Fundamentalist Christians and its Wrong Approach to Spiritual Teachings (39):
Normal Behaviour in an Apocalyptic World:
.
.
.
There is no Spoon; there is no Foucault’s Pendulum [Posted initially on 24th June 2023]: “Do not try and bend the spoon; that’s impossible. Instead, only try to realise the truth… there is no spoon. Then you’ll see that it is not the spoon that bends but only yourself.” A quote is taken from the post-perennial (postmodern) film The Matrix expressed by a boy character in Buddhist clothing, but more precisely Zen-Buddhism – as a way to invoke enlightenment by revealing the inadequacy of logic. These riddles are intentionally structured to negate the mind’s ability to apply reason. This is intended to grant the pupil peace, not of mind but from it. So when the boy muses that the only way to bend the spoon is to realise it isn’t there, he may try to get Neo to silence the perpetual dialogue running through his mind by negating that part of his psyche with a question beyond logic.
It’s about opening up your consciousness to all possible in so much as being conditioned to think otherwise and, therefore, not there to be taken. Logic implies that all things are known and must follow specific parameters and patterns, yet nature is anything but logical because the workings are more about synchronicity. In this context, “there is no spoon” is meant as a means for Neo to let go of his logical presumptions of what constitutes reality. As the boy says, “… you’ll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.” The limitations of Neo’s reality are self-imposed by the lenses through which he’s been taught to see the world. By letting go of what he’s so sure ‘he knows’, he finally opens up to what’s possible. Only when Neo moves beyond his disbelief does he become the person he was prophesied to be, ‘The One, ‘ which signifies his evolution to a consciousness beyond logic, where anything is possible.
In fictional telling, anything is indeed possible in terms of reality; however, in our three-dimensional existence, there is no gravity, but there is a force that brings us back down. We know reason cannot hold the truth to the cosmos, and we can only grasp the potentiality of it as reason [thought as reason]. And so no spoon merely shines a spotlight on the metaphysics of a reality beyond life, and that phenomenon often spills into the three-dimensional reality. We call it paranormal, miracle, alien, etc. We’ve established the non-rational types seek the spirit, which can be as rational as pure reason. Coupled with phenomena being given to us, which vibrates at a frequency of the highest level, the solid material, so if you jump off a high building, you will inevitably die. These facts bind to rationality as the building blocks of rationality but often get deluded into dogma in religion and hyper-materialism in secularism.
Fundamentalist dogma equates itself with fact, like parables, as a rational reason but requires the potentiality of reason, like faith. Some have credited dogma as explaining an inescapable need to set the criteria. However, in a transient, changing cycle of ages, we are reaching an apotheosis of the apocalypse, the revealing of truth amid the fall of the empire. Changing the criteria is inevitable and postmodern. Just make sure it doesn’t get taken over by cult groups who deform the notion of good to drive a (destructive) agenda of their own.
Our Theo-logos pertain to our imagination within a dreaming universe; utilitarian mysticism rears its head when that dreaming universe is described as a hallucination. However, it’s not just a hallucination because most of the predictions are accurate or true – we’re continuously adjusting our imagination to our reality [Theo-logos]. Flat earth philosophy dictates we see the errors in the map [and the map is our heliocentric worldview] – and what the errors tell us is that if we are properly receptive to those errors as the map is deforming … we can turn into a Globe, the Globe still not our actual reality, but is still better than a map.
However, awareness has an enlightening component, an ‘awakening’ of sorts, and those who want to be plugged back into the matrix begin the renascence of change. Utilitarian mysticism often develops evidence to initiate facts as rational, but usually are illusions of facts that bind us to rationality – fake evidence for utilitarian mysticism. Foucault’s Pendulum is an example of this, an artefact that assumes that insofar as our map is accurate, it stands as supposed evidence and ratification of our previous errors, assuming those errors are incorrect to begin with. It doesn’t prove the earth moves; it only indicates factors of magnetism.
Such an artefact shouldn’t be a gesture to indicate romanticism or juxtaposed within an object-oriented programming. You can be open to the wonders of the universe and accept the relationship between things that do not depend on the further existence of us being aware of those relationships – things have to be able to influence us and disclose each other in a way that is dark to us. And this can be examined in notions like dark matter on the metaphysical edge, which is fine [even though it steers towards hyperreal-materialism], imagination and anything above the Firmament is up for grabs. However, to bind the uncertain through the delusions of facts, the binds to rationality like Foucault’s Pendulum being able to pick the earth’s orbital – because somehow the … All … [or the unnameable Dou] is embedded in the singular. It does not reinforce the uncertainty of romanticism and would be an incorrect proposition because of the sheer amount of errors that the Pendulum has in itself, and not what it can reveal: a false claim. This is just symbolic, philosophical utilitarian mysticism, both dark matter and Foucault’s Pendulum. In other words, the Pendulum is a poor substitute for the dreamer who dreams of the world.
The New Normal – Art thou Hate Me: How does one act then, or how does one express their humanness, if not to live our lives, struggling with the dynamic of an impossible balance? What is normal behaviour? This question can elude most of us, considering that madness often becomes normalised; we then call it the ‘the new normal.’ Usually drilled in us by media, social or otherwise, a conjured narrative to expound extremism in both polarity and not realising it’s a balancing act in nature. Along with the notion of meta-morphing opposites [a subject I glossed over in my previous post – Flat Earth; Enclosed Creationism; Conspiracy (Theory), Intuition and Imagination – Part Nine] a notion taken from Baudrillard, J – who describes the “meta-morphing of opposites to perpetuate itself in its censored form”, a notion regulated through parody. I updated it to coincide with nature and that these polarised dualities are the central pillar of both sides of the Shekinah or the Tree of Life. The struggle of imbalance, the pushing and pulling, keeps civilisation from falling by the wayside. However, this little adjacent trojan-horse-trick sometimes has a hidden inverse agenda that skews it to one side.
The morphing opposites can use a tactic to steal words and their etymologies. Such a case can be examined by Dinesh Joseph D’Souza, who claims fascism started on the left and proceeds to change its etymology and meaning. It’s no surprise then that most reactionary and far-right groups use the term’ fascism’ to mean these changed forms. He is incorrect because fascism’s antithesis will always be Communism. You can sense his trying to garner rationality to skew a direction in his favour; rationality is constantly working in conceiving his system of thought. It also puts a layer of false utility within it but doesn’t make it rational. If you push utilitarianism in a leadership role, it will devour, marginalise and unravel the non-utilitarian elements within it. And that’s because utility is not thought nor an argument – it does not, in and of itself, have a purpose or a direction.
His clever use of putting political figures as a form of utility then associating with it a type of linear instrumentality [like its own internal investigation rather than a free equiry] – “this politician figure […] that showed racist videos in the white house was a politician figure […] a progressive democrat – and therefore progressivism was married to racism at the hip, so don’t pretend its right-wing phenomenon.” There are a few problems with this one: instrumental reason does not exist, the godhead cannot make many appearances on earth, and so mere associations do not imply progressiveness is married to the hip; it pretends to deliver rational solutions and claims primacy of place. However, it only marginalises other views of reason and any other human quality. Two: utilitarianism is based on method and system; for instance, a toilet’s function and utility are to dispose of waste. Does that mean the human quality of reason is encapsulated in the toilet. Does it mean all human qualities are encapsulated in this political figure […]?
He certainly likes to wear the badge of political scientist; however, political science, like all social sciences, is not a science. Yet, having science in the title is another example of stealing words and defusing their meaning. Real science has a truer process and an ambiguous certainty because it’s all about asking questions. As you never fully have the answer, more questions are asked; science, whatever the area, only answers in bits or pieces as you learn more. In contrast, social sciences constantly attempt to assert answers, which is dangerous.
Fascism [a far-right terminology for Totalitarianism] is not the only word that the far-right and traditional Christians misconstrued; socialism is another word. To them, it’s no different from communism or corporatism. While both socialism and corporatism have systems that involve collective ownership of business, they are based on different principles and have different goals. Corporatism is often associated with fascism and authoritarianism, while socialism is associated with democratic socialism, worker cooperatives and other forms of democratic governance. You can see clearly that Dinesh Joseph D’Souza is attempting to change fascism’s association with authoritarianism into socialism or communism. However, there is a clear distinction between Corporatism and Socialism.
How did we get here? Answers that can further be elaborated when we find meaning in democracy through art. Or, instead, what is the nature of art if you’re a writer? It comes down to two points: one, the belief in freedom of expression with no limitations. Two, writers must not engage in encouraging hatred. Great art never promotes hatred. Otherwise, that’s propaganda – this idea parallels or encapsulates democracy because it’s founded on relationships between people. Art is a balance between the individual and the group; you can’t simply have dominion over the individual. You have to have some terrible unresolvable equilibrium constantly changing between the individuals’ responsibilities and rights and the groups’ responsibilities and rights. That struggle was lost in the West, and to an extent, the obsession with individual rights opened the door to corporatism. In the late 19th century, the Catholic Church proposed a group-based form of running society, but it was based on obedience. Soon after, people like Mussolini picked up on it, and corporations followed eventually, followed by interest groups after the Second World War. There needs to be a balance between the two.
Great art can be many things, and often, despite the two points laid out previously, it can’t help but be political, and most of the time, politics is buried deep within it. Art may reveal a type of truth, but given that ‘struggle’ that was lost and must be regained again in the form of ‘doubt’ as meaning in democracy – putting truth at the core of it is an invalid point of measure. Nor can you put truth at the core of art. We allowed art to be marginalised from the reality of politics and citizenship and the great ethical debates of the citizens; what is left is a struggle in the margins where good artists try to draw it in but are constantly shoved back. So, the heart of the arts is mainly about entertaining the middle class.
Let’s examine Ben Shapiro, a far-right YouTube personality who made a video trashing Jon Lennon’s song ‘Imagine’ – to him, it’s a communist manifesto. He then persists in laying his rhetoric over the song as it plays, and as a result, Ben Shapiro comes off looking like a ‘clown.’ The song Imagine is an example of good art because, at the heart of it … it’s all about the struggle we discussed; the song is complicated and full of nuance, and the song itself asks the act of imagining. As one of the song lyrics: ‘imagine no possessions’ affirms doubt and, therefore, that struggle. The song does not ask you to do much, and Lenin doesn’t ask you to buy something or vote for somebody. Instead, he wants you to come to the one realisation that so much of our pain in our world is caused by ideas that we came up with. We invented religion, countries, and possessions, and whether you like those things or not, is it good for the world?
It’s uncontroversial to say that they have left us with a lot of lousy baggage, working to get to an afterlife that probably doesn’t exist. Instead of devoting our lives to the world around us, fighting each other because we fundamentally think the people of our country are more deserving than those in their country. These are our ideas and nobody else’s; we can change them, do what with them, and imagine something different. That simple and surprisingly challenging action is enough within the song’s context. After all, imagining is enough to send a weird person like Ben Shapiro to an intellectual tailspin. If it causes him to whine about the worst thing ever made, and so obviously threatens him and makes him sweat, then it must be meaningful.
Both Dinesh Joseph D’Souza and BenShapiro lack sociological imagination or transcendence of the self, our ability to situate ourselves as individuals and as nodes in a complex society and culture. Ben Shapiro’s colleague Jordan Peterson [and the whole Daily Wire Club] have the same sociological dysfunction, and he also mimics D’Souza’s use of instrumental reason and utilitarianism regarding his misreading of Postmodernism. Essentially, it makes a satellite view of Postmodernism and obfuscates a space for a rebuttal where facts and reason may give better value.
I’ve discussed postmodernism at length (throughout several posts) and that all the uproar surrounding it came from Peterson, who magically created [a satellite version of postmodernism], a leftist intellectual bogyman to fight against. A closer look at his analysis reveals a misrepresentation of postmodernist authors, whom he regards as culprits. However, at the heart of it is really about his fear of unquantifiable uncertainties, which is no different to any Christian conspiracy theorist/traditionalist-Christian and their inherent demonic thought forms. He wanted to blame the woke movement on postmodernism through his misreading of deconstructionist and existentialist authors and consciously creating a fundamentalist claim. It’s sorcery in itself.
This opens the door for traditionalist Christians to associate postmodernism with relativism and contrast it with modernism and pre-modernism so they can associate a type of meaning through a polarising understanding of ethics, collectivism, altruism, and misconceptions of modernism as an individual. Moreover, it does not work as a philosophy because altruism is neither an ethical theory nor individualism.
* | Woke-isim is normative, not postmodern | ||
* | Woke-isim and identity politics came out of the new-atheist movements rather than postmodernism | ||
* | Postmodernists reject the relativist label | ||
* | Postmodernism does not make sense when contrasted against modernism or even medieval pre-modernism | ||
* | Postmodernisim does not advocate acquisition of power |
.
Most Christians now on the right-leaning polarity believe postmodernism committed patricide, when it’s really their spokesperson, Peterson, who changed the metaphor to fit a moral absolute paradigm. He somehow squeezed out the true meaning of postmodernism by tunnelling it through pure reason and adjacently using his mechanics of instrumental reason. This is really no different from what Sam Harris did with his book Morals and Values.
Ethics play a role in memory and imagination; the fear of reality is the fear of ethics being unbound by rationality. These are present whenever ethics are confused with morality, and just like Sam Harris, who wants to bind morality with values and, therefore, be scientifically rational, Peterson intends to anchor morality with the absolute [moral absoultes]. Ethics is not what this is, nor is it moralistic because ethics needs to be exercised daily. Postmodernism is an art style, it’s an abstract form that came after modernism that peaked after a culturally revolutionary time in the late 60s and early 70s, and all that crap that surrounds it is in the realm of philosophy and politics. Straying from realism in an artistic aesthetic sense doesn’t mean straying from moral ideologies [give me a break]. It could be Christians borrowing rational methodology for iconoclasm to reject images that do not adhere to their extreme Christian philosophical thought. Postmodernism is a breakdown or semantic steps away from realism as it makes its way to a dreaming universe [a surrealistic dimension] that is language-based. This means you can communicate with it as a co-creator because the universe itself has a magical co-creating faculty about it.
Fundamentalist/Traditional Christians have many hang-ups about notions of magic, which is valid considering scientism invokes a type of sorcery that is often used by political figures to persuade an agenda. Although unaware of how magic plays a role in society and that it shouldn’t be generalised or radicalised so quickly because it engages with our intuition, imagination, and dreams, it eventually becomes a science. Imagination and art can often reflect that imbalance.
— Look, do you have any idea how long it took me To paint like this? — No. — Twenty-five years. |
.
Refusing to acknowledge the inability to depict is an absurd assertion in postmodernity, as this viewpoint fundamentally aligns with a Christian fundamentalist ideal. For example, spiritual awakening or Christ-consciousness through the theo-logos is meant solely for Christ. Christians who wish to understand this spiritual connection are prohibited; they can only grasp it through their faith in Him. In this context, there is a clear and rigid mode of communication: those who seek to learn about the sublime cannot, and those who wish to imagine it also cannot. This frustration needs an outlet, so it has been reframed through utilitarian means and instrumental reasoning in postmodernity. Humanity cannot have the sublime at their fingertips; they must recognise their lack of knowledge and understand that they cannot accurately depict this deficiency—and they should not even attempt to do so. Postmodernism aims to illustrate the folly of believing one can depict the impossibility of depiction.
This is neither modernism nor postmodernism; rather, it represents fundamentalism acting with utilitarian mysticism. It acknowledges that imagination can be unquantifiable and uncertain, leading to a desire to control or utilize it. When imagination becomes troublesome, the response is often to exert control over it. This is evident in how they perceive imagination as a troubled brain. If one wishes to harness it, one might create something like COVID-19—examples of unquantifiable uncertainties used for manipulation. In their unusual reframing, fundamentalism typically seeks to grasp the uncertain through a dispensational ideal, such as the New Jerusalem, the war in heaven, and the mandate for heaven on earth. The claim for postmodernity, characterized by a disregard for grappling with uncertainty, is rooted in the imperial aspirations of the New Jerusalem. By this logic, it can be considered postmodern.
The only difference is that they’re making this ideal happen without considering human life. In tangent watcher cults whose mission is to destroy empires and civilisations by any means as they build cities underground, both use sorcery and are often Hegelian in their approach. This means there is no balance between the left and right because they are there for themselves instead of trying to grasp the unknown with art. Only one of the aspects of the two is tyrannical and dangerous: no city in the sky is going to come down, the godhead has never come down to earth, and no man has ever been to the moon – and yet, there are depictions of these concepts in artistry. And it would mean all Christian conspiracy theorists are postmodernists as they see the folly in numerous videos that try to depict a hoax or false flag as something real. And at the very same time, they are the same ones making a loud fuss about postmodernism. It will be a truer focus if their energy is focused on educating themselves on the rise of popularity interlinked with corporatism [hint …Trump].
All artists can draw realism to an extent, and like any other skill, there are levels; some are extremely good; their paintings come close to being photo-genic, a skill that is honed throughout a lifetime. Refusing one discipline over another (or changing artistic methodology) does not equate to being tyrannical and dangerous. The artist can depict [whatever] and merely chooses not to. Suppose postmodernism is going to have this label. In that case, it will simply refuse, refusing to depict the inability to depict by depicting it because it’s all about that struggle and about that ‘doubt.’ Postmodernism is an art style, so its imagery will be constrained; the inability to depict is in its style, not the intentional management of the imagination.
More Propaganda than Postmodernism: The old colonial government instinctively understood that if they could destroy the languages, the art, and the spiritual that was tied into the art and the land, it could destroy the people. It’s not that the West never understood the importance of language and art – in the core of democracy and the existence of civilisations, they always understood it. However, they used it negatively because they were they were in a dominant position, and thank the gods, they failed. They came close to driving out the population of the true inherent of the land during the nineteen hundreds. However, a modern outlook will depict that dissimilar peoples can share land, resources, power and dreams while respecting and sustaining their differences – a story of trying to live together in peace and harmony. This modern outlook changes the idea of what democracy is. Despite what they went through, and even now, great animist cultures never forgot their art within their old and new civilisation in which spirituality is at the core of belief, not spirituality in political religion or religion isolated. Its spirituality is built into the culture, art, and politics – a surprisingly valuable realisation. Despite colonial history, we have these cultures who think and live in another way that integrates art and truth, art and democracy, art and civilisation, art and spirituality, etc.
Even the formation of the U.S. Empire, in contrast to its constitutional documents, created many interesting art and culture. Popular music started from its grassroots, a reaction to the modernisation of democracy built under the industrialisation of slavery. It continued until the mid-60s, from the birth of the colonies to the 1960s. Though slavery existed everywhere in some way in other civilisations, prominently around medieval times, they grew out of it. However, the New World utopia was different; they were linked to the industrial revolution. The importance it had on British and European empires was that they were the ones who profited more from it than the Jurors of elite America. Despite that … came a grassroots culture that has instinctively fascinated the rest of the world. It opened the door for new possibilities, and with what FDR allowed [the prevention of elites getting through] and the impact of his policy, it empowered culture to strive on many facets.
This culture that started at the grassroots paved the way for Appalachian folk songs [blue-grass] coming from disposed people in Scotland, Ireland, and England who ended up as farmers in the New World – that merged with African culture, which birthed Blues, Rhythm and Blues, folk, country, then rock‘n’roll. Which evolved into commercial industries, paving the way for art, paintings, moving pictures, comic books and literature. This art and creativity can be so complex, but it endures in our ability to live with complexity and will often evolve with it. This all has something to do with the Indigenous role in society and civilisations, and to an extent, a struggle of a liberalist structure and that relationship within an intricate Indigenous spirit, and even in this new amalgamation. We are still discovering that they have more to offer in a broader sense than Western society can offer them – about civilisation and art and a profoundly different approach to democracy. A fresh perspective on truth through art, embracing animism and the land without nationalist tendencies. It promotes balance between the individual and the group, acknowledging complexity and encouraging coexistence with doubt.
This culture that started at the grassroots paved the way for Appalachian folk songs [blue-grass] coming from disposed people in Scotland, Ireland, and England who ended up as farmers in the New World – that merged with African culture, which birthed Blues, Rhythm and Blues, folk, country, then rock‘n’roll. This evolved into commercial industries, paving the way for art, paintings, moving pictures, comic books and literature. This art and creativity can be so complex, but it endures in our ability to live with complexity and will often evolve with it. This all has something to do with the Indigenous role in society and civilisations, and to an extent, a struggle of a liberalist structure and that relationship within an intricate Indigenous spirit, and even in this new amalgamation. We are still discovering that they have more to offer in a broader sense than Western society can offer them – about civilisation and art and a profoundly different approach to democracy. A fresh perspective on truth through art, embracing animism and the land without nationalist tendencies. It promotes balance between the individual and the group, acknowledging complexity and encouraging coexistence with doubt.
Art uses intuition and imagination, and when it’s marginalised, it reduces to light entertainment as opposed to the time of Athens, where it was more about the full integration of society. This marginalisation comes in the form of politics and citizenship that use culture as a tool for empire and, in its endeavour, can have great value, but it still speaks for the empire. How do we live with that? Or how do we behave in that new normal?
Take, for instance, woke-isim and the reactionaries that came with it, like anti-woke, both fundamentally extreme in their polarity. The arts were marginalised way before the appearance of woke-is; woke is an endeavour to devour any sites of potent imaginal resistance as it tries to colonise it from the inside. Wokeisim undoubtedly struggles with shared knowledge as common sense. It doesn’t try to own the subject. Still, it dictates the quality of detail in their regard [including archetypes and stories] as the subject of creativity for an agenda – using political correctness to do it. All the while, anti-woke reactionaries who found a space for profit opposing certain aspects of woke’s hyper-individualist endeavour, not realising in their endeavour, may fall into nationalistic or reactionary individualism. What is missing are those silenced [artists and artist-prophets] at the edges of society that only ever emerge when the sun breaks through the clouds. They know such Hegelian plots are on purpose and are only quick to remind that they didn’t originate from the left or right but from the rational types dependent on the behaviours of the unconscious irrationals. Things that must be understood:
* | Woke is based on hyper individulasim but does not stem from the radical left that’s reactoinary scape-goating. | ||
* | Woke-isim aligns more with the left of Neo-Liberalsim [post-leftist] this is where the cult group set its foundation. | ||
* | Woke is dialectic in its motive | ||
* | Woke is mistaken as being postmodern when its really Rationalism at the core |
.
Christians, both traditionalists and fundamentalists, confuse postmodernism with hating a stylized approach to postmodernism. This is because it instinctively implies what they hate about themselves. In that regard, postmodernism must not be used as a tool for reactionary uproar because your whole basis is fundamentally wrong. Art can be used as propaganda; therefore, blaming postmodernism as a type of propaganda becomes mute because it’s like blaming the paintbrush instead of the depiction. The element and quality they lack, which allows it to reach beyond itself to a sense of the other and therefore free from dictation or agenda … is art unbound by rationality and free in our imagination.
Ian McGilchrist, the author of ‘Master and his Emissary’, also seems to tip in a direction where obfuscation is a prerequisite, like Peterson. He equates his book title to Nietzsche, although Nietzsche never wrote such a myth to instigate such an inspiration for that title. A myth in which he equates cerebral hemispheres, one side to the MasterMaster and the other to the emissary – the MasterMaster and emissary are about our brain’s cerebral hemispheres that should cooperate but are in conflict. This conflict plays out in recorded history through the seismic shifts characterising Western culture’s history. At the moment, it finds itself in the hands of the vizier who, with all its gifts, is essentially a bureaucrat with its interest at heart. Meanwhile, the Master, whose wisdom gave the people peace and security, is left in chains. The Master is betrayed by his emissary.
There is a common consensus to give credit in the direction of far-right authoritarian personas like Nietzsche, especially towards an author with many contradictions himself. The myth that inspired the title of his book comes from the Valentinian Gnostic sect. McGilchrist rewrote ‘Master and his Emissary’ and added more pages, almost doubling it; one wonders when the writer is free in his wonders of expression, slightly skewed into propaganda. His book expounds on left and right brain imbalance but doesn’t offer a place where solutions in the greater whole can be met. Instead, he doubles down on a predominantly hyper left-brain point of view about needing more right brain.
Art, when marginalised, can lead to mediocre entertainment, and in itself, that speaks for the empire, which has its sets of values to which propaganda and corporatism are used, which eventuate in ‘culture’ used as a tool for the empire. This means that culture as a whole was already taken over by propaganda before waking up, which further reduced culture. One can argue that the same secret clandestine group rebranded itself in Woke to fit modern times. Art and culture as a tool for the empire that embraces the corporatism model, which is inherently structured and organised, has a trickle-down effect as it makes its way into educational institutes. More and more graduates attain a mindset of management of subject […], i.e., the management of art rather than art itself.
The Industrial Revolution birthed out a new utilitarian system that adopted a pyramidal structure about the elites on top, both of power and our capacity to use our qualities. Their qualities of money, bragging, and self-interest freed them to act normally and use their qualities. However, normal behaviour is not a privilege; the opportunity to use our qualities is not a reward for utilitarian success. This differs from evolutionary natural hierarchical structures and should always be considered separate. It would be a mistake to align evolutionary natural hierarchical structures with the utilitarian systems as the pyramidal structure, as it gives them a sort of get-out-of-jail-free pass. Identifying both modes as the same would open the door for moral absolutes [which is really about religious dogma]. And so any inference to any unjust situation gets brushed off because you can’t criticise those competent enough to run a corporation – they’re just following a natural hierarchy.
There are always conspiratorial threats by hidden cults whose spiritual fervour aligns with fallen angelic diets that align themselves or are part of that utilitarian corporate structure. This means there is a hidden agenda behind a utilitarian corporate structure. A combination of false individualism, which reflects highly structured corporatism and self-indulgent individualism, is shown on the surface. Behind closed doors is a spiritual fervour of ancient mystery cults, now reconstituted to the chosen one(s) complex to bring about … whatever.
Art and culture, freed from the utility of corporation and freed from empire as a tool, still have to liberate themselves from the idea of the ‘culture’ that can be given to you by the elites as soon as you reach a specific bourgeois class. Examined from a very conservative political viewpoint, which the Howard government of Australia habituated, a citizenship test [which was really a policy to restrict immigrants] by which the reward would be culture itself. It is a seemingly corporatist endeavour. It is not true that culture is what you get after you get the job, education or even citizenship because culture sits outside such structures. Culture hinges on our imagination and creativity and is at the core of what we are as a civilisation.
Gnosis, imagination, sense, thinking, and, to some extent, understanding are attributes that lie within us all and, therefore, within society. Balancing while engaging a dynamic tension of movements also helps us realise that we must remain still in one place—the place of our real life and real society—is the tension of seeking—is the act of acting normal.
.
.