Tao of the Ninja Mennonite: VI-- continued.

So, yeah, authenticity. . .

It never ceases to amaze me, looking back, at how much impact my sailing books have had. Hey, they're really shitty books. I didn't really expect anyone to read them. They're self-published, of course, as no nautical publisher would consider having them-- as there's absolutely no commercial appeal-- I wrote them largely for my own benefit as a means of gathering my own thoughts-- and in general they were waaaaay ahead of their time. I promise you, writing about the virtues of engine-less sailing in a world of .80 gasoline in the middle of the dot.com boom was lunatic fringe material. "Sailing with Purpose" was written by a 27 year old kid trying to figure out how to live a life of authenticity, full aware that the choice to take on such a project would cost dearly-- and of course it did. I've no regrets, and no apologies for the fact that, well, that's a book written by a kid, in a kinda flip style--albeit a very earnest one-- desperately trying to figure that game out. The others followed in their footsteps in a pretty dang unvarnished, minimally edited representation of my thoughts over that decade and some of sailing. This blog is pretty similar, in fact, as I've come to believe it's vastly more valuable to be real, even if that exposes one's defects-- than slick. It's vastly more persuasive as it's authentic-- or as follows alienating. Which is fine. There are people out there who chose values(or more accurately rejected them) that make them my enemies and they just didn't know it until they read my stuff. May as well make that all clear. In fact now, rather than "sailing"  I feel exactly the same way about my experiments in "sustainability" -- or more precisely our failure as a culture to achieve such in a necessarily timely manner-- I unapologetically intend to bear witness to our utter failure and absolute personal culpability for the destruction of planet earth. . .This also is waaaay ahead of its time-- people are still pretending it hasn't happened-- or are busy capitalizing on selling bogus solutions:  I intend to provide the generations of future with a very precious gift-- perspective. They, those kids of ours, are going to be forced by scarcity to make the most horrible of decisions and I fully intend to declare that they've every right to lay the blame where they need to, squarely on us-- squarely on me. I understand that this "bearing witness" will provide them very little comfort-- only justification for what actions they'll be forced to take. It's the best I can do. It's not enough for our crimes, of course. But it's something, I guess.

Ok, so objectivity-- or the complete lack of it-- and why it was so easy for us to murder our own children.

Just after graduating from college in the early 90's I had the lovely experience of working for the Juvenile Justice system in Boise-- and boy was that informative. I grew up in a reasonably sane, reasonably caring home and I really had no experience of the hell that so many kids start their lives in. I had no idea as to the pervasiveness of child abuse, sexual, physical, or mental-- or the full meal deal often-- but I learned a lot about it pretty quick. There's a lot that can be said about it, but for the purposes of this discussion I'll narrow it down to one hard, shocking, keen observation...

Child abusers "love" their kids.

No shit. They really do. At least from their "subjective" experience they do. They "feel" they do. They "feel" good about it. They very often feel that their abuse is even morally justified, and their abusive behavior in the best interest of the child. The obvious real objective evidence of a busted up kid bears not at all on their "perspective." Why should it? As a culture we value our subjective states of being ahead of our objective experience-- pedophilia and child abuse are just another manifestation of that indulgence. If you feel that that you're behaving in a moral fashion, well that's good enough, right? No reason to investigate the actual real practical ramifications of one's actions-- certainly no reason to hypothesize about the unknowable unintended consequences either. And what you see is what you get-- not just a culture full of child abuse but spousal abuse, abuse in our workplaces, environmental abuse-- exploitation, domination, tyranny in every kind of human relationships, violence everywhere-- notably excepting the kind where you get punched back-- well, of course getting punched back subjectively sucks...

And ultimately you get a dead planet...

You get a miserable one long before that...

Why should we be surprised? Demanding others accept the validity of our subjective experience above the knowable, observable practical reality is violence-- and why there is not, cannot be, and never will be such a thing as a peaceful religion...

Clearly, if we can demand ourselves to be "objective" for a moment, the act of choosing for our own momentary "subjective experience" ahead of the objective, real, measurable greater good always tends to a future of conflict. In a world with more space, and more abundance, the immediate nature of that conflict can seem subjectively remote-- but the trend is relentlessly reinforced. As time progresses, it becomes more difficult, costly, and even fatal for those who value humanity to choose against the societal "suicide pact" as time progresses, many who try fail, and the trend is yet again reinforced. Eventually it's only the most heroic that can stand against such values-- and they are beset even by those who would publicly claim to share their core values-- subjectively, of course, rather than objectively--

This is why it is so critical today to declare-- an action is good if and only if it is in fact good... and this good is always a measurable quantity. 

to be contined as well, as I've wrenches to spin. . .

Tao of the Ninja Mennonite: VI

Obliquely following on the last post-- it's difficult to be currently aware of the unprecedented loss of arctic ice this summer it engendering a certain sense of impending dread. It's difficult locally to be much optimistic about this islands future if one has been paying much attention to the "geothermal" issue and taking note to the blatant lack of integrity shown by both the "for" and "against" camps. There's a lot of stuff in flames around the world this morning and it's obvious that my personal angst is shared by a lot of people.

Yet I can hear it: But hey, don't be so negative, Jay! The new Iphone is available today, that will save us all! Or some such new and shining thing or approach-- maybe not Iphones but new generations of solar panels, or new political moments like Occupy Wallstreet, or new approaches to taxation carbon credits, or any of the rest of it. But none of this "new" stuff really heartens me much, especially some of the touted "new paradigm" airy fairy stuff some spout-- as I know without a doubt the core issues facing humanity and the planet are not "epistemological" in nature-- neither are they ecological, or political, or technological. They are in fact moral issues first and foremost: issues of basic human integrity, honesty, and objectivity. Shallow minds like to shrug off our current woes as some inevitable result of human nature. This a broadly held but remarkably ignorant world view, as it's all but self-evident that if within the human mind there didn't exist the basic capacity for honesty, objectivity, and cooperative benevolence--  humanity would have never survived our pre-historical existence and our species would have been stuffed out as yet another failed evolutionary experiment a million years ago. Bullshit-- it's our obvious and unique innate capacity honest objectivity that makes us human-- this is the core of human nature itself -- not intelligence, nor language, nor thumbs: all of these we share with plenty of our earthly co-inhabitants. No, it's the ability to look at the world objectively(at least as objectively as the physical constraints of the universe allow it to be possible) to grasp the systemic import of that objective knowledge, to manipulate it conceptually, and to act in a manner that has the ability to enhance the global systemic viability-- this makes us human. From that realization of the evolutionary role of the human species--and why it might make sense for such ecological capital to be invested in one species-- it can be seen as core to "human nature" the ability to enhance, consciously, systems that otherwise would be constrained to much slower and perhaps less viable processes. Of course this terminology I use, "larger systemic viability" is me speaking the perspective of a modern, educated, atheist-- observing the emergent phenomenon of evolutionary processes and biological determinants-- paying a certain respect to the appearance of a teleological nature of the whole. Others from other times might be comfortable with simpler concepts of "God's Will" or even the Tao-- but we would hope that as we go along our innate objective "human nature" would guide us to worldviews with ever higher levels--or depths-- of objective understanding. While it may be colloquially cute to speak in these more primitive terms, and while without a doubt there's knowledge to be inherited from such world views-- for a modern mind to hold such concepts as equally as valid as the informed modern secular view, is, well, nothing short of retarded. To deliberately do so in the face of evidence to the contrary is at its core-- inhumane.

And is core to the root of our current moral crisis.

Why? Because if we can accept for the moment my assertion of the innate nature of humanity's capacity for rational objectivity-- it certainly is reasonable to suggest that as with all of our other innate capacities-- the ability for language, or mathematics, or even perhaps music-- our objective nature if not appropriately stimulated, or if deliberately stifled-- may not develop. And this is critical, as objectivity is central to moral behavior. In fact, it's very reasonable to argue that the first and foremost, and most humane moral task of any evolved human being is the utter commitment to be honestly, authentically objective. For without this, whence comes the criteria for any subsequent moral judgement? Moral judgments obviously cannot be made effectively constructively from incomplete or inadequate understandings of reality-- less so from fantasy or delusional word views-- rarely if ever from reality based on the wishing of things being a certain, often purely preferential, way.

To be continued... in the meanwhile

Tao of the Ninja Mennonite: V

Well, it's time someone point out the fact that Mitt Romney is the Antichrist, after all. I mean he really is.

The conversation kinda came up over on the forum(yup, that's the right link, you'll need to roll through it) where the various virtues or lack of our current system, culture, all that were discussed a bit. And the fact that Mitt Romney is the Antichrist has only a bit to do with his fetish for holy underwear, believing God is an alien from Kochab, that he gets not only 70 virgins upon his transmigration but a whole fucking planet to rule--calling his wife from her tomb is purely optional, however-all that horseshit. It has only a bit to do with Mormonism in general, although it's ideal as an unique American kind of religion-- a cross between the weakest feel good version of Christianity, homeopathy, and multi-level marketing. Nah, demonstrating that he's the Antichrist comes down to a very simple observation.

See, the whole Christian tradition--back in the day, was largely a reactionary one against the heavy legalistic nature of Judaism-- and rather than a whole book of rules or books of rules and castes of privileged interpreters of the rules was posited a very simple set of  principles:

1) God has a plan and a "will" to be expressed in Creation.

2) It is man's proper role to fulfill that "will." To choose against God's will is, frankly the definition of a sin.

3) The messianic message was one of demonstrating the Christ-manner of fulfilling God's will. It is, in fact a lifestyle of attempting strive for that fulfillment, which is always the greatest, most important systemic "good"--and in fact often requires personal sacrifice for that "greatest good."  And of course that stunt on the cross a pretty good example of all that, in fact.

3a) For those whose eyes are glazing over already-- hey, I said "GREATER GOOD." The "Christian" lifestyle was one of deliberately manifesting "god's will" by seeking that "greater good."  As if God's will could be anything other than the greater good, right?

3b) And hey, sometimes the "personal good" has to give a bit to serve that greater good, right? Sometimes it's nice to share.

3c) Of course--to deliberately, systemically seek the "personal good" over the greater good of "god's will" is core to the "Christian" definition of evil.

Now you sure as hell wouldn't know this looking at the modern church-- which is pretty damned evil--but from this perspective it's pretty easy to see where early Christian traditions of aiding the poor, vows of poverty, communal-ism came from. And it's also easy to see where tasty biblical zingers like "it's more difficult for a camel to crawl through the eye of a needle than a rich man enter the kingdom of heaven"-- as well, it's pretty tough to amass a big pile of dough seeking the "greater systemic good"(read: utterly impossible.) Or, of course "give on to Caesar what is Caesar's and God what is God's" which, certainly, translates to "Caesar can kiss my ass." There's more; lots more. In fact the whole New Testament is loaded with that kind of stuff and in fact very sparse about telling people what to do with their weenies-- ah, but that's another topic.

So now the Antichrist stuff:  Back in my Bible School days it was often impressed on me by scholars who had some understanding of translation that the "anti" part of "Antichrist" wasn't a very fitting translation, as it suggest an almost Zoroastrian god vs. devil slapdown kind of confrontational character. Not at all, many insisted-- and it would be much more accurately translated as "instead-of" rather than "anti." And indeed, the "Instead-of-Christ" has a very important connotative difference, and in many ways more insidious. And what would that Anti/Instead-of-Christ stand for? Well, of course against or at least as an alternative the the Christ message-- again, man's role is to personally fulfill god's will by aiding all creation find its teleological expression of the greatest good-- the alternative probably would be something very much like "seek the personal good and fuck everyone else." Now let's not be to silly about seeing how this all works out-- as very often such a person wants to fuck over other people and feel good about it(personal good)--even self-righteous and entitled about it-- so it's very nice to wrap the whole thing up in some pseudo-bible-babble where once can pretend to believe that it's actually God's will to give you a whole pile of toys and other people nothing and that's ok because it's in God's plan for some people to go hungry. Never can know god's will really-- pass the steak sauce? Sure, all that sounds very silly and self serving phrased that way-- but hey, that's what makes the modern church go round--sermons based on that kind of language caters to a crowd who can offer up way better tithes that them "smelly serve poor kinds."

So how does this in fact make Mitt Romney the Antichrist? Because I suggest to you that he's taken the "all about me" alternative anti-christ message further, more indulgently, more profoundly, and more successfully than any human being in human history--and if he wins the presidency, he'll effectively taken the "antichrist" gospel to the highest level of success and power possible on planet earth! -- and if that doesn't in fact make him "the man!" I really don't know what rates. And that is, in fact, a little freaky. 

Especially because ol Captain Holy Underwear believes in a literal apocalyptic battle and has the power to initiate it in his hands.

Tao of the Ninja Mennonite: IV

Big guns, now: good vs. evil?

See I wasn't really raised so much to believe in evil, as well, as Nietzsche said "You may search the world for evil, but alas, all you may find is the bad," meaning, of course, that being evil is really hard to do, and you've got to really want it, and you've got to be fucked up in a galactic kind of way to do that. You've got to be a bit superhuman, really. Most people want just the bad, which is just some weird twisted version of the good, selfishly-- so you'll sell out at your own convenience to get it.. A lot like our current President, or perhaps Mitt(Holy Underwear) Romney.

I was also a brainy geek kid, chess club sort, who loved Dungeons and Dragons and all that, as it was this completely wonderful world to play thought experiments with. Contrary to what the evangelical idiots thought, it wouldn't drag you to the DEVIL, as well, there was one, drawn up nicely by a set of rules, and all the rest in the game, you got to know "it" personally, and you'd figure out it wasn't a very good winning proposition to have anything to do with any of that DEVIL stuff unless you were nuts and self-destructive. In fact, being stupid doesn't work with "evil," you've got to really work at it or you just end up being "bad.". I'm telling you, it's not simple.  Think about it. Take some time. It ain't a simple issue. You'll find, if you think about it, you can end up being good and stupid, by mere accident, and I guess it counts, if anyone keeps score, but to be evil you've to to really mean it. You've got to be deliberate. For what end? It can't be chicky-poos, or wealth, or power, or any of that-- that's just bad again. See, evil can't have an end but itself. You've got to want it because you just want it,  itself. Ah, Epistemology. . . People still tell me they believe in "evil."  I say, well, try a thought experiment. Lock yourself up in a closet and just be all "evil" by yourself for a couple hours and see how that works out for you. What do you figure you're going to do? Be pissy? Angry? Think mean thoughts? Cut on yourself?(can't do much of that, you've got a couple of hours!). Bunk. Evil is a joke!

Well, now we've got Rick Perry.

Now seriously, this makes me wonder. This dude is fucked up, in a supreme galactic sort of way. He can't, absolutely can't, impossibly can't, be as stupid as he makes himself. His state is in the worst drought in history. Nope, no such thing as climate change, he says. Evidence is out, like it is on dinosaur eggs. Or maybe Enron too, or a whole lot of stuff it's handy not to think about. He has executed more people that any other Texas Gov., a high bar, frankly, and has "no doubts, whatsoever" about his doing so. He believes, in spite of the fact that he lives square on top of the best piece of oil real estate in the US, that "environmentalists" are impeding oil exploration. . .Like there's parts of Texas that haven't been looked at? Isn't it legal in Texas to shoot environmentalists(whatever that means) on sight? He's a Christian Dominionist? You just look this up on your own. . .Let's be clear, this fucker is a monster. I understand it's poor taste to compare people to Hitler. I wouldn't dare, so I wouldn't. Hitler was a beast, for sure, but I don't believe he had some complete willing, complicit desire to destroy all of humanity and creation? Hitler was a fascist, a complete egotistical nutcase, and wanted to restore some kind of weird ass mythological motherland. As fucked up as that is, at least I can stretch my head to get around it, and maybe try to understand why.

To deliberately commit violent, self-destructive, self-demeaning suicide for myself and everyone else I might  know, doing everything one can to drag them into it, well, is something I don't, or didn't, believe was a mindset possible to exist.

I've got to tell ya, I've been in a lot of churches in my time.  My Dad was an undertaker, after all, and we got to see all that religiosity  layed out in its glory. Dogma? Sure, seen lots of that. Bigotry? Sure, seen lots and lots of that. Racism? Sure, seen lots of that. Classism? Less of that, but growing, for sure. Homophobia? Some of that, but shrinking.. Stupidity? Tons and tons of that. Selfishness. all that? Well, of course. Evasion of personal responsibility? Well, hell! What do you think religion was created for?

Completely blind ass evil? I didn't believe it possible.

Rick Perry has expanded my mind.

The Tao of the Ninja Mennonite: III

So it would have been in the late 50's or so when my Grandfather, a rather devout, even dogmatic sort of Mennonite farmer--plowed up a nest of dinosaur eggs preparing some new farm ground. The eggs are at a natural history museum in Spokane now. I've got half of one, cut and polished. I wasn't there, but I can imagine the scene a bit. It would have been the era, of course, where the whole creation vs. evolution(fight, you can't call it a debate) was probably hitting the mainstream in rural America. My grandfather wouldn't have been the kind of guy who would have spent a lot of time worrying about it, as wheat farming gave him all the worrying he needed--as he would have figured that if he was supposed to care, he'd probably be "encouraged" to do so. Well, here was encouragement to think about it--in the form of a half dozen perfect, oddly shaped eggs.

Now I can very much imagine his thought process. He was not particularly educated, but was a experienced and keen observer of nature. He would have known for sure that the size of the eggs were far too large for birds, and the shape was all wrong anyway, having seen plenty of snake eggs. He might have heard some of the hyperbolic explanations from the more evangelical sorts: explanations of how the dinosaurs were created on day one and the extinguished, or died in the "flood" or some crap like that, but I'm sure the fact that these were eggs would have held some sway, and a nest, which spoke of creatures living their lives rather than some exhibitory divine freakshow. He would have known also that it wasn't unusual to find other sorts of fossils either, stuff that couldn't possibly co-exist with big lizards, like mastodon tusks or dire wolves--and if anything to try to believe that all this stuff had happened in a week just a few thousand years ago was simply implausible. He wouldn't have needed to be a research scientist to known this, he was a natural scientist who had enough life experience and eyes in his head to think that a bit of a stretch. Creation was a revelation of God, after all, and it wouldn't lie to you. Besides, while he was familiar with his bible, for sure, he was familiar enough to understand that the "word of God must be read with guidance by the small, still voice of the Holy Spirit"-- meaning, that you just can't take everything in there verbatim, but you must practice a certain amount of cautious, thinking discernment. Jeez, how sensible. . .

See, being a bit of a bible scholar myself, having studied the thing cover to cover in my youth, I can promise you in there no-where is a commandment that one must be a dumb-ass. Science was encouraged in our household, for sure, as much as bible reading, as both, with guidance by that that "small, still voice" were was of understanding God. Ultimately, for me, I was far more persuaded by the likes of Issac Asimov or Carl Sagan-- perhaps also Hegel, Schopenhauer, Jung, on and on--Marcus Aurelius and Gung Fu Tze: these satisfied the answers of my "small, still voice" than did the various zealots from the dark ages. . .that's the path of growth, and how it happens. Does that "small, still voice" still speak to this atheist? Sure.

Contrasting now for a moment. . .just for giggles. Nervous ones.

Michele Bachmann?  This woman probably hears voices, but I doubt they're "small, still ones." For fuck sakes, she's running for president and getting somewhere trying. Mind you, she believes 1) The earth was created in a week some 8000 years ago 2) Climate change not just not happening, but is a hoax 3) Her homophobic husband is actually straight.

Some video fun. There's much more along this line if you follow the links. Be careful, if you haven't heard this kind of stuff be prepared to pick your jaw up off the floor.

So just how do people get to be this stupid? It's really worth a question, and education or lack of it isn't the issue. What it is, as far as I see it, the causal element is privilege, mostly the privilege to live your life in evasion of any facts or details that might challenge your selfish preconceived opinions. It gives one the option of being removed from the details that make up what most of us call "reality." But that's good old Michele and to a large degree describes the overfed pin-heads that support her. Privilege? That's not my background, for sure, nor my family, and so we have a tendency to adopt a critical eye especially towards things we want to believe. One can find oneself in a position where one cannot afford the luxury to believe foolish things for comfort, nor the risk of being wrong. Lack of privilege demands pragmatism, and objectivity--not dogma or idealism-- it might surprise people that that my Grandfather sold his farm in 1976, because of climate change. He would have been unaware of the research, but he was wholly aware of the level of the water in his well and the dates he had planted and harvested over the previous 50 years-- that would have convinced him far more than any scholarly study.  But we that work with our hands can't have our head, ahem, in the clouds.

Hand that stupid fool a shovel-- she might learn something.

The Tao of the Ninja Mennonite: II

Following on the last post, it's worth putting some time and effort considering the implications of the "yoked" terminology. It's a much more refined view than one hears from many "empowerment" camps--who might otherwise use terminology such as dispossession, or exploitation, or enslavement-- see, the term "yoked" is important-- as within Anabaptist tradition one realizes that the "yoked" animal puts its head into the harness willingly, and performs work against its own better future for the short term gain of a couple of handfuls of feed. 


The wisdom of this tradition is to understand that one has personal culpability in the bearing of a yoke.

Well?

See, personal responsibility is central to these people. There are no innocent bystanders in this world view. Sure, you'll find kids around the world in terrible situations, but in a lot of cases the fault for that child's condition and the villain can be capably lain at the feet of not only some oppressing elite class(a growing and currently favorite) but also the kid's parents, and grandparents, who stuck their head in a yoke and empowered the exploitative force by their own efforts to seek an easy handful of feed. And I think there's a good point, if not an absolute one, there: most people find themselves in the positions of "dis-empowerment" not by exploitation by others, but by selling out to them.

Cognitive Dissonance seems to me to be the critical flaw of most progressive movements I value: no wonder, our culture has high expectations of maintenance. Few are willing to carry the burden of remaining independent, and we have found that the most effective way of controlling a herd isn't bullwhips but to feed it well. (Alert! Feed sack is running empty, and bullwhips must suffice in such environments!) It's little wonder to me as to why we see such little progress being made-- using climate change again as an example -- of all these organizations "battling" climate change all the while "yoked" to funding, support, media access, even expectation of lifestyles--on and on, coming from sources that have absolutely the opposite goal in mind. End result? Losing ground, of course.

Look, let's be clear: there is no way to preserve "spotted owl" habitat and hunt Californian Perky-titted Golddiggers.  Any of us who would want to make a change for a better world will need to be damned careful in what we do, how we live our lives, what our expectations are, who we work for, if we're serious about getting some traction on the issues we care about. The temptations to stick one's head in a "yoke" are strong, and opportunities ubiquitous. It may in fact be that at the moment it's all but impossible to operate effectively within mainstream--or even semi-mainstream society-- and keep one's values and benevolence intact. I expect that's the case. This is an extreme moment in history, and I see very few options left but stepping aside, washing one's hands of the whole business, and living in quietude, separation, and independence as much as possible-- until the season changes. There's a message here, but the corn-fed don't want to hear it yet. Once the whips come down, I expect there will be a renaissance of interest. 


That's hardly powerless, after all. Enjoy the moment. Preserve your strength.

The Tao of the Ninja Mennonite

Well, some of you don't know this, but the whole Mennoite thing is my Mom's family. Sure, I grew up around all that. And honestly, hardly a bad thing. Almost hip, really. It's not really such a big stretch to be an atheistic Mennonite really. Nor ninja. Fits me nicely., in fact.

Some people think-- stupidly, frankly, that the Anabaptist movement(meaning, re-baptizing people from ignorance into enlightenment, some time ago) has today some anti-technological element to it. Horse-shit. Mind you, these are the people that invented refrigerators. Or Issac Babbitt, who invented the modern alloy for bearings. Or a chicky-poo cousin, Tabitha-(a her, again. as Anabaptist guys like powerful girls that do things. . .) who invented, guess the first radial blade circular saw? Her? Eli Whitney's first business partner? Anti-technological? Well, they were anti-patent, rather than anti-technological--- and that's why they aren't household names. If you find yourself your average Amish, or Mennonite, or Hutterite master of technology you'll find a guy who could build you an engine out of iron laden sand. No kidding, and has respect for all of it. Any of you whizkid IT punks want to try that? No, motors are not built with a mouse click--I'm not kidding-- and by the way, you still need those kinds of motors to run servers, in case no one taught you that in school. The anti-technological Anabaptists?  They have if anything the most profound respect for technology, meaning, that they understand both its values and its dangers. The real issue, basically, when adopting a technology, is whether or not by the usage of the technology you'll become "yoked"(important term!) to a world view you find inherently destructive. Well, Anabaptist or not, that "metaphorical test" is worth some time thinking about, because it seems to me most people I know aren't merely "yoked" but in fact "imprisoned" by that they're dependent on.

Maxim? So, use it, if it doesn't use you.

Easy, huh? Just that a lot of modern stuff doesn't pass that muster.