“God” is the root of all human desires

Artwork: “Desire” by MissLaurelle

Those of us who think deeply often wonder what is the nature of our desires – of the human desires, and after a little research is done we realize that there is a lot that have been already written about it, namely, Abraham Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs”, Clare Graves and Don Beck’s “Spiral Dynamics” just to name a few. Most of them have this common pattern of organizing the human needs, which would be the objects of our will’s desires in structural hierarchies, that is, that we have a more or less generalized
“wish-list” to accomplish throughout the “games of life” that we encounter living each day.

Psychology does fine in doing such an organization, it makes it easier to understand, for instance, how we could identify healthy and pathological desires, but even so, it fails to give that much need metaphysical answer as to what lies at the root of all human desires themselves, and for that the mystics would argue that it’s “God” himself, or Plotino’s Oneness, or Atman’s, Brahman’s wholeness. So in this we find this most true statement that even in the most “dense” of all desires such as an orgy with prostitutes, the participants are still all seeking divinity – the freedom-of-being that comes with each embrace of divinity.

Therefore we can now merge psychology with metaphysics, that is, the “why”, “how” and the “what” at the root of all human desires, that being “God” – which is the missing target that our individual selves always long to meet but end up only finding “substitute gratification symbols” of “God”, that is, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is nothing butthe degrees of these substitute gratification symbols, they’re the temporary replacements of God in forms of easier modes of life’s games that becomes realistically achievable for the average person.

Integral Politics

Artwork: “apocalypse” by pierremassine

So we have a vast spectrum of political ideologies, we see the almost eternal struggle between “capitalist” and “socialist” ideologies, and in this, the most important question is: can any specific ideology save the societies? What does history teach us? Marx was all fine when he wrote the “The Capital”, he basically has shown how exploitation can happen in the economical arena – how the rich (the bourgeois) can opress the poor (the proletariat); and this was shown in how the distribution of wealth is unequal between these two classes, that is, the worker is not receiving the amount of value he produces because the elite is the owner of the means of production, and what it means is that it is the elite, “the barons” that are wealthy and therefore owns the industry of production of goods that will command the distribution of the wealth, because they’re in control of the jobs offer itself, and if they’re in control of the jobs offer they can make the rules of how it will be the distribution of productions between the elite and the proletariat.

Today in the 21th century we don’t have the barons, the bourgeois, the elite being the owner of few industrious enterprisis, but you have corporativism, that is, oligarchies of most powerful companies that are owning most of the markets and destroying the little entrepreneurs. The same rule applies here for Marx’s early diagnosis – the few elite of the oligarchies will command the rules of the games, they’ll command even governaments, so if they say the proletariat will have a bad minimum wage, nobody can’t actually do a thing about it. On the other hand, what have dictators done with “socialism”? They turned it into communism, into fascism and totalitarism. So, when Marx envisioned that the utopia would be a bunch of workers owning the means of production and that there would be happiness it’s doubtful he had foreseen what these “workers” would do when they got in power. Maybe the problem here was sheer human nature – i mean, as Hobbes would say, man is an asshole by nature, so who can really guarantee that any specific group of men will do right for all the rest? But again, on the opposite side when we see these neoliberalists, these libertarianists policies, where the individualistic meritocracy is the rule of the thumb, how can we say that there’s fairness when you see some rich people by inheritance competing with the extremely poor by birth?

The stronger will always crush the weaker, that’s the until-now-darwinist-rule that governs not just biological realities, but social realities. We need well-fare states, but we also need the competition of free markets, is it any wonder that no whole ideology can solve all the problems? What would an integral politics be like then? How can we get the best of all ideologies to catapult ourselves out of the current economical and political struggles? I can’t give the answer for that, but i only know how many people are still short-sighted on being one-sided ideologists. Perharps we need to get into detail of these problems, we need to study, for example, how could universal basic income ideias become a reality, or even how we could maintain a fair free market without forming oligarchies. It’s clear that individuals can’t change the world alone, but it’s within them that change should start happening as collectives are made of individuals. Has history made progress so far and we’re going to see a better and brighter future? I don’t think so – destruction, poverty, disease and iniquity is still the rule since the most remote past, and there’s no reason to believe, for example, that economical crashes will stop – we have more reasons for pessimist future then optimistic future, but again, how integral can you be when you reason politics and economics? And how aware are you to realize that we may now be depending on this new integral politics to avoid doom-days scenarios?

“I know that i know nothing”

Artwork: “ignorance” by Conin.

I know that i know nothing is Socrate’s consagrated dictum but whilst there are a lot of wisdom in this short sentence, it’s still one of the most misunderstood philosophical phrase ever written – people still don’t really know what it really means and therefore appears the question: how can we really know what Socrates meant? Is it even possible? Some philosophers such as Kant and Schopenhauer have already pointed out in their transcendental idealism that reality is divided into noumena and phenomena, that is, in a part that is knowable through the senses, perception and reason, and other that is not. Its implication for epistemology is that everything possibly conceivable of reality is necessarily partial, biased and conditioned by own’s own a priori forms of knowledge (space, time,), etc, therefore we simply can’t get the gist, the essence of the reality, of the world in its essence.

This ideology in itself could actually answer why it’s not possible to really know anything at all, and that would create a serious problem which would be: how is it even possible then to create true knowledge? And that is a question which could have several different answers, for instance, modern science would ensue the threefold method of 1) experiment of theories, hypothesis, thesis, etc, 2) direct empirical results, 3) discussion of the newborn “facts” within a scientific community. So if we join both ideologies now, we would be able to have “more probable”, “more stable”, and more “trustable” knowledge through the modern scientific method, but, if it’s still knowledge of the phenomena, it’s still not absolute knowledge.

If then, we go to Plato, his “true justified belief” would become problematic as well, as it has been demonstrated in his “Theaetetus”, when each component of this structure would become circuitous to define and prove: i mean, what is “knowledge”, what is “true”, what is “belief”, and what is “justified”? For Plato, truth would be akin of “knowing”, or having direct cognition of the metaphysical “Forms” of reality, belief then would be the psychological inclination one would have to connect given “knowledge” to given “Form”, and justification would be the account of linking a “necessary and sufficient” causal relationship between beliefs and truths. What we learn from this is that knowledge is not something as naive as just perceptions or opinions of something, which most people even nowadays still believe is enough. When Plato first started this investigation he encountered the nightmarish problem of defining each subsequent concept and term related to this famous dictum, so, if truth is “to find the metaphysical form of a thing”, then what is this metaphysical form?, and therefore, how can we know it? Moreover, how can we justify the justification of any epistemological connection of knowledge? I’m here with Nietzsche’s “rigor of unfinishable thoughts” so i’m not proposing any specific answers and inquiries for these questions, i shall leave them to those analystics for that matter.

Finally, the mystics such as of buddhism would say that to have absolute knowledge of reality, one would have to “know” the thing-in-itself within own’s own subject of inner being, that is, one would have to meet the utmost layer of being of one’s own – The “Supreme Identity”, “Atman”, etc. For them the traditional epistemological division of subject x object, or subject x predicate is illusory and therefore, through enlightment and liberation it would be possible to merge both to know the utmost dephts of object within one’s own subject, as that would be the supreme way of justification between knowledge and truth. But even if you achieve Nirvana, the quality of the experience would be so “mysterious” to reason, that we can only wonder if that would be akin to know the essence of reality in absolute, and in this i believe that the dictum “i know that i know nothing” will, perharps, forever hunts us, and so maybe all we really know will always be just pieces and bits of Plato’s forms that will determine our level of ignorance and wisdom.

Spiritual Darwinism

Artwork: “Concept map of ancient war” by white70ws.

Optimistics say that life is good and should be enjoyed, pessimists say it’s doomed since the beginning and should be rejected, and the dionysians say it should be affirmed and embraced within its paradoxes, but the sons of spiritual darwinism say it should be fought with utmost violence and intelligence – and in the end that’s the most strategic and powerful way to win the game. But what if you’re weak? What if you can’t fight and win nor accept it all in a big “amor fati” fashion? Can you be a willless-zen-pessimist? If no, you probably will be devoured by the world, or alternatively, you can take your chances and see if passivity will shield you from death-bed regrets.

Unknown Origins

Artwork: “Pyre” by cosmicspark.

The hermetics would argue that the source of all existence is rationally unknowable, it’s a mystery, so it’s useless to try to decipher it through reason, and that it would be akin to Kant’s conclusion where all metaphysical questions are not possible to verify through reason alone. The qabalists would say that the “Ein Soph”, or God prior to its manifestation in the world, which would “appear” from “Ayin”, nothingness, would be the originator of everything, but again, what is this “Ayin”? This “nothingness”? What is a no-thingness?

One the other hand Plato would tell us that an intelligent and benefactor agency rationally created the cosmos imposing mathmatical order into the chaos, and that it would be the work of a good “demiurge”, that is, it would be designed to have good effects and not be fortuitous. For Aristotle it would be a “primary engine” that we can’t know nothing about.  Going ahead, for materialists, the origin of it all would be just matter itself and its own interactions; for idealism the primacy would be mental – consciousness that would be the starting point. For transcendental idealism the reality as “thing-in-itself”, the noumena, would be unaccessible through the forms and structures of mental time and space within the subject, as it would know only the conditioned phenomena through his senses, perception, understanding and reason.

The explanations of the world’s origins are almost unlimited if you seek their reason in ideologies – they’re all inherent flawed to explain the “mystery” of it all; as Bergson would say: the concept can only make static pictures of reality. Then, without any ideology, for our reason, the origin of it all will be forever defined as an “unknown origin”, therefore it can only, maybe, be achieved through “other means”.

Revelations of a Distressed Flesh

Artwork: “Torment I” by mimulux.

Physical diseases are the most efficient anihilators of the “Veil of Maya”, that is, of the illusions of all stable and long-lasting happiness of our world, because they steal the comfort of our own and only home – that is, our own physical body, where all sensations of pain are immediate and undoubtful. More then just acute pain, chronic physical diseases are an unrelentless pressurer of indefinite and intangible consequences: depression, anguish and anxiety – , the triple pitchfork of post-modern subjective evil. Then, what are their consequences for those with a depth of consciousness? It’s the fatal doubt of Being’s inherent goodness and fairness – you start to doubt God and actually consider the spooky gnostics.

The on-going-nightmarish-physical pain will not render you any metaphysical revelations but it’ll surely destroy all your naive and weakly foundations – it’ll leave you naked under the fiery eyes of sheer existential terror, which will force you a most feared question: will you just die or will you bear the burden of a rotting body for a most horrible indefinition of time? Will you turn on the torch of dionysian affirmation and behold this paradox of insanity of all life, or will you rot away in dire pessimism?

Create your website at WordPress.com
Get started