Posts Tagged ‘maya’

Maya: a competent translation of ancient Buddhist scriptures

April 21, 2013

saying of the Buddha about language

Consider that when translating ancient sayings in to English, the competency of the translator (their comprehension of the subject matter) can be very relevant. In the sky there is no linguistic category of east and west, no linguistic barrier or distinction or boundary between the two. People create categorical distinctions out of their own language and then presume that the categorical distinctions in language are not just categorical distinctions in language.

For instance, what is an “injustice?” What is a “travesty?” These are linguistic categories derived from what Terence McKenna might call “cultural programming.” The words refer to an internal experience, a way of RELATING TO or LABELING external events, and yet we may mistake the internal reaction AS the external event (or as the result of the external event).

The basic point of Buddhism and lots of spiritual traditions is that human experience is INTERPRETATIVE. Our experiences are organized FROM external sensation, but not BY external sensation. We organize sensation and then call that perception (AKA “belief”). We are selective, presumptive, and biased.

All perception is a DISTORTING (re-organizing) of physical sensation (like we distort sounds of a human voice in to language. The language is not “in” the sounds, but in our decoding of coded symbols of sound.

That is the basic principle of [this Sanskrit word:] Maya. Many so-called Buddhists may have absolutely no comprehension of the word, even though they may use it “religiously.” That is also a normal developmental stage!


As a sidenote, we are trained in government-regulated schools (or government-operated schools) that OUR government keeps us safe and has our best interests in mind. We are also trained about some other governments that are violent and deceive the masses… unjustly. We may even be tested on multiple choice tests about whether we should go “liberate” places like Boston from government oppression by sending in government military forces. (By the way, the correct answer, if you want to go up to the next grade level in the government bureaucratic pyramid, is “C.”)

So, what does Maya mean? Does it mean illusion or delusion? Or does Maya simply refer to the fact that language is always interpretative (poetic)? Linguistic categories vary in precision. An apple is a fruit, and yet it may also be a Granny Smith apple even though it is also a fruit. Those are just variations in precision.

However, that is just part of the linguistic distinction Maya. It is not ultimately about language, but about perception itself. All human experience is relational (relative), interpretative, organized by neurological programs. The entire realm of language is “a neurological program,” but so is something “objective” like vision!

What we see is NOT what is actually out there. What we see is a representation or distortion or interpretation of what is out there. We can dream of a snake when there is no snake but only a rope. We can dream of a snake when there is no snake and no rope. We can dream of a snake when there is in fact a snake.

However, Maya (or “the dreams or distortions of conscious experience) is not about whether there is a snake or rope or neither. Maya is about the HUMILITY and MATURITY to recognize that what we experience or perceive (“dream”) is just one possible INTERPRETATION. This is why the ancient teaching of Maya is the same principle (but in a different language) as the Christian principle of humility as “the key to entering the kingdom of heaven.”

If you think you know what the “kingdom of heaven” means, but you do not even know the difference between arrogant sincerity and humility, then you might be at least slightly inaccurate. However, that can change rather suddenly.

audio & lyrics: A real fantasy (“I’m Justified!”)

May 9, 2012

A real fantasy

Can a story be the real me? Can the real me be a story?

There can be stories about me. I can tell some of those stories.

But which one is the real me? Which one is just a story?
Is there a myth that I worship? That’s the story of the real me!
Is there a story that I worship? That’s the myth of the real me!
Can a myth be the real me? Can the real me be a story?
Is there a myth that I dismiss? As just a myth or a story?
If it’s not the one I worship, then it must be a heresy.
If it’s not the myth I worship, then it must be a blasphemy.
When I tell the story of the real me, you can be part of my story.
My story weaves you out of me. You’re just a role in my fantasy.
I’ll make you the arrogant skeptic, the infidel, the crazy.
A hero needs a villain, like the end needs a beginning
and a story needs a traitor, like a myth needs a creator
so I’ll tell you what to do next, then later call it sinning
(during your punishment)
I’m justified                     in my story
You’re sacrificed          for my glory
I’m justified                     by my history
my mythology               my real fantasy
You justify                       my reaction
I’m trapped by               your resentment
You limit me                   in my story
Your curiosity               could destroy me
I’m justified                     You’re sacrificed
I’m justified                      by your vanity
I’m justified                      I’m justified                   I’m justified                    in my tragedy
Thank you for sharing (or re-blogging) any content that you appreciate.
Cover of The Saturn Myth.

Cover of The Saturn Myth. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

new myth, old god (and the origin of heaven and hell on earth)

April 14, 2012

 

Superman (comic book)

Superman (comic book) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Easter Bunny

The Easter Bunny (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Satan as Antichrist

Satan as Antichrist (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

NEW MYTH, OLD GOD


myth 

1830, from Gk. mythos “speech, thought, story, myth,”
[C19: via Late Latin from Greek muthos:  fable, word]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth
Santa Claus with a little girl Esperanto: Patr...

Santa Claus with a little girl Esperanto: Patro Kristnasko kaj malgranda knabino Suomi: Joulupukki ja pieni tyttö (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Myth means a story. Specifically, a myth is a story told for the purpose of influencing an audience (whether or not that purpose is recognized or admitted).
Even more specifically, myth could mean almost any sequence of words. We can contrast myths with other sequences of words, like a simple list of different colors- such as red, white, and blue- which does not qualify as a story, right?
As an example of a myth, I could tell a story about a character named Santa Claus (or “Father Christmas“), who once upon a time met some children and bribed them by promising them a pleasant surprise in the near future. So, the story I could tell about Santa Claus might be influential whether or not any particular element of the story is already popular or famous or familiar.
I could call the story a metaphor or a parable or a joke or a legend or an anecdote or just a story. Even if a story is labeled entirely true, the telling of the story could still be for producing some result by influencing an audience. Since there may be no other reason for speaking except to promote certain results through influence, any story could be a myth.

If some people doubt or even reject the literal references of a story, that story can still be a myth, right? If some people believe the literal references of some story, the story can still be a myth. If some people even argue over a story, the story can still be a myth.

Raffaello Sanzio - The Creation of Eve from Ad...

Raffaello Sanzio – The Creation of Eve from Adam – WGA18600 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Hundreds or even millions of people could go to war with each other after hearing stories and then practicing, refining, and rehearsing those stories. The stories may or may not be completely true, but that may not really even be especially to the people. Some people may be more eager to argue or launch an attack than to research the details of a particular story. Some people may be more eager to make a certain purchase or cast a certain vote than to question the stories that are motivating, organizing, and producing those actions.
Mythology

Mythology (Photo credit: KairosOfTyre)

People organize their time and their behavior and their finances based on stories. However, perhaps only a few people may be curious to explore the stories that inform or form their patterns of behavior (and the results produced by those patterns of behavior).
Mythology is the study of stories told for the purpose of influencing an audience, such as the curriculum of a class or a commercial advertisement. Studying the art of story-telling and the art of influence or communication is one possible meaning of the word mythology.

1375–1425; late Middle English mythologie  < Late Latin mȳthologia
< Greek mȳthología. See mytho--logy

study of - Gk. mythos “speech, thought, story, myth,”

Masaccio, Brancacci Chapel, Adam and Eve, detail.

Masaccio, Brancacci Chapel, Adam and Eve, detail. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In summary, a myth is an influential story. So, a “new myth” would be any influential story that is unfamiliar (“new”). The following is a new myth about an old god.
Once upon a time, there was an old god. The god had been around for a very long time, even longer than any of the stories about the old god. The god was so old that the god was called eternal, since the god was older than any stories about the god, all of which were actually invented by the god, who also invented language.
 
One old story about the god called the god by the name Indra. This story was one of the oldest stories about god. Indra was also called “huta,” which meant the invocation. By the way, invocation basically means an influential sequence of words, such as a myth.
 
So, that old word from the Sanskrit language was eventually written in some recent alphabet as “huta” which was later modified in to other words like ghuta and ghut and guth and goth and gott and god. So, the word “god” was first formed a little over a thousand years ago, but, even before that word was formed, other similar words were formed like Indra and Allah and Jehovah and YHWH and Buddha and Tao and Saturn and Set and Loki and El.
 
Indra is the god-king of heaven and god of thu...

Indra is the god-king of heaven and god of thunder, lightning and rain. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

god

O.E. god “supreme being, deity,” from P.Gmc. *guthan
 (cf. Du.god, Ger. Gott, O.N. guð, Goth. guþ), from PIE *ghut-
 “that which is invoked” (cf. Skt. huta- “invoked,” an epithet of Indra),
from root *gheu(e)- “to call, invoke.”
Origin: 
before 900; Middle English, Old English;  cognate with Dutch god,
German Gott, Old Norse goth, Gothic guth
[Old English god;  related to Old Norse goth,  Old High Germangot,  Old Irish guth  voice]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god
So, god is a relatively new word- just over a thousand years old- representing a very old idea. “God” has to do with invocation and voice and authority and authoring as in the creating of distinct experiences through variations in speaking.
 
For instance, in one influential story, God declares a distinction between heaven and earth. Earth is the realm of external experience as in subjective perception. Heaven is the realm of internal experience as in conception or concepts or conceiving or creating or identifying or labeling.
 
So, it is said that “as above, so below.” This means that the realm of earthly experience is a product of or partner of a heavenly conceiving, as in the “immaculate” conceiving.
 
God speaks things in to existence as the reality or realm or kingdom of experience. The realm of heaven or kingdom of God is the authority of language or the reality of myth.
 
The 1st English edition of The Kingdom of God ...

The 1st English edition of The Kingdom of God Is Within You. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

After all, myths are a distinct part of reality, right? Myths are real stories that can be really influential. 
 
Myths are the origins of identity and experience. Myths are tools for training audiences in a particular way to relate to life. 
 
For instance, one way to relate to life is to identify particular elements of life to repress as shameful or evil or sinful or even incurable problems (since if I personally do not recognize any possible solution already, then obviously it is not possible that anyone would ever recognize a possible solution, so the problem is labeled incurable, which could just be a reflection of my ignorance of physiology or psychiatry etc). Anyway, once we have declared some sacred taboos as “the negative,” then there could be particular patterns of behavior identified that one can take to compensate for those shameful realities, as in earning one’s way in to heaven from out of hell. That is the myth of living in hell because of some “original sin.”
 
That is a perfectly valid story to tell, right? There are other stories that one could tell, but that is a very popular one.
 
Santa Claus

Santa Claus (Photo credit: Natashenka)

Another related story is that there is a god who does not condemn any perception or pattern, but recognizes the reality of something called innocence, like an innocent mistake. God forgives. God says things like “if there seems to be a problem with someone else’s perception, remove the identifying of that problem from your own perception. Stop relating to the rest of reality as a set of problems. Start some introspection. Remove the blindness and filters from your own perception first, then perhaps you can assist others in removing any perception of problems from their perspective. Remember, the perspective is the source of the perception- including a perception of a problem, which is a way of relating to something as in identifying yourself in relation to it.”
Santa Claus

Santa Claus (Photo credit: Christopher S. Penn)

 
So, are myths problems? In other words, are influential stories problems? Or, are influential stories just real influential stories?
 
Which is more important: to save the world from the problem of influential stories or to study the reality of influential stories so that one is clear that relating to influential stories as a problem is just one of many valid ways to identify or labels myths? Whichever story you tell, that is the story you will experience.
Papyrus 111 Nederlands: Papyrus 111

Papyrus 111 Nederlands: Papyrus 111 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

20The Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom of God would come. He answered them, “People can’t observe the coming of the kingdom of God. 21They can’t say, ‘Here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ You see, the kingdom of God is within you.”  http://gwt.scripturetext.com/luke/17.htm
20Being asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The Kingdom of God doesn’t come with observation; 21neither will they say, ‘Look, here!’ or, ‘Look, there!’ for behold, the Kingdom of God is within you.”20  http://worldebible.com/luke/17.htm
And having been questioned by the Pharisees, when the reign of God doth come, he answered them, and said, ‘The reign of God doth not come with observation; 21 nor shall they say, Lo, here; or lo, there; for lo, the reign of God is within you.’   http://yltbible.com/luke/17.htm
20Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is withinb you.”  http://niv.scripturetext.com/luke/17.htm

20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within youhttp://kingjbible.com/luke/17.htm

Halloween

Halloween (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God comes not with observation: 21Neither shall they say, See here! or, see there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.  http://kjv.us/luke/17.htm

20
And being asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God cometh, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, There! for lo, the kingdom of God is within you. http://asvbible.com/luke/17.htm

20
 And being asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come? he answered them, and said: The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there. For lo, the kingdom of God is within youhttp://drb.scripturetext.com/luke/17.htm

20 And being asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God cometh, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, There! for lo, the kingdom of God is within you. http://erv.scripturetext.com/luke/17.htm

Star Wars - Darth Vader

Star Wars – Darth Vader (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


20
 And when he was asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation. 21 Neither will they say, Lo here! or lo there! for behold, the kingdom of God is within you. http://websterbible.com/luke/17.htm


20
 Being asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God was coming, He answered, “The Kingdom of God does not so come that you can stealthily watch for it. 21 Nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ –for the Kingdom of God is within you.” http://weymouthbible.com/luke/17.htm

The Kingdom of God Is Within You (Russian: Цар...

The Kingdom of God Is Within You (Russian: Царство Божие внутри вас) is the non-fiction magnum opus of Leo Tolstoy first published in Germany in 1894, after being banned in his home country of Russia. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

John 18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world….”
New Living Translation (©2007)
Jesus answered, “My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom….”
Santaclaus at Helsinki Cathedral Suomi: Joulup...

Santa Claus at Helsinki Cathedral Suomi: Joulupukki Helsingin tuomiokirkon edustalla (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Cover art by Mike Grell.

Cover art by Mike Grell. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Batman #1 (Spring 1940). Art by Bob Kane and J...

Batman #1 (Spring 1940). Art by Bob Kane and Jerry Robinson. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

http://thefineartdiner.blogspot.com/2011/11/destiny-and-wizard-of-oz.html

myth is a modern word (from the Greek) for an older Sanskrit word:

maya:

maya  (ˈmaɪə, ˈmɑːjə, ˈmɑːjɑː)
— n
Hinduism  illusion, esp the material world of the senses regardedas illusory
[C19: from Sanskrit]

ma·ya

[mah-yah, -yuh]  Show IPA

noun Hinduism .

1.

the power, as of a god, to produce illusions.

2.

the production of an illusion.

3.

(in Vedantic philosophy) the illusion of the reality of sensoryexperience and of the experienced qualities and attributes ofoneself.

4.

( initial capital letter ) Also called Mahamaya. a goddesspersonifying the power that creates phenomena.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/maya

Mythology - Hypnos

Mythology – Hypnos (Photo credit: Jess*Lo)

 

The Greatest Sock Puppet

February 1, 2012

 

English: A photograph of a sock puppet made by me.

English: A photograph of a sock puppet made by me. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

“I am not a sock puppet, I am a human being trying to find my way back to God.”

>

The other sock puppet said “I can see that. You clearly are not a sock puppet. You are that other human being over there which is so different from me and has such a very different reality than mine. The rules of biochemistry and electromagnetism over here for me must be very different from the ones over there for you and we should probably go together on a mission through a bunch of shadows to make the totally different biochemistry over here be the same as the totally different biochemistry over there.”

>

That is a teaching about the sanskrit term Maya or the Judeo-Christian term Sin as in “original sin” and the human’s fall from grace. The same distinction is presented in different human languages as “Zen” and “Advaita.”

>

This particular conversation (below) borrows terminology from Jungian psychology (the “shadow”) and originates from a dialogue between two brothers of The Mankind Project. I am free. I do not have anything required as a method to become free, like as a method of liberation. Liberation is fine- but I am already free to explore any particular liberation or not.

ManKind Project

ManKind Project (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

>

I am the truth. I do not have any method required to find truth, nor any method excluded in regard to distinguishing or labeling any particular pattern.

>

I am the way. I am not looking for a way to become what I assert that I am not already (unless I do look in such a way).

>

I am the life. When I move, that is the entirety of the universe moving as me, like an entire cloud dripping one raindrop and then another, or an enzyme making one protein and then another.

>

As a human, I may or may not state a particular “mission” (future emphasis). As a being, I am already the branch on the vine and the vine within the branch. The being is the source of the human persona or the process of identifying in language or the ego. When the word “I” is used, that can be used to reference an isolated persona of ego or to reference the source which creates and alters persona.

>

As an enzyme, I just make proteins. As an atom, I spin electrons around a nucleus. As a solar system, I light up the sun and send the planets orbiting around it. Before Abraham was, I am. (Before Jesus was, I am.)

>

When two people argue over which is the best cartoon character superhero (Spiderman or Superman), I am there. When two people argue over which is the best political candidate (Nixon or Kennedy), I am there. When two nations go to war, I am there. When two asteroids collide, I am there- colliding them as them.

>

Being does not end. It is eternal as in timeless. It is not waiting for heaven to start eventually, nor trying to earn its way in to it. Being is already here.

>

The Divine Presence is already here. God is already here. This is not a belief formed in words and then repeated such as in order to actualize some pursuit of a human ego. This is not the mechanical repetition of a passage of scripture. This is the voice at the source of the oral traditions of various languages which have been transcribed in to scripture and translated and edited and so on. I did all of that. (I am the one who created language and oral traditions and writing and then a thousand years later read what another part of me wrote down that yet another part of me said long before that.)

>

I am Being. I am not telling you this gain admission in to a club or to solicit your approval or personal opinion. In fact, I am not addressing you as someone other than me.

>

All that Being is typing here is what Being already knows and there is nowhere that Being is not and no one that Being is not. Being is the one who says “without a mission, you are lost.” Being is also the one who says “if I am lost, that is when I create a mission and a goal.” Being may even say “the being is never lost. Only the being’s human persona can have the experience of being lost or found, being seen or being ignored, being heard or being misunderstood.”

>

Each human persona has a specific destiny and path. The Being simply is. The Being is the one doing all of the human personas (which are distinct from one another as various patterns in language) and moving them toward their destinies.

>

Once upon a time a sock puppet said to another sock puppet, “can you please tell me what is the nature of the kingdom of heaven?” The other sock puppet answered and said “yes, of course I can. The kingdom of heaven is like a sock puppet. Recall the following words of the prophet Isaiah which did not make it in to the book you are carrying, but are just as valid a symbolic metaphor as any one the ones that did make it in to that book.”

>

Once upon a time there was a human being that put a sock puppet on each hand. One sock puppet said to the other “I am not a sock puppet, I am a human being trying to find my way back to God.”

>

The other sock puppet said “I can see that. You clearly are not a sock puppet. You are that other human being over there which is so different from me and has such a very different reality than mine. The rules of biochemistry and electromagnetism over here for me must be very different from the ones over there for you and we should probably go together on a mission through a bunch of shadows to make the totally different biochemistry over here be the same as the totally different biochemistry over there.”

>

By the way, these are not all of the teachings of the great Sock Puppet. In fact, if all of the teachings of the great Sock Puppet were to be compiled, there is no library big enough to contain of all those teachings, mostly because the great Sock Puppet is going to be giving some brand new teachings this Sunday, you know, like every other day so far.

Related articles
עברית: ויקיפד מפעיל בובת גרב English: Wikipedi...

Image via Wikipedia

free from beliefs… about liberation

October 14, 2011

free from beliefs… about liberation

People are inherently free. People are even inherently free to train other people with punishments and rewards. People are free to influence behavior, like imposing inhibitions:

“keep your fingers away from the hot oven”

or

“only cross the street after you stop and look both ways to make sure that no cars are coming.”

Small punishments can be imposed to avoid more severe natural consequences. Punishments presumably would always be intended to promote the best interests of the one exerting attention and energy to impose the punishment. For instance, if a parent trains a child to avoid a certain danger, that is an expression of the parent’s interest in a certain kind of relationship with the child, like with a certain level of well-being for the child being essential to such a relationship.

Attention is interest. Punishment, therefore, is a form of interest. Reward of course is also a form of interest.

Further, the publicizing of punishments and rewards is a form of interest. The energy involved in making several reports of a single punishment (or reward) may be much less than the energy involved in implementing a single punishment (or reward). Note that reporting something may be conducted falsely or in a misleading way.

In advertising, people may advertise that a certain kind of activity is favorable, like an ad for a casino or for a lottery or for an insurance company. For instance, certain possible rewards may be exagerrated.

An ad may not reveal that the insurance company is in financial trouble and may be very unlikley to pay on all of its policies and liabilities. The ad may present the company and a particular investment as secure and safe and so on. The ad may not warn about the risk of inflation or warn about a major lawsuit in which the insurance company may lose at great expense. An ad may present an investment in the insurance company as if it is better in all ways than buying a lottery ticket. That is what the people who design ads are hired to do: influence behavior with emotional associations and, if relevant, rationalizations.

Will the mainstream media, funded by things like insurance companies and real estate advertisers and casinos, emphasize to the public the risks of the public doing business with those companies? That is just not what they are hired to do! If they did that, they would be fired.

So, people are inherently free. They are free to punish and to reward and to indoctrinate or propagandize.

Each capacity (as in capability) is a freedom. Each capacity to influence the attention, language, emotions, thoughts, and behavior of other people with a reward is a type of freedom. Each capacity to influence the attention, language, emotions, thoughts, and behavior of other people with a punishment is a type of freedom.

Since freedom is inherent, it is not provided from others, like from governments or from churches. Of course, people can influence other people’s capacity to perceive clearly and to thrive.

People may be trained to be easily manipulated (at least by certain influencers), stressed, cynical, unhealthy, poor, depressed, angry, afraid and so on. People may be trained to be dependent on certain psychological “essentials” which may offer diminishing rewards but severe punishments for withdrawing from a particular behavior or “psychological crutch.”

In accord with commercial interests, systems may be put in place to promote certain kinds of diets which may be metabolically detrimental or at least expensive to purchase. In accord with commercial interests, people may promote certain kinds of health care services and products over others (like pharmaceutical interventions designed to efficiently interupt and inhibit the functioning of the immune system).

People may be trained to rebel only through certain methods presented as legitimate or patriotic. They may be trained to focus on particular issues for arguing with others.

They may be trained that governments promote the freedom of all people. However, legal rights including civil rights refer to an artificial system of punishments. Violators of rights are threatened with punishment. For instance, the inheritor of a wealthy estate is protected from the masses by the hired guns of the court systems. The legal rights or property rights of the wealthy are not intrinsic, but are created through the governmental systems of organized coercion, which then legitimate the criminalizing of “trespassing” through whatever systems of propaganda, if any.

In simplest terms, the poor are provided the “civil right” to complain through government channels about how governments systematically favor certain people and certain interests over others. All governments redistribute resources to particular beneficiaries in particular. Those resources are acquired through coercive taxation and confiscation.

People may be encouraged to debate over political issues like how much more funding should special education students receive beyond regular students: twice as much, four times as much, half as much, etc? Or how much money exactly should be taken from productive members of society (the working classes) to pay to the unemployed, to unproductive retirees and to unproductive people with various disabilities? Further, exactly how much should be spent to kill foreigners near and far?

Notice that various groups of people may systematically answer these questions differently, such as depending on whether someone works in a particular field or has a particular circumstance themself. The disabled retired military veteran with no children may have a personal bias that is distinct from a couple of young working class parents with several children that are generally healthy.


So, there is no such thing as an inalienable right. There are just various capacities as in capabilities. These can change dramatically and quickly, such as in the first few years of a child’s life.

Also, no two people are created equal. No legal systems provide or promote aboslute equality. All legal systems provide various kinds of rewards and punishments.

While government propaganda may refer to a right to life for all people, governments are widely known to do things like conduct ambushes of enemy soldiers and to even surprise civilians with things like bombs and chemical weapons like Agent Orange. That might be enough to make some of the surviving civilians consider becoming soldiers.

In the case of the Declaration of Independence of thirteen united States, there was a reference to an inaliable right to liberty. However, in how many of those thirteen states at that time were a slave owner’s legal rights over their slaves established and promoted?

Court systems protect inequality. They do so using coercion and “hired guns” (deputies).

Some people may argue that court systems should not do that. However, the argument that court systems should not do that was established and promoted by court systems to obscure the simplest realities of the nature of their operations.

People are inherently free. People are inherently free to form court systems to establish and promote certain inequalities. People are inherently free to indoctrinate others about how and why those inequality-promoting court systems were established.

People are also inherently free to promote their own commercial interests, such as promoting certain kinds of foods and diets and health care services and investments. People are inherently free to invest their attention and resources in operating a business or being a customer of a business, whether that business is a casino, insurance company, health care business, or a court system and so on.

So, people are inherently free. However, people are only inherently free to exercise their actual capacities.

In contrast, people are not free with the capacities of a bird or of a fish. A bird is only free as a bird, not free to be swim as a fish or free to be a person. A fish is only free as a fish, not free to fly as a bird or free to be a person.

Any creature or organism has only and exactly whatever capacities or freedoms that it has. However, no one else makes anything else free or makes anything else be what it already is. Everything is already inherently free, but only in the exact ways that it is already inherently free.

People are even free to claim that some people can make others free as in set them free. One can certainly act to restrict someone else’s capacities and freedom, then later withdraw the restrictions. Withdrawing active restrictions may be called “setting free,” but whatever it may be called, it is simply the discontinuing or withdrawing of a punishment or restriction. You are inherently free.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 756 other followers

%d bloggers like this: