in several countries. I have written an autobiographical volume,  many novels, a book on my experiences of victimsation at the hands of the N.S.W Dept. of Education, a book on my experiences teaching and living in Poland, South Korea, and Moscow, a book on religion, and two other volumes of philosophy, some poems, and a books on teaching ESL. I have self-published these at Unibooks.com. If you can find me a real publisher I would of course reward you appropriately. Now I am focussing on my music. I hope this will free me of the almost constant migraines, cluster headaches, and nausea that have plagued me for the last few years.

If you ask me a question and I reply ´the answer is in my web-pages and  books´it means that if you want to know the answer, you can find it in my books, in which I keep few secrets. Please do not push for a verbal answer. Attempting to talk about my past usually results in my suffering debilitating migraines, cluster headaches, and nausea, as a form of PTSD. Therefore this measure is absolutely necessary for me. I have agonised over how to deal with this situation for a long time, and this is the optimal response and wording I could find. It may be an unsatisfying response for you, but alternative responses have proven untenable for me.

 If you email me I will send you free .pdf files of all my books, wherein anything you could possibly want to know about me can be read. If you are that interested. Otherwise you have no justification in forcing me to endure the suffering that usually results from even casual queries re: ´where are you from?  why are you here?  what do you do? I really do not want to think about it, let alone talk about it, over and over again. The apparently harmless questions dredge up too many traumatic, stressful memories.

Briefly, I was born in Australia to German parents. I lived the first 25 years of my life there, and thus have Australian Citizenship. English is my native language. My father returned to Germany when I was 4, and so I automatically gained German Citizenship. I have lived in Germany around 5 years, and so my German language skills are reasonable. I have been mobbed and victimised by almost everyone who had the opportunity to do so. Thus I am am alienated from society per se. This frees me to pursue truth, justice, synergy, and the elimination of all forms of violence, without any prejudice or bias based on personal relationships. I live as cheaply as possible, sacrificing most things most people take for granted in order to be as independant of others as possible. I grew up in emotional, social, and economic poverty, so I have sort of adapted to it. I have also done all the dirty, menial, exploitative jobs that people from poor backgrounds are forced to do to survive, since my early teen years.

I have just finished the TAB and Lyrics (with video ideas) for over TWENTY of my songs. I will continue working on the many pages of  older and newer song and poem  materials I have, so there will definitely be more songs soon enough, if I live long enough to finish them. I will try to make more reasonable quality recordings of those songs too. However if I never manage to, the more or less complete TAB for at least TWENTY  songs is there. I like the potential band-name ´SisyphUS´as that allegory defines our existence, constant striving, never satisfied and so we continue pushing that stone up the hill every day anew. And as I have yet to be rewarded for ANY of my efforts, I can relate to Sissyphus completely. US, we all, share his fate. I also have the foundations for an exciting and educative sequel to my novel.

Click here to view my My Optimal English webpages 
and the few HTML tutorials I could find cached on google.

Click here to view my Church of the Golden Age pages

Click here to see most of my music here on WordPress, at Posterous,    on youtube or at i-like.com, artist name Harry Deerbrook

My email address is markusrehbach@yahoo.com

Optimal English
©Copyright 2006 Markus Heinrich Rehbach All Rights Reserved
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Nietzsche and blogging, Genius and the malice it must endure

Posted on March 21, 2011. Filed under: A taste of TROONATNOOR |

Was Nietzsche the first blogger?

My books are holistic. All my writing is. I cannot repeat the entire foundation arguments each time I build upon them. And so you will have to read the books if you do not automatically connect with my blogg arguments. They are not complete. They are just the tips of arguments, like the point of a triangle, or the peak of a mountain. You have to climb the mountain to appreciate them. It’s like getting dropped off by a helicopter on Mt Everest. I don’t expect many of you to be in a position to appreciate and understand them.  But they will  give you some idea of how it is up here, where the air is refined and clear, but very thin. It is not for the weak minded, nor weak of character. Few ever even consider climbing as high as a Nietzsche, Hume, Freud, or Epicurus.

And these heroes all share something in common with other ‘high’ achievers. Their peers do not want them to achieve. In fact they will sabotage their efforts. And then if they cannot manage to ensure the failure of the ambitious, they will seek to underplay the value of their achievements.

A geniuses talent, their genius, is only credited and recognised, let alone actually applauded and rewarded, after decades of struggle, and often only after their death. This is consistent enough for it to have been an archetype at least as early as Ancient Greek Tragedy. The hero suffers, achieves great feats, overcomes great hardship and obstacles, to either die alone in poverty, or to be actively murdered by his peers. Only after his death is he venerated, often even as a god.

The passive form of this is to ignore the person, and leave them to die from neglect, rather than direct abuse. The direct abuse in this case usually only takes the form of maliciously intended, derogatory criticism and dismissal. I say malicious, rather than constructive, as it is intended as a form of violence. The people have not managed to build themselves up into a frenzied mob, to overcome their more social inhibitions against actually directly physically harming their better, their superior. So they make due with the less direct forms of violence. However their intentions are the same. To destroy their betters, their superiors.

And where the socio-historical moment is ripe for it, the people will build themselves up into a frenzied mob, and either murder the individual themselves, or demand that their legal authorities do it for them. Of course later in history when the society begrudgingly admits the genius of the victim, the society will then be able to blame the acts on the judges. They will be able to wash their hands of the act.

We hate our betters. They make us feel less worthy, less good, less valuable. We fear rejection and abandonment. That is being generous. To be more brutal, we hate anyone who is better than us. We burn with envy and jealousy, and want to destroy them. We are furious with anyone who would dare even try to be better than us. At school we bully and mob them. We do the same when we are taller but no ‘bigger’, in the workplace, and in our public and private lives. Women call it ‘bitching’. We try to undermine each other’s accomplishments, whether physical, social, business, or intellectual. We try to cut down the tall poppies. It is logical, as they make us look bad by comparison. It is logical as we risk losing our relative status, and the benefits that go with status. Our better show us up as inferior.

And when their ambition is of a ‘moral‘ nature, when they are striving to be, and even worse, actively being, better people, they hold up a mirror to our own less than ideal ethics and behaviors. They show us up. They highlight our imperfections. They clearly shout out that it is possible to be better than we currently are. They deny us the ability to deny that it is not possible.  They rob us of our treasured excuses as to why we cannot be better than we are. They deny us denial. We cannot deny that it is possible to behave better, and to produce a better, fairer, more creative and beautiful world, when there are people right up in our faces who are actually behaving better, and working hard, making sacrifices, in order to realise their vision of a better world. They explode all our excuses. They reveal us for what we are. Lazy. Of poor character. Selfish. Mean. Nasty. Malicious.

And this will not do. How dare they show us up like that. Our blood boils with indignant rage against this Jesus, this Socrates, this ‘good’ person. How dare they be good. How dare they be better than us. How dare they hold up mirrors to our faces, and show us the truth about ourselves! They must die. Preferably a long and painful death. But if that would reveal too much about our true motives and intentions, then we will settle for a quiet poisoning. We will have to settle for that, if we are to maintain our self deceptions regarding our true motives. We want to pretend our motives are noble, good and righteous, rather than nasty, ugly, base and mean.

When our ‘better’ ‘superior’ genius’s talent is less of a moral, and more of a technical nature, when their achievements are in the fields of art and culture, we rarely go this far. Instead we deny their genius and achievements, so that the possessor, who struggled so hard, who sacrificed so much, who worked so hard and long to develop their talents and to employ them productively, should never personally benefit from them. That would not be fair now, would it! Why should they benefit from their talent. It was not fair that they should be born more talented than us. Even if this talent was only for disciplined, dedicated, passionate, ambitious passion to achieve something, more than any inherent extra talent or ability, relative to the general population.

No, history shows, that we deliberately wait until the person can no longer benefit personally, when they are old and decrepit, preferably insane, or dead. Then we can claim all the benefits for ourselves. We can put ourselves up on a pedestal by being among those capable of recognising genius. This must surely reflect well upon us. For we, unlike the others, are able to understand their achievements. This means we must be very clever. And so more and more people want to appear clever to, and soon the genius is applauded throughout the land. They are often deified as demi-gods, if not actual gods per se.

And those who lived among the geniuses, passively destroying them with their neglect and indifference, if not directly trying to undermine them with ignorant criticism and derision, will bask in the limelight of their association. They will make up stories that put themselves in a positive light, as their audience hungrily devour any stories they can share about the genius that lived among them. They will often claim to have be sympathetic and helpful, when the rest of the world had mocked and derided the genius. They had had the genius themselves to recognise the genius’s value even as the rest of the world had scorned and ignored them!

And against the flood of positive re-evaluation of the genius, even those who would prefer to harm them even after their death, will give in, not wanting to appear ignorant, or as malicious, nasty, mean and base as their characters really are. So the majority will join in the popular approval and recognition, rather than attempting to fight the tide of public opinion. And so our genius, after he can no longer derive any personal benefit from it, will have his talent, effort, and sacrifices finally recognised, validated, and acknowledged. He will be famous.

And then everyone will hold him up as a role model. They will even exaggerate much of his character and life. They will attribute him super-powers, and employ this new mythical person as a means to their own ends. A Plato or Paul will use them as their own puppet, putting words into their mouths, ascribing them deeds, building them up into sources of authority which they can then bathe themselves and their own arguments in, a-la ‘transferred’ authority. They can claim that this super-man shared their own opinions. They will claim this super-man said so and so and recommended we do so and so, and lived so and so as a role model for us. They will use the dead man, who they have built up into a super-man, to get acceptance for their own arguments and their own beliefs. Thus we get a ‘Socrates’ mouthing the arguments of a ‘Plato’, or a ‘Jesus’ mouthing the arguments of a ‘Paul’, ‘Mark’, ‘John’, ‘Matthew’ and so on.

If you have studied Freud and Hume you will get all this. Otherwise study them, or read my TROONATNOOR books.

Hume explained how the emotional energy derived from the jealousy and envy we feel for those more fortunate than ourselves, and which produces antipathy in us for our betters, can end up fueling a co-existent admiration for their talents and good fortune, so much that the positive feeling becomes the dominant one. We aspire to be fortunate ourselves. We imagine how it would be to enjoy the good fortune or success of our betters. We imagine how it would be to be like them. Thus we can come to love our betters. Freud reminds us how we love others as projections of our ideal selves. The selves we would love to be. The selves we aspire to becoming. And so, as per the motto ‘If you don’t get yours I won’t get mine as well’, we endure another’s good fortune simply to keep the hope alive of one day also being fortunate. It is only those who have lost all hope of joining the beneficiary classes that claim to be socialists. It is only those at the bottom of the wheel of fortune, with nothing to lose, who desire that the wheel should ‘revolve’ (revolution). Thus we sympathise with the fortunate, and feel good-will towards them, for we want to be them. And if they managed to enjoy the good life, it means it might be possible for us to also. If no-one was fortunate, then we would lose all hope of becoming fortunate ourselves. And so we are motivated to protect them, to protect our own hopes. And at least while they enjoy such public favor, those with no hope, and no good-will towards the fortunate, will be checked in their ambitions to destroy them for lack of public support.

But be wary. The malice lingers. It does not take much for it to once more become the dominant motive, and to absorb all the energy of the previous good-will, feeding upon it until it devours it entirely, and unleashes all that is malicious and base in human nature, and the god is crucified by its previous devotees. Of course in hindsight they will deify their victim, and spin their own actions into a perverse nobility in which they were killing their god as part of some necessity, or they will simply deny responsibility, and blame someone else for the acts.

Hume notes that when too competing emotions towards someone or something exists, the stronger of the two will absorb the energy of the weaker, thus annihilating it, and bringing clarity to our wills, our emotions. This is the preferred state of our minds, to rest on something firmly and securely. It is a pleasurable feeling, compared to the displeasure of uncertainty. Anyone who has not studied Hume directly, or through my books, cannot claim to understand much at all about reality.

Hume explains how we sometimes recognise genius in people even while they are alive, and able to benefit from it. Our first impulse will usually be to harm them, to cut them down to size, to deny their achievements or talents, and so prevent them from casting a shadow over our mediocrity.

However if someone manages to find a way to benefit from their talent themselves, they will recognise it, as a means to their own ends. Thus an art collector in possession of many works of an artist can begin the cycle of recognition. As a ‘critic’, they can appear to be a genius themselves, by having recognised the genius of the artist. As they own paintings, they stand to benefit personally if the artist gains wider recognition. They will recommend the artist’s work to their friends and other dealers. Together they will produce a market for their art. This will drive up its value. This will attract ever wider attention. The general public will only pay attention when the paintings sell at auction for incredible sums, as opportunists seeking to speculative gains buy and sell the art works, often deliberately, to lift their market values, with the intention of finally passing them on at great personal profit, independent of any interest in the art itself. Just like any speculative situation, a small group of people can keep buying and selling something until an outsider buys it at a hugely inflated price. Then you share the windfalls among your ‘syndicate’.

Anyway, the point is, someone must have a motive to help someone else. Their help is not motivated by a desire to benefit the genius and to promote their work. It is to employ the genius’s work as a means to their own ends and benefit.

And so we have art dealers, a music ‘industry’, publishers, and so on, to thank for saving our greatest artists from being crucified by their peers out of sheer jealousy and rage, even though their motives are usually purely selfish, rather than driven by any intrinsic love of art, literature, or music.  They see the possibility of making lots of money, or at least personal fame, as the discovery of a great new talent.

And once a person is recognised somewhere else, our best chance to benefit is to pretend that we too comprehend their genius. This will reflect well upon us. We will appear cultured and educated and intellectual. Of course their genius was evident to us from the very beginning! And we have nothing to benefit from denying it. It is a fait accompli. We would simply look foolish. How dare we contradict public opinion. So the best thing is to try to be the first to recognise the genius. We will all jump over ourselves to be the first to lavish praise upon them, so as to bask in their genius, and to define ourselves as their peers, and as people of excellent judgment and taste.

The critics will earn their own reputation by writing as eloquently and powerfully about the genius and their talent as they can. In fact, if you want public acclaim, then give the critics something to write about. Make it possible for them to  sound clever and they will praise you without end. Facilitate their own success, but letting them sound intelligent, and they will write about you, and facilitate your success. Live an interesting, romantic life, and that will make it even easier, especially if you are an artist. If you are a musician or actor, then get into trouble and get yourself into the news for millions of unpaid, and unbuyable, publicity. Let your interviewers appear clever, witty, and informed, and they will love you.

It is so hard to keep a coherent line when you have so much to say, and realise your audience, for the most part, are belligerent towards you, and what you have to say. But I have tried. Ideally you would take the time to read my books. Of course that would mean risking that I might actually benefit from all my hard work and sacrifice.  You would prefer that I gained no benefit from an unfair distribution of talents. But are you aware of how much I have suffered for this?  I am not sure I would wish such talents upon anyone, unless I really hated them. For they bring me nothing but frustration, belligerence, hatred, violence, and all the other costs associated with being marginalised, rejected, and abandoned. I would certainly not inflict them upon anyone I imagined I loved, such as my own ‘not-yet-conceived’ (never to be conceived if they are lucky) children. Or is that it, when it comes down to it. You want me to suffer for my talents. Study Freud or read my books, before you bother getting indignant with me for daring to write things like this, especially without the ‘safety-net’ of humor!

Now a brief Nietzschean blogg on legal justice

In order for our legal system to be forced to direct its resources towards actual justice, it must be possible for legal counsel to be ‘switched’ during a trial. This would make it impossible to pervert justice by reference to ‘counsel-client privilege’, which means that the lawyer with information which would actually ensure justice was actually served, is not allowed to reveal that information. In other words one person, a lawyer, might have clear evidence, even an admission of guilt, from their client, which would certainly make justice swift and fair, but they can keep it secret. This is an absurd notion. Or at least it would be, if you assumed that the point of trials was to identify the guilty, and to exonerate the innocent. Of course that would be naive of you. The legal justice system was designed to protect the rich from prosecution, and to persecute the poor slaves.

Now if you could ‘switch’ legal counsel, then the poor person fighting against their own corrupt government would be able to swap their legal aid lawyer for a the Queens Council the government hired to do its dirty work. Imagine that. Imagine how the O.J Simpson trial would have went if the State had had his legal team on their side! Not to mention all the insider knowledge they had, all the admissions they had obtained from O.J, and the consistently failed lie detector tests they had had made, but had been able to disclose from the jury, under the guise of ‘client-lawyer privilege’.

I saw a televisions documentary in which the Judge clearly had no idea about the law, and the lawyers sucked up to him, pretending his obviously did. Anyway, the point was, the law clearly mandated a particular sentence for the ‘crime’ the defendant had committed. There was no need for a trial, let alone a lawyer or judge. The sentence was dictated by law. The judge went on and on about the defendants past criminal history, when this had absolutely no bearing on the dealings of the court in this case. The mandatory sentence was a suspended sentence, and a good behavior bond. The lawyer had to remind the judge about this. The judge appeared to have had no idea, based on his actions. This meant the lawyer should have been absolutely unnecessary. It was a trial for possession of cannabis. A first offense.  A clearly pre-determined legal outcome. Why did this poor guy have to spend thousands of dollars on legal representation, just to get the judge to do the simplest task?  How could the judge be so incompetent?

It must become law for every legal code to be simplified and expressed in language that any average citizen could understand, without the need for ‘interpretation’. Without this fundamental right we will never have justice. We must abolish the ‘legal justice system’, and replace it with a ‘justice system’. Stop abusing language. Limit trials to facts and reasonable assumptions. Do not allow any insinuation, games, psychological manipulation, abuse, insults, and time wasting. Legal counsel must have absolutely no vested interest in the outcomes of trials. They cannot be motivated by anything except the desire that justice be served. If they have any other extrinsic motive, they cannot be expected to be even seeking justice.  We then need to train people in the sorts of reasoning skills I have outlined in my TROONATNOOR books.

One day courts will be set up to seek the truth, or the closest approximation the facts and  compelling arguments  will allow. Today we have lawyers and judges seeking to prove themselves right, to enforce their own opinions, to defend the guilty and to persecute the innocent. Any time justice is actually served it is merely coincidental.

The legal justice system as it operates today is all about  pride, self-righteousness, prejudice, and desire for political power and financial reward. No reasonable person could expect a system built upon those foundations to be capable of ever serving the interests of justice. But then, do we really want justice?

Hold on for one more day, things will go your way?

This is the motto of the slave-owner. They want their slaves to endure their hardship, and count on their good fortune, better luck, satisfaction, and enjoyment, being just around the next corner. In this way they endure each day anew, believing that this will be the day when their ship comes in. And when it isn’t, then there is always tomorrow. In this way they are tricked into enduring an eternity of dissatisfaction, disappointment, displeasure, exploitation, suffering, pain, even agony. The eternal lie of false hope and unfounded optimism is the fodder of evolution, and of all slave society’s. It is how slave masters get their slaves to continue serving the master’s interests, as means to the master’s ends, day after day, life after life. It is the false hope perhaps that most foils Buddha’s attempts to ‘enlighten’ and ‘free’ us. This hope is absurdly false. Things do not change. If anything, those with fortunate holistic inheritances accumulate more good fortune, and those with the least fortunate holistic inheritances lose anything they might have started with. How often has anyone’s luck actually changed?  How few in a Billion? While the ‘rags to riches’ story is appealing, it is hardly representative. Only a desperate gambler would bet on those odds.

It is worth noting that people traditionally define bad luck as earned, either through deeds in this life, or in past lives. In this way the lucky get to define their luck as ‘just’ and ‘fair’, and to justify their exploitation of the less fortunate. For surely god must be rewarding themselves, and punishing the unlucky?  How appealingly masturbatory! How convenient! How satisfying! Who are the lucky to thwart God’s or Karma’s will?  Surely the unlucky have earned their misfortune by displeasing God. They must be bad. They deserve to be exploited and enslaved. Surely this is God’s intention. Surely this is the best way to redeem them for the bad karma earned in past lives!

And so you can see why people would be less than keen to advertise any misfortune or bad luck. It would only incite others to express all their malicious impulses to destruction and harm towards them. For what more legitimate a target could you find for your desire to hurt others and destroy things than those that the Gods or Karma had already identified as ‘deserving’ of being harmed? Thus people learned to be ashamed of their bad luck, their misfortune, their poor holistic inheritances. Otherwise they risked bringing down further misfortune upon themselves. They risked giving others an excuse to attack them, to take advantage of their vulnerability, both physically and ideologically.

In a fair, productive, creative world

In a fair world the person who worked the hardest and longest, and made the most sacrifices should have access to the most resources. In a rational, logical, productive and creative world, resources would be allocated to people on the basis of their ability to most productively exploit them, to produce the greatest value from them. This would ensure that resources were most productively allocated, and that the most value possible would be derived from them.  And so we see an inherent conflict between fairness and productivity. But if we ensure that value is re-distributed fairly, we can reconcile the conflict. We can allow the most productive to keep a fair share of the value they produced, while rewarding those who worked hard and made sacrifices more fairly for their efforts and sacrifices, more than their actual production per se. This would mean paying less productive, but hard working people more than they had actually ‘earned’ as such, and paying the most productive much less than they actually earned. This will of course appeal to the least productive more than the most productive. However as all value is a social product, the most productive, if honest, will accept that their productivity was facilitated by the society as a whole, and that their individual part in the production could only take place in the context of that society. And so they would accept the legitimacy of sharing the holistic outcomes with the society. And the society would accept the need for some inequality to motivate the most talented to employing their talents more fully. And thus we have the Liberal Social Democratic solution for the age old economic challenge of deciding what gets produced by whom, how, and who gets to consume it.

Sadly in our world people actively prevent others from producing value, unless they are assured of personally benefiting from their actions. It is not enough that the entire society might benefit. The benefit must be immediate and personal. Preferably the facilitator will benefit more than the person doing the work, making the sacrifices, and producing the actual value. This is the only reason people ever allow an ambitious and talented colleague to go about their ambitious plans unhindered. This is the only reason they sacrifice the satisfaction of mobbing and harming their ‘better’ colleague. The chance to take credit for this hard worker’s efforts is a greater prize than the chance to act on their destructive, malicious, vicious tendencies, and satisfy these destructive impulses. As long as the person never gets to benefit from their own efforts and sacrifices themselves, the mob will be content to let them go about their work without actively hindering them, well, at least not as often as they would like to. They will still take the opportunity to harm and ridicule them, but they will resist the temptation to indulge in a a full out orgy of malice-driven, self-loathing fueled, ugly violence.  They will sacrifice the satisfying feelings of power and domination they enjoy when getting to inflict pain and harm upon other living creatures. They will sacrifice the satisfaction of destroying things that are more beautiful, valuable, talented, morally ambitious, and ‘better’ than themselves. They would prefer to destroy anything better than themselves, thus making themselves the best, but they sacrifice this, at least for now, for the promise of personal material benefits. They will resist sending all the talented, honest, healthy, beautiful, creative, productive people to the insane asylums, gulags, and concentration camps, only with the expectation of personal reward. Should this promise evaporate, then they will gleefully help Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot identify their ‘betters’, so they can be rounded up, humiliated, tortured, and then sent off to work on the farms and in labor camps. Could you really be so ignorant of history as to deny this?

Copyright 2011 Markus Heinrich Rehbach All Rights Reserved

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Are you really against slavery? Will we ever end slavery?

Posted on March 3, 2011. Filed under: A taste of TROONATNOOR |

 

There is no to or for in evolution.

No physical properties of our natures, from our opposable thumbs to our mental processes (artifacts of electro-chemical processes) exist to serve some function, or for some purpose. That a particular bundle of physical properties is present today in our organism is simply an artifact of the negative selection of less adapted gene-bundles, and the accumulation better adapted gene-bundles, which are produced by randomly occurring mutations in our genes. The genes make imperfect copies of themselves as they reproduce by self-replication and/or the impacts of atomic level particles, such as photons, or other forms of electro-magnetic radiation, knock out bits of genetic code. Thus the offspring of one organism is no longer a mere replicant clone of their parents, each now having a different genetic makeup.

Where these new gene-bundles produce new physical properties which prove beneficial to the organism, as a whole, the organism will tend to survive and reproduce, thus reproducing these gene bundles. Such new gene-bundles will emerge randomly, and accumulate in their host organism over billions of years. Some particular genes will be reproduced despite the fact that they offer no advantages, as the physical manifestations of these particular genes do not produce enough of a negative effect on the organism to counter all of its more adaptive physical properties. Thus many genes are actually of no value, or are in fact a burden to the organism. But as long as long as the organism as a whole has enough other positive properties to offset this, the organism will survive and go on to reproduce its gene-bundles, despite the fact that the organism would be better off, often much better off, without many of the genes it inherits.

When thinking about genes and evolution, we must be careful not only to avoid the teleology of functionalism, but also to consider the process holistically. Thus we avoid seeking to ascribe a positive meaning to everything. We recognise that nothing in evolution was designed. Nothing in evolution was intended. No benefit was intended by nature. Nature does not have our interests at heart. The only thing that has our interests at heart is ourselves. Sentient creatures, animals, including us, are the only things with intentions and designs. A gene bundle will be reproduced despite it containing many genes that the organism would benefit from not having.

In the same way we could well do without many of our current inherited gene-bundles, and the instinctive responses, drives, motives, emotions, behaviors, and habits they produce. Religion is a product of human nature. It is a product of our desire to enslave others to our will, to treat others as means to our own ends, rather than as ends in themselves. Religion serves the interests of the beneficiary classes, and appeals to all who aspire to join those beneficiaries. Sadly this includes almost all of humanity. However the consequence is a slave society in which a few realise their dreams of heaven on earth, while the rest suffer in hell, or in their own ego-minds, in the waiting rooms of heaven, a.k.a purgatory, where they imagine they are doing their time, and earning their entry into the heaven that that tiny minority called the beneficiary classes inhabit.

Remember it is a mistake to think of every gene or property as existing because it is of benefit to the organism. This sort of thinking is a necessary artifact of the muddled way people think about evolution, and of functionalism and teleology in general.

Some thinkers merely want everything to serve some purpose, to thus indicate that it was intentionally designed for our benefit. Thus they construct a universe that cares about us. Religion of course personifies the universes care in this context as God/s.

Some thinkers are merely confused about how the process of evolution works. They see a bundle of adaptive, functional physical properties in the current organism. This suggests naturally that these must have been intended , either by some designer, or by the process of evolution itself, in some way. The benefits are the product of a benevolent universe, evolutionary process, or some designer (God etc). They are then forced to overlook the maladaptive properties, or to explain them away by imagining that they do in fact serve some positive purpose which we are simply unable, right now, to perceive. They will reasons that it is a question of perception and ignorance, rather than proof that the universe does not give a damn about our welfare, that it is indifferent to our experience of it.

The old gods were indifferent to our suffering, if you recall. It was only the new god, produced by Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics, invented to serve their intentions, as one of their ‘noble’ lies, that had any concern for our wellbeing. They would have us believe that in this, the best of all possible worlds (thus at least acknowledging its imperfections), everything happens for a reason. For a good reason. Everything thus serves some positive purpose. Ultimately. And this purpose will be revealed one day to you, and in a moment of epiphany you will understand why your suffering was ultimately designed for your own good. And you will be grateful for having suffered it. Read Plato’ s Republic.

We can be grateful to Plato either for his arrogance and assumption that only members of the beneficiary classes or those aspiring to membership would ever read his books, or for deliberately and mischievously revealing their plans for us, to us, their slaves. Either way Plato has informed the slaves of their master’s intentions and designs in constructing ‘Religion’ . Religionare , remember, comes from the Latin, ‘to bind‘. Plato ‘advises’ the aristocracy to eliminate all the old gods, and to replace them with one god. This god was to be the source of everything good in the universe. And as he was to be all-powerful, it would be necessary to ‘spin’ any imperfections in the world he ‘created’ in a positive light. Otherwise this god would be unappealing, do to his lack of concern for our welfare, or his incompetence. Why worship a god who didn’t care about you, or who couldn’t actually do anything for you? Unless of course he was an angry volcano god who would ‘smite’ you if you didn’t. Anyway, the new god-makers were sure to cover all their bets. You would either worship a loving father, or fear a tyrannical and arbitrary one.

Other ancient Greeks such as Epicurus saw through the god-maker and ‘Religion’ maker’s plans, even before Plato outlined them in Republic. Epicurus, Democritus and their philosophical peers, all had a modern and accurate impression of reality, unbiased or prejudiced by wishful thinking or the dogma of Plato and all the cults, including the Catholic Church, which modeled themselves on Plato’s Republic.

And thus we find ourselves today, the inheritors of billions of years of hit and miss random mutation and negative selection, and a few thousand years of noble lies, teleology, functionalism, and ‘Religion’.

Most of us still want to imagine that the universe cares about our wellbeing, whether as Gaia or some God/s. We do NOT comprehend how evolution works. Most of us do not WANT to comprehend this. The rest simply have been constantly mislead by their teachers, books, and television presenters. You can’t blame these popular ‘scientists’ for failing to understand how evolution really works. Given all their best intentions, they have been deliberately duped by some, and have become the collateral damage of others, equally ignorant, no matter what their academic titles or nobel prizes.

You will have to read my TROONATNOOR books and bloggs to really comprehend how evolution works. And you will have to be willing to comprehend the reality. You will need to be willing to dispose of many of the comforting and satisfying beliefs you so treasure, and have become emotionally dependent upon. And if you are a member of the beneficiary classes, you will have to be willing to risk losing many of the benefits you enjoy as a result of these beliefs and misconceptions. You will at least have to be willing to risk losing your sense of ‘moral’ entitlement to those benefits, your ability to legitimate them, and to kid yourself that you are a good person, and that your enjoyment of the benefits is legitimate, earned, justified, and even in your own longer term self-interest. Once you become holistically enlightened you will find yourself in a world that is new for you, but which was always staring you right in the face. You will experience discomfort and unease, at first. You will question all your values and assumptions. You will have truly eaten of the forbidden fruit, forbidden to you by the priests.

Just pause for one moment and consider that after this first and only law, the second law of the god of ‘ Religion’ was to ‘go forth and multiply’. Think about why you would have a god make such an ineffably cruel commandment to Adam and Eve. Could anything ‘godly’ harbor such malice for his own ‘creation’, who through his own fault, have acted in ways that would ensure the suffering of all their offspring for eternity? Surely a loving god, even one that was simply not a complete and utter bastard, would not desire suffering? Why on earth would any reasonable, half-decent person want to inflict suffering on untold generations? The answer is so obvious once the veil is lifted. The priests, and the beneficiary classes they belong to and represent, are the ones who want their slaves to keep having more slaves, despite the clear knowledge that these offspring are doomed to suffer for at least their natural lives. It is the slave-owner who wants more slaves that has a god order the people to reproduce. And thus I need not explain the commandment ‘gainst self slaughter’ that Hamlet refers to. Slaves are the property of their owner. The owner cannot allow his capital to liquidate itself. He cannot allow his means to destroy themselves. If he did, he would be back to working his ‘estates’ himself, and all his land and territories would be reduced to the value of what he himself could produce from them. In other words all the land in the world would be of no value to him, as he could only profitably farm and cultivate a very small area of land. He could only fish so many fish himself. He could only hunt so many animals and collect so many fruits and nuts himself. Please, think about it. It is so obvious once it has been brought to your attention.

Now the actual target of this blogg is our impulses, desires, and instincts. Earlier in my books I explain how all our behavior can be reduced to a bundle of inherited instincts, impulses, and desires. A few nights ago I was further contemplating the nature of our behaviors, especially with regard to the more nasty ones which I find myself constantly the victim of. I am talking about those of other people, not my own desires, which of course we are all equally the victim of. I have always been the victim of other people’s impulse to ‘cut down the tall poppies’, or any that at least have the ambition to grow higher, in order to gain a holistic overview of the entire field!

An instinct can be reduced to an artifact of electro-chemical interactions in our brain. Thus the mind is an artifact of physical interactions, or the movements of atoms in space, if you like. Everything we think and feel happens in some part of our nervous system . All our perceptions are produced inside the brain, from inputs inputted by our senses. All our primary motives are hard-wired, and the interaction of these with our environment produces secondary motives, which derive from the interaction among the primary motives, and their interaction with the environment and the feedback that environment gives.

For example. Consider the impulse to steal. Good idea. You steal. But then others steal from you. Sucks. So you try first to find a way that you can steal from others, but they cannot steal from you. Good. Security guards. Fortresses. You go on raids and bring back your booty, keeping it safe inside your castle. The guys inside the castle are your guys. You have come to an understanding that you all have to respect each other’s property inside the walls of the castle, otherwise you would have nowhere to leave your booty once you had stolen it. You agree to limit your stealing, and rape, etc, to outside the walls. As your walled city grew, and became a state, and then a nation, you limited your theft and rape to people further and further away, and more and more different from you. Just so you wouldn’t accidentally steal from and rape the wrong people. This we call ‘Society’. If you stole from and raped people inside your own society, then the agreement you had to not steal from and rape each other would break down. You’d never get a good nights sleep.

So you invented ‘races‘, which took advantage of really obvious differences between people, such as skin color, or the shape of their eyes. This made it easy to identify who was in your own society, and whose rights you had to respect, to ensure reciprocation of respect for your own rights, and those who were not. This meant you could be protected by the ‘social contract’ tacitly entered into among members of your own society, and enforced by police and courts to every member’s advantage, while at the same time having access to a clearly identifiable group of ‘others’ from whom you could steal from, and rape. Thus we got first nationalities, and then when many nations enjoined into more global ‘social contracts’, we got races. It was O.K to rape and steal from other ‘races’, as they were morally inferior. God didn’t love them. Just us, the ‘chosen’ or ‘master’ ‘race’. Thus members of each nation, and then ‘race’, could rape and steal from each other, and have somewhere safe and ‘civilized’ to bring back the sex slaves and other booty to, where your right to the exclusive enjoyment of it would be protected by police and courts. Once you got it back to your own ‘society’ it was automatically your property.

This was great for all those who benefit from fear. The military. The ‘security’ forces. Police. You definitely had reason to fear ‘others’ not belonging to your nation or race. For they considered you as legitimate a target of rape and theft as you considered them to be. And so we developed all the industrial military complexes and security industry, including C.I.A’s, K.G.B’s, F.B.Is, massive ‘Big brother’ policing, all part of a hugely profitable ‘security’ industry. The slaves lived in fear, and were happy to pay for all of this, just so they could feel a bit safer. When the slaves were nominally freed, they continued to ‘voluntarily’ pay for all this.

Anyway, over time you find more sophisticated ways to steal, a.k.a feudal system and later capitalism, and still protect your ill-gotten booty a.k.a legal systems. Rape was harder. First you defined all your own tribe as taboo, defining all the others as legitimate victims, for your god had told you so. Anyway, as things became more complicated and the boundaries of tribes grew we sooner or later realised we couldn’t manage both rape and protection of our own sex objects from others, so we agreed that no-one would rape anyone, unless of course you were a Catholic priest or other powerful person who had immunity from the laws everyone else had to obey. But for the most part we deny our impulse to steal and rape, on purely selfish grounds, either that we don’t want ourselves or others we care about to be the next victim, or that we don’t want to end up in jail.

And socialization means that the unconscious has even internalised some taboos into its computations of short and longer term self-interest. It has noted the costs of some impulses. It has noted that some impulses conflict with others. It has computed longer term and immediate interests and desires. It has calculated hierarchies and priorities of desires and aversions. It considers things holistically. How can I make the most of the available opportunities to satisfy my desires while still maintaining my security and longer-term survival and prosperity.

We call this computation reason. It is purely cost-benefit analysis on a holistic scale. The unconscious allocates a mobile cathexis, so that today we feel displeasure even at the mere thought of acting upon some of our impulses. We find them distasteful and discomforting per se.

But thinking about the unconscious in terms of actively, deliberately allocating a mobile cathexis, so that we find some ideas and acts intrinsically and inherently pleasurable, and others dis-pleasurable, even painful, is less precise than what I will now try to elucidate.

Evolution is a passive process. It has no aims or objects. No to or for. No intentions. No designs. No interests in outcomes or processes. Of course an organism that did not have the impulse to survive and reproduce would become extinct in one generation. No such species will likely be present for us to observe, as they would become extinct in one generation. We would have to be there at their birth and death, to be able to witness their existence, as examples of how ‘hit and miss’ evolution is.

The only species we do get to observe do have an impulse to survive and reproduce.

However this is no necessary defining characteristic of organisms or of evolution. This impulse is no more natural or necessary than an impulse to eat your own head would be.

All impulses derive from some physical process produced ultimately by genes and D.N.A. D.N.A and gene will only be reproduced if it is part of a holistic bundle that is consistent with reproduction. Eating your own head, and having sex with shoes, for example, will not reproduce your organism, or the genes. Surely over billions of years organisms were born with precisely such impulses, and they didn’t reproduce. Thus this gene mutation is no longer among us. Or if it is, it is defined as some sort of abnormality, some aberration of evolution. However it is in fact typical of evolution. Evolution is a process of misses, with occasional hits. Most of evolutions outcomes were misses. Most of all the species that ever emerged from the process of evolution are extinct. Most would have gone extinct very quickly. One in a billion outcomes, organisms, of the process of evolution were likely to have survived long enough to reproduce. This is negative selection. It is cruel, unfair, indifferent to the suffering of the creatures it produces. It is a nasty and painful process. It is the opposite of eugenics. It s random. It produces billions of more misses than it does hits. It takes billions of years to accumulate the few ‘hits’ to produce what we can observe today. We observe the hits. And most of these ‘hits’ are mediocre compared to the few really ‘desirable’ outcomes of evolution. Eugenics seeks to reproduce only the most desirable of ‘hits’. But then there would be no inequality for the beneficiary classes to opportunistically exploit. So guess who tends to be the most violently opposed to eugenics? Not the ugly and stupid, seeking to defend their self-definition, and right to reproduce. They of course have an emotional reaction against the idea of eugenics, as it defines them as inferior. No, the real, organized, active resistance to eugenics has always come from those people who have, by pure good fortune, inherited the most superior genes themselves. They seek to preserve the benefits that accrue to those with such fortunate holistic inheritances. They wish to preserve inequality in their own narrow self-interest. They are loathe to give up their privileges and benefits that accrue to them based on their genetic inheritance. They want to remain members of a small minority. You can only opportunistically exploit inequality if it exists. If we were all born more or less equal, there would be no inequality to exploit. There could be no slaves and no masters. No beneficiaries and no exploited. Anyway, I explain all this in detail in my TROONATNOOR books.

Eating other people’s heads will be reproduced, to a point, as it doesn’t holistically prevent the host organism reproducing. It aids it in this. To a point.

But of course those of us who don’t want to have our heads eaten will question the judgment of the head-eaters. We will seek to over-ride their impulses. We will seek to manage them. We will want to regulate their behaviors. We will try to regulate their impulses too, through socialisation and education. We will try to convince them that head-eating, especially of people with heads like ours, is a bad thing. And if we cannot convince them of this, we will employ police and courts, legal systems and prisons, to impose our own good judgment of what is good for them in specific and in general, upon them, whether they agree to this imposition or not. In the same way we over-ride the judgments of people who believe it is safe from them to drink and drive, and safe for others for them to force them to consume the products of their nicotine addictions.

Of course we are loathe to over-ride other peoples judgments if they have the same power to over-ride ours. The social contract implicitly places us all on an equal footing re: the right to vote. And so we are careful about over-riding other’s judgments, for fear of them over-riding ours. We may not like them drink-driving or smoking in public, but we do not want Big Brother intervening in our lives, and over-riding our own judgments, for example, concerning our impulses to dissect living animals, to pump toxic waste into other peoples rivers, or to reproduce ourselves, maybe even to beat our wives and children. And so we tend not to support laws which would restrict others, for fear of experiencing similar restrictions one day. We are loathe to set precedents which might one day limit our own ‘freedoms’.

Eugenics, and veganism, then, are not opposed on the grounds that they are not good for society. They are resisted on the grounds that individuals do not want to have their own judgments and impulses in any way contradicted, let alone responsibly regulated. The prime determinant of our behaviors is at best holistically enlightened self-interest, but more commonly, narrow selfish interest defined by ignorance and deception. This deception is both internal denial and self-deception, and external deception on the part of others seeking to misinform us.

The beneficiaries of any system of relations have no motive to change it. They are at the top of the wheel of fortune, and do not want it to revolve any further, as that would only mean a decline in their own personal fortunes, privileges, powers, wealth, satisfactions and so on. Their motive in opposing Euthanasia, Eugenics, and so on, are purely personal. The interests of others rarely enters into anyones calculations at a level powerful enough to be a determinant, or at least a consistent one. Even parents are parents because they wanted to be parents. They did not have the interests of their not-yet-born children in mind when they reproduced. They were focused on the sensual delights of babies and little kids, and on illusions of living vicariously through their children, achieving their own (the parent’s) aims, using these children as the means to their (the parent’s) own ends.

Slavery will never be abolished if you appeal to democratic values, as the vast majority of the people who have the power to vote, and the intelligence to use it effectively, are the beneficiaries of slavery. The only reason we care if another has access to Euthanasia is in terms of our own self interests. Are they are means to our ends? A potential means to our ends? Do they provide a service or good we value? Do we benefit from their existence?

And if we don’t find any benefit from this particular person, and thus find ourselves indifferent to whether they live or die, would we be perhaps setting a dangerous precedent if we let them die peacefully when and how they chose? If we let one person have access to Euthanasia, someone who provides no current for future potential benefits for us, as a means to our ends, would be be risking opening the flood-gates to billions of people from whose existence we did benefit?

And worse, if we managed reproduction to reduce inequality, and to boost the overall level of health, intelligence, beauty, and talent, and ensured that each person was born with a desirable and reasonably equal holistic inheritance, there would be no inequality for us to exploit. Natural inequality is leveraged into social inequality, by natural processes. The beautiful and intelligent, healthy and talented, have a competitive advantage which they opportunistically exploit to accrue personal privileges and benefits. This is further leveraged by other components of the holistic inheritance, such as money, social connections, and so on.

And so when you hear people arguing against contradicting the judgments of people, don’t pay heed to their reasonsings and rhetoric. If you are against Euthanasia and Eugenics, and Veganism, then you are a beneficiary of slavery, or at least perceive that your interests are being promoted by slavery, pure and simple. You do not WANT an end to slavery, as you fear losing your relative position of superiority, which allows you to opportunistically accumulate benefits.

I will edit this later. I wanted to make that point about slavery. It has not yet been abolished, and probably never will be, as long as a powerful minority or democratic majority perceive that it is in their interests to maintain it. I am referring to the slavery of not owning your own life, and of the slavery of animals. And of the slavery of the not-yet-born who will become our children. None of these people have the right to chose. We withhold it from them. They do not own their own lives. They are all slaves. That is why we can legally kill unborn babies. Of course this is a new right. Until overpopulation became an issue, it was a criminal act. The slavers valued every not-yet-born slave as a form of capital, and thus they protected that capital like they would any other capital they owned, be it land or gold or a patent. But in the western developed world, with its welfare state (designed to ensure the welfare of the state, and not the slaves, mind you), and mechanisation, and baby-boom, and the nominal elimination of slavery per se, the unborn are no longer considered valuable capital. And so abortion has become legal. I prophecise that for similar reasons euthanasia, and even infanticide, will one day become just as legally accepted as abortion is today.

Keep in mind that most of us are slaves to others, while at the same time benefiting from the slavery of others. You, the reader, most probably find yourself fairly high up in the hierarchy of relative beneficiaries, as members of the Western Developed Welfare State world. We are slaves to a minority above us, but beneficiaries of a much larger majority below, consisting of third-world workers, the unemployed, and the exploited casual worker.

To bring the discussion full circle, we must now see how opportunism is an instinct. Enslaving others, obtrusively or unobtrusively, by force or other more subtle means, employing them as mere means to our own ends, is instinctive. It is just a bundle of nerve connections that have been reproduced as they did not, holistically, prevent enough humans surviving and reproducing to send the species extinct. In fact many will claim that the advance of this species derives from slavery per se, the exploitation and reproduction of inequality, the ever concentrating of power and privilege in ever fewer hands (proportionally to population size), and thus the ability to give the best random outputs of negative selection the best social conditions and opportunities in which to thrive. A small percent of the human population is thus given the ideal conditions to prosper in their own self-contained Edens, at the expense of the majority.

Is this a necessary pre-condition for the evolution of our species? Misery for the many and joy for the few?

Is it worth taking the chance that every next-life you will, statistically, most likely suffer a life of misery, just so that once or twice in a few thousand years you can enjoy a life of joy?

Dare to challenge your instincts and judgments. They are not perfect. They were not designed to serve your interests, with your wellbeing at heart. They are the consequence of billions of years of random mutation and negative selection. You exist despite many of them. So question each of them. They are not ‘the best possible of all impulses and desires, in this, the best of all possible worlds’. They are just one possible set of impulses in this, just one mere example of what a world could possibly look like. There are alternatives that could be superior. And we will probably experience Billions of billions of others that are inferior, before we get to experience the few superior ones, unless we take a more active role in our own evolution, and re-direct the process towards positive selection.

If you are a member of the beneficiary classes right now, consider how small one lifetime is compared to billions of years of next-lives. Do you really want to risk inheriting the lives most people endure today in so many next-lives, just to enjoy a few privileges this life, until one of the exploited slaves gets it into their head that you have no right to do so, and that they have nothing to lose by revolting against the system, even if it means dieing in the process?

Do you fear comprehending TROONATNOOR, because it might mean questioning your current values, and risking losing some of the benefits you currently enjoy? I mean the comforts of believing in false conceptualisations of evolution, in believing all things are for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds. I mean the comforts of believing you will be rewarded in next lives or after lives for enduring the hell of your current life? I mean the economic benefits of money, comforts, goods and services, things you would not enjoy in a fair world devoid of slavery, including the meat in your meals, the milk in your thick-shakes, and some status goods, and worthless cosmetics and pharmaceuticals which you have been duped into thinking are of value?

???? Are you against slavery? Really? Or are you for Slavery? Or do you imagine you do not have to decide, that you will let others decide, and take the moral responsibility for your passive consumption of their decisions, like some Dalai Lama imagining he can pass on his moral guilt, his bad karma, onto the butcher who slaughters the animals he will eat?

I prophecise that it is merely a matter of time, and billions of experiences of suffering and misery, before the beneficiary classes have access to means which are better than humans to satisfying their own ends. Then most humans will no longer represent valued means to the beneficiary classes. They will come to represent ‘pollution’ and ‘threats’. And only then will my Eden Protocols, in effect, be introduced. Not with the good intentions I have, but nonetheless with the same outcomes. Thus I often feel like the little cloud racing energetically and ambitiously across the sky. The big mass of dark clouds behind it, like the tide of history, will catch up with it sooner or later. And I wonder at all the effort, sacrifice, and suffering I have endured merely to have raced across the empty sky alone, to reach the point just a little earlier, in evolutionary time. And it is lonely at times. But more often I enjoy the solitude. The fresh air. The open skies. I am free to range here and there, while the dark masses of clouds plod along in their slow fortress-prison of gray. Sure, when they get here they might laugh at me for all the effort and sacrifice I endured to enjoy the open skies, to have gotten here earlier. I might laugh at myself even now. But remember, my actions are no less determined than theirs. I didn’t get offered the chance to chose any more than they did. And so they will experience the costs and benefits of their holistic inheritance as I enjoy and suffer mine.

May your next holistic inheritance be an optimal one. May the next experience engine you experience be a satisfying one.

 Copyright Markus Heinrich Rehbach 2011 All Rights Reserved

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

An Epiphany: almost everything we know of as religion and ´ethics´are all reflexive of the slave society they emerged from, and which we still live in

Posted on February 15, 2011. Filed under: A taste of TROONATNOOR |

 

On being a visionary

It is not as difficult to observe suffering for which you have no solution, than to observe when completely in possession of a solution to it, but no-one will listen, let alone apply it.

An Epiphany: Religion as we know it, and all its concepts and laws is merely reflexive of a Slave society

Maugham describes Gauguin(?)s painting in ways that lead me to consider this. In the original eden, where man enjoyed an overabundance of fruits and so on, he had no value for other humans more than as sex objects. Other humans represented no gain to him other than this. In fact they represented competition for the fruits, and possibly thieves of their sex objects. Woman was a means to mans pleasure. And so there was no motive for society. Perhaps humans had a desire for company that was innate, but in the absence of any threats to his safety or survival, there was probably little benefit for any individual from company. It was only when man recognised he could employ other men as means to his own ends that any motive emerged for ‘society’. And so it was, more or less, slavery that produced the motive for society, which required some ‘binding’ glue a.k.a ‘religion’. It has become clear to me that all organised religion that we know of derives from the need on the part of the beneficiaries of slavery to legitimate it, and to coerce the slaves into enduring it, not killing themselves, and even more ironic, actually working hard and reproducing themselves with the false hopes of reward.

So ironic that the dominant western religion was based on a narrative that began with slavery, and soon went on to enslave other nations, as the will of an angry volcano god.

Anyway, religion was blessed with the Oedipus complex. Infants desired that any competition for the attentions of their sex-object parents should disappear. They felt omnipotent. Like all savages they believed in the power of thoughts as magic. And so they devoutly wished for the deaths of their parents, and assumed that their wills would be done. And so, at some level, we all bear the guilt for the murder of at least one person. In fact to us this person was the closest thing we will ever experience to being a god. They ‘created’ us, provided for us, and then we murdered them in order to possess what they possessed, as our own sex-object, our own possession.

And so we had, in our minds, at the deepest of emotional pre-rational levels, been guilty of the crime of the murder or god. And so we harbored a deeply ingrained, non-rational fear of being punished one day for this terrible deed. And as it was associated with sexual lust, with the desire to possess our mothers or fathers as our own sex-objects, this guilt would be thrust upon our unconscious continuously. For as sexual beings sex is at the center of ever act. The unconscious allocates its mobile cathexis to direct our attentions, via pleasure and pain, towards actions which it considers will increase its chances of survival, even past the death of the actual organism it is part of.

And so, in almost every moment of our existence, any time we unconsciously had any sexual emotion or consideration, that terrible guilt and fear of the consequences was lurking. The priests either realised this and employed it deliberately, or they unconsciously, motivated by the same Oedipal complex as their ‘flocks’, projected it onto their religion, expressing in in religious forms and motives, from the murder and eating of a god, to the desire for forgiveness for some unspeakable ‘original’ (Oedipal) sin closely related to our very coming into existence. Thus guilt became the archetype for all religion. Guilt and the offer of redemption and forgiveness, the escape of punishment for the crime, which became the greatest capital of all priests and religious authorities, even after the priests clearly demonstrated that they had no power over the forces of nature, over fertility, rain, harvests, the outcomes of wars, and so on. They failed as magicians, and yet they had an ace up their sleeves. Oedipal guilt. Sin. Fear of punishment for a crime they never committed except in their imaginations. A crime with no victim. And yet they became the victim of this victimless crime, at the hands of greedy, unscrupulous, opportunists we call ‘Priests’.

These priests represented the oldest profession of all. Their only competition was with those who possessed sheer brute force. This competition ruled by might. No-one could oppose them. And these powerful individuals put in place a strictly defined hierarchy of benefits for all those whose brute physical power came close to their own. They could risk everything in trying to steal power for themselves, or they could accept the benefits offered to them by the current King, who also granted them power over everyone else, in the name of the King. A complex system of status’s, privileges, rewards, and benefits trickled down from the top to the bottom. Each office bearer had something to gain by playing along with the system. Each had the promise of moving up in the hierarchy, to even greater privileg and benefits. Thus we had a system of beneficiaries and their benefactors. What became the ‘beneficiary classes’.

The benefits of course had to be produced by someone. The slaves and those at the bottom of the hierarchy. But why should they suffer to work hard, only to have their product of their labors consumed by others? Most lived so miserably that any sort of felicity calculus of costs and benefits would lead them to chose a quick death by hanging, rather than endure a life of misery and exploitation. At very least better to die fighting for your piece of the pie, than to live as the means to other people’s ends, as a means to other people’s pleasure and comfort.

And so the magician priests, long after the public lost all fear of them as magicians, or lost all hope in their magic to do good for them, to provide for their security, success in battle, the fertility of their animals, crops, and wives, or for rain, found a new vocation. They would employ their clever cunning to coerce people to give them power out of a greater fear, and out of an even greater hope, than any they had for their meagre earthly existences. Thus was invented Hells and heavens, in every world religion, even where every prophet that religion had adopted made not mention of such after-worldly threats or promises.

The people shared their Oedipal fears in common. They also shared, in common, dreams and hopes of a better life, or after-life, or next life. The priests used all their magic tricks to lend themselves some sort of authority. The re-wrote histories to indicate a direct connection with the Gods, and these god’s original chosen representatives. Thus they constructed a transferred authority for themselves and their religions. They were god’s chosen representatives. They had been given the power to decide who would go to heaven and who would go to hell. As god’s chosen representatives they naturally lived like gods on earth. They were granted every privilege befitting the most ancient of gods. Access to virgins. The right to murder and rape and steal. That was the privilege natural to the gods and their earthly ambassadors.

And once you had power, you could use it to torture anyone who dared question your authority, and your right to power, and privilege, and wealth, and the right to act like the ancient gods, free from any guilt, let alone any earthly prosecution, any earthly laws, moral codes, or courts.

The Kings were willing to indulge you, as they needed the priests. The priests legitimated the kings rule long after he had the power, as a individual, to defend his privileges, his wealth, his power, his sex-objects, his castles, his lands. There was no earthly way for him to control his subjects, and to insist upon his own authority. He was vulnerable at all sides, despite the contrivances of the complex and intricate hierarchies of benefits and privileges he bestowed upon anyone who might pose a threat to him, or be able to offer him their services as means to his own ends.

The priests thus found for themselves the perfect niche in a slave society. They would threaten the slaves with fates much worse than death, even worse than the torture the King and his goons could inflict upon them. There would be no escape from slavery. It would be better to endure anything they might suffer here on earth, than to suffer the eternal afflictions of Hell.

Later on, when individuals gained more rights, as Kings saw they would be of more use to him as citizens than serfs, working harder, and ultimately becoming better means to his own ends, than when he legally owned them and the products of their labors, slaves had to be sourced from elsewhere, than from among his own people. Thus races were invented. Foreigners were defines as of inferior races that God had produced to slaves to his chosen people, the King’s people, the priest’s ‘flock’. At first anyone from outside the kingdom was considered another race of people, and potential slaves. As Kingdoms grew to become states and nations, it became necessary to find clearer lines of demarcation, and so trivial differences like skin-color were adapted as defining characteristics of ‘races’. I have written elsewhere in detail about the evolution of racism to meet the needs of slavery.

However my recent epiphany is that religion and slavery are reflexive of each other. Their raison de etre, their motives, their concepts, their necessities, their definitions, all their meanings and purposes, are intricately interwoven into the one fabric we call ‘ Society’ . Society is bound by religion. Each exists as a function of slavery. Without the motive of employing other men as means to ends, as means, rather than as ends in themselves, without the prospect for slavery and other less obtrusive means of exploitation, there would be no real motive for the emergence of religion, and its cohort, society.

Thus Society equals slavery. Religion equals slavery. We value each other as means to our own ends, consciously or unconsciously. Our unconscious allocates a mobile cathexis in ways which reflect this. Thus we find pleasure in the idea of society, and even of religion, especially if we are members of the beneficiary classes of society, or at least hope to enter those classes one day, or at least see our children do so.

And on the subject of the unconscious, and its allocation of a mobile cathexis, the ability to chose which sensations will be perceived as pleasurable or displeasing, rewarding or painful, by the consciousness, and sub-consciousness, let us consider the complementary nature of thanatos and eros.

Yes, for new things to emerge, existing things must be destroyed. This is recognised by the unconscious. Alternatively you might want to see it as the genius of the generative forces of the universe, that we should find pleasure in destruction. Of course this all brings to mind Nietzsche and the Hindu god ‘Shiva’, and Freud. So the unconscious, seeing a need for destruction, as a requirement for generation, and novelty, and therefore of experience itself, directs a mobile cathexis in a way that we find pleasure in destruction. Of course we repress this, as being anti-social, as anti-the society from which we accrue our benefits. And those who accrue no benefits, are tricked by false hopes of benefits in the next life, or after-life, by the priests, for enduring a hell on earth. Better a hell on earth for 100 years, than an eternal hell!

And that same unconscious also harbors a sado-masochistic tendency for self-destruction, as punishment for the Oedipal murders of a god, perhaps hoping that if it punishes itself enough, inflicting enough pain, humiliation, and renouncing enough pleasures as self-punishment, it might escape the wrath of the dead god. It might show mercy upon the soul that has inflicted so much misery and pain upon itself, as a sign of self-judgment, as a show of remorse, to the god, for having killed it.

This accounts for many neurotic symptoms, a-la ‘the neurotic submits to renunciations and restrictions defined as defensive measures’, the typical female active seeking out of, and participation in, abuse from a partner, fears of success, unwillingness to enjoy the privileges available, and so on. It accounts for religion. It accounts for the protestant work ethic, It accounts for all manner of self deprivation and phobias. I have discussed all this in detail elsewhere in my TROONATNOOR books.

Nietzsche recognised the need for destruction, as Hitler did. Better to revel in it than to fear it and be disgusted by it, if it is necessary to the generation of a better future. That is Nietzsche’s genius. The genius of the Hindu god ‘Shiva’, and even ‘The Bhavagad Gita’. It was Freud’s genius to reveal the role of the Oedipal complex. And this recognition comes as a revelation to me.

But it does not end here. I do not accept that destruction is necessary to generation, at least not the sort of destruction that is painful.

Today we are on the verge on constructing new means to our ends. Robots. Thus slavery will ultimately be unnecessary, as robots will be our slaves. Then the masses of humans who today represent a value to the beneficiary classes, as the source of their benefits, despite the other unfortunate, displeasing aspects of their existence, will become defined exclusively by these displeasing aspects. They will become holistically, in net terms, defines as liabilities, as sources of displeasure. No longer being sources of pleasing benefits, they will simply be seen as eyesores. The beautiful among them will be sources of pleasure as sex-objects. The talented among them as sources of beautiful works. And so on. But as a mass, with the actual and true abolition of slavery produced by robotics, they will be of no value, and will represent potential sources of threats, in terms of disease, revolution, anti-social behaviour, violence, and so on. They will be defined as a form of pollution. Their waste, their rubbish, their physical bodies themselves, will all be seen as toxic pollutants. They will threaten the environment in their billions. And thus the beneficiary classes, focussed upon their own benefits, defining the masses as mere potential means to their ends, finding no use for them, finding they represent no potential value even, will certainly dispose of them. They will do so in unobtrusive ways. They will not want wars in which the future playground of the beneficiary classes might be damaged, even destroyed completely and irrevocably. And so they will introduce new plagues, new viruses, and diseases.

The optimal response, that of positive selection, of responsible reproduction, would make such more painful responses unnecessary, by preventing the situation from emerging in the first place. We have yet time to introduce my Eden Protocols. However I have no doubts that in a not too distant future, when the billions no longer represent a benefit to the beneficiary classes, the current situation, which is untenable and cruel, will be resolved one way or another. I am offering a painless solution. The only sacrifice would be the right to indiscriminately and selfishly reproduce. I am offering positive selection. An escape from history.

Like Nietzsche’s holy man Zarathustra, I have walked the tight-rope. I have descended into the abyss, and emerged, en-lightened of so many things. Only unlike Nietzsche I offer an alternative, pain-free way into the future. Eros requires some thanatos, but the form that thanatos takes can be closer to eros than it has ever been. I am a prophet of love. Not love for misery, suffering, humiliation, and ‘noble’ lies, but love for pleasure, for nobility, for truth, for beauty, and for the optimal relationship to thanatos, to ‘transformation’ rather than outright destruction, to positive, rather than negative selection.

We were not kicked out of an Eden at some time in the distant past. Eden has always been an aspiration. Not the Eden of the few at the expense of a living hell for the many. That has been the true Eden sought and achieved by the ‘chosen peoples’ of the bibles, and their priests, their popes, and the Plato’s. That Eden is Plato’s ‘Republic‘ as realised by the organised religions of the world, from Daoism to the Catholic pagan cult. Those beneficiaries living in the current Eden will despise me, and seek to annihilate me. They will succeed. But the nature of the Greek Tragedy, the archetype of all prophets, is that by virtue of my works, I shall transcend their defeat of me. If you think I sound mad, well consider that all holy men are expected to be madmen. You don’t come away from the abyss un-touched. Read all my books before you even consider what I might mean with these utterances.

We prophets represent a threat to the beneficiary classes of our times. We threaten to kick them out of their earthly paradise. We do not consider it fair that a few should enjoy that paradise at the expense of those locked outside its gates. We would prefer a more modest paradise that all can enjoy. We prefer to focus on the authentic sources of pleasure, those which come at little cost to the healthy and enlightened, and exact no cost on anyone else, thus requiring no slavery, and treating no-one as the means to their ends, as the vehicle for their own exclusive pleasure. We seek a world defined by fairness, and synergy.

If there is ever talk of the dawning of a new age it will only come along the lines I have described. Any other alternative will be a deception offered by a group of individuals seeking to institute a new exclusive Eden for themselves. They will offer the same lies as those revolutionaries of the past. Their intentions will simply be to replace the current classes of beneficiaries with themselves and their backers, rather than to abolish the system in principle. They do not seek to topple kings to usher in true democracy. They simply wish to murder the current king in order to assume his throne, his powers, his privileges, and his benefits. And as always they will exclude the bulk of humanity from their Eden. They will exploit them as the means to their own personal ends, the ends of the beneficiary class members, the personal privileges, benefits, luxuries, comforts, pleasures, and excessive, conspicuous, wasteful status-goods and services which define their internal statuses within the beneficiary class as a whole.

The Bolsheviks replaced financial capital with anther form of capital, membership of the communist party, which became the beneficiary classes under the soviet system, enjoying a true workers paradise in the sense that they enjoyed an exclusive Eden which the workers produced for them. They used brute force and ideology, a form of secular religion, with its own dogmas and ‘noble’ lies, to coerce the submission of the masses to their wills. Every religion has experienced the same evolution. Revolution is offered promising equality and justice, but all that happens is that a new elite forms which enjoys all the benefits and corruption that the old elites enjoyed. New words, same old shit.

I am offering a more demanding but authentic alternative. No lies. No exclusivity. No beneficiary classes. Fairness. The optimal level of inequality consistent with human nature. But first you must holistically inform yourselves by reading my TROONATNOOR books. Before you have done this, any attempts of mine to inform you personally will be counterproductive. And so I shall not speak with you personally on any of these matters until you have read my books. I shall have to employ the greatest self control in this, as it is my nature to seek to inform anyone, at anytime, no matter how hopeless the situation. Until you are possessed of the pre-requisite level of holistic enlightenment, it will be like trying to sow seeds of wisdom on un-tilled, unprepared soil. It will be a waste of my limited resources, and be of no benefit to anyone.

What are the chances that anyone will read my books, and benefit from all my efforts, sacrifices, pains, and labors? Very slim. The only authority I have to appeal to is contained within the arguments I appeal to you to read. And so it is a catch-22. I expect few, if any, readers. And even fewer comprehending minds. And so I can only hope that somehow the same conclusions will be reached by people with the means to implement my Eden Protocols, as well as the motives.

In any case, sooner or later I prophecise that the masses will come to represent a liability, and at least the scale of the problem will be reduced by a beneficiary class intent on preserving its playground.

Now I shall seek to secure the most modern and ancient of forms of transferred authority. Success. People will listen to someone who enjoys the success they wish for themselves. Success itself, whether in battle, in harvests, in finance, in sport, in music, in any field felicitous to the enjoyment of life and access to the benefits of society, all motivate a persons curiosity in what the successful speaker has to say. They hope to hear the secrets of their success, so as to copy it. And in the process the speaker gains a transferred authority for anything they have to say, be it about toothpaste or politics. And so I will go back to working on my music and novels, in the hope one day to secure some success, and through it an attentive audience willing to suspend their judgments about me for enough time that they might consider the arguments contained in my books.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ethics Technology: My Optimal Ethic Generator

Posted on December 15, 2010. Filed under: A taste of TROONATNOOR |

Imagine you knew for certain that after each life you would be re-incarnated randomly as any creature on this planet. How would you define justice? Who and what would you include as deserving of it?

If this belief was adopted as the hegemonic dogma on this planet, what changes do you imagine would take place in our relations with each other, with animals, and with the not-yet-conceived?

Random new-births would mean that we would lose our private goods in death, but would re-inherit all the public goods we owned in common. Would we re-produce a society where a minority owned and passed onto their own children, the majority of the world’s wealth, priveledge, and opportunity?

My Optimal Ethic Generator is similar to Rawls’ ‘veil of ignorance’. Rawls noted that people would only be motivated to produce a fair, and therefore just, set of social relations if they were ignorant of their own position within that set of social relations.

We tend to promote systems of relations we think will benefit us. The only time our intrinsic motivation to serve our own narrow self interest promotes justice , is when the only way to serve our interests is to promote justice.

As in the case of Freud’s siblings, if we cannot secure greater benefits for ourselves, our next best bet will be to ensure no-one can have more than us, and seek an equal distribution of benefits. Where we are ignorant of our own holistic inheritance, we will not be able to promote the interests of people with our particular holistic inheritance. We will be motivated to act as if we cared about others, as without knowledge of who we are, we are the others, for all planning purposes.

Empathy may motivate us occasionally to relieve our empathic suffering by relieving other’s suffering, but more often we just turn away, numb ourselves to their condition, and do nothing. Empathy is not a reliable motive, especially when it conflicts with our self-interest. We like to keep what we have. We are not happy sharers by nature. Self-interest is the most reliable motive for action.

The ‘tobacco-debate’ is a clear example of human nature. Ultimately appeals to goodwill and empathy do not work. Enforced laws are needed, ‘speed-humps’. Once people are compelled to do the right thing they usually accept it, as they know it is the right thing to do in principle, and now they have an immediate and concrete motive to do it, the risk of penalties.
The lesson which Hume already taught us? Combine personal cost-profit-motives with appeals to empathy and goodwill, and you will get people acting as if they are rational, and as if they really care about justice in principle.

Perhaps one day my Optimal Ethic Generator will become the hegemonic dogma, or we will employ hypnosis or drugs to induce Rawls’ ‘ ‘veil of ignorance’ during law making processes and political elections.

Read more in my TROONATNOOR pages.


©Copyright 2009 Markus Heinrich Rehbach All Rights Reserved
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

One-step enlightenment

Posted on December 14, 2010. Filed under: A taste of TROONATNOOR |

Animate things are animated by motives, by desire. We inherit motives genetically and socially. They are the puppet -strings. We are their puppets. As long as you live your will is determined by them. What you experience as ‘free-will’ is merely the freedom to act upon these desires, these motives. Schopenhauer put is best when he said while we may at times be free to act on our motives and desires, we are never free to chose them.

You can use meditation and other forms of self-hypnosis to free your mind of conscious desires and motives, but that is merely existing rather than living. It is a rejection of desire and life, rather than an affirmation of it.

What you feel to be ‘choice’ is merely the dominant motive or desire among competing motives or desires. You feel you have made a decision, but decisions are merely the product of a process. It is impossible to make an arbitrary decision.

You may rationalise your behaviour after the event, but all behaviour is emotionally motivated. All behaviour has the attempted satisfaction of some desire as its motive. If you can find any behaviour without motive you will have found free will. That is the definition of free will. That is what free will would be, if it existed.

Even the belief that you ‘decide’ to move your finger, ‘at will’, was made milliseconds before you felt you ‘decided’. This is scientific fact.

Reason is the desire to enjoy enduring satisfaction of desires. It is not the opposite of emotion. It is, as Hume puts it, ‘the quieter emotion’.

Take all of your motives and desires and mentally place them at a distance. They are the self. The absence of the self, the sum total of our desires, is ‘thanatos’, ‘calm’, or ‘nirvana’. Without them you have no motive, no desire, no self, no dis-satisfaction or suffering.

You also have no access to pleasure. For most people the costs of life far outweigh the benefits. For most people the only way to affirm life is to positively focus on the glass being 5% full.

Socrates was among the first to define death as the philosopher’s ultimate goal. Only when we are free from the limits of our perception can we hope to see the ultimate reality. Chasing after satisfaction always leads to dis-satisfaction. This is why the ‘quiet’ emotion of reason was valued above ‘pleasure’ per se.

“Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. ” Macbeth (Act 5, Scene 5) William Shakespeare (1564 – 1616)

Buddha, Socrates, Schopenhauer, and many of the philosophers we respect today, found NO compelling arguments for affirming life.

And those others, born to lives of at least relative priveledge and satisfaction, paid for by others sweat, toil, suffering and exploitation, had every motivation to avoid confronting the issue. For them the glass was always more than half full.

My Eden Protocols, however, seek to produce a world and lives worthy of being affirmed by everyone.

Remember the world we have inherited is the product of interactions, and only persists as long as it is constantly re-produced. This defines our response-ability.

Read more in my TROONATNOOR pages.


©Copyright 2009Markus Heinrich Rehbach All Rights Reserved
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Blank-slates, karma, and meritocracy: masturbation for the lucky and blaming the unlucky

Posted on December 13, 2010. Filed under: A taste of TROONATNOOR |

If we are all born ‘blank slates’ with equal potentials, in a meritocratic society where rewards are proportionate to effort, sacrifice, and risk-taking , then inequality is legitimate. If you get what you deserve then life is fair.

Once your recognise that we are not born with equal holistic inheritances, that intelligence, health, beauty, talent, socio-economic status, and access to resources and opportunities such as education are not fairly distributed, you need an alternative myth to legitimate inequality.

Karma is this myth. Karma defines our unequal holistic inheritances as deserved, having been earned through our behaviour in past lives. This adds insult to injury, defining the unlucky as ‘morally‘ inferior to the lucky. The lucky need feel no compulsion to help the unlucky, to re-distribute their luck, their windfalls, as the unlucky deserve their bad fortune.

Blank slates, meritocracy, and karma all assume free-will. We can only deserve to be rewarded or punished if we have free-will.

If our behaviour is determined, then it would be unfair to punish or reward us for behaviours that are not within our control.

The keystone to enlightenment is a recognition of the deterministic nature of TROONATNOOR. No system of social relations with the fallacious assumption of free-will as its basis will ever produce holistic justice.

The concept, the myth, of free-will, is perpetuated most strongly by the lucky few who use their favourable holistic inheritances to accumulate power and priveledge for themselves, to exploit and re-produce inequality in the service of their own desires.

Remember that inequality is produced by the universe, but only persists if it is re-produced. This is our level of response-ability in an interactively-deterministic universe.

If you are among the lucky it is satisfying and convenient to define your luck as earned in this life, or, where this is patently absurd given the facts of our behaviour in this life, the previous, and therefore deserved.

However our nature and our nurture are inherited as part of our holistic inheritances. No-one can deserves their holistic  inheritance. Our holistic inheritances are randomly distributed. It is the luck of the draw, to which parents, society, historical period, and therefore opportunities, we are born. Karma cannot exist in a deterministic universe such as the one we live in.

We can only rightly deserve what we have earned ,through effort, sacrifice, and risk-taking, in this life. 

The outcomes of our actions are the product of effort-sacrifice-risk multiplied by the luck of our holistic inheritance. Luck leverages effort-sacrifice-risk.

The greater our holistic inheritances, the more likely it is that we will believe that we can attain our desired ends if we invest effort-sacrifice-risk. That is why we often observe a higher level of motivation in people who have inherited opportunities, talents, beauty, intelligence, wealth, social connections and education. The realistic confidence that we can succeed is motivating.  Thus success is facilitated or prevented by our holistic inheritance, and this indirectly determines our level of motivation. Thus blaming someone for being unmotivated is as absurd as blaming them for any other part of their holistic inheritance.

The more realistic our chances of success are, and the more our effort-sacrifice-risk taking is leveraged by our holistic inheritances, the more motivated we are likely to be to try, and to  keep trying when we face setbacks. The more able, with greater access to the resources required for success, are more motivated to invest effort-sacrifice-risk than the less able, as they  rightly feel more confident of ultimately being rewarded for their effort-sacrifice-risk.

Those who use Napoleon or Adolf Hitler as counter-arguments forget the inherited personality and, more importantly, historical situation their ‘successes’ were favoured by.

The rare cases of ‘rags-to-riches’ successes are used as propaganda by the lucky, to deny the reality that we tend to stay in the socio-economic-status group we were born to, no matter how hard we try. It is a myth the unlucky want to be true, and hence it is eagerly consumed by the masses. It motivates those with poor inheritances to work hard for the benefit of the priveledged minority, while seeking their own, unrealistic dreams of joining that priveledged minority.

And as the unlucky are no more noble and no less opportunistic in their motivations than the lucky, there is no reason to expect any changes in society when they come to power. Human nature is opportunistic. It did not change when we moved from aristocacy to democracy any more than it did when we went from capitalism to socialism. There was merely less for the privileged to appropriate under socialism, as people were not motivated to invest effort-sacrifice-risk taking, and the production of consumer goods was given a low priorty by the central planners, who got all their ‘luxury’ goods direct from the Capitalist west.

It is a fallacy to assume the victim is any better than the perpetrator. The weak, untalented, unattractive, not-so-intelligent want to eliminate the privledges they feel are unattainable to them, not out of a love of justice, but merely as they do not want others to have what they are unlikely to attain. Everyone wants to keep their own privledges. If you asked people to set a level for a wealth tax, they would set it just a bit higher than their own level of wealth. Tax those richer than themselves. They will not, however, want to share what they have with those less fortunate than themselves.

Socialism is merely another form of opportunism. Those without the current forms of capital want to pretend we are all equal. Like Freud’s siblings, they recognise they themselves do not have the qualities by which priveleges and power are naturally accumulated, and so giving up on the hope of having more than others, they content themselves with ensuring no-one else shall have more than them. If they themselves don’t have the qualities to be better than others, they will make sure all are ‘equal’. This is their best opportunistic strategy given their poor holistic inheritances.

And as experience in the U.S.S.R shows, under socialism party power is exploited as opportunistically under socialism as other forms of capital are opportunistically exploited under capitalism. Those with power use it to accumulate priveledges and goods for themselves, whatever the form that power takes. Search in vain for your ‘noble savage’ . Doubt the motivations of your ‘socialist’. The first thing they do when they get in power is destroy anything of real beauty, talent, truth, or nobility. They vent their self-loathing on anything that reminds them of their own weakness, lack of talent, lack of beauty, and lack of nobility.

Further, as most people want to reproduce themselves, and not feel guilty for the poor inheritances they will force upon their offspring, they delude themselves, imagining their children can have it all too. This allows them to blame their children if they do not live up to the myth of the the potential their parents imagine for them.

The crux of the myths of karma, meritocracy, and the blank-slate is the blaming of the victim, and the reflexive masturbatory self-congratulation of the lucky.

The unlucky are motivated to continue striving for a mostly impossible quality of life while actually producing all the products that make the lives of the lucky so comfortable and rewarding.

Of course they do receive benefits for their efforts in terms of higher living standards. The fact that the lucky priveledged can appropriate most of the value produced does not mean the exploited are not rewarded at all for their efforts.

Under Socialism the self-interest motive is mostly eliminated. Capitalism, with its myths, does motivate people to effort-sacrifice-risk, and does produce better outcomes than Socialism ever could. Socialism is not compatible with human nature. The real question is whether we could allow those who ultimately produce most of the value to consume a fairer share of it than they currently do.


©Copyright 2009Markus Heinrich Rehbach All Rights Reserved
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The transferred authority of prophets and religious dogma

Posted on December 12, 2010. Filed under: A taste of TROONATNOOR |

Plato built up Socrates as a super-man, to use him as the spokesperson for his own arguments. Around the same time the followers of the teachings of Buddha and Mahavira did the same. Marx gave his own idealogical wish-list the authority of history when he fabricated the myth of a historical determinism which had Socialism as its ‘end’. Moses claimed to speak with his god’s authority. Moses and Hitler are identical historical figures, having chosen a people for themselves, and claiming a unique historical destiny for them. This destiny ‘legitimated’ their holocausts. Mein Kampf and the Torah are identical documents with the same historical products; mass-scale theft, rape, murder, and genocide.

The new testament writers built up a mythical Jesus, recycling the then-current gods and the myths associated with them. The ‘disciples’ had Jesus speak their words, with a god’s authority. Mohamed claimed to speak for the angel Gabriel, and hence with a god’s authority. John Smith claimed to read from golden plates he had found, which recorded a god’s words, and therefore to speak with a god’s authority. More ancient shamans claimed a connection with the spirit world, and hence to speak with the authority of their ancestors. The tradition of appealing to tradition in general as an authority is, well, traditional.

The intentions of all these prophets may well have been good. They felt their ends justified their means. Plato’s ‘noble lies’ are perhaps the first documented instance of what became a common practise. Lie to the people to motivate them to do what you think is in their interests, or less nobly, what is in your interests.

Buddha is perhaps the first to adopt the strategy of compelling argument and to reject dogma and ‘transferred’ authority. For him the argument must be the authority in and of itself. If it is not compelling, then it should not be granted any authority.

Every prophet is bound to feel the seductive lure of ‘transferred authority’. Perhaps the historical Buddha, Jesus, and Socrates were strong enough to reject it, seeing that it they employed that strategy there was no stopping everyone else doing so. If the authority of arguments came to be based on the authority of the speaker, or who they claimed to speak for, then the substance of the argument would become less important. Any charlottan with an ideaology or desire for power might employ the strategy once they, in their own employment of it, had legitimated it.

However the followers of prophets including Mahavira, Buddha, and Jesus, frustrated with the lack of acceptance of their prophet’s teachings, and in many cases seduced by the desire for power, built up myths for their prophets. These myths conferred the authority of gods, super-powers, or historical destiny upon their prophets. Naturally this conferred a transferred authority upon themselves, as the present-day representatives of that prophet, that authority. Mohamed imitated them with the same motive.

Read more in my TROONATNOOR pages.


©Copyright 2009Markus Heinrich Rehbach All Rights Reserved
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ethical Narcolepcy: Stephen Sackur`s BBC `Hardtalk`interview with Barbara Harris

Posted on December 10, 2010. Filed under: A taste of TROONATNOOR |

Narcolepcy is associated with pleasurable activities. Sufferers become paralyzed and even unconscious at the excitement or anticipation of pleasure. I observe the same in human ethics. When we find something directly pleasurable, or a convenient means to satisfying our wills, our desires, and hence indirectly satisfying and pleasurable, or simply a means of avoiding displeasure, we tend to `switch off´ethically.

Stephen Sackur, during his BBC `Hardtalk`interview with Barbara Harris, crticized her actions in offering drug addicts money as an incentive to consent to sterilization or long-term contraception, to avoid the predictable health and social consequences of them becoming pregnant and having more children.

Sackur focussed on what he saw as the woman`s right to have children, completely side-stepping the issue of the rights of the not-yet-conceived. He simply dismissed the not-yet-conceived as `non-existent`. He asserted that as they didn`t exist yet, it was absurd to consider their interests in any way.

Please allow me an anology. We already regulate for people and situations that do not yet exist. We do so in order to prevent them from coming into existence. Consider all motor vehicle regulations aimed at preventing accidents, and then limiting the damage that will be produced by them. We accept such reasonable regulations as preventing predictable and preventable misery.

As such the precedent for regulating things that do not yet exist already exists. I am very dissappointed in Sackur`s failure, or unwillingness, to maintain the sort of intellectual rigour I generally associate with him. All regulations in fact deal with non-existent situations.

That is the entire point of regulation. To prevent not-yet-existent situations arising in the first place, by providing deterrents, limits, boundaries, restrictions, controls, and restraints. Such regulations gets people to act as if they were holistically enlightened, as if they cared about others. This is the basis of all social and economic progress.

The lives of many people can be seen to be slow-motion car accidents. Seen on a larger scale, they are mass scale train-wrecks. The life experiences of most people are easily predictable. We like to imagine we have free will, and live in a land of opportunity, but the reality is otherwise. We live in a deterministic universe. Our life experiences are determined by our holistic inheritances.

One reason this is denied, is that the most powerful members of our society benefit from this denial. They are the beneficiaries of inherited inequality. In fact most of you reading this belong to this beneficiary class. You desire, consciously or otherwise, that the inequality you benefit from should be reproduced, so that you can continue benefitting from it. If everyone was at least as intelligent, well-educated, healthy, and attractive as you, then you would lose all the economic and social advantages that you enjoy over them. You would have to pay them at least what you earn to fix your car, look after your children, clean your toilets, cut your hair, produce all the products you consume, and provide all the other services you enjoy. Thus the ethical narcolepsy.

Sackur went on to state that he `liked to think`that the children of drug addicts would be taken care of by the British Welfare State. Of course he did not indicate in any way that he himself was prepared to pay higher taxes to ensure that the children that would be born as a result of his position would in fact be taken care of.

Like most people he was happy to take advantage of inequality, but unwilling to compensate the victims of it for society`s lack of reasonable regulation of reproduction, and the resulting `reproductive anarchy`.

The children of drug addicts, for example, are likely to end up in foster-care. 70% of children who grow up in foster care in the U.K end up in prison. 50% become homeless when they turn 18, and the `Welfare State`ceases caring for them. This is why, despite what Sackur imagined, most people would support Harris`s scheme. They realise that they pay for the consequences of drug addicts having children. Thus they have a a self-interested motive for this form of eugenics. They are unlikely to benefit from this form of inequality. They are likely to be paying for these children`s misfortune, in terms of social welfare, crimes, and imprisonment.

However in general we benefit from other people`s misfortune in terms of unequal holistic inheritances. The unlucky become our beasts of burden. We exploit their misfortune to our our own benefit. This is in fact the true concern of society as a whole with the actions of such Saints as Barbara Harris. If we accept in principle that not-yet-conceived persons have rights, then the door is opened to my Protocols.

Sackur defined the drug-addicted mothers as the weakest members of our society. However surely it is a human fetus, with no legal protection against being killed, that occupies this rank. After this group of course come non-human animals.

And this brings me to the Southpark episode which attacks Peta and its leadership. This episode was completely devoid of anything resembling wit or humour. It was pure venom, targetted at a group of the most compassionate, self-less, caring, kind, and gentle people you could imagine. What motivated this vile, invidious, vicious attack?

This Southpark episode of course continues in the tradition of Greek Tragedy in which the audience insists that their `betters`be punished for daring to be be better than themselves. Thus Socrates and Jesus must be punished, and must die for daring to be `better`.

From a Freudian perspective the writers are clearly attempting to deny their own sense of guilt for their own cruelty towards animals. What else could account for their childish depictions of Peta members tongue-kissing and having sex with animals? The tone was violently angry, agressive, and vicious. What, other than projected self-loathing could prompt such venom? Surely it is the expression of a deep unconscious sense of guilt and self-hatred.

And on a lighter note, I wonder why it is not possible to buy Stevia, the natural sweetener so popular in China in Europe or Australia. It is 400 times sweeter, and containes 85% fewer calories than sugar.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Evolution, functionalist teleology, and intelligent design (crypto-creationism)

Posted on December 9, 2010. Filed under: A taste of TROONATNOOR |

Energy can neither be created or destroyed. It always has existed and always will, transforming in interactions through different states including heat, light, and matter. The most basic forms of matter combine to produce more complex ones. The table of elements shows this ‘evolution’. This process is spontaneous and continuous. Everything is in a process of change.

Gods would have to be the product of pre-existing things. They would be one level higher in the chain of being, rather than ‘creators’ of being. Positing their existence is superfluous to our understanding of anything.

No-one can claim to understand the nature of awareness. Today in laboratories living organisms are produced by combining what we conventionally define as inanimate molecules. This convention seems to be very problematic. It seems more compelling and in the spirit of Ockham’s razor to see all matter-energy as having the potential for awareness. What this potential for awareness actually becomes aware of is merely determined by the form it takes.

Otherwise we are left with the notion that somehow something that is not aware, can be combined to produce something that is.

Humans have tended to define other animal’s behaviours as instinctive compulsions. If you can recognise the deliberate, motivated, object-oriented motivations of animals, then perhaps you might also imagine that electrons experience their own motivations, rather than being merely compelled by electro-magnetic fields. Reflexively, you might be able to accept that you yourself are a mere puppet to your motivations, the equivalent of an electron being attracted and repelled.

Aristotle made the typical mistake of philosophers. He failed to continue his deconstruction of arguments into their most basic assumptions, usually those that are implicit rather than explicit. He stopped too soon. He asserted that the ‘first cause’ is mans will, his motivation. He just assumed this. He never interrogated this assumption. He never asked where these motivations come from. Of course Schopenhauer recognised that it is the will itself that is the master of the human animal. As such, in Aristotle’s terms, it is will that is prime cause, and not ‘man’.

Aristotle’s teleology is his most fundamental error. Combined with an anthropocentric mindset which places humans at the center of the universe, this teleology, where things exist to serve functions, propelled the evolution of the gods into the one God. If properties and things exist to serve functions, then something must have had that intention in their design of them. The logical conclusion of such faulty reasoning is the existence of a God with intentions and designs. This God is far removed from the original concept of gods with all the human weaknesses, themselves victims of, rather than the designers of, the universe.

When `Bear`on `Ultimate Survival`tells us that `Avacados grow on the top branches of the trees to protect them from predators`, or the star of `River Monsters` refers to a fish as `purpose-built`, they are continuing in a long tradition. Such popular language culture useages are ubiquitous and insidious. Does `Bear`really think trees either deliberately only grow fruit on their top branches, or that they were `designed`that way? Or was he merely speaking out of habit, without really thinking? And what habit was he expressing? The Stoic-Platonic-Aristotelian notion adopted by the Catholic Church that `all things serve some purpose`. Thus `all things are for the best`. They are all `part of some god`s plan`.

Birds do not have wings to fly, they fly because they have wings. Faculties do not evolve to serve functions. They evolve by chance, and accumulate as they increase their host organism’s chances of survival and reproduction. It is incredibly frustrating to hear even modern documentary narrators tell me how polar bears evolved their white fur as an adaptation, in order to be less visible to prey and predators. Evolution did not give our ancestors the power to walk on their hindquarters in order to wade through water, gain a better view of their environment, or free their hands to use tools.

When an Attenborough announces this in his t.v documentary he is reinforcing the same faulty, millenia old teleology of Aristotle. Our ancestors found at some point they could walk upright, and this they found useful, so they continued it. It conferred advantages upon them that allowed them to survive and reproduce. Of course other animals without this advantage also survived.

This completely misrepresents the passive, hit and miss, random nature of evolution. It is merely one step removed from creationism, implying some design, intention, or plan on the part of evolution. It merely, intentionally or otherwise, replaces a caring, personal, designing, active, planning, foresightful god with an evolution with the same characteristics and intentions. Polar bears are adapted because they have white fur. They did not evolve white fur in order to be better adapted. Evolution has no plan, no intention, no design, and no goal. It is a spontaneous and open-ended process .

Random mutations occur. If the organism that is produced survives and reproduces, the mutations are reproduced. Such random mutations occur now and then over millions of generations. They accumulate within the organisms.

Scarcity and the resulting competition for resources means that only some organisms survive and reproduce. This is negative selection. The most successful competitors are those whose accumulated mutations bestow a competitive advantage upon them.

Complexity and sophistication emerge as mutations accumulate over millions of generations. Evolution naturally moves in the direction of increasing complexity and sophistication without any intention, plan, or motivation. It is a hit and miss process.

Human creativity is also a hit and miss process. You must be willing to take chances, and accept that the price of hits is a lot of misses, the price of success is a lot of failure. Ask any creative person, inventor, scientist, musician, writer, or designer. The only difference is that we have motives. We have intentions.

Or to be more precise, motives and intentions have us.

Aristotelian teleology produced a planning, designing, all-capable, competent, creating god. Our englightenment made that god redundant. However the failure of most people to comprehend the true nature of evolution has maintained the original proposition for the existence, for the necessity of a creating, designing god. When supposedly enlightened people do the work of creationists we must question their integrity, or their competence.

Aristotelian teleology produced the logical need for a god, and provided the most fertile ground for that god’s evolution. That same logic is now contaminating the pure reason of evolution in an insidious and invidious way. It ‘created’ a god, and now , after that god’s death, it appears to be reviving him by indirect means. It is slipping him in by the back door while everyone is watching the front door. Remember all tricks are performed by distracting our attention from the magicians actions.

 

©Copyright 2009 Markus Heinrich Rehbach All Rights Reserved
 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

« Previous Entries

    About

    Towards Universal Holistically Informed Consent and the elimination of all forms of violence:Holistic Interrogations and revelations concerning The Reality Of Our Natures And The Nature Of Our Realities (TROONATNOOR). The Holistic Philosopher. The Philosopher-Prophet of The Eden Protocols. Kim Jestem ?

    RSS

    Subscribe Via RSS

    • Subscribe with Bloglines
    • Add your feed to Newsburst from CNET News.com
    • Subscribe in Google Reader
    • Add to My Yahoo!
    • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
    • The latest comments to all posts in RSS

    Meta

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...