DEVTOME.COM HOSTING COSTS HAVE BEGUN TO EXCEED 115$ MONTHLY. THE ADMINISTRATION IS NO LONGER ABLE TO HANDLE THE COST WITHOUT ASSISTANCE DUE TO THE RISING COST. THIS HAS BEEN OCCURRING FOR ALMOST A YEAR, BUT WE HAVE BEEN HANDLING IT FROM OUR OWN POCKETS. HOWEVER, WITH LITERALLY NO DONATIONS FOR THE PAST 2+ YEARS IT HAS DEPLETED THE BUDGET IN SHORT ORDER WITH THE INCREASE IN ACTIVITY ON THE SITE IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS. OUR CPU USAGE HAS BECOME TOO HIGH TO REMAIN ON A REASONABLE COSTING PLAN THAT WE COULD MAINTAIN. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THE DEVTOME PROJECT AND KEEP THE SITE UP/ALIVE PLEASE DONATE (EVEN IF ITS A SATOSHI) TO OUR DEVCOIN 1M4PCuMXvpWX6LHPkBEf3LJ2z1boZv4EQa OR OUR BTC WALLET 16eqEcqfw4zHUh2znvMcmRzGVwCn7CJLxR TO ALLOW US TO AFFORD THE HOSTING.

THE DEVCOIN AND DEVTOME PROJECTS ARE BOTH VERY IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY. PLEASE CONTRIBUTE TO ITS FURTHER SUCCESS FOR ANOTHER 5 OR MORE YEARS!

Fluctuations of the Self

A year later, and the entrees have grown stale.

It is often said that the dancer, you, will be enriched if only you pick a direction in which to enrich yourself. It both is, and isn't the case; enrichment will flow if it is that you seek to orbit a thing at a low altitude. Should you set your sights higher – rise aloft even, that which flows is not always enrichment. In many disciplines, when one has risen aloft, or to borrow from Nietzsche, truly undertaken his own 'downgoing', that which flows is often more aesthetically detrimental than it is enriching. Should you decide to cook the meat in the highest heat, temper yourself in the fiercest flames, it and you will burn to cinders.

This does not bring an end to the matter, however. There will remain this awkward fluctuation of yourself in between two states, the call of society to fall into line and speak less, and the beckoning of your calling to do the exact opposite. The status quo is never changed by falling into line, yet this is precisely what happens to most men. Why is this so? Part of the explanation lies in the easiness of simply falling into line, there is no great amount of effort on one's part to seek to challenge no further, this is simply a passive state. Whereas to continue a path, at the very least requires pathfinding ability – you must either know where to go and go there, or you must deduce the direction yourself. Neither of these things are simple if you are walking into unfamiliar territory, and if you are not in unfamiliar territory, then you have not risen aloft; you are walking in a common circle, the traits of which you understand and have concluded of already. It is likely that because of this, a part of the proclivities of a philosopher is to be able to once again render the familiar unfamiliar.

This leaves us at a question. If it is not purely simplicity that allows us to revert ourselves to a non-rebellious nature, then what else engenders such a change? The answer is clear. There is a great pressure on one to stop rebelling. From your parents to your tutors to your peers to your partners, none will wholly accept that you seek to change something, be it within or outside of yourself. There will always be this nagging doubt in their minds as to how stoic everything appears to be, and how illogical it would seem to upset it; rarely does the question enter their minds as to the matter of truth, and whether to pursue it, it remains easier to hold to a predestined thinking no matter how ironic of a situation that is. The thing here to behold is not so much the unwitting revulsion, but moreso the question as to why it occurs – why, in this aspect of our thinking, would we deny our natural programming? Why would we at once cower at the dawn, knowing it heralds the sun?

Perhaps there is something more sinister at work. It is not at odds with history to mention the various earliest priesthoods and their influence in society; neither is it to say these same priesthoods took on a more delineating role the further their respective society progressed. This is at it's clearest when referencing Christ, at least in regards to the amount of material one can find on his influence. Swiftly, men were called to define exactly the line of what could be considered legitimate of the man, and what humanity would have no need for; they then compiled that which was selected for legitimacy, and this constitutes the Bible. There are still many gospels of Jesus that remain uncanonical simply due to this delineation. I do not tell this story without cause, I am making it implicit in our understanding of our willingness to reject potentialites that there have been, and still are, men who have the 'duty' of telling you exactly what you can do, or at the very least, what you should do, and that this has been the case since the origins of civilisation, and likely prior to that also.

We are now conflicted by two natures. One being to resist out of fear, and the other to insist from a position of power. Is it fair to say that if things are truly natural in occurence, they do not conflict? Let us resolve the conflict then. It becomes evident quickly that to resist out of fear can be either natural, or unnatural, this duality does not exist with the latter nature. The difference in the 'naturality' of the behaviour, is based on the experience of the phenomenon. To resist something without experiencing it as a real fear, rather a supposed fear, is less natural than to resist driving because the last time you sat in a car it exploded once you closed the door. But what is it that pushes it to the point of being unnatural? It is when one resists the natural direction of the matter. It is when, despite literally dying of hunger, you choose to refuse to consume anything in any form.

So then, it must be unnatural to think a man stupid or foolish for seeking to start a sound movement, or reinvent himself. For these are the methods by which change in a society or change in a man occurs.

I come back to these aforementioned priesthoods. Chiefly because, I wonder as to where exactly this unnatural influence comes from. The unnatural stems from that which is human; you will not find an unnaturally behaving cow. Who is it that insinuates the idea that attempting change will lead to bad? There must be someone, or some people, for we all suffer from this most contagious of neruoses to a degree. Naturally then, I would point my finger at those who delineate, and have delineated.

I doubt strongly that these priesthoods exist today in the same capacities as their earlier forms. It is also true that the power of delineation has shifted, no longer is it the clergy who directly tell you how to behave, it is your respective government. And already, do we witness this same power being moved into the hands of corporations. As many questions as these sea-changes raise, I will leave them for another time, and another essay.

Actively here, we must hunt the source of power. Socrates did say the unexamined life is not worth living – I feel the same, I feel even the unexamined plane of existence is not worth living in. However, the power must be sought because without understanding that which has or attempts to exercise power over you, you are in a position of having submitted to that power. If this power is benevolent, then fine, but as we have seen it is not uncommon for man to act in such a way as to revile another – and so if the power is exercised maliciously, then you are subject to maliciousness. How much, do you ask? How many beings are there in existence that you come into contact with, both directly and indirectly?

It is clear I am headhunting. The combined maliciousness of those who wield power is becoming ever more significant every day; I do not seek to be forced into the position of being a rat with a gun, sprinting about my city evading my own countrymen posing as arbiters of justice, I seek to be a part of something that stops all the ridiculousness, so to speak. So who in this time is the most ridiculous? Who are the prime engenderers of our blind neuroses? Put all theories aside, for now is not the time for theorising.

The reality of it is that they who own the world in it's largest parts are who are to blame. Because it is simple to channel money in such a way as for the public to be eluded by it, it cannot simply be said, I will not move the finger in an aid to finding a scapegoat. The question becomes who, or what, are the most pervasive agents in our lives. Those who control your work are one. All work is of one's prime doing if they are said to be 'productive members of society' and it follows that the majority of individuals are productive members of society. Your work controls your standard of living, your contentedness, the metaphorical frequencies you can exist within. So who is it that pervades all work? Perhaps if we eliminate the matter of work, by concluding of it, we will find the same beings responsible in other places. This would have to be the case for it to be concurrent with our current understanding of the originating delination being of small groups, priesthoods.

I posit it is true that your employer does not delineate your work. The reality of one having work, as opposed to somebody else, is the availability of that work. The laws that constrain or free work would be responsible for the availability, so what laws are they, and who controls these laws? Those that have the power to move the hand of government. In each country, it differs on the lowest level as to how exactly a law is impregnated into society; how the government is swayed into swaying the people. The case however can be encompassed thus; there are men who employ agents to manifest their interests by means of swaying both citizen and government; lobbying is a degree of this that is easy to reference, but this goes on in many other forms, in countries where citizens are more significant than their rulers the people are swayed in forms such as sparking false flag events, scapegoating, purchasing the media, etc. Where it is the reverse you will find 'co-developed' think-tanks, influenced research and academia and so on. The irony of the Western power climate is in the way it manifests, although it is at it's altogether most pervasive, it is also where it is at it's most obvious.

We now have a pallette of sources to choose from, and so I will steal the joy of you discovering for yourself by saying it is those who are either independently wealthy, or whole businesses and institutions who fund such endeavours.

Reader, you may feel dismayed at my alleged conclusion, that it is merely just wealthy people who delineate our lives. I put it to you that this is the very proverbial shallow end of the pool. This is because of a social phenomena. Our societies are now reactively delineatory, as opposed to directly. The top of the human food chain no longer seems to be interested in shaping people, is this because the deed has been done? If we check ourselves and our environments for neuroses and the ir traits, it would seem so. There is only so much of humanity you have to break in order for it to seek to break itself. From the very concept of a cancer cell, to the most illogical terrorism, humanity is ever the sufferer of malignant growth.

To what degree does the hand of government move for it's own sake?

So what engenders power? Is it not position –?

Cont.


QR Code
QR Code fluctuations_of_the_self (generated for current page)
 

Advertise with Anonymous Ads