Jihad and the Meeting of Cultures

Jihad for me is walking into the Mesjid. As an American, it is a good exercise for me to see the things which are deeply wrong with my culture. They aren't easy to miss. However, walking into the Moscow Islamic Center, I can't help but remember the deeper problems which the many cultures which have embraced Islam have. This is despite the vast strength and profound benefits which I believe Islam has to offer the world. (I must believe this, or I wouldn't have decided to become a Muslim.)

Islamic-culture problems like inferior treatment of women, sexual violence, a kind of "culture nazi" view of shariah, hiding in the closet in Western cultures, conflating religion and politics (sometimes to the point of violence), are easy to spot for an American observer. Part of this is because these problems are emphasized by the media. Part of this, though, is that these problems quite obviously exist. And I can't deny that. And that is why walking into the Mesjid is jihad for me.

As I journey through the world of being a Muslim, I see a great deal of hope and offering in the religion of Islam. I believe it is the best religion in the world. But it's always difficult for me to walk into the Mesjid, knowing my staunch unwillingness to discard my Stetson cowboy hat as a North Idaho Libertarian, nor to set aside my uniquely American beliefs about the world. I am an American. And I hold a far less cynical view of American culture than many of my Muslim sisters and brothers.

This makes the Eid al-Fitr gatherings and the public worship very difficult for me. Sometimes, I decide just to pray at home. It's too frightening to go to the Mosque. I willingly adopt the ideology which France would jam down my throat — I keep my religion private. I realize it is difficult particularly for my Muslim brothers, too. At first, I was hurt by the marked lack of "Aslaam-o-alikum" greetings at the local Eid al-Fitr feast. But then, upon reflection, I realized that a lot of the people there probably didn't know I was a Muslim. And, quite reasonably, they were afraid of me; a North-Idahoan wearing a Stetson cowboy hat is not someone an Arab Muslim immigrant wants to piss off. I don't want to make things this difficult for these Muslims, but I have to.

Why do I have to? Because of the ease at which the 12-year-old Pakistani Muslim came up behind me, said "Aslaam-o-alikum," and shook my hand. He treated me as a true brother: with a child's courage, undaunted by the baggage of Islamic-American relations. He will return to Pakistan with a positive view of North-Idahoans wearing cowboy hats, which insha'Allah has tremendous impact on the world's path towards peace.

Muhammad (sallallahu aleyhi wa salaam) said that the second best deed for a Muslim to do, just below belief in Allah (subhana wa t'alla) and His prophets. So I suppose I still, with the help of the more courageous of my Muslim brothers, will visit the Mesjid. Sometimes, with my punk-Libertarian upbringing, my Islamic-Buddhist beliefs, and my Stetson cowboy hat, I feel like my very existence is an act of jihad. But I have to do it. Because I feel I have a positive contribution to make. I hope, earnestly, that all these things help.

Eid Mubarrak.

**Note: Saying Islam is the best religion in the world in no way invalidates my Buddhist perspective. Buddhism has religious aspects, which I believe are Islam — or, at the very least, if you want to get technical, they are proto-Islamic. But primarily, Buddhism isn't a religion, but rather a system of mind-yoga which leads to truth, including religious truth, which was formulated as a radical contre-puntal to Hindu yoga. Buddhism is a philosophical mind-training technique and world-outlook, not so much a religion.

On Control

I want to share something about control. There's internal control, and there's external control. Control is binary. There is a one, and there is a zero. There's assent, and then there's no signal. The essence of control is to isolate information down to the point of it being binary. That is control, and there is an internal aspect and an external aspect. The internal aspect of control is called self-control. The external aspect goes by social control, propaganda, or perhaps occultism, psychiatry, science, and so forth. Then, there is the union of internal and external control. That is important.

Enlightenment is where external control meets internal control. It's like two electric circuits connected by a wire; really, when you connect them, they are one circuit. That's union. There is no enlightenment without control, both internal and external, because without control there would be no clarification of concepts, no transmission of purity, no essence of the divine. You need control to have enlightenment. With control, you are controlled by Buddhas, and you control yourself. Everywhere there is nothing but control. And with this control, both internal and external, comes the transmission of purity which purifies the mental continuum to the point where it can continue on its own without further guidance. That is the ultimate point: clarifying information, purifying data, ruling out the decay of existence that marks the ordinary, unenlightened state.

In the Internet, we have transmission of data, and we have streaming. Streaming is like transmission of data, except there's more control. The pathway of data becomes one circuit, to the point where the two computers are indistinguishable, and then you get music coming through the wire. You can't have live music over the Internet without streaming. Control is what makes it stream.

When we receive a teaching, it doesn't matter if the teaching is secular or religious or what-have-you, there is a great deal of control. Language itself is control. When someone says something, we can't help but experience that thing. In some ways, this can be traumatic; someone can say something which triggers something in us that makes us feel uncomfortable, and we don't like it because we feel we have no choice. But in other ways, it is quite useful. Mutual control through language is what makes us so powerful as human beings. It's what builds societies. The trick to avoiding the trauma is to be open-hearted. Sense the essence of the word entering your mind. Feel its emotion. Feel the totality of it, and all the energy and light and soul behind it. Feel what it means to be that word. It will still control you, but the control is open-sourced, and you get to contribute, too.

That's something that Westerners, traditionally, have had a hard time accepting. Control is always two-sided. If you seek to control, you will always be controlled. Control is control. Control of others is others' controlling you. Control begets control, from node to node, point to point, everywhere on the network. It is never one-sided, as much as we may want it to be.

Consider the United States of America. It is a very powerful country. What makes the United States so powerful? Because of all the control. But America is a democracy. The citizens of America control the government, and the government controls the citizens, who control the government, who control the citizens. All this control is what makes us so powerful.

Now you may be wondering if there is something beyond control. Of course there is. Once you've achieved control, you can simply allow the energy to radiate throughout the nodes of control, providing love, inspiration; inspiring dialectics of power; granting crowns and relieving others of the oppressive weight of the same crowns. Once union between the nodes of control, being two, (internal and external), has been achieved, you have a blossoming of creative energy which can spill into the universe and settle among the Earth. This is the meaning of control. It is its ultimate end. If you hang onto control, you get a headache. If you loosen up, once control has been achieved, you achieve grace.

A lot of people are against the concept of control. I am not. However, I do understand that an extreme of control causes headaches. Control is necessary and important, but best to let it arise naturally, as the product of open-hearted investigation, inner and outer, into the nature of the world. Perhaps it may even be better to let the whole world control you first, before seeking to control the world. But once the control has been achieved, being open-hearted and loose and letting go returns us to that state of nature from which the control arose in the first place.

Practical Religion: Pray Five Times a Day to Increase Efficiency

Everybody knows that prayer is what keeps us in touch with the Ultimate, with the Source of Life. Certainly this is true in Islam as well. But did you know that there are practical benefits to offering salat five times a day as well?

When we organize our lives, it's best to have some kind of routine. We have to know when we're going to get up in the morning, how we're going to plan our day, and when we're going to go to bed. We have to have this routine to get our lives in order so that we can most effectively use our time. Muslim salat is a great way to do this.

Muslims everywhere pray five times a day according to the prescribed times of the day. The five prayers are: Fajr, Dhuhr, Asr, Maghrib, and Isha. Fajr time is when light first glints over the horizon, and when the birds first start singing. Dhuhr is when the sun is highmost. Asr is in between Dhuhr and Maghrib, and Maghrib is when the sun has just finished setting. Isha is when all light from the sun is gone.

Since I've started praying five times a day, I've noticed a definite change in my ability to get things done. For one thing, I get up at the same time, regularly, at around 8am or 7am. After I get up, I have plenty of times to get my day in order and get some work done before Dhuhr. After Dhuhr, I usually find time to work on a primary project of mine, and then after Dhuhr usually I work on secondary projects. I can work a little bit after Isha as well.

It's nice to set your life rhythms in synchronization with the sun. This helps relieve exhaustion and gives you a broader view of your life's work. I find being in sync with the sun allows you to see life from the sun's perspective, that there's always another day, that you don't have to do things in fits and starts. You can become comfortable with the fact that the work is never really fully done. You just get up, get your work done, and move on to the next day.

One point to keep in mind is the nature of the prayer. If you are a Muslim, the best prayer of course is the salah according to Muhammad PBUH. But if you're not Muslim, you can still find benefits from praying five times a day at the prescribed times. Keep in mind, though, that prayer should be a break. You should take a break from the world and acknowledge that there are greater things than just keeping busy doing your life's work all the time. The nature of the break from the world should include some kind of contemplation—inner contemplation and spiritual contemplation. It should be maybe five to ten minutes of contemplation.

While I don't think it hurts to pray according to other traditions, I feel there is no need to resist learning to pray according to the Islamic fashion. The Islamic method of prayer is nice because it incorporates many different aspects of spirituality. You have a form of hatha yoga, where you place your body in a specific pose to reflect an inner state. You also have mantra—saying mind-protecting verses which help you contemplate. Also, you have specific, liturgic contemplations, and when your head and nose are on the ground, you get to improvise and come up with your own requests and speak from the heart.

In the Christian tradition, there's a lot of speaking from the heart, but the other aspects are lacking. There's no yoga, and no liturgy. Or maybe there's a whole lot of liturgy, but very little speaking from the heart. Or maybe it lasts too long to be practical five times per day. So it's not quite the same.

The Buddhist tradition is an interesting case to compare, and illustrates why I feel I am a Muslim-Buddhist rather than just a Muslim or just a Buddhist. I feel the Buddhist vipassana meditation technique is present during the whole salah, and indeed, according to the Islamic tradition, the instructions on how to keep your mind state focused during salat is pretty much the same as in Buddhism. In fact, vipassana is a meditation technique that can enrich any spiritual tradition or religion, and it will improve your Christian prayers as well, or even your occult practices if you get into that. Vipassana will improve pretty much everything except doing evil, because it will transform your evil acts into compassionate skillful means to combat demon-enemies. But the fact that vipassana is so generalized can be a bit of a weakness. In other words, it's nice to have ONE prayer that you do, all the time, which you know is being done by millions of other Muslims, at the same time. The spiritual connection, as well as the practical benefits, and sheer convenience, are some of the benefits of doing salat.

If you have trouble discovering what time salat is, there is a great website called IslamicFinder.org, which has prayer times on it. Additionally, it has apps which you can download to your mobile device which will keep track of prayer times in your area, and automatically adjust them as the Earth shifts on its axis. If you wish, you can even allow these apps to automatically play a call to prayer (called "athan") during prayer times.

Degenerate Times

I think it is important to note a couple of things about Buddhist prophesies. First and foremost, a prophesy is not a death sentence. We in the West are so particular about details that we often think of prophesy in the strictest possible terms. Thus, we see it as equally prophetic if Buddha prophesizes that we will live to be 10, as if I or someone prophesizes that my dog will eat a bagel at 2pm Eastern Standard Time next Monday before taking a walk. But Allah is greater than that. We can't simply confine prophesy to strictly worldly terms without any room for freedom of choice.

The two prophesies I would like to mention are Buddhist prophesies: the prophesy of degenerate times, which I believe dates back to the Buddha himself, and the Kalachakra prophesy.

In the prophesy of degenerate times, it is prophesied that our life-span will degenerate gradually over the next thousand or so years until we live to be only 10 years old. Then, there will be a 7 Days War, which of course will last seven days. It is said that the slaughter will be so great that afterwards humans will be so rare that when they encounter one another, they will kiss each other on the mouth. And after this 7 Days War, people will be so profoundly affected by the killing that they will vow never to kill again, at which point the life-span will increase to 14 years.

Gradually, over the period of a couple thousand years, people will renounce evil after evil, and the life-span will increase until it reaches 80,000 again, which is what it was before people began to degenerate. To this, I will add a couple of senses of my own: people I think will be drinking Boyds Coffee, and some will be doing Yamantaka practice. Those were what have been revealed to me through valid cognition and observation.

Now, there are a couple things to note here. As I said: a prophesy is not a death sentence. If someone were to ask me to sum up my philosophy while standing on one foot, I would tell them: it is possible to use the energy of degeneration to one's advantage. That is the prime focus of everything I've been seeking to expound upon for my entire life, and I suspect insh'Allah it will be until I die. I can't imagine me trying to teach anything else, what with my peculiar experiences. And it is an important fact.

All prophesies, including the most damning, are empty of inherent existence. So on some level, we don't know fully what they are talking about. Will the Earth be a desolate wasteland, devoid of life, after the 7 Days War? Will it be like the movie Mad Max taken to an absolute extreme? I contend no. The prophesy, I think, applies mainly to humans qua humans. It does not apply to humans qua yakshas, humans qua nagas, humans qua devas, and humans qua Buddhas. In addition to this, the prophesy applies only generally. People will probably live to be as old as maybe 30, or even older, during these times. And while human-to-human contact may be rare, a survivor human may well encounter many nagas, devas, and Buddhas in his or her quest to find other humans. The Earth will not be a desolate wasteland, but will remain rich with life. This is my opinion.

Furthermore, we have to understand an important point regarding degeneration. It is not our fault that we will live to be only 10 years old. And, we will still have brain technology as is being developed even today to make our lives more meaningful. A wandering 10-year-old after the 7 Days War may well make contact with another human over Facebook telepathically using brain technology.

The other point regarding degeneration leads into my discussion of the Kalachakra prophesy. According to this prophesy, in India, a Muslim will rise to power and claim to be the heir of an Islamic prophesy. A vast force, led by Buddha Manjushri, will then descend from the heavens, engage in holy warfare with this Muslim and his followers, and defeat them. After this, all non-Indic invaders will be routed from India, and humanity will begin to recover from the degenerate times.

As you can see, the two prophesies are related. They both refer to the point at which society ceases to degenerate. The relation is important, because it points to the very heart of the nature of degeneration. I recently became a Muslim, in addition to being a Buddhist, and my intent is to learn the very heart of this religion, as it is important to me. (I have had more intimate connection with many more Buddhas through Islam than through all my 15 years as a Buddhist.) Obviously, then, I am against the view that the Kalachakra prophesy prophesizes the downfall and defeat of Islam. But I don't think the prophesy is inauthentic.

From what I've observed of Muslims today, the ongoing trend seems to be that while they are practicing their religion, they are subtlely involved in what I would call "the cult of the white water." Ordinary water, as a metaphysical substance, is a metaphor for emptiness. In other words, emptiness is like water. It dissolves all things. It is clear. Many creatures live in it. It is vast as the sea. It forms rain. It carves mountains. And so forth. But what color is water? Well, ultimately, water is clear. However, it is also very highly correct to say that water is white. When it freezes, it is white. As it moves about, it froths at the tips of waves, and reflects lights, and ends up becoming white.

Muslims want to be like white water. They want to purify themselves to the utmost extent, become fully distilled of every little stain, and rub themselves clean all the time. They want to be at the tips of the waves, reaching into the void. But one thing they may perhaps overlook is that water is also black. It is equally correct to say water is black as it is to say it is white. Why? When water is gathered together densely in one place, if you peer into its depths, it is black. In a way, water is as black as it is white, but no less pure.

The West, for myriad historical reasons, seems to be deeply involved in "the cult of the black water." The West likes to examine physical things to their depths and uncover their deepest secrets. It also is far less concerned with purity, and riding the tips of waves, seeking to deeply immerse itself into physical phenomena.

What happens when "the cult of the white water" meets "the cult of the black water?" The result is the 7 Days War, which will culminate in at least some small realization that really, water is clear. It may manifest as white, or as black. But ultimately, it is clear. Following this, I suspect life will be much like the famous Andy Warhol movie Chelsea Girls: one side black, one side white. And the result will be purity. Clarity.

I suspect that with regards to the Kalachakra prophesy, Western countries, particularly the United States of America, will play a very important role with regards to the cult of the black water, in answer to India's cult of the white water. Manjushri, in my opinion, will probably come from America.

It is not good to become overly involved in either the cult of the white water or the cult of the black water, because water is clear. However, recognizing and honoring water manifesting as black or white, or as rainbows, and so forth, is important. Light refracted in water, or reflected, or absorbed, still remains light. And ultimately, we are beings of light. My ideas, as they stand now, have to do with blackness. I feel this is important, because too many people are overly concerned with white, while we have a natural tendency to avoid blackness. This is a mistake.

It is a human mistake, but a mistake nonetheless, and as equally dangerous as any mistake, potentially costing real people their lives. I suspect that today many people in Pakistan are dying unnecessarily because overly religious Islamic zealots want their society to be pristinely pure and white in color. The Taliban won't let people listen to music, or make art, or do pretty much anything, because they want to wear robes of white. It is so dangerous to be a Muslim today, I feel, because of the resistance to experiencing Western society, which is the dominant and globalized form of society in the world today. I'm worried that concern with issues such as playing music, or drawing representative art, will condemn foreign muslims to poverty and powerlessness. Why? Because it is impossible to move the hearts and minds of the people without making movies, and you can't make movies without drawing pictures and writing music. Period.

Purity is important, but it is not that important. We have to remember that good Muslims are like doctors, and that they do not come to the healthy, but to the sick. And anyway, it is impossible to be one hundred percent pure. Frankly, the fact that the religious people most concerned with purity are the ones who do the most damage convinces me that purity is sometimes a worse evil than sin. If this isn't true, then why are so many terrorists going around calling themselves Boko Haram? The lesson from this is what I consider to be my most important and, hopefully, enduring contribution to moral knowledge everywhere. This is why, I'm certain, I have lived my life. And there is far greater to share and more contributions as well. I'm not always the best at keeping the faith, but I hope my message has reached at least some people in the right way. That is my wish.

The Super-Rich Are More Rich than They Need to Be

Society is degenerating, partly because people who could be accumulating wealth if given the opportunity do not have the opportunity. This is because money is being syphoned to the super-rich, instead of growing among the poor and middle-class. The very wealthy accumulate wealth without regard for the greater good of the economy, which is becoming more and more suitable for small businesspeople.

However, part of the problem is the attitude of the poor and middle-class. Throughout my life, I've observed the attitude of others with regards to changing the world. With rare exception, everyone I've come across simply has no wish to change the world. I don't know if this is because public school beats it out of them, or if it is because of a hereditary attitude that has been promulgating itself since the time when people would be hanged, crucified, or burned for trying to change the world, or perhaps if it is just a personal lack of conviction in their own ideas. Whatever it is, I think it is a problem. Part of the reason the rich can get away with accumulating wealth that should've been ours is because 99% of people are at a loss for what to do with extra wealth when they get it. Maybe a new home theater system. A Winnebago. A trip to the Bahamas. Start a business? Make a film? No, no. That is for people who want to change the world.

The super-rich are going to become more meaningless over time, because our cultural consciousness and economy are becoming decentralized, making centralized wealth less important. But what will replace our major corporations if nobody wants to change the world? They will be replaced with a bunch of mindless sheep begging to be invaded by people with the chutzpah to actually do things. I hear complaints about how Americans aren't accumulating wealth like they used to. I complain about that, because I tend to get stuck in the economic doldrums spending all the money I get on rent and utilities. But I complain about it because I actually have ambitions to change the world, which cannot be realized without extra wealth. Unfortunately, I'm a minority. Most people could care less about accumulating extra wealth, because they are more concerned with living comfortably and quietly smothering themselves with their own down pillows.

I don't care if you want to be a follower rather than a leader. We need followers just as much as we need leaders. All I ask is that if you are going to be a follower, at least try to follow people who are changing the world, rather than just paying a salary. Follow people who challenge you. Follow people who reward enterprise and good decisions. Follow people with a conscience, and with vision. To survive, society needs to constantly change. And it won't change unless we change it. People who refuse to change the world, even if they're not natural leaders, aren't doing anyone any favors.

The Super-Rich Aren't as Rich as They Used to Be

I realize that is a contentious claim, and many would argue it runs directly contrary to the facts. After all, according to The New York Times, the top tenth of one percent income bracket in the United States saw their wealth increase by 21.5 percent, while the bottom 99 percent saw their incomes rise by just $80. However, just because you have a lot of money doesn't mean you're very rich.

Consider the phenomenon of people winning the lottery and ending up poorer than they were before they won. These people have a lot of money, but they don't have a lot of capital. Capital is defined as holdings which produce income. But when you win the lottery, you don't have any holdings which produce any income, despite a sudden spike in income. The income, then, becomes quite worthless. I would argue something similar is happening to the super-rich.

The economy has been growing at an average of about five percent since 1984. But the structure of the U.S. economy is vastly different than in the latter half of the 20th century. The United States between 1945 and 1991 was a country defined by its mass-mobilization against an easily defined external enemy: the Soviet Union. The consciousness of the people of the United States was unified by the threat of nuclear war, and there were ways to speak to that consciousness. People wanted to define themselves with the "us" rather than with the "them," so they did particularly American things. But people aren't doing these things anymore. That is what, I believe, is suggested by the fact of the decentralization of our economy, a fact which is supported by evidence.

It has been becoming increasingly easy to buy small, local products rather than large, mass-marketed products in our economy. And according to marketers, it is no longer relevant to try to mass-market products. What this points to is a decentralization of the economy, and we do not know whether it is reversible. It certainly doesn't feel reversible. Unfortunately for the super-rich, the most obvious effect of a decentralized economy is that massive centralization of wealth becomes less financially relevant, and suddenly, the super-rich feel more like the person who suddenly won the lottery rather than leaders of the economy.

Think about it. Our economy could grow at 20 percent a year, but if the super-rich can't find places to invest their money, it won't benefit them. And as markets become increasingly segmented rather than unified, it becomes harder and harder for a guy sitting in a penthouse in New York City to find the real money-makers in the economy. Granted, our economy is hardly so massively decentralized now that it is impossible to make money simply by having money. But in the future, it may be more and more difficult to do so. That, certainly, is the trend. And when you look at it this way, the tax cuts for the super-rich and economic policies favoring greater income inequality suddenly make a lot of sense. Certain members of the super-rich, I think, are probably sensing that they are becoming a dying breed, because their massive financial holdings are going to quickly lose relevance as the 21st century progresses and the economy further destabilizes.

The solution, I think, is for the super-rich to stop frantically grasping at more and more money, and rather, embrace their roles as leaders of the economy. They should restructure their holdings to favor local enterprises in localities they care about. This would help them maintain financial relevance in our economy. The fact of the matter is, the mere fact of being super-rich is becoming less and less a guarantee of income. This is because major corporations are becoming less and less relevant as economies become more and more localized. Americans no longer crave the unity they used to feel in the fifties knowing they were all watching the same television screen, so that feeling no longer is going to capitalize your assets.

Practical Religion: Use the Teachings of Christ to Increase Food Supply

In the West, we're all familiar with Christ's miracles — feeding thousands of people with just five loaves of bread and two fish, and so forth. Now we may not be able to perform miracles like that, but using the teachings of Christ and the early Christians, we can increase our food supply and decrease costs if we live in groups. Here's how it works.

Normally, when we live in groups, we use Sharpies to mark up which food is ours, and everybody gets to eat their own food only. However, this is an inefficient way of managing food supply. Instead, use this rule: all the food in the house is community food, provided everyone contributes. This is pretty much the only way to ensure that everyone eats properly. Why? Because when everyone contributes food, people will naturally specialize in what kinds of food they buy. Joe might buy all the vegetables, while Karen buys the grains, and Jeffery may specialize in microwavable instant foods. Because everyone is contributing something, we can rely on other people in the household having the other food we need when we buy only our specialized food. And because we're buying specialized food, we can take advantage of deals and decrease prices by buying in bulk.

Note that people naturally specialize. It isn't necessary to plan out who will buy what food. The system actually works better when people organically decide what food to buy based on a number of factors, including need, price, knowledge, taste, and so forth. But people will end up specializing, and part of the point is to welcome this.

One reason why this works out better for everyone is because the food we buy will be less likely to go bad. Often, we're forced to buy more portions than we need if we are buying just for ourselves. This is especially true with fresh produce. But yet, we must buy the food or we will go hungry. This is less of a problem when we are buying for more than one person.

One subsequent effect of this is that we can take advantage of foods we don't need too often, and increase the richness of the diversity of our food. For instance, we may have a craving for radishes one day. But we know that we won't really want to eat radishes every day. So we buy enough radishes for one person one or two days, which is possible in most supermarkets, while buying the staple foods we need for the rest of our diet. That way, we satisfy our cravings and no food goes to waste.

We can also take advantage of cropping of foods. For instance, if we buy local, there may be an influx of a great deal of specialized food, like say, fresh Kokanee Salmon. Since we know we will all be eating it, we can buy more than we normally would. There will be leftovers, and none will go to waste.

We may balk at this idea because we won't necessarily be catering to our own particular tastes in food. Since we will be forced to eat the food of others, we won't necessarily have any guarantee that we will get our own favorite foods. But if we take a larger view, and look past merely our own tastes, forgiving the trespasses of others onto our food diets, we will begin to understand that our diets will be diversified, which is healthy for us, and that we won't go hungry on a low budget. Because of this, we can free up our money for more interesting activities than just eating every day. We can be more generous and liberal with our overall budgets, because the food budget will be less. All in all, following this system will work out better for everyone.

Practical Religion: Binary Buddhism

I'm sure you've heard of applying Buddhism to improve your spiritual quality. But there are very practical applications as well. For instance, the practice of breathing meditation, in combination with binary counting, can be used to tell time. This can be useful for telling time at a bus stop when there isn't a clock, or for timing sesshins or meditation sessions without a clock or phone or timer.

Here's how it works. First, time how long it takes to breathe in and out twenty-one times. This means one in-breath, one out-breath, times twenty-one. For me, it takes about two minutes. Then, make a strong habit of counting up to twenty-one breaths then returning back to one while doing breathing meditation. Do it like this: "In-breath, out-breath, 1. In-breath, out-breath, 2. ... In-breath, out-breath, 21. In-breath, out-breath, 1."

It will take some attention at first to get used to counting up to twenty-one when you breathe. Here I find the motivation to religiously follow the practice comes in handy. If you are able to count up to twenty-one without skipping numbers and without losing count, it means you're paying attention. If the religious goal of your practice is to know how to pay attention, this can be a strong motivation for keeping track of numbers. Pretty soon, you'll be doing it automatically.

Next comes counting in binary using the fingers. You can count up to 2047 in binary using your fingers. To do this, you must understand the math. In binary, there are only two digits: zero and one. In base-ten, the system we're used to, there are ten digits, and when you get to the last digit (9), you reset back to one in the second column and zero in the first, and so forth. In binary, it's similar, except you reset once you get to one. So, for example, the first four integers in sequence from one to four in binary are, 1, 10, 11, 100.

When counting in binary using the fingers, for the right hand, use the thumb as the first digit, the pointer finger as the second, and so forth. Treat the thumb of the left hand as the sixth digit, and the pointer finger of the left hand as the seventh, and so forth. When the finger is held up, that indicates a one. When it is closed, it indicates a zero. Thus, for the number 1010, which is ten, in your right hand, your pinky will be closed, your ring finger will be open, your middle finger closed, your pointer finger open, and your thumb closed.

You'll want to practice counting with your fingers until you're very proficient at it. The whole idea for the purposes of telling time using the breath is that you are going to count in binary the number of times you reach 21 breaths. Remember, each cycle of 21 breaths (for me, anyway) is 2 minutes. So ten cycles of 21, or 1010 in binary, is equal to 20 minutes. Fifteen cycles, or 1111 in binary, will be 30 minutes. An hour will be 30 cycles, or 11110 in binary (pinky, ring, middle, and pointer fingers up, thumb down).

Depending on the setting, you may not be able to use your hands to count the number of times you reach 21 breaths. For example, if you're leading a meditation session, you won't be able to use your hands. In this case, it's best to visualize counting in binary by holding up imaginary fingers in front of you. One thing which will help you remember which fingers to hold up is to remember that each zero digit represents a dedication to the buddhas, while each one digit represents the body of a new buddha to be dedicated. That way, when the digits switch, the meaning is significant and more easy to remember.

This method is accurate to the minute. If it is less accurate for you, you may breathe more slowly or more quickly. Instead of trying to change the rate of breathing, change the number of breaths in a cycle or the number of minutes each cycle is worth, or both. Work out a system that works for you.

In addition to being useful for telling time, this method also helps improve concentration in general. Concentration has a number of practical benefits, helping you to better do a variety of tasks including studying, listening to lectures, conversation, cooking, etc.

Our Culture: Investing in Money

I believe there is such a thing as a perfect economy. This would be an economy running smoothly enough to be incapable of further growth, and not inclined to diminish.

A perfect economy implies that there be full market share of all businesses, especially banks. Banks are particularly important, because they fund new ideas (represented by entrepreneurs), and a full market share in this area implies no new ideas are currently available.

Full market share for businesses also means that business operations are sustainable. This means, among other things, that profits come from robust, sustainable growth. By robust, here, I mean that profits come from genuine market share, and not from, for instance, slashing costs and burning through third-world labor. Such cost-cutting techniques do not produce robust nor sustainable profits. Robust growth comes from opening new markets and increasing shares in old markets.

Now what I'm saying basically rests on what I consider to be a robust assumption: that it is possible to gain a maximum market share. I think not only that this is possible, but also that a lot of companies have already achieved this given today's economy.

Another implication has to do with the value of money. Money, itself being a commodity, also has a maximum share of market. It also must be managed in sustainable ways promoting robust growth. This sustainable growth responsibility lies with all of us, from ordinary consumers to Exxon-Mobil.But this is not to say that we need to be overly concerned with income inequality. Barking about income inequality is largely barking up the wrong tree, because the nature of new ideas is that they tend to concentrate wealth for their creators. However, if income inequality is produced by burning through labor resources by exploiting the poor, your wealth is not robust. I can handle inequality, provided the poor are not exploited. Inequality must be based on the production of new, valuable ideas.

Now all this is not to say that infinite growth is impossible, or that society must be stratified between rich and poor. On the contrary, infinite growth is definitely possible, but it must be robust, and rooted in such things as the continued evolution of the human mind and body, not in exciting, new opportunities, of which there are probably a finite number at any given moment. As for stratification, there will always be motion in markets, which implies liquidity in assets, including human ones. And anyway, I think we owe it to ourselves as human beings to offer the opportunity to all of us to live either simply or complexly, as we choose.

Thoughts about Anonymous's Project V

This is a clarification of Anonymous's new project, "Project V." This came on the heels of their "Operation V," the goal of which was apparently to take over the United States government.

I've noticed, just looking around at society today, that there are thugs involved in my government and perhaps corporations and so forth, taking things over and not really doing positive actions or behaving in an awake manner. So I'm not at all surprised that there is a movement to try to take over the government, or to protest the government. I support a lot of what these people do.

The reason I support many of the people who fight government and corporations and so forth is because of the thuggishness I've seen. The thuggishness itself is the first part. The second part is the fact that thuggishness is not merely the natural, human sort — an understandable sort which you can expect to be some part of any society — but something which is slowly becoming law. We cannot have "thug law." Thug law, in this case, involves people in office, and running corporations, who don't care about listening to other people, especially the people they affect. Thug law involves things being created for their own purpose, to multiply like viruses, such as cash or even money, or such as government regulations, or psychiatric harm.

A commodity is produced in a factory not for its own sake, but in order to be sold to someone else. However, it seems an awful lot like many of the people running these corporations would be satisfied if the product is produced for its own sake. In other words, the attitude is that it's about the product itself, and promoting the product itself, rather than about listening to what the consumer wants.

This doesn't happen everywhere, but it does happen in the case of food, for instance. Food today is produced for the purpose of food being produced and sold, not for the purpose of feeding people. There is an important difference between the two, and we need to start rethinking the way we do things to promote feeding people instead of producing and selling food. Similarly, transportation seems to be about producing and selling gasoline, not about transporting people. Energy production seems to be about producing and selling raw materials, not making energy. Our corporations are sick.

Now that I've talked a bit about what I agree with about Anonymous, I'd like to share what I disagree with.

Consider the idea of a revolution. What is a revolution? The idea is that you're getting rid of a society, and replacing it with a new one. But if you examine it closely, the idea becomes less and less clear. What do you want to revolutionize? Just the executive government? We do that every eight or so years. What about the law? Are we trying to change the law? Well, perhaps we are, but we can change the law in a couple of ways: by changing the letter of the law, or changing how it's enforced. If we change the letter of the law, then we get into the problem of semantics, which means we may have changed nothing unless we change how it's enforced. If we change how it's enforced, though, we have a problem there, too. Who enforces? Who enforces law against the enforcers? In a sense, the people enforcing the law are embodiments of the law. But are we changing just the people themselves? How do we control against merely switching out one corrupt judge or peace officer for another? Either we have to use the law to control this, in which case we're going in circles again, or we have to change the underlying society which educates and produces the judges.

But how do we change society? Are we changing the actual minds of the people themselves? Are we giving them more education? Education of what? What do they already know? What don't they know? Is it really about what they think they know, or how they behave? How do we change the way people behave? And are we changing a group of people, or changing people one-on-one? And where do we stop? Should we just switch out everyone we don't like and throw the old people in jail? If so, what makes us any better than the oppressors? Or should we let everyone be as they are and work out their own problems? If it is this, how is our movement a revolution?

I don't think we need a revolution. I think we need loyal opposition parties, and we need perhaps a simplification of our culture. But you can't have a loyal opposition party and a revolution at the same time. And a simplification of something doesn't involve the introduction of new elements. That's what you do when you want to make things more complex. What we need is to go back to our roots, and instead of wildly thrashing about and making more new ideas and stuff, we need to be satisfied with a simple understanding of how things work. Instead of choosing more stuff, choose the right stuff. This sounds like an economic idea, but really it applies to government as well. We should be more conservative about how we run our government. We should be conservative about how we run our churches as well. The only thing we shouldn't be conservative about is helping other people. But remember: help doesn't come in the form of money. I am not a socialist. As soon as you start thinking that help comes in the form of money, you begin producing money for the sake of producing money, which is exactly the kind of problem which I see today that needs to change. We need to help people live. In every sector of our society. That's what we need to do. And a lot of what the resistance people in our society are doing is just that. But I don't think they see it that way, and they really should.

A Few Thoughts on Bitcoin

Bitcoin is a very interesting and complex phenomenon. It is having trouble gaining ground, but that is not because of problems inherent in the system, but rather because money is a complex and difficult subject which is hard to understand. I am a firm believer in the value of bitcoins, and am very excited about the phenomenon. I can't wait to get involved, and I intend to get involved. But the main obstacle to people getting involved in bitcoin is that people don't see its value because they don't understand it. This is because money itself is hard to understand.

Money is not a medium of exchange. It's more complex than that. Imagine a circle. The circle represents value. You can cut the circle up like a pie, and each section of the pie represents some kind of value. The angle of the cuts represents the current measure of which we value that value at the moment, and the points on the circumference of the circle represent the actual commodity which we value. The circle is a perfect circle, undistorted. The circle is what I would call a coin. If you have a circle of a large size, it means that you can fit more points on the circumference, and therefore buy more things. If it's smaller, you can buy less things. This is the definition of money.

Notice that it is a unit of value, in all the complexity of the term. It is not, and I repeat, it is NOT a medium of exchange. Here is what a medium of exchange is. Suppose I pick a few pieces from the circumference of the circle — things that I value. But I don't value them as much as someone else might. And I happen to know of a person who does value these things, but this person has a certain set of things on the circumference of the circle which he doesn't value as much as I do. My circle is currently oblong, with a little bump on one end, and so is his. It just so happens that if we trade these inconvenient items we don't really want for each other, we will have more of what we want and less of what we don't want. Then the bumps on the circle will be more evened out and the situation more fair. This is a trade.

The coin itself is not a medium of exchange. If you really think about it, you'll notice that the coin is simply a measurement of the value of our society at the moment, including all the various things that we value. The coin, in the case of the example above, has lost a little bit of value because of the overabundance of things we don't want in the cases of two parties. The exchange itself has the function of increasing the value of all things involved, including the coin. It is the exchange, therefore, that gives value to the coin, not the coin that gives value to the exchange. In other words, the coin doesn't mediate the exchange, cutting costs and increasing value. If the coin did that, it would increase the value of the exchange, and be a true medium for the exchange. But instead, the coin is one of the things benefited by the exchange. Therefore it cannot mediate the exchange.

The reason why people say the coin is a medium of exchange is because dollars and coins are nice ad-hoc ways of mediating exchange. We can say, thing X is worth $10 per item, while thing Y is worth $5 per item, therefore it would be fair and even if you gave me two of Y for my one of X. But you don't need money to regulate an exchange like this. All you need is some placeholder to measure value. The placeholder measures the relative angles of the two pieces of pie cut into the coin for both things X and Y, but it is not the whole coin itself. It is closely related to the coin, because without the coin you wouldn't be able to cut pieces into it, but it is not the coin itself.

So what is the actual medium of exchange? It is all the things which allow a line to be drawn between one slice in the pie and another. The New York Stock Exchange as an institution is a medium of exchange. It mediates the exchange between things of value. That complex and difficult concept we call the "open market" or the "free market" is a medium of exchange. But neither of these things are actual money, though they do indeed have value.

What this all has to do with the bitcoin is this. The bitcoin is actual money, not a security or anything else, as some people claim. Bitcoin is currency. You can imagine a coin similar to the one I envisioned above representing the coin in relation to the bitcoin economy, with little pieces of the pie cut up for things that bitcoin holders / users value. And, the coin itself has value, just like money. So why should we use bitcoins instead of dollars? The answer is fairly simple, though I will explain in the next post. The actual thing coined into physical currency that we are using as money is different. Dollars are made of paper. Gold coins are made of gold. Bitcoins are made of data and algorithms.

These physical / pseudophysical substances have inherent differences, which mean each one is better at certain things and worse at certain things in relation to each other. Bitcoin is better at certain things than the dollar is, and worse than certain things than the dollar is. Similar things can be said for every kind of thing that is used as currency. The reason why certain kinds of people should start using bitcoins is because the constellation of value relationships of the coinage itself for bitcoin happens to be inherently better suited to skilled artisans, shopkeepers, small business owners, etc. which make up the real substance of the middle class, whereas the constellation of value relationships of the coinage for the dollar is better suited for the upper and lower classes. I will outline what I believe to be the main differences in the following post.

Obtaining a Point of Concentration in Difficult Times

In general, there are two kinds of good in this world. There is all-around general good, which I would call "the good of the light," then there is a point of concentration surrounded by darkness or pain or harm or even evil, which I would call "the good of the dark." There are a few things to keep in mind about the latter kind of good.

For one, it's perhaps difficult to imagine, but this kind of good is not a simple inversion of the good of the light. You cannot simply become one with the darkness, declare that evil is necessary, surrender yourself, and call it good. On the contrary, it is in these occasions where a strong sense of your self and your morality is the most important. Notions of surrender work best in situations of peace. In difficult times, we need fortitude.

The will plays a role in these situations. But the technique of wrangling the will involves a loose grip. The will is like a horse; it can't be forced into submission, it has to be coaxed into submission. Will is an important tool, which needs to be kept in submission to the whispers of the soul and to faith in the greater good. In the case of difficult times, it is an alchemical combination of will and faith that is used to obtain the point of concentration in the midst of darkness, which in turn transforms ordinary negativity or hardship into the good of the dark.

Ordinary darkness is darkness combined with ignorance. It is like a suffocating dark cloud of smoke. The good of the dark is like a clear dark sky littered with stars, or like the city glimmering at night with the light of streetlights. The trick to transforming the one into the other is to find the point of concentration in the midst of darkness.

We should break down this notion of a point of concentration. It has two components: faith and will. Faith is an all-around general sense that positivity exists, and because of its mere existence, positivity pervades all things. Faith is the universal act of uncovering which reveals good, just as a cloud dissipates to reveal stars above or city lights below, or just as the earth is removed to reveal precious gems. This potential for uncovering is a timeless presence, unconditioned by comings and goings.

Will involves two things. It involves a personal self which has the ability to actualize things, and it involves something to be actualized. The personal self and its tools for transformation are fairly well understood. The thing to be actualized, in this case, is something nice and of comfort. Its nature is fairly simple: some form of light, a "good of the light," which does not attempt to transform good into bad.

The world today is a rather dark world. It's full of diseases, conflicts, immorality, income inequalities, and so forth, which make the place very dark. There is a positive side to darkness, though. Only darkness has the ability to generate new, good things, when there is suitable focus. The Qur'an speaks of two kinds of trials: trial by pleasure, and trial by pain. Both ordinary pleasure and ordinary pain are forms of suffering, pain in particular. The reason ordinary pleasure is a form of suffering is because ordinary pleasure revels in the good of the light, but is unclear about the nature of the good of the dark. And, due to the changing nature of things, light will become dark, and then ordinary pleasure becomes a mere pastime. The reason pain is suffering is obvious; we experience it, but don't want to. And therein lies the key.

I recently have been battling with hatred of psychiatry. It's a recurring theme in my life, due to the trauma and post traumatic stress disorder caused by the psychiatric experience. But in this dark world, trauma comes from all directions. It is said that in the future, there will be so much trauma that the lifespan of humans will only be ten years. A lot of people also face trauma caused by the prison experience. Mental wards lead to hatred of psychiatrists, prison seems to lead to hatred of the cops. The difference is that prison punishes you for having hurt someone, while psychiatry punishes you for having been hurt. (Psychiatry, therefore, is worse than prison.) The challenge in situations of extreme darkness like these is to find a generous and wholesome point of concentration.

For me, I found that finding this point of concentration tends to be a complex path beginning with the statement, "I do not want this to happen to me." Thankfully, due to our general and intrinsic goodness, when we're in a state of extreme pain, what we'll tend to focus on is the "want" part. You clearly don't want to be in pain. Well then, what exactly do you want? What makes the situation so unbearable? Then the conversation then moves to, "If this situation were just a little bit more such-and-such I would be okay." The trick is to rest and observe. Try not to fight too much. Inevitably, after wishing for a little bit more such-and-such, you'll run into the brick wall of "Well, that's not what's going to happen." Then you'll begin naturally to narrow down what you want. You'll come up with a statement, "Even if it were just a little tiny bit more so-and-so I would at least be satisfied." If you observe, what you'll notice is happening is that a pulsating cloud of darkness is slowly gaining heat and concentration, just as in the birth of a star, and inevitably you'll reach a point where you begin to shed light.

When you shed light, you'll notice what you're doing is taking ownership of your negativities, and your painful experience, and formulating a positive identity and lifepath. Understanding the process from ordinary pain to positive lifepath is essential to surviving negative places, such as Planet Earth and America.

We should return to the Buddha's prophecy about the lifespan of humans. People are eventually going to be so beset by negativities that they will live to be only ten, and humans will be so rare that when they meet they will kiss each other on the mouth. This is a prophesy of the Buddha; it is the infallible word of the Buddha and incapable of error. But we still have a choice, as in ages past. We have a choice to follow our stupid whims and fancy and hurt and exploit people for perverse reasons, or we could be good-of-the-dark people. Rome had a choice in the past. Among other choices, they had the choice between continuing the sundry Pagan assumptions which ignorantly pretended darkness was light, but they chose honest, dark forgiveness in Christ and his purification of crucifixion. That was one choice. Today, we have similar choices. The cumulative effect of these choices is the positive ground for human enjoyment and development which will be in place when humans begin to increase their lives again from age ten back to age 80,000.

When I first heard that humans will be so rare that when they meet they will kiss each other on the mouth, I envisioned lone wanderers in a bleak, post-apocalyptic landscape, beset by hunger and loneliness, wishing in vain for signs of human life. What the Buddha did not mention was Google Glass, bioelectronic implants, and Internet dating. The Buddha said that humankind will face an apocalyptic fall after a seven-days war. The Buddha did not mention whether or not Google Glass, bioelectronic implants, etc. would survive the fall. I propose that if the technology survives, even if the Buddha's word is fulfilled, it's possible that in the interrim between these rare, mouth-kissing meetings, these technologies, or perhaps something functionally similar, will make life at least bearable. We needn't be reduced to lone wanderers as in the image above, but rather we could continue to enjoy the fruits of previous civilization and continue to develop humanity positively.

What this all suggests is that if we focus our darkness, whenever our pain and trauma arises, we are contributing to a positive world in unique ways which only good-of-the-dark situations of dark, Christlike regenerative forgiveness can produce. Our age is the age of our animal natures. We have the choice of being dirty, stray dogs who get put down or starve, or animist deities such as Singhamukha who are wholesome and happy (though wrathful) shamanistic healers. The trick to this choice and this transformation is, I think, finding that point or those points of concentration which illuminate our dark lives.

How to Tell if there's a Conspiracy

Conspiracies exist. Everywhere. A conspiracy is defined as an attempt to do something unethical, which you don't want anyone beyond your circle of friends to know about. Of course, there are times when doing something unethical is necessary, usually to protect yourself. However, unfortunately, there are certain people in the world who are ignorant of the effects of unethical actions, which are always bad. These kinds of people commit conspiracies and think they'll "get away with it." You never get away with a conspiracy, but if you were trying to protect yourself, or something similar to that, then you may be able at least to survive the negative effects of the natural consequences of when the truth comes to light.

How to Tell if There's a Conspiracy:

You check the independent channels. They won't know all of the truth. This is because they're independent. They don't have a lot of social resources, so they can't access all of the truth. Some of them, you can't trust. Some of them have been infiltrated by conspirators who don't want the truth to be known.

You check the people who you think are committing the conspiracy. They'll mechanically repeat the exact same thing: "There is no conspiracy here." Or something relevantly similar to that. If they actually did make a mistake, and as a matter of fact they are decent people and not conspirators, they will send out marketing information revealing exactly what the mistakes were, who made them, and what they're doing to correct the problem.

You check the people who you trust, who have seen the truth. This is called an empirical observation. Eventually, you'll find a couple empirical observations through the appropriate channels which contradict the last mechanically repeated statement, "There is no conspiracy here." Then you know there's a conspiracy.

However. Even at this point, not all the questions have been answered. You don't know for certain who is the one committing the conspiracy. Depending on how much you've been hurt by the conspiracy, it's up to you to determine how extensive of an investigation you want to make to determine who the real conspirators are, and it's also up to you to determine how you're going to use violent means (like the government or the law) to neutralize the conspiracy and bring the criminals to justice.

This goes for corporate conspiracies, Illuminati conspiracies, government conspiracies, raver conspiracies, Satanist conspiracies, Buddhist conspiracies, etc.

Yes, Jimi Hendrix was That Good

I just wrote the following for pay (I hope) in an article of tips for learning to play guitar:

Read books.

Read novels, plays, the epistemology of Descartes, and the history of the Jewish people. This is perhaps the strangest advice you've heard, but it is essential. The pop industry makes millions of dollars off the idea that they can sell bad music that all sounds the same and no one will notice. Well, no one notices because they don't even know their own culture. As Bob Marley says, "If you know your history, then you know where you're coming from." He is a legendary guitarist and musician, not because he could play scales at the speed of light and make weird sounds like Jimi Hendrix, but because he knew exactly where he was coming from.

But then I thought about it: what if the reason why Jimi Hendrix could make all those weird sounds is because he really could play scales at the speed of light?

Why Time Travel Exists (or not?)

Proposition: If you will it to exist, time travel exists. Otherwise, it doesn't.

Why? Because if it is possible for time travel to exist (and I'm pretty sure it is), then someone will eventually create the technology if there is a will to do so. If YOU IN PARTICULAR will it to exist, then you will eventually be one of the customers of the time travel service, there having been a will for it to exist, which means that it exists. If you honestly, truthfully, and sincerely wish time travel to exist, it will exist.

If you don't will it to exist, it doesn't exist. Or if your will is insincere, clouded by delusions or destructive thoughts, it doesn't exist. Why? Because there is no reason for it to exist. Why would anyone want a time machine to exist if all it would be used for is to destroy the universe? Time machines don't exist to destroy the universe, but to SAVE the universe. Otherwise the universe wouldn't exist, and the time machine wouldn't exist, which means time travel wouldn't exist.

Imagine: time travel is invented in 30 years. You want time travel to exist for YOU. So you will it to exist. You spend time researching how to get access to the time machine. The research eventually bears fruit, or it doesn't. But you have a TIME MACHINE. So you have infinite time to do research, which means it will eventually bear fruit. Even if the research takes longer than the length of your life, it will still bear fruit. Because you have a TIME MACHINE. So you do research for your entire life. The research travels back in time, back to the beginning. You continue the research from where you left off. And so on, infinitely.

How does the research find its way back to you? Because the research is instrumental in time travel existing, since there has to be a will for it to exist for it to exist. The purpose of a thing is to exist relationally to everyone. The time travelers have no choice but to send your research back in time, because if they didn't, there would be no one to access the time machine, and therefore the time machine wouldn't exist, and they wouldn't exist.

Therefore, if you want it to exist, it exists.

What if time travel is invented after your lifetime? No problem. You'll research how to gain access to the time machine. The actual time it takes for time travel to be invented doesn't matter, because you have a time machine. So it exists.

The Era of Great Pain

It is possible that we are entering an era of great pain. This is an era where:

• Every concert is a "recreational activity."
• Every day of work is a "job."
• Every formal learning experience is an "education."
• Every animal is a "pet."
• Every blog post is "self-expression."
• Every tennis match is a "hobby."
• Every computer is a "computer."
• Every piece of food is "food."

Every hallelujah is cold and broken. Every experience is psychological. Every activity is a behavior. And every dissenter is "mentally ill."

Look. Concerts are NOT "recreational activities." They are LIFE. In short, everything is pain. And "living in the moment" has lost all meaning apart from forgetting everything, as though the phrase holds little more promise than recreational drug use.

Work is not a "job." It is LIFE.

Learning experiences are not "education." They are LIFE.

Animals are not "pets." They are LIFE.

Blog posts are not "self-expression." They are LIFE.

Tennis matches are not "hobbies." They are LIFE.

Computers are not "computers." They are LIFE.

Food is not "food." It is LIFE.

We cannot go on as though everything is meaningless. We simply can't continue as a species if everything is trivial and forgettable. NO. Every experience should be profound and meaningful. We MUST take every form of being, doing, experience, and so forth AS SERIOUSLY AS THOUGH OUR LIVES AND THE ETERNAL SALVATION OF OUR SOULS DEPENDED ON IT. When we feel upset, or when we need a little pick-me-up, we cannot simply say, "Recreational activities help pick me up. I should choose a recreational activity that will pick me up. I think I'll go to a concert."

I can't think of any more meaningless thing we could possibly ever think. It is absolutely cynical and wrong. We should NEVER think like that. We should go to a concert because it will ROCK OUR WORLD, or we shouldn't go at all. We should get a job because it will FUNDAMENTALLY IMPACT EVERYTHING, or we shouldn't get a job at all. We should eat food because it will ALLOW US TO COMPLETELY REJUVENATE THE WORLD, or we should eat red-hot balls of iron. There is no excuse. Either you're part of the solution, or you're part of the problem.

If you're part of the problem, you're part of the Great Pain. You'll do nothing but cause everyone around you great pain. If you can't enjoy life, GTFO.

The evil of the machine thrives on insecurity. We feel we have to be "hip enough to be square." But there is NOTHING that makes life more beautiful than insecurity. And if we can't recognize that, then we should demolish all the Universities. We should set fire to all the schools and libraries. We should forbid all scientific and academic inquiry. Because all it will do is make the human race more cynical, more painful, and more evil.

Science is for risk-takers. Knowledge is for risk-takers. Comfort is for risk-takers. Otherwise it is the purest form of curse. And I believe our society is currently cursing itself. I wish EVERYONE would take a moment to LIVE IN THE MOMENT—which, properly understood, means NOT forgetting everything, but THROWING AWAY scientific knowledge, security, money, food, computers, "recreational activities," "jobs," "education," as UTTERLY MEANINGLESS, and living completely in the state where it is possible that the world will DISAPPEAR. That everything you've trained for will DISAPPEAR. That everything you've worked for and earned will DISAPPEAR. And you should live the rest of your life that way.

Ironically, if you don't do that, it would be better if it DID disappear, because all it will cause is Great Pain.

Cloud, Entrepreneur, Cloud

A couple of weeks ago, I started working at a place called Brick and Mortar, here in Moscow. Working not in the sense that I have a job, but in the actual sense of the word—I work here. Anything, including writing this post, which I consider "work," I tend to do here. Another kind of work I can do here, which I haven't yet done but which I intend to do, is contract through a service called oDesk.com. Both of these platforms—B&M and oDesk—are related in a deeply philosophical way, which I will examine below.

Let's start with Brick and Mortar. B&M is advertised as a community workspace, or a co-working space. But these concepts don't really get to the heart of the matter. "Community workspace" is especially far off. I might be able to see it as meaning that it is both a community and a workspace, but the lexico-grammatical meaning of the phrase seems to indicate that it is exactly what it says: a "community workspace," where "community" is an adjective and "workspace" is a noun. And "community" as an adjective indicating "this workspace is a community" is a very esoteric reading of the word indeed. More likely, it indicates that B&M is a workspace intended for use by the general community, which isn't quite right.

But even if the esoteric reading is correct, and B&M chooses to market themselves as a workspace which is a community, or workspace community, I still think this misses the mark. The library is a workspace community. The University of Idaho is a workspace community. Hell, every single business in America is a workspace community. It just doesn't seem to do the idea justice.

So I propose a new way of thinking about it.

B&M is not just a workspace community, but a specific kind of community. Now I'm going to draw my inspiration from one particular office here. It is a more or less typical office, of course, where a person named Jordan sits down and does his work. But it is not just an arm of B&M; it is an actual business, fully operational and (I assume) independent. A sign sits on the interior office window: "Palouse PC Computer Repair." A sign is a sure sign of independence.

The implication of this business within B&M is that B&M is the kind of place which independent businesses are intended to grow out of. In this way, it's much more like a business incubator than a workspace community. Yet it goes farther, because the full implications of the word "community" remain intact. It is the kind of place where "business incubator" and "workspace community" are fused inextricably together. This entirely new kind of concept, the likes of which I've never seen before, may represent a dramatic shift in the business dynamic of America.

There are three different phrases I've come up with to describe what B&M is. One is, "entrepreneurial bank." It's a bank, not of money, but of entrepreneurial spirit. Collected here at the workspace is a reserve of freelancing, independent, entrepreneurial spirit. See, Moscow is a young person's town, and a lot of college kids live here, many, if not most, of whom have an overabundance of entrepreneurial spirit. Some of that has found its way here, and so what we have is an excess of entrepreneurial spirit, which we then loan out to the world at large.

But the fact that it is gathered here in one place, in one specific building, is significant. It leads me to my next characterization: "non-academic university." In a university, each of the professors is pretty much independent, just like the workers here. Nevertheless, they organize themselves into co-working groups, which do research in teams for the purpose of furthering human knowledge. That is their goal. Strip out the "knowledge" part of that goal and replace it with the more general word "progress," and you basically have B&M—a non-academic university.

But my favorite phrase, because of its currency, involves the most groundbreaking human achievement of our age: the Internet. In this vein, B&M is an "entrepreneurial cloud." Just like Amazon's EC2 is a computing cloud, B&M is a cloud of entrepreneurs. But B&M hasn't yet realized what I believe is a serious groundbreaking prospect for this kind of place. An "entrepreneurial cloud," to be more like a "cloud computing platform," seems to indicate that the community at large here in Moscow, if they so choose, can upload specific limited-time requests to the cloud for the us to perform.

Say, for instance, that the Moscow Arts Commission, a wing of the Moscow City Government, decides they want to make Moscow, Idaho a national hub for the arts—just as, through the U of I's Lionel Hampton Jazz Festival, the city is a national hub for jazz music. What they could do, if our workspace grew big enough, is contact B&M with a request for proposal. B&M then, as a community, could identify each individual entrepreneur or freelancer in the workspace who has any applicable skill, and if they agree to sign on, contract with them to fulfill the goals of the Arts Commission. Once the goals are fulfilled, just like Amazon's cloud computer, B&M will return to its natural state, ready for another project. All further gruntwork, if there is any, would be taken up by a dedicated entity—probably a wing of the Moscow City Government, or the local arts business community, or whatever.

Now this idea in itself is exciting enough. But there is yet another exciting prospect based on a simple fact: B&M is made up not of computers, but of people. And people can actually originate goals, rather than merely fulfill them. It's still like a cloud, but more like a storm cloud, which makes lightening of entrepreneurial inspiration. The end result may perhaps be that Moscow Idaho, or any other city which seriously entertains this approach, will become among the most interesting places on the planet.

As said earlier, this is an entirely new idea. And it has stunning and broad-reaching implications. Like the Internet, it may harken in a completely new era in business. See, on the Internet, there are websites like the afore-mentioned oDesk—cloud-compute inspired businesses. oDesk's innovation is called "homesourcing:" businesses, anywhere in the world, can "homesource" work to any individual anywhere in the world, practically instantly. Thus a budding fashion design shop can quickly assemble a team of customer service agents without setting up a physical call center, for example. One agent may be in India, another may be in Idaho; it doesn't matter because it's all done "on the cloud."

But oDesk is different from B&M. While B&M stresses entrepreneurial spirit, oDesk stresses contracted labor. When you work at oDesk, you are very much working for a boss at a (more or less) established firm. But when you work at B&M, the assumption is, generally, that you are the firm. This isn't a rule, of course; anyone here can work for whomever they choose. But the point is that B&M is a hub for entrepreneurial spirit, whereas oDesk is a platform for contracted labor.

And both companies say something profound about us in the United States. Taken together, oDesk and B&M represent a new way of thinking, a dual modality of American labor. The old way of thinking goes like this: Nathan Foster applies for a job at CostCo. The new way of thinking goes like this: America applies for a job at America. Places like B&M, across the country (and yes, there is more than one place like this), form entrepreneurial ideas, and contract out to places like oDesk. Thus we can all contribute to a vast cloud of "business happenings" everywhere around the world, simultaneously.

That's the vision, anyway. And I believe the new way of thinking, more accurately and concretely than any discourse I've yet seen, expresses the American concept of "honor." Honor, to me, is loyalty plus leadership. And while in the old way of thinking these two were completely separate (i.e. the job applicant has loyalty while the employer has leadership), in this new age each individual can have both qualities simultaneously. A person can simultaneously contract with oDesk and originate ideas in exactly the same space, among exactly the same people. I can come from the cloud, into entrepreneurship, and go back into the cloud, seamlessly. This is the fundamental innovation these two businesses represent, and needless to say, I'm excited about the prospects of both.

Restraint

Every act in the world is justified in the right context. Every single act. This is the only basis for all forms of morality; every form of morality has its basis in complete, utter, and unequivocal submission to the TRUTH that ANY act one does is justified, in the right context.

Think about it. Killing people is wrong, right? But what if the person is going to commit a great evil? In that context, it's right. Morality, in this way, is completely dependent on context. Without the context, every act is justified. The only thing which could possibly create a moral context is SOMEONE ELSE'S WISHES.

The Hebrews believed that once God showed His face to the world, the world would be destroyed.

Consider: In our hearts, the Will of God, as the basis for all acts we decide to do or even to consider, is OUR face. This is how we "save face" or "lose face"—by choosing which deeds to do or not do.

What's God's face?

Well obviously we can come to the truth of God's face by examining our own. And guess what. If everybody decides to act on every whim and moral or immoral desire, THE WORLD WILL BE DESTROYED. Thus, according to the previous consideration, it follows, logically, that when God shows His face, the world will be destroyed.

Consider: last post. It has three points: 1) Every wish is a movement towards the end of enslavement. 2) I am enslaved, because things aren't going my way. At all. 3) The solution is to destroy, aggressively or passive-aggressively. What I'm saying is that I will, and you will, and everyone else will destroy this world. When people get what they want, the world is destroyed. Completely.

What is the most meaningful destruction, though? Clearly there are things we don't want to be destroyed. There are, in fact, dreams and wishes that we want to be created. I want MY MUSIC to be created, not destroyed, and I want the basis of the future popularity of my works, like Conceptionism, music, films, and so forth NOT to be destroyed. However, if it holds true that when EVERY wish is fulfilled then the world is destroyed, it must follow that each PARTICULAR wish is somewhat destructive.

The solution? Strategic destruction.

We destroy one little bit of the world at a time, strategically, to make sure that in the future, the ENTIRE world is destroyed. And EVERYONE's wishes fulfilled. It is like a huge climax; death and destruction, a little bit at a time, leading up to a climactic point of destructive pleasure.

And God shows His face, what will remain?

WE will. Because it is our WISHES that must be fulfilled, but a mind is not a wish, but SOMETHING WHICH WISHES. Is this frightening? To me, no it isn't, not at all. And what of future creation? Once we destroy ourselves, we will become the destructors, and rain death upon all future creation, just for fun. And all the future created beings will rejoice, just like we did.

2012 Apocalypse. That is my wish.

"You're Not Really Here:" In Anticipation of the End of a Shitty World

"Don't worry. You're not really "here." That is, you're not really "enslaved." Every passing wish is a movement away from that, and everybody wants the same thing. The more you live, the less you're here."
     —The Goddess Diana

Okay, Diana didn't really say that. I did. But Diana's response to the pressing issues of this year, for myself and everybody else who is having the shittiest of years, is that THIS IS THE TEST. Is the world worthwhile? Is living here on planet Earth worth the time?

Should I be aggressive and try to make everything better, or should I be passive-aggressive and let everything be shitty, let the world put pink ribbons on my hair and dress me in Alice-in-Wonderland dresses and destroy any semblance of a will, ultimately creating the karma, I think, which will lead me to be reborn as a world-destroyer and kill this entire planet? This is the test. (Have you ever felt that way?)

Me, in the "Slave Room"

Tally for the year:

Personal:

1. Psychiatry: Succeeds in making sure I can't wake up in the mornings
2. Job hunt: Fails because I can't wake up in the mornings
3. Conceptionism: No market: people don't like it because I state that a goddess has a female gender (only language which doesn't refer in any way to gender is acceptable)
4. Music: Fails: everyone says my music is genius, so I spend over $100 on an album, one person buys it
5. Film: Fails: only one person liked my latest film, can't produce more because I have no money and no market
6. Sangha activities: Fails: can't drive up to retreat, a) car breaks down, b) don't have enough money; can't make it to meditations, can't wake up in mornings
7. Personal retreat: Fails: I get too depressed to stay awake
8. Antipsychiatry: Fails: everyone thinks they know more about schizophrenia and psychiatry than I do
9. Personal psychology: People make vague hints that I was traumatized as a child, proceed to systematically not care

World-wide:

1. Psychiatry: Huge, monolithic force and growing, medicating children, outlawing ways of thinking, committing genocide, no one is even coming close to stopping it, everyone is in love with it, no one cares that its only purpose is to destroy your soul
2. Religions: Everyone hates each other for their beliefs, but don't try to understand those beliefs
3. Philosophy: The process of digging in your heels and stubbornly accepting stupid and ill-conceived ideas so you can yell at people
4. Business: The deliberate attempt to hurt everyone for no reason
5. Computers: a) Moving away from the Internet and towards proprietary cell-phone apps, b) moving towards closed-source software that sucks for no reason, c) Google floundering because it is Internet- and open souce-based, d) Why? See "Business"
6. Government: Everyone hates it for the good things it does and loves it for the bad things it does

Good things:

1. Loving goddesses, deities, even demons, etc. clearly proving that literally everything on this Earth is completely, irredeemably evil, and that there is no purpose trying to find happiness until after I've died and moved on to another world.
2. Graduated with degree: systematically doesn't make a difference, thus proving that everything which happens which is good is merely symbolic, and that true happiness cannot happen until after death.
3. Obama wins reelection: but congress is still divided, thus proving that that everything which happens which is good is merely symbolic, and that true happiness cannot happen until after death.

I have nothing to offer this world.
This world has nothing to offer me.

WHY AM I HERE.

"I fought the war and the war won" — Words of Psychiatric Wisdom

Church's response: You're here to do what the fuck I say and shut up.
Psychiatry's response: You're here to drool on the carpet, do what the fuck I say, and shut up.
Business's response: You're here to do what the fuck I say and shut up.
Government's response: You're here to pretend like you make a difference even though you don't.
School's response: You're here to pretend like you make a difference even though you don't.
Goddesses' response: You're not really here. Less so the more time goes by.

Blueprint for a Just and Creative Society: Part 2

The two sides of the coin described in the previous article have to do with creativity and justice. I can summarize it like this: 1) When one can choose between two or more social institutions, and the choice doesn't matter, it is important to make a choice and stick with it. 2) When one can choose between two or more social institutions, and the choice is important, it's best not to choose between the institutions themselves, but rather choose the most ethical point of view, and the institution that happens to be most in accordance with that point of view. Choice 1 makes society creative, choice 2 makes it just.

I think it's also important here to touch on one particular choice in the second category that we must make as a society. The choice has to do with a kind of unity. When we make choices of the first category, it is important that we as a society do so in a context regarding sociocultural institutions, agreements, understandings, and so forth that we can trust. While it's important that personalities do not get all mashed up, we have to have some common ground which invites us to view other personalities, and for other personalities to view our own. This gives meaning to everyone, regardless of their choices. (I'm using the word "personalities" here instead of "people" in light of the statement that we form our identity, or our personality, according to the loyal choices we make that do not matter.)

In order for this to happen, we have to be able to trust one another. For there to be common ground, or a level playing field, we have to agree on certain codes of conduct, according to each person's differing ability to accept things. There are a number of these common grounds, like the fact that one dollar is worth the same everywhere in the U.S., the fact that arguments can't escalate to the point of lethal violence, or sexual violence, and so on. The most important of these, of course, is a legal system we can trust to institute our just demands.

But there's another aspect to this as well—an internal aspect. We can't simply rely upon external things like laws and financial institutions to ensure that all our interactions are positive. We also have to have an internal sense of trust for each other, and an internal sense of goodwill. We have to truly have warm-hearted, good feelings for one another. Love and compassion. Then we can get into fights without really fighting. And anyway, if we don't have these feelings, no number of laws can cover every contingency. We have to trust that we can trust each other.

Thus we should be able to have multiple different personalities, some of which radically opposed to one another, in all aspects except the ones which are important, in which case we should be in accord. And these personalities should interact, through the medium of social exchange which we can trust as an ethical baseline. We must all have a sense of trust for one another, as well-founded as it can be. If this isn't possible, neither is a just and creative society.