By what right do we exist?

I grieve the common sense that would ensure the continuance of life on earth – I grieve that which is already lost, and that which will be lost due. These great “Last Stands” are all that stand in the way of a human induced global catastrophe.

9336874941_caab7ace5e_b

Lets take ‘life’ as a general principle rather than an attribute. Life is dependant on a complex interconnected web of interactions between a diverse range of individual beings in all forms from the microscopic to the galactic and universal.
Killing myriad lifeforms indiscriminately has already halved the biodiversity on this planet, and is set to render this planet uninhabitable by higher conscious biological lifeforms within our lifetimes (can get the research data for those who require proof).
Meanwhile, the contributing factors to this mass desecration of ‘life’ are known, enforcement of the paradigm where this destruction is rampant continues to escalate, and the viable alternatives to self annihilation by the human species is available but opposed by the current system of global exchange and resource distribution.

It is in this context that I ask my question:
Which right has greater social license – the right to protect and preserve life – or the right to kill?

Please do analyse the question, I think essays would be appropriate, the qualified views of academics and lay persons alike would be a valuable asset to those who would do something else instead.

Collective Inquiry Series – 01:

Recently I asked a question and put it out to my social network, which is a great way to gain diverse perspectives, and often yields some fantastic insights. So here are the results:

Soul_Destruction___A_Hellion_by_3d_AbStRaCt

 

Serious question: Why do humans (in general) apparently have SO much energy and enthusiasm for destruction?

From games, to movies, to memes – from play, to creativity, and to war, there seems to be an underlying motivation, or at least an unintentional side effect, which destroys – for fun ??

The contributions are from various folks who are good with their material being shared – this post is about the content rather than the personalities, and all the following is a result of our collective inquiry

Continue reading →

Is all indeed sacred and divine?

The manifest universe is a result of reality generative processes (as described by the combination of various brilliant physicists, not to mention mystics throughout the ages) the context in which those processes are running is seamless, undivided, constant, and below the threshold of perception.

The experience we have of being immersed in the context of this manifest universe engenders an assumption of there being multiple and various phenomenon. From the embedded experience, this view is the only one available – yet, the means by which all this display of magnificence and immanence is rendered is becoming apparent through the very faculty of mind which, by its very nature, struggles to comprehend it.

Meanwhile, here in the manifest context, even whilst being aware of the immanence of ‘divine-spirit’ (an archaic term for the above mentioned processes) as omnipresent, this being prerequisite for manifestation remember, we mindful beings are struggling with the expressions and interpretations of such.

It is at the point of interpretations and expressions that we get to exercise our part in this cosmic process. We get to choose how we behave, and what we think about the behaviour of others. We get to interact in myriad ways, and we are challenged to become more functionally fitting with the context as it unfolds, or to create new contexts in which we believe we will fit better for longer – or whatever.

Change – wherefor art thou?

Change comes from within, on a individual level. No change can occur in the life of an individual until the INNER process of change is under way – I believe this is the same for the collective, the edge (which we may assume we are on because we have different hopes and larger dreams than most) is not on the “surface”, it is close to the core, and the change we make while firmly embedded in the ‘systems’ of this planet, are the precursors to societal change at scale.

Continue reading →

Future-able planet; pre-requisites.

Thought experiment.

What would be the minimum prerequisites for an effective, long term,  life affirming, planetary inhabitants guidance system?

02planet_earth_by_commanderz

Some obvious things come to mind:

Mature, psychologically sound, functionally communicative adult human beings capable of, and willing to, take into consideration all necessary fields of inquiry pertinent to the well being, and ongoing interdependence of life support systems on this Earth. Until such time as sufficient numbers of such capable beings are safely established in positions of authority with the power to direct the combined resources of planetary systems toward alternatives, the focus of all responsible, mature human  beings needs to be on getting such a social, humanistic state of affairs established.

Continue reading →

GD. Goethean Experimental Observations for 12/06/2012

Practice notes from Goethean experiment conducted in 2012.

Magellan Courses

(noticing the phenomena of sounds arising from within);

Prelude: I have relocated to a big old house near the beach, with a forest across the road. To honour the occasion, we had a fire ceremony at the beach on the evening of the 12th June. After enjoying the beautiful starlit evening we returned to the house, after I have settled my son I settle into sitting meditation on the mat in front of the altar.

I sound the singing bowl, chant Aum and then sit with my double dorje in my hands, contemplating the energetic nexus that it represents, and creatively imagining the dynamic structure which it represents the underpinnings of.

 

I begin to feel the arising of kundalini shakti, gently undulating through my subtle energetic system and up my spine, out through the top of my head with a tingling sensation and into the familiar fountain-like pattern of…

View original post 992 more words

The beginning of “what comes next”.

Because this is an ongoing and growing field of inquiry – I will include it here:

I conclude my little contribution to the exploration of Professor Bruno Latour’s work with a mind full of pertinent questions to ponder:

Are Latour, and those to whom he addresses his insights through the Gifford lectures, among others, really somewhat pessimistic? or is it just the scope and gravity of the topics under discussion which makes it appear so?
(Bonnitta went some way to explaining this in the last lecture concall dated 09-06-2013).

– A random musing related to this, does evolution favour optimism?

Do ‘we’ the people, called by the urgency of the times we are living in, have any hope at all of making the kinds of changes deemed necessary, at the required scale, in the apparent time frame being suggested?

Are Latour’s suggested frameworks for the nomos, demos and theos sufficient to the task for which we are heeding the call?

On a more pragmatic note:

What courses of action will likely be most effective in expediting the required shifts in decision making power structures that need to occur for the current concentrations of power, which are, according to scientific observations, corrupting the entire experience of life on earth, to be effectively redistributed?

The project of contoversy mapping [HERE] which I have become aware that Latour is engaged with aims to facilitate widespread public participation in decision making processes, how will this effect the “whole”?

“Technical democracy requires spaces and instruments to facilitate public involvement in technological and scientific issues. Such democratic equipment is yet to be assembled, even though much theoretical research has been done to envision its articulation. At the same time, digital innovations are providing an increasing number of new instruments and forums that can be used to promote public participation.”

What will it take for a planetary scale engagement of multi-disciplinary scientific and academic, as well as philosophical and pragmatic domains to be well enough co-ordinated that the planet can effectively “run itself”?

– Further to this, the planet already “runs itself”, however, there are factors in play which are influencing the way in which it does so, so how much actual resonse-ability we ‘we’ (who ever ‘we’ turn out to be) willing/able to take for the flow-on effects of such influential activities?

Assuming that this is possible, what kind of system/systemic structure would be the most “universally” desirable?
(this question of course will have myriad answers, but there must be some minimum viable requirements we can all agree upon, such as “supports life”, for instance).

I don’t pretend to know where to start answering these questions, but I am a perseverant soul, and these questions need explicitly answering as far as I am concerned. So even though this little crew has finished exploring this territory for now, I will continue to explore, inspired by the mounting pressure of compelling questions arising in me as I flow forward into “what comes next”.

Magellan Courses

rights-of-nature-2

 

I conclude my little contribution to the exploration of Professor Bruno Latour’s work with a mind full of pertinent questions to ponder:

Are Latour, and those to whom he addresses his insights through the Gifford lectures, among others, really somewhat pessimistic? or is it just the scope and gravity of the topics under discussion which makes it appear so?
(Bonnitta went some way to explaining this in the last lecture concall dated 09-06-2013).

– A random musing related to this, does evolution favour optimism?

Do ‘we’ the people, called by the urgency of the times we are living in, have any hope at all of making the kinds of changes deemed necessary, at the required scale, in the apparent time frame being suggested?

Are Latour’s suggested frameworks for the nomos, demos and theos sufficient to the task for which we are heeding the call?

On a more pragmatic note:

View original post 332 more words