Lechery: the adoring focus on someone using a projected personality image
instead of a recognition of their actual personality. This is considered by
many women to be a constructive way to relate to children, perhaps in a
presumed program of encouraging the children to develop a particular sort of
ideal personality. Many men are thus trained as children to express fondness
likewise, but without any recognition of the other person being compromised.
   A friend of mine expressed a related distinction about religion. Defining
religion as an approach to coping with solitary hysteria using emotional
manipulation of oneself through autonomous mechanical techniques, my friend
suggests that mystical or "genuinely spiritual" religion could be defined as
any religion that avoids the overt lecherous use of other people.

   Domestication: any conscious artificial symbiosis between sentient
creatures of any sort, generally guided by a human designed tradition.

   Evil: predatory engagement in excess of real need and direct benefit, in
an apparent attempt to rekindle the emotional vitality of the wild
condition, a side effect of domestication, in both humans and animals.
Oddly, in moderation, insecurity appears to be a desirable feeling, a basic
reconnection to the experience of being alive, but often pursued without
the simple reimmersion into the wild living realm that inevitably involves
serious insecurity and possible loss of identity. Gambling, recreational
drugs, racing, competitive sports, and the like, all offer a redirection of
the tendency to evil without loss of domestic identity. Very large scale
capitalism and politics seduces people likewise.
   
   
   
   
   
                        Predatory People
 
 
 
 
   A little girl is only focused on creating emotional effects in those
she is near. She has no other life focus at all. Even while she is alone
she is making plans for the next encounter and creating the apparatus she
will need for that. She also believes that everyone else is just like her in
this way, and that men and boys are aware of her deliberate evocation of
validating hormonal response in their bodies. She believes that the fellows
who respond with the random explosive choreography of a lively dog are
deliberately exploring the feelings involved in being that way, and are
totally conscious of the feelings they're creating in her. In more sexist
cultures the little girls are apparently told by older women what is really
happening, but even those girls will fall into creating male validation
anyway, perhaps inspiring the rape of someone else latter.
   The disaster comes from the combination of forced submissiveness and
release from technical accountability. The children are commanded to comply
with arbitrary and humiliating adult whims routinely, everyday, over and
over. They adapt to it somehow, through subtle revenge or development of
fantasy worlds or self-destructive ritual. All the coping approaches have
horrible consequences socially and physically. The children destroy the
products of adult initiative, either unconsciously or in pursuit of
revenge, and are granted special immunity because they are still a child.
They grow used to that also, carrying the habit of unjustifiable
entitlement into old age.
   Thus a majority of people of all ages are unable to buck grossly
inappropriate or cruel initiative from an elder person, and are generally
unwilling to take an active supportive role in the simple infrastructure of
their own lives.
   Most of the people I've known express an unyielding determination not to
take any managerial responsibility for anyone else or for the shared
technical systems in their own life. Nothing I've said, no matter how I've
expressed it, has inspired any shift of conviction. The addressing of
managerial responsibility apppears to be in direct conflict with their will
to live, or some psychological aspect equally basic. Some of them are willing
to work, but only in an effort that can tolerate complete indifference
towards the bigger picture. They dispatch the resulting resources as quickly
as possible, preferably before they are obtained, to minimize any managerial
consequence.
   This refusal of responsibility appears to me to result at least partly
from being overwhelmed by the technical complexity of my culture, each
person compelled to triage their study of technical concerns to prevent
loss of factors they consider critical. Some of my associates feel insecure
if they missed seeing the television news, some have a phone that's a
puzzling mini-computer, some have children with highly complex schooling
politics, and some have an email inbox with a hundred unread entries. Thus
they all have gotten used to an identity of someone who drops the ball on
what many others see as vital to be deliberate about.
   Faced with knowing the mechanics of the Gulf stream, how to operate six
unique brands of cell phone, the current teenage jargon, the effects of the
latest sixteen letter ingredients in normal food, the politics in the Middle
East, and the myriad other modern mental challenges, I can't do it, and I
don't know anyone who can. What an average self respecting adult is
supposed to understand nowadays is too encyclopeadic, there is too much
detail. Everyone I know fails at grasping huge areas of managerial detail
in their own lives, due solely to having too little time in the day, too
little brain space to take it all in.
   For my own associates, the bigger scale managerial concerns are more
expendable than the direct technical challenges. I would think that having
this refusal of the big scale in common that they would get along with each
other about it, but no end of stress and blaming arises out of the
inevitable managerial tragedy. Virtually all my associates express a
conviction that cultural expression should somehow be regulated or steered
in various ways, to limit unfortunate effects such as poverty, pollution and
warfare. The movies called Zeitgeist present this view in a particularly
poignant way, but like the people I know, without looking realistically at
the managerial challenge implied for each citizen.
   More worrisome to me though is the encouragement of sadistic expression
that the conflict seems to inspire in people. While the people I've known
personally, who embrace larger scale managerial challenge, have seemed
mostly immune to this, more recently I've noticed it showing up in them
also, in the larger scale managerial response and participation in the 911
event.
   That event, for me, has called into question the nature of managerial
inspiration. My own inspiration to manage has always been focused on groups
I felt warmly disposed towards. Groups I felt indifferent or cold about I've
always left to their own devices, regardless of consequences. Unlike other
managers, I have had no peer pressure to adopt large scale cultural
responsibility. My peers and relatives engage in large scale business or
politics only as complainers, if they engage at all.
   Those in current positions of major responsibility in media
organizations, corporate management and national politics, appear, in
stories about their personal lives, to have been raised in a sub-culture
that granted them the human minimum of respect only if they took on a
significant large scale managerial challenge, whether or not any group
inspired them. President Bush's life seems particularly tragic in this way,
with horrible consequence.
   For me this isn't a moral issue, but rather similiar to a shark at a
beach, a feeling of being a little too low on the food chain. Nor does it
appear to me to be a recent development, but rather a systemic reality of
all human society that I failed to notice, until the internet improved
reporting of it. The theory presented in the second Zeitgeist movie, of
having a Star Trek like non-monetary social fabric, looks to me to be
worthy of brainstorming about, even without the moral concern the movie
expresses.
   Managerial responsibility looks to me like a very complex topic, but I
can describe three major types. They are family level, customer level, and
management of managers level. These, I think, are the progressive
definition changes to the term "economy", over the last couple hundred
years. In the past, those people in large scale leadership positions had
little or no access to managerially relevant data on their scale, so the
large scale economic effects were related to as natural phenomena. Though
issues like global warming get scientific discussion nowadays, I'm not
convinced that modern managers have any more real large scale control than
those of the past.
   I have been reading on the internet about a subculture of people who
take the third level of managerial responsibility as fundamental to normal
life expression, and relate to all other people as being as unimportant
emotionally, and morally, as the ants invading the kitchen counter. I think
of the managers that carry this crass outlook as being monsters, due to
their potentially huge and horrible influence.
   The monster outlook, about the crime of the 911 event, appears to be
that anyone worthly of human respect would have anticipated such an event at
least ten years before and stayed in touch with the course of top level
management well enough to have known the exact day and nature of the attack.
To the monsters, everyone who was completely surprised by the event has no
merit as a real Citizen of any sort, since they clearly don't care enough
about the society they live in to stay minimally informed about how it is
evolving, let alone constructively participate.
   Since the 911 event was a crime, everyone has to say publically that
they were surprised by it. But the insider trading, the lack of managerial
people in the buildings, and the unreasonably tiny passenger load on the
planes suggest that many people knew the day. The widespread public
ignoring of the building 7 anomoly at the World Trade Center shows that a
majority of managerial people worldwide, in all sectors, either approved of
the event, are unusually gullible or are afraid to buck the leadership. I
think that most of the managerial people approved of the crime as an
unfortunate but neccesary way to get the nonmanagers to finance the
destruction of the economically renunciant and violent cultures holding and
managing some of the oil bearing property in the Middle East.
   There have been monsters in the past. Alexander the Great, Columbus and
others clearly expressed gross disregard for the lives of those without a
managerial paradigm anticipating their arrival. They promoted the wanton
murder or enslavement of any vulnerable and politically naive people that
their groups encountered. Some of the people they encountered expressed a
belief in the possibility of a benevolent despotic interest, which only
inspired greater derision.
   Most of the parents that I've gotten to know express the monster outlook
with regard to their own children, and many people express that outlook
about the opposite sex. If I express friendliness, my own wife and child
will ply me with petty demands til I break in anguish and turn harsh, and
they vividly do likewise with each other.
   Thus the monster view can be restated that the only person worthly of my
respectful human regard is one who can demonstrate clearly an effective
awareness and preplan for coping with my brutal disregard for them. The
sexual predator, the armed robber and the policeman are all commonly
defined by my associates as evil if they're thwarted, and all defined as
heroes if they triumph, so I presume a similiar double standard of monsters
among the major social leadership.
   I'm fairly ill at ease with adopting that outlook myself. This has been
especially troublesome for me in relation to my most recent building
department bust and the 911 event. My wish for my own identity is for a
warm-hearted standard of what is evil, not one that admires sadistic power
and belittles feeble friendliness. The bust and the 911 event expressed to
me a staggering depth of conviction towards the monster ethic on the part of
people in my neighborhood who I thought were relatively well informed and
moderate about condemnation or dehumanizing of others.
   I am pressed, by my neighbors, to tolerate and even encourage the
middle class nightmare in my neighborhood. The brutal tasteless haircuts,
the lifeless lawns, the heavy use of smog belching vehicles, the ghastly
prostituted choreographed media, and the unneccesary purchase of new things
represent majority aesthetic and majority tyranny, that even my wife and
child insist is the only valid outlook; one that I am to some degree
required to support and enforce against my roommates and myself, even though
I abhor it.
   The 911 event has exposed a similiar sadistic tradition of being quick
to convict a handy scapegoat and promote hurting them. All my older
associates chastize me for even suggesting that the 911 event was done by
Americans. Even Representative Peter Defazio remarks about the event as if
foreigners obviously did it. If the criminals hadn't gotten greedy and used
it to cover the illegal demolition of three asbestos hazard buildings then
there probably would have been virtually no suspicion of Americans having
done it, even on my part.
   I would never on my own have suspected that American special forces lit
the oil wells in Kuwait or that the prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombing
ignored four highly sophisticated bombs inside the building that were
reported by the regular media on the day of the event.
   My culture has thus many examples of sadistic idealism, most of it
politely whitewashed. The activists who research government corruption
promote a sadistic outlook about those they oppose. If a child comes to me
crying at my house, without fail they demand my torture of someone else in
response to their misfortune. Even the neighbor's cats endlessly seek out
smaller creatures to injure and torture, just for something to do.
   I cannot talk anyone out of it, on any level of society. My interest in
careful research into what inspired or contributed to crime, in the
interest of preventing or minimizing a future tragedy, always evokes a
self-righteous call to arms from some of my associates, evil inspiring more
evil. Always a majority calls for torture of the exposed criminals, as
presumably autonomous actors. If the torturers are successful they drive the
informant base further into obscurity and inspire further disrespectful
activity on the part of the criminals and those with similiar values. The
idea of deliberately honoring the life outlook of the offender appears to be
particularly unthinkable by anyone I know.
   One of my roommates expressed his rationale for this fairly well. As a
child he dealt with bullies who were often successful at maintaining a
crass and miserable vibe in his social environment, both at home and in the
public. He developed a style of attack or sabotage on the weaker bullies
that he reports as successful at easing the overall vibe. He sabotaged the
stronger bullies through secret curses and belligerent coalitions. He
disputes my belief that his actions promoted further bullying activity in
creative new ways, such as the backstabbing and institutional thuggery of
our present neighborhood society. He also has defined several forms of
expressive behavior between other people, that inspire him to police action
through politically excusable bullying. Though he is loathe to act on this
in my presense, I have overheard him and have no doubt of his sincerity.
   I abhor legalistic formality, whether or not against criminal behavior.
I only intercede in a harsh way if the offensive expression is at me and
I'm trapped and getting psychotic; and I'm not above engaging childish
violence at that point. Having been given and carried the underdog label
most of my life, I have no belief in the idea of helpless underdogs that
warrant defense. I perceive all people as actual equals in the sort of
political and technical power that matters to me. For example, the
neighbors who called in the bust on me requested anonimity, due I presume
to their recognition of their vulnerability to my advising the building
department of the code violations that they have done that I am aware of,
or of the risk of some of my associates vandalizing their property.
   From my youth my presense has always inspired a ceasefire on bullying
and policing activity. As a child I was unaware of it, but eventually I
noticed how mean people could get while temporarily outside of my
influence. Because of this, I have never observed the phenomena refered to as
a clique, and only rarely have observed overt bullying. I think that my
lack of self-righteous conviction somehow compells those around me to
suspend their own.
   When I have volunteered to take a leadership role I have never been
turned down by anyone involved, and have often been pressed to volunteer.
While I have occasionally been accused of megalomania or the deliberate
forcing of "attention", I have never observed what I would call that in
myself or a successful bid that way from anyone else. I have observed many
successful leaders and always they were responsive to the prayers, no matter
how petty, of the others in their direct social context; though those
indirectly influenced, such as my unknown neighbors, often observe apparent
indifference.
   Quite a few people have surprised me with a belief that what I call
kindness is always a false expression done for crass political purpose. I
have the same impression of service industry culture, such as restaurants
and hospitals; that customer relations tend towards shallow kindness
disquising a sadistic outlook. Some women, children and religious men do a
similiar service game with me, maybe out of fear of me or some kind of
regret about their own indifference towards me. For my own sanity I keep
contact with such people as brief as possible. They mostly seem inclined to
avoid me also, but this kind of relating with false kindness could quite
possibly represent the majority of human sharing, and I would never know it.
   So the treason of the current political, business and media leaders of
the United States looks to me to be an ironic expression of the actual
American values that I observe right around me. With nearly everyone I deal
with appearing to be treasonous in a small time but similiar way, I feel
helpless to even question the criminal behavior of the major media people or
the federal authorities. And also, in reading about Afgan and Iraqi society,
the descriptions of political activism there are even more sadistic, both in
and out of government.
   In the stories, the horrible American predation hardly stands out as a
change. One Pakastani civilian, who is participating in a lawsuit against
the U.S. government for his year long detention on the island of Cuba,
nevertheless told of far worse horror during his initial imprisonment by
Afgani soldiers. The Afgani's seem to me far more worthy of the lawsuit,
though it's doubtful any court would oversee or any money could result.
   Though the murder of 3000 New Yorkers seems potentially important, the
same people have murdered nearly a million foreigners, at least half of them
totally non-combatant. The United Nations as a group appear to be as
horrified as I am but quite unable to stop them. A large contingent of the
local Afganis and Iraqis appear to be as insanely self-righeously militant
as the Vietnamese were, so I don't anticipate an end very soon.
   Some on the internet theorize that, once the Middle East is under western
corporate management, the same military machine will get directed at the
modern cultures, as the Nazis did. I'm highly doubtful. I observe modern
capitalist Citizens to be very cheap and easy to control without the horror
and expense of large scale military activity, other than minor events like
the Waco disaster. The modern standard of living may get forced to take a
nosedive, by military force where neccesary, but I don't see any Vietnamese
style tenacity in Americans or Europeans, or a clear recognition of evil to
motivate them at all.
   I suspect instead that the managerial class will continue the progress
they have already pressed for worldwide, of requiring that non-managerial
people either:
   - Live five or more to a household, working for minimal wages
sufficient to afford only food and shelter, and raising few if any
children, or
   - Be seduced into debilitating use of recreational poisons, poisonous
food, and inebriating vicarious emotion to the point of mental feebleness,
chronic illness. and focus on petty local strife (rendering them less able
to be intimate with anyone or to raise children).
   The culture of people who live a thoughtless western industrial
lifestyle is getting fewer both in America and Europe, due both to less
interest in child-raising among them and to widespread chronic illness.
This loss of population may get deliberately intensified with use of
artificial plagues or promotion of voluntary simplicity.
   I highly doubt that the current leadership will organize a sudden
castastrophic shrinking of the world population, as some internet writers
suggest. I think the leadership culture is actually well aware of how
fragile the current technological wonder is, having a clear and probably
accurate history of what happened to the technological wonder civilization
of 12,000 years ago. I think they will force a progressive shrinking of
both population and middle class wealth in the manner that is already
happening, but slow enough to prevent industrial and technological collapse
as happened to the Atlantians and their associates.
   Though I don't have any reliable access to the details, it is clear to
me that whatever civilization designed and built the Giza pyramids, and
ancient cities in India that had modern style underground sewers, is gone
without a trace. Likewise more limited but large scale cultures like the
Romans and the ancient Mayas have been shattered by apparent escalation of
sadistic criminality among the leaders. Some Chinese have a traditional
assumption that a thousand years is the upper limit of any leadership
paradigm in this way, even with ideal origination.
   I have noticed this also about small group concensus, that a stable
group will micromanage to a greater and greater degree over time, similiar
to the size of the register of Federal laws, til creativity and childish
friendliness is so suffocated that the social fabric breaks from lack of
simple fondness. I've seen this many times in democratic group households
and democratic organizations. Hierarchy survives longer, but even that
fails if the leadership aquieses to pressure towards greater technical
stability. There appears to be a minimal level of childish friendliness
that any social fabric must maintain to hold together at all. Where only
the sophisticated are welcome, eventually no-one is welcome; and everyone
and every group drifts inevitably towards less and less tolerance of the
unsophisticated explorations of their associates.
   Technology shows a promise of facilitating cultural catharsis in a
manner to renew the novelty value of unsophistication. New devices and new
avenues of exploration make everyone unsophisticated. A highly complex
society forces specialization to a degree that prevents true independent
maturity or what used to be called adulthood, so people or groups of any
age can initiate genuine new explorations of unsophistication by simply
studying one of their myriad mechanical dependencies. Unlike a dependency
on a natural system, technology offers the lure of whole aspects of
dependency that at least appear to be possible to deliberately understand
and direct on the part of some insiders who have thoroughly studied that
specialty.
   Thus technology may be an antidote to the rise of sadistic leadership
represented by the 911 event. The Sumerian record suggests that the
Atlantian technological civilization lasted over 100,000 years. That seems
a bit doubtful considering that it left the present civilization a huge
petroleum supply, but I'm hopeful. If I am able to stay friendly, then all
is not lost.
   My catastrophic building department bust in the spring of 2006 was for
me like what others have described in being raped. My friendly initiative
towards any neighbors has mostly ended. The 911 event put a serious blight
on my friendly romantic image of my personal elders, and Representitive
Peter Defazio and the liberal media. I have the impression that
only my cleverness about intimacy and former friendly naivette have
protected me from a sadistic wash around me; that the bizarre sadistic
imagery that the children use in their play is an echo of their normal
world, in which psychic rape of them, in a manner similiar to what the
neighbors initiated against me, is routine.
   The children stay friendly, towards each other and towards me. They sour
on each other with shocking curses, and later they reunite with no apparent
grudge. Against their parents they seek only gleeful revenge in money or
embarrassment. They make no appeal for release from being psychically
raped, even if I offer to speak in their behalf. An insane world is fine
with them. They aspire to perfect their skill in the games, recognizing I
guess, that there is no real escape possible. They focus all their friendly
aspiration on fast-paced animal-like socializing, leaving any productive or
negotiative focus in a paradigm of brutal exploitation and combat.
   I notice that my life has evolved similiarly. I share no productive
focus with anyone and negotiate nothing, ever. I used to do deliberate
friendly political gestures with neighbor visits and christmas gifts for
roommates, but not anymore. All my friendliness is direct animal level
contact only, and I am quick to honor another person's reservation about
involvement with me, maintaining distance. Friendly technical sharing
appears to be impossible except in rare brief events.
   But I refuse to become a monster, even in imagery or gestures. Even if I
am the last holdout in my society, I see nothing to gain and much to lose
with being sadistic. Far more horrible than the rape from the neighbors
would be the psychic reflection of my own act of rape. I need at least one
person to focus on in my life who is actually harmless and friendly, in
order to stay inspired to live at all, to draw another breath. So I will be
that person.
   It was helpful for me to read Charles Manson's court statement to the
judge. He expressed, with great dignity and elegance, the heartless
self-pity of one who has established an identity adapted to continuous
character assassination. This was especially in evidence in the courtroom
context. A prison is a fairly extreme context but I think Mr.
Manson demonstrates the root issue, that he had to declare indifference to
the emotional wellbeing of everyone else in order to end the pain of
self-doubt evoked by heckling or brutal criticism from people recognized in
a conventional humane way. My building department bust or "rape" had the
same effect on me. To salvage my life spirit, my "will to live", I had to
create emotional distance, a separation of dream world, from several of my
neighbors and associates.
   This is a strong reason not to teach or redirect someone's behavior
through humiliating expression. Humiliation can thus only end a
relationship, not redirect it constructively. The ending may not be
politically obvious to a casual observer, but anyone willing to listen to
the disheartened person will recognize a spooky coldness, even to
rationalizing torture and murder, as with Mr. Manson's group, Mr. Bush's
associates, or military people generally.
   In response to a recognition of a striking pervasiveness of this sort of
coldness in world culture, Peter Joseph, who created the Zeitgeist movies,
and the couple doing the Venus Project advocate some changes in common
social management of resource use and lifestyle cultural expression. They
advocate a redesign of social convention away from use of the device of
money, in hope that the style of heartless and destructive debauch that
prevails in current economic cultural expression would thus disappear. Their
presentation of details suggests to me that they have little grasp of the
interpersonal issues that money expresses, but I very much appreciate their
description of cultural mechanics and their challenge.
   I read on the internet of some fairly successful exploration of less
cold blooded handling of money in Denmark and Sweden, but likewise dodging
a direct focus on the interpersonal issues. An organization in my town that
resells real estate does something similiar, babysitting their customers
through a series of seminars and financial exercises to promote better
management understanding. Bill Gate's promotion of "creative capitalism"
has likewise resulted in some encouraging friendly stories. I think a lot
of already cheerful people benefit from the new ideas.
   But lotteries and gambling appear to be even more popular and common
than ever. Maybe I'm just more aware of them. The sadistic use of money has
few visible dissentors in my life. Even the Zeitgeist people appear to
encourage the idea of legitimate robbery of those with constructive
initiative, making no distinction between rent or royalties and creative
sovereignty for those who take initiative; though their personal lifestyles
looks totally privatized as much as they present a view of themselves.
   They and many people ask why does the world have destitute poverty,
unneccesary disease and warfare; and can they be eliminated through some
creative social engineering? I feel fairly certain of my answers, that
poverty is a cultural expression, not an economic condition, that disease
results from imbibing stuff for emotional effect, and that warfare is a
product of emotionally immature men coping with the angst in public
socializing; and that all of them appear to result from emergency defense
of dignity in social combat. I am a hobbiest social engineer and maintain
hope about my own brilliance at least, to be if nothing else a meme
originator. I believe that the cultures of poverty, disease and warfare will
fade eventually due to lack of enthusiastic participants, if the
intellectual acceptance of humiliating leadership ceases. I think the use
of deliberate humiliating social programs only makes things worse.
   I believe that the poverty I have observed in Ethiopia, during an
automobile tour of the United States and among my roommates results from
cultural abhorance of resource management on the part of those who are
poor. Without exception, those poor people, such as myself, who engage in
deliberate friendly resource management of both their own resources and
that of those they depended on, are fairly quickly catapulted into a life
of ease that none who know them would call destitute poverty; and I observe
conversely, that those who forsake a pattern of resource management or
never relate to it at all are invariably stressed about money and resources
regardless of their actual cash flow, and define themselves as poor. More
the point, the attempts I have made to manage resources, in behalf of those
expressing suffering from poverty, have made little if any difference in
the quality of their lives, and done nothing for their poverty. Some poor
people inspired to some degree to copy my frame of reference about resources
have seen an easing of their condition.
   Unneccesary disease looks to me to be the result of the cultural
practice of imbibing substances for choreographic and emotional effect, at
the expense of physical consequences. Even healthy food, in a deliberately
shared meal or similiarly intense choreography, can result in digestive
disaster in me. I believe that disease is a product of either bio-chemical
imbalance or a weak immune system, either way the result of malnutrition
from poor digestion or imbibing of poisons. Thus I believe disease of all
sorts is entirely possible to handle in the long run through completely
handling all choreographic and emotional drives or issues entirely through
interaction with other people and specifically not through any form of
imbibing anything.
   Warfare baffled and worried me most of my life, due partly to having not
a flicker of warlike motive in myself to study it through. I think I have
it figured out though. I observe that when people get together in a polite
formal encounter of any kind, at a church, a job, a bar, a seminar or even
a party, they do psychological dirty tricks on each other that result in the
people affected getting quite emotionally distraught. The women generally
have little or no illusions about the matter, but the men affected will
almost invariably invent an explanation for their angst that completely
misses the mark, and often includes some people or phenomena entirely
outside and unrelated to the event that created the trouble. Cruder men will
end up in a direct brawl with nearby people, but many will feed and feed a
grudge or predatory interest against a fictious big scale enemy, even
deliberately seeking associates to encourage their obsessing and
inadvertantly goad their angst with random choreographic stress.
   Organized warfare inevitably culminates from enough time and
encouragement focused in this way in a large scale culture. People lacking
the emotional maturity to cope with genuine intimacy will often get driven
by loneliness to spend considerable time in competitive formal sharing. The
women who do that explicitly describe the resulting angst as being a result
of the formal associating and cope through deliberate solitary choreographic
tricks to settle their emotional jangle. The men will often try to copy the
women's choreographic inventions, but misunderstanding the subtlety, it
generally makes them feel worse. A lot of men I've met have evolved patterns
of genuine relaxed intimacy with a few other men, and some, like me, have
also completely divorced their life from any form of formal encounter where
gaffaw is likely. Fellows whose lives have gone that way show not a flicker
of warlike or socially predatory spirit to me, and I believe it is actually
not there.
   To the question of whether anything can be done about any of these
issues, I am fairly pessimistic. To the degree that my personal management
is visible to others, it cures poverty in some observers, but otherwise I
observe no improvement. What's worse, I observe that attempts to cope with
poverty through generosity only escallates the ecological load of the poor,
but does little or nothing for their quality of life. The introduction of
factory investment into a poor community can often turn a village that had
character into a slum where people fear for their lives.
   I have had no luck suggesting to anyone that imbibing something for
emotional benefit promotes disease, even if they agree with me. Remedial
efforts using medicine or physical touch can improve quality of life a
little, but generally at considerable cost in effort and money on somebody's
part. I think we just have to accept each others diseases.
   War tears me up inside, but likewise it seems as inevitable as football
games. The men I've talked to, who have talked themselves into believing
that the proper cure for their social angst is some brand of organized
or policing violence, are utterly committed to their view. I have never
successfully coaxed such a man's interest in studying feeling origination
in formal groups. Some people writing on the internet theorize that modern
war originates in discussions of groups of wealthy men in private clubs
like the Bilderberg Meetings. I think it's partially true but that nothing
would come of it if there weren't a huge poliferation of similiar formal
gaffaw discussions among the regular men who will end up carrying the real
weapons. Whether the Bilderberg men are predatory, or genuinely defending
some ideal, matters little to me. I think the war is the same either way.
The French revolution was hardly less heartless and horrible than the war in
Iraq.
   I have hope about ideas, though not neccesarily with any basis. I keep
thinking that one day the right turn of phrase or right presentation will
fire widespread noble imagination in a magical way, inspiring
non-adversarial intimacy as a major life focus for more people. I have
fantasized the making of several movies with this hope. Maybe I can distill
a possible screenplay now.
   The book by Hermann Hesse called the Glass Bead Game drew my interest
many years ago as a suggestion of such a storyline. I have seen and read a
lot of experimenting with bead game structures, and for a few years I
played the Glass Plate Game quite a bit.
   I think of Herman Hesse as a scholar, like the Magister Ludi, and from
his writing I surmise that he hated that about himself. He hated being
impotent in the face of the Nazi takeover of his home country, hated being
technically vacant, lifeless, in a cultural crisis crying out for more
humane technical alternatives for coping with the heartlessly rude Jewish
culture, the circumstantial morality of the gypsies, and the explicit sexual
deliberateness forced by the presense of gay men. Mr. Hesse ran away to
Switzerland and wrote yet another futile novel to entertain those who buy
such things. I think that his books have inspired a lot of compassion
though, and I would thus deem his life a success, in the addressing of the
long run.
   The games I've seen are designed to promote and develop critical and
creative thinking amongst the players -- to challenge their intellect and
their imagination in building "associative pathways" from one idea to
another -- as opposed to creating and developing genuine relationships
between the players through event creation. My intent in the use of the
Glass Plate Game was to use ideas to evoke friendly memorable emotion,
rather than choreographing people being used by ideas for reproduction of
those ideas. I found that almost no-one had that kind of flexibility in
their intellect. Ideas were for nearly everyone a component of socially
networked security measures that could not be safely played with as a child
plays. So I gave it up for more subtle forms of shared friendly emotion,
using indirect expression of ideas for evocation of history making feeling
between familiar people. I perfected the indirect choreography of what later
was named Bohr dialogue. I took to recording the Glass Plate Game idea
notes secretly and speaking only when explicitly offered a channel by all
those present, and only while the opening lasted.
   In a recent encounter with a genuine Bohr dialogue I was struck even
more by the spiritual randomness and timidity of average people. Few people
appear to know how to safely humanize their associates. I imagine even Mr.
Bohr was just a vehicle for memes in his relations with familiar people,
instead of engaging in actual intimacy. Like Mr. Hesse I remain a worthless
writer, though cheered quite a bit by the senseless courage of President
Obama. Though he seems to think that WTC 7 shattered like safety glass
instead of by controlled demolition, encouraging everyone to demonize the
foreign terrorists instead of the ones holding guns to his head, he's saying
he hopes to derail the heartless American world empire, replacing it with
one that has America's former romantic appeal as a culture of small scale
friendly avarice, using seduction instead of violence.
   
   
   
   
   
   
                         
                         Return to Homepage