It seems to me that often people associate revolution naively with the idea that it will miraculously make everything better. I think that in order for real change to happen you need to make sacrifices. Seems to be the main thing stopping it from happening. If you really want things to get better, you need to shed your attachments to things that aren't actually helping the situation. Even though it's uncomfortable, that's what we call a commitment I guess.
In order for real change to occur, in any situation, not specifically a revolution, there is a certain degree of sacrifice required. It can be useful when undergoing a self transformation to destroy objects that represent the old you. Similarly in countries where there is a regime change, liberation or revolution they usually destroy the monuments of their old leaders.
This type of progressive movement allows us to move forwards with our lives unattached to what was holding us in the past. The present moment is the most important one. That's not to say that you shouldn't plan for the future. It just means that what we have to deal with now will always top the list of priorities. Usually it's some form of attachment that holds us back. Although sometimes this can manifest in the form of Billie not smashing in Jack's face due to the fact that it would hurt someone he loves. Sometimes attachment can cause us to think twice.
The trick is in being able to analyse & pick out the stuff that's holding you back. Now look at this in the context of a revolution: A populous needs correct motive, true direction & to be rid of attachments that are holding it back. Also a populous needs to have an idea of what it wants to do after, as a matter of fact that should be the driving force of the movement. We can't have these wishy washy movements without a sense of direction, purpose or ideology. True action demands that we organise and plan ahead by taking in the moment.
How do we asses what needs to go?
Now we come down to a question that is truly deep, truly profound. This question concerns subjects that have piqued the interests of great minds over the centuries. Essentially what it comes down to is morality. In the context of revolution & self-development, dispose of the immoral. Dispose of those things which cause you to act selfishly. Strip all politicians who previously led the country into crisis for their own gain. Because in a commune self interest has no place. We must analyse scrupulously our assets, actions and associations. We must know what is wrong, only then can we find a cure.
To reiterate I don't think we should all go & persue a life of minimalism, become a monk or a hermit. I think we should live, & live life to the fullest. Sure some may find that they need to strip away the garments of modern life in order to find what is inside themselves. Yet, we all have true potential, it's just the unlocking it that is the hard part. Detachment is a necessary part of the journey. To what degree, that is up to your discretion.
Wednesday 11 September 2013
Thursday 30 May 2013
A Quick Disproof of Infinite Possibility
Ok, haven't made any posts in a while... been studying. I've been contemplating this problem for a while now. Since I was introduced to the idea I had some major difficulties coming to terms with the idea. Now, down to business. Often this idea is linked with the concept that the universe is infinite.
My logic is as follows: if everything that could happen does but in a parallel universe. Then it follows that there is a universe in which you yourself obtain the means of travelling to this very universe & killing yourself. In a reality with infinite possibility, what's to stop this from happening. In fact in a universe where everything happens there is a you that destroys the very everything that you exist within. It's a major paradox.
An awful lot of respectable physicists support this theory. I know it's probably really a nice dreamy idea you can use to chat up women, but it's fundamentally flawed. It would be good to understand the logical link (if any) between infinite possibility & infinite universe.
Originally I was going to call this article " A Quick Disproof of the Infinite Universe Theory" but I thought that it would probably be best not to, seeing as I was uncertain of whether or not this disproves the theory. If you have an idea about this then please do not hesitate to contact me. Who knows this could be a disproof of the theory once & for all.
My logic is as follows: if everything that could happen does but in a parallel universe. Then it follows that there is a universe in which you yourself obtain the means of travelling to this very universe & killing yourself. In a reality with infinite possibility, what's to stop this from happening. In fact in a universe where everything happens there is a you that destroys the very everything that you exist within. It's a major paradox.
An awful lot of respectable physicists support this theory. I know it's probably really a nice dreamy idea you can use to chat up women, but it's fundamentally flawed. It would be good to understand the logical link (if any) between infinite possibility & infinite universe.
Originally I was going to call this article " A Quick Disproof of the Infinite Universe Theory" but I thought that it would probably be best not to, seeing as I was uncertain of whether or not this disproves the theory. If you have an idea about this then please do not hesitate to contact me. Who knows this could be a disproof of the theory once & for all.
Saturday 2 March 2013
Ideas #3 - Revolutions
The current political system is abhorrent. Our parliamentary supervisors are as much slaves to the pound as we are. It is evident to me that things need to change. A good friend of mine pointed out once that most historical revolutions leave countries debilitated & crippled economically. I would agree with him to some extent although I would say that recent political movements have made me see fragilities in this theory. For instance most of the well documented historical revolutions that have failed are the revolutions of political systems that would compromise our current capitalist system. I have already discussed in detail the downfalls of capitalism.
“He who controls the past now controls the future. He who controls the future now controls the past” - George Orwell
This quote is relevant on this topic I would say. That's not to say that I'm advocating communism, I certainly see it's crippling effects on the welfare of the populous. But I do think that the media we consume is a consequence of capitalism. Most media outlets today are controlled by a handful of companies. Usually multinational & of course answering to no master save the share-holders. This is a giant gaping hole in our international community. The channels in question will only report on conflicts that suit there own vested interests & this misinforms the population. This is why we are left with the notion that if we revolt or try to change anything we will be left crippled. These are reminiscent of totalitarian scare tactics.
On a side note: Another thing which as been annoying me recently is that for some reason right-wing politicians seem to categorise anyone on the left as socialist. While socialism is certainly a left-wing political philosophy, it is not to say that there aren't other systems on the left of the spectrum. Yes often left-wing ideologies draw similarities with socialism, but it's not the same. It is socialism that is in the category of the left, not the left that is in the category of socialism. They just seem not to be able to think outside of their misinformed box.
Personally I've been finding recently that socialism, capitalism even... dare I say it... monarchistic democracy are all outdated modes of governance. I believe that a contemporary & subsequently relevant system would be preferable. The current politics available to us were all devised in an economic, technologically & culturally foreign society. So I would postulate that a functional system would be both adaptive & fluid. It would be organized in such a way that when one generation has ceased to be relevant, the laws & principles of their society could easily be adapted in order to suit the needs of those who are in need.
Just to clarify at this point I would like to state that I believe Anarchism in its true & proper form would be a political ideal (Anarchism another left wing philosophy that isn't socialism). What I mean is that if it were possible for every person in the world to live every day without getting under each others feet or disagreeing with one another, there would be no need for government. We can deduce from this that the role of a government is not to control the populous (sorry Benito) it is to resolve disputes in a fair & unbiased way. Another proper function of a government is to take care of its people.
A positive point about modern life in Britain is that we are privileged enough to experience a higher than average standard of living. Although our society is not perfect. To elaborate, things need to change. It seems that up to this point conservative politics in Britain has dominated & been based on the notion that you cannot consolidate wealth without suppressing the wealth of others. I believe this isn't true simply from a utilitarian perspective. As in the wealth of a nation is in the welfare of its people. Of course currency plays the role of the enabler, but should not be the focus of policies.
Our current democracy is weighted too much to the big business & corporate wealth. I think it's about time we realized that there are other routes to prosperity. It would probably benefit us as a whole if our leaders were better educated in political science, sociology & economics. Of course in a society where it is mandatory for an MP to have this education, corruption could seep in via means of the education system. So it's important for us to examine the education system. An interesting system of education that could be applied here is the self-taught method. As to how these members would be elected a democratic system would probably be preferable. Although some modifications such as when re-voting parliament each members agenda should be assimilated as a simple text file or pamphlet with a preset design. The glamorous campaigns that we see in America are just open invitations for businessmen with bulging wallets to buy their favourite politics.
Another friend of mine brought up a highly rational query to democracy as we know it here in the UK. She wondered why we don't vote on every policy. It's a simple enough observation which highlights the weaknesses of our governance. I can already hear the counter-argument: This would take too much time over each policy. But to be quite honest if I had been of age & given the chance I would have voted against the barbaric Iraq war. To resolve this I propose we assign groups of common people (much like jury duty) to asses the bills being put through parliament before they get put through & decide if they require public vote. Failing this we could vote on everything, or create a new house for deliberation of small possibly case specific policies which would not require public vote. Either way it should be easy to know what is being debated in the houses of parliament.
I also think that publicisation of certain ministries (eg. public transport) is advisable because as I've stated before, & I can't really stress this enough, corporations don't answer to the public. So publicisation in certain sectors relating to the public is optimal. Obviously we wouldn't want to take it to a ridiculous level like in communism. Just as long as we iron out the corruption we can have a bit more say over our public transport.
Thanks for reading.
“He who controls the past now controls the future. He who controls the future now controls the past” - George Orwell
This quote is relevant on this topic I would say. That's not to say that I'm advocating communism, I certainly see it's crippling effects on the welfare of the populous. But I do think that the media we consume is a consequence of capitalism. Most media outlets today are controlled by a handful of companies. Usually multinational & of course answering to no master save the share-holders. This is a giant gaping hole in our international community. The channels in question will only report on conflicts that suit there own vested interests & this misinforms the population. This is why we are left with the notion that if we revolt or try to change anything we will be left crippled. These are reminiscent of totalitarian scare tactics.
On a side note: Another thing which as been annoying me recently is that for some reason right-wing politicians seem to categorise anyone on the left as socialist. While socialism is certainly a left-wing political philosophy, it is not to say that there aren't other systems on the left of the spectrum. Yes often left-wing ideologies draw similarities with socialism, but it's not the same. It is socialism that is in the category of the left, not the left that is in the category of socialism. They just seem not to be able to think outside of their misinformed box.
Personally I've been finding recently that socialism, capitalism even... dare I say it... monarchistic democracy are all outdated modes of governance. I believe that a contemporary & subsequently relevant system would be preferable. The current politics available to us were all devised in an economic, technologically & culturally foreign society. So I would postulate that a functional system would be both adaptive & fluid. It would be organized in such a way that when one generation has ceased to be relevant, the laws & principles of their society could easily be adapted in order to suit the needs of those who are in need.
Just to clarify at this point I would like to state that I believe Anarchism in its true & proper form would be a political ideal (Anarchism another left wing philosophy that isn't socialism). What I mean is that if it were possible for every person in the world to live every day without getting under each others feet or disagreeing with one another, there would be no need for government. We can deduce from this that the role of a government is not to control the populous (sorry Benito) it is to resolve disputes in a fair & unbiased way. Another proper function of a government is to take care of its people.
A positive point about modern life in Britain is that we are privileged enough to experience a higher than average standard of living. Although our society is not perfect. To elaborate, things need to change. It seems that up to this point conservative politics in Britain has dominated & been based on the notion that you cannot consolidate wealth without suppressing the wealth of others. I believe this isn't true simply from a utilitarian perspective. As in the wealth of a nation is in the welfare of its people. Of course currency plays the role of the enabler, but should not be the focus of policies.
Our current democracy is weighted too much to the big business & corporate wealth. I think it's about time we realized that there are other routes to prosperity. It would probably benefit us as a whole if our leaders were better educated in political science, sociology & economics. Of course in a society where it is mandatory for an MP to have this education, corruption could seep in via means of the education system. So it's important for us to examine the education system. An interesting system of education that could be applied here is the self-taught method. As to how these members would be elected a democratic system would probably be preferable. Although some modifications such as when re-voting parliament each members agenda should be assimilated as a simple text file or pamphlet with a preset design. The glamorous campaigns that we see in America are just open invitations for businessmen with bulging wallets to buy their favourite politics.
Another friend of mine brought up a highly rational query to democracy as we know it here in the UK. She wondered why we don't vote on every policy. It's a simple enough observation which highlights the weaknesses of our governance. I can already hear the counter-argument: This would take too much time over each policy. But to be quite honest if I had been of age & given the chance I would have voted against the barbaric Iraq war. To resolve this I propose we assign groups of common people (much like jury duty) to asses the bills being put through parliament before they get put through & decide if they require public vote. Failing this we could vote on everything, or create a new house for deliberation of small possibly case specific policies which would not require public vote. Either way it should be easy to know what is being debated in the houses of parliament.
I also think that publicisation of certain ministries (eg. public transport) is advisable because as I've stated before, & I can't really stress this enough, corporations don't answer to the public. So publicisation in certain sectors relating to the public is optimal. Obviously we wouldn't want to take it to a ridiculous level like in communism. Just as long as we iron out the corruption we can have a bit more say over our public transport.
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)