German artist Herbert Brün talked a lot about floating hierarchies. or social systems based in growth and evolution—rather than stagnation and custom. an ecology of the shared mind that thrives beyond the pale of good and evil.
here’s a couple of succinct and eloquent pointers offered by him regarding the issue:
AGREEMENT IS A NONVIOLENT WAY OF MAKING ANOTHER PERSON SUPERFLUOUS.
PEACE IS SATISFIED BY US BEING ABLE TO HAVE OUR CONFLICTS [WITHOUT VIOLENCE].
OUR CONFLICTS SATISFY OUR NEED FOR PEACE.
WE HAVE TO FIND A METHOD OF LANGUAGING THAT DOESN’T ASSUME PEACE AS A REWARD BUT AS A CONDITION FOR CONFLICT.
WE CAN ONLY ARGUE WITH EACH OTHER WHEN THERE IS PEACE.
WAR PREVENTS US HAVING OUR CONFLICTS.
which are great counterarguments against the trending consensus of policing micro-aggressions and the excesses of the PC culture in general—incidentally.
A VICTIM IS A PERSON WHO CANNOT ESCAPE A SITUATION WITHOUT VIOLENCE [WHICH DOESN’T MEAN THAT THE PERSON CAN ESCAPE THE SITUATION WITH VIOLENCE]
which brings to mind the greyer areas of the Me Too movement as well. but let’s not step on that landmine here.
Cage fighters often state in interviews that no matter who their opponent is—whether they like them as a person or not: they still have tremendous respect for each of them simply because of the fact that they are willing to step into the cage and literally put it all on the line in front of the whole world.
And this seems reasonable indeed. What I don’t understand is why don’t we all relate to each other like this by default.
Granted, not all of us deliberately cut weight to weigh in and face off and take the fight on, but one way or another all of us are involved in it—we are all equally exposed to the elements of the blunt and unsparing arena of life:
We are all fighting pitiless demons haunting our mind and our soul and we are all subject to the vagaries of available resources and to the inevitable degenerative processes ailing our flesh.
With or without much grace: We all fight the little battles that day by day we are called on to face.
There’s a small balcony here, the door is open and I can see the lights of the cars on the Harbor Freeway south, they never stop, that roll of lights, on and on. All those people. What are they doing? What are they thinking? We’re all going to die, all of us, what a circus! That alone should make us love each other but it doesn’t. We are terrorized and flattened by trivialities, we are eaten up by nothing. (Charles Bukowski)
They say that the way out is through: that the way to the other is through the self: that the way out is through going in. But it’s just as true to say the flip side of all this: That it is by going out that we find our way in: That we are born to explore: That we are mobile creatures with limbs and a sex for a reason: That we’re here to move about and engage and discover how life flows, how life is flowering through us—reincarnated as it were in a particular way through each one of us: For it is out there where we find true intimacy with all that is ultimately within.
How do you know that your need to be proactive—contra being listless and apathetic—doesn’t, in fact, derive from a reaction to an emotion—of inferiority, of insecurity, of existential dread, etc.—that you are, as you say, addicted to?
Is a state of (adrenaline-induced) exhilaration any more ’enlightened’ than wallowing in a torpid state of apathy?
Isn’t there a place beyond (in front of) the dips and spikes of mental-emotional states?
I’d say ’in front of’ because when you integrate and transcend a developmental stage: you do not advance and move beyond something, but rather you let go of something or, to be more precise, the clutches of that thing let go—and what previously functioned as part of the background [of consciousness], now becomes part of the foreground. It’s an uncoiling that takes place, actually, not a spiraling.
Also: regarding success and so-called success barriers.
What if we have success barriers because of a deeper intuition we have? What if we feel unworthy and undeserving of stuff because deep down we know that we do not need that stuff?
Clearly, it’s not things that matter (the Perfect 10, the Porsche 911, the fancy crib) but the sentiment we project onto these things. So long as we buy into the idea of success, there’ll be things that we place high on a pedestal and against which we position ourselves as separate from and less than: as someone who’s not there yet. So long as abundance is conceived of as some form of material and inter-personal wealth or capital, it is a poor measure of success: True success is a freedom from the need for anything more than what’s already given. It’s not what you have that makes you feel abundant, but the number of things you don’t need.
but then again: I stand still to be corrected. . .