The immune system is not a non-dualist. It is there to keep what is “not-me” at bay.
The ego has as much place in our lives as the immune system does in our bodies. It has as much legitimacy and plays as pivotal a role. It’s a natural function separating the self from the Other and the elements of the world.
Contrary to the view of many enlightenment chasing “self-helpers,” the ego—along with its projection of the Other—is not a problem to be transcended. (It’s one’s identification with the ego function that spawns the problems—problems such as obsessive compulsive behavioral patterns, hoarding, addictions, depression, dysfunctional attachments, etc.) In the end, the ego is a tool that we use to embody the truth in the flesh in the world.
The Other, and the threat of the unknowable and the unknown, is inextinguishable. It’s part and parcel of the Oneness we come from.
We all heard about the danger of divers ascending too fast to the surface in deep water. It’s called decompression sickness. There is probably something similar going on in the psychic realm when the (drug- or radicalism induced) removal of the oppressive weight of previous belief systems and cognitive filters leave a vacuum in their wake that releases all the unresolved traumas incurred / compartmentalized by same.
The unbearable lightness of being is like having the bends which results in a highly strung, unbalanced grasping after a new weight of meaning: to find bearing within a new set of boundaries, through a recalibrated comportment towards the Other. (Nihilism and tribalism, so rampant in the 21st century, are the first reflexes to deflect the confusion and anxiety arising out of this liminal state.)
In essence: spiritualism is about the cultivation of a wholesome and honest relationship with the Other, and not about reaching an escape velocity from it.
There seems to be this strange notion or behavioral currency in subconscious circulation in society these days that those are good citizens that have low or near-zero pretensions to self-determination and individual sovereignty.
And yet, in fact, it is the conscious and aware individual with a wholesome amount of discernment and self-reliance that has what it takes to contribute to society.
It may sound paradoxical but it is true.
In the same way as there is no intellectual progress (and mental and emotional development possible) without freedom of expression, there is no “greater good” possible without individual freedom of choice.
Ballooning collectivism, and its instruments of propaganda, censorship, and entrenched bureaucracy poses a greater threat to grandma, in the final analysis, than the germs of Little Red Riding Hood or the fangs of the big bad wolf.
Will pitting accurate data against faulty data ever get us out of the epistemic impasse that we agreed to enter in March 2020?
Citing data to question public health mandates and the authority behind them is playing a language game we shouldn’t be playing in the first place—accepting faulty premises and frames. It’s like playing tic tac toe on a chess board to prove to the other side that we should be playing chess.
Anyone with a functioning common sense knows, is able to discern what’s right and what’s not. If Joe Schmo tweets about it nobody cares. But when a credentialed person writes the same thing it’s a whole different ball of wax.
Why is that?
If we can only defeat (corrupt) authority with appeals to (uncorrupt) authority where does that leave us? Doesn’t that prove that facts (purveyed by the experts) still matter more than the truth?
Data has as little to do with truth as knowledge with wisdom.
Facts may help navigate but they won’t delineate the right way. Facts are to the truth as maps are to the territory.
Till information trumps intuition we haven’t got much of a chance at a leap of evolution.
—this is one of the most important yet least appreciated aspects of the issues we are confronted with as humans. What holds true on one level of analysis may not translate as truth on another.
Think of the is-ought fallacy, for instance.
If doing X or enhancing the function of Y in our body effectively facilitated our affinity or alignment with a desired collective end (posited by the particular powers that be): does it mean we should (be coerced to) do or adopt or sustain or retain it?
Is the principle of bodily integrity negotiable if it is deemed perfectible?
Take the putative climate emergency gaining traction on the heels of the recent Public Health Emergency of International Concern.
Even if the dire prognostications of the climate (computer) models were accurate, that wouldn’t justify the implementation of policies “recommended” by unelected board members of supranational bodies—foisting, as it were, a “green” technocratic yoke and a “climate-smart” de-growth ideology on the public.
Even if government mandated public health measures could save lives (which they cannot, at length, consistently do) they belong in authoritarian regimes, and not in liberal democracies where civil liberties are the name of the game.
So much of the vexatious vaccine controversy today revolves around the question of efficacy when much deeper issues are at stake.
Again, if the novel mRNA technology worked that wouldn’t mean that we all should (be coerced to) take them—as if natural immunity and informed consent and freedom of choice were superannuated things of the past.
In 1945 poet Ezra Pound was arrested in Italy by the US military on charges of treason. He was put in a cage in a prison camp near Pisa—exposed for weeks to the elements. Later he was transferred to the St. Elizabeths psychiatric hospital for the criminally insane in Washington, D.C.
“Usurocracy makes wars in succession. It makes them according to a pre-established plan for the purpose of creating debts.”
He attacked Roosevelt for entering the world war and promulgated fascism and antisemitic sentiments on Italian radio—spreading disinformation about a global cabal of bankers (the “usurocracy”) which the Rome-Berlin axis he cheered for taking on.