Fasting. Authentication. Inquire. Repeat
Cliff
In this concluding part - the most important that we can all learn from it all. Self-enquiring.Having shared my thoughts as previously published in part 2:
- ...That "Religion" - is merely a scripted paternalism of orderly coercion.
- ...Irrespective if you are a"Man" or a "woman" or inbetween - nobody is benign.
- Lastly, our confusion over what constitutes "meaningful life" or "meaningful work" I believe can be addressed by reconciling a symbiotic relationship between Biology and Productivity. Meanings - the why and how - the biology and physicalities). And rewards (the "product/s" and "outcomes").
Now we are arriving into this third (and final) part of this write up - as some may call it juvenile - attempt to address the biggest question of all that remains anxiously silenced. "Where is the pragmatic conclusion in all of this?"
As disclaimer I simply assert that the following are only general speech from my own mind over what I consider believe-able and pragmatic. You effectively are free to choose adopt or adapt at your own volition and responsibility for your own survival, contentment and livelihood. AW™ / andrewwiguna.com
Biquette @ tookapic.com
Where to go from here /
What can we do?
Richard Buckminster Fuller once said;
"There is no energy crisis. Only a crisis in ignorance."
Let's put that quote into perspective from what we've learned from Universe 25. The holding capacity was 4,000 mice. Yet population only peaked at 2,200. Food was infinite. Climate was eternally ideal. No external predators.
So we know that Resources, in every quantified sense - was never a problem. There must be something we've either overlooked, or underlooked. Perhaps how we've managed the potentials of ourselves, as factors of "ignorance". One clue we could "start" looking "from", would be our prior history, wouldn't it?
Interestingly, no other point of civilisation since dawn of human first invention as ideological to then instrumental; have advanced us so quickly in a space of no more than few hundred years. The Banking system. Abacus, Light bulbs and automobiles. The Internet then the Blockchain. From willow tree bark to Aspirin, and low-dose naltrexones.
However beneath all this pursuit; we continued DIVERTING such Progress to something else far more destructive. Effectively reversing our meaningful reconciling on the "why's" behind all this pursuit in the first place. So we need somehow - a constant reminder on why we've forgotten this meaningful reconciling.
That reminder - happens to be from within each of our own "selves". Why is it 'in' us? Because it's constant.
Neo8iam @ Pexels.com
Failure at privatising the "self" / what "enough" means.
Enter Economics. Economics is defined as the management of the household.
We still have Resources; to begin with to distribute and to give. This is already reflective to us that these are all we have left to work WITH. That also - we have some mutual degrees of self-incentivisations for self-authenticity for us to work FROM - to remind and redefine - what enough means. Resilience, discipline and pragmatic - stoicism.
We can solve problems. Perhaps not collectively, but we can start thinking about our own solutions individually. We may not be able to truly prevent metabolic syndromes or any crimes or violent behaviours collectively but we can accept (inevitably) that any causal progress of this pathology is individually case / circumstance / time and / context - specific.
What are the biggest proxies for these "individuality"? Nutritional Science and Fitness.
Nutrition is beyond biochemistry. It is and can be thought of as applied philosophy. It is way for allowing us to understand our own selve(s) ~ at manifesting rations (food) into purpose or intended rationality. Likewise, Fitness is what evolved us from primitive to what we are today.
Altogether with Economics, such a household reside within us ~ hormones, and numerous systems. Some people may need to consider intermittent fasting. Others ~ may need conscious outlook on everything they consume. Regardless, reductionism or elimination protocols aside is necessary. Something must be excluded to pave for something else, anew.
We all have obligations within our own obligatory ecosystems - to manage that very household within us so we remain able to stand on our own self at privatising for contentment. Without contempts.
All this, may yet be a matter of exercising the self. And that ~ is where intermittent fasting, excluding and reincluding things we absorb, receive ~ could be the key.
Mark Galer on Unsplash
My definition of "Utopia".
I assert and declare no superiority of "benevolent" thinking, if at all, on what constitutes a "perfect" Utopia. But I know what constitutes as proxy towards a hopeful interpretation of this. Hint: it is likely never to prescribe anything to the masses as "linear".
I assert however that my definition of "Utopia" is not that of "resource-infinite". Otherwise, anything of "infinite" is and will become at some stage ~ inflationary in reception.
I consider "Utopia" - as an established (that is, after however much planning and transition have elapsed) - an age of synchronicity between incentives, rewards, and challenges. A world without excessive coercions yet progressively - liberal allowance of secular interests and privacy. A world thus; built out of resilience, pragmatism and realism. A world where every exertion of "ability" is thoroughly solicited without fear of failure whenever that ability is exerted as liability. Presented to us as options, yet somehow undertaken with privacy.
I present two (2) realms or notions which I believe should not belong under my pragmatic or believe-"able" definition of "Utopia".
1/2
Firstly - no more "politics". Revision of our Scientific hierachy of evidence.
The managing of our "household" - our home, our planet and that of all citizens - must be somehow facilitated out of two things. Firstly both uncoercive & unstructured - technological distribution / provision of resources. With human-centric goals of all contextual needs and Automatic awareness as multiple CHOICES, NOT as political or "policed" - Impositions.
I dare say this, Governments and Institutions DO NOT "create" consensus. They IMPOSE only "existing" consensus; out of statistically averaged interpolations of "Science".
"Politics" also sadly today permeates as "evidence based" medicine. And this is where I propose "revision" at how we perceive or "rank" the so called Scientific Hierarchy of Evidence ~ for public institutionalisation.
Epidemiology or all meta-analysis, be it however CONVENIENCE that they provide bird's eye / first-hands overview of a hypothesis - they MUST nevertheless remain as secondary to one's own decision making criteria. Anecdotal means of evidence on the other hand; MUST be embraced as acceptable criteria(s) of concerns, next to collectivist averages-upon-averages. Once Technological / Automation / Intelligence(s) have reached to that of truly understanding and comprehending all that of human genomes diversity; in an automated, sophisticated manner - only then these technological inventions provide back to us humans - viable option(s) which we can choose dependently on that of our own unique pathologies and/or contextual concerns.
So what happens then afterwards? All that remains is our own self-authentic willingness to choose and own such a choice. In the comfort of our scientific privacy & resource contingencies.
....And there is one more realm connected to this that must also be strongly scrutinised.
davidluigioneail @ pixabay.com
2/2
"Religion". This has to go.
For what little preparedness; for that I am likely to be disowned by those of family blood or not blood related. I base all of my "morals" through two physicalities of reasoning ~ primal and principal - tangible reasonings. Not by Faith via poetic "scriptures". Stories illustrate imaginations. But actions carry repercussions.
My first point of criticism here derives from tactility and logistics that the notion of so called "faith" is so complex and subjective, it might as well be just an individually, yet not a collectively derived set of moral(s) anyhow. Everyone has a moral compass of their own, derived from what they believe is rational across not only from his/her perspective but also how it reciprocates.
Hence, I would not let any collectivised or overruled set of morals and/or Commandments, "Religion" here in this case ~ clouds or influences over that of my own individual, singular compass.
Next, is the redundancy of attaching a "name" as destiny ~ to a supposed or collectivised likewise set of commandments. My first (and forced, one may say) subscription of such, "Baptism" - is merely a politicised passport to certify that life is thus granted under a given name. My "name", printed nicely on a "certificate".
But what else does "a name" principally offers? 30, or 100 years later? Absolutely nothing. For all I know, there are thousands if not millions of "Andrew(s)" out there. Whose destiny(s) shall I have to follow then? Other "Andrew's?" No. I think, and I relate to my own self.
Besides for what it's worth, people don't remember "names" anyway. They only remember whatever tangibilities they associate, transacted, or exchanged with such a "name".
Next point in critique - killing in the name of "God". What good is it establishing this concept of "Commandments" as nothing more but a super-natural spreading belief of "Faith"? If real human live(s) have been objected to in such a process? We've killed one another for far too long; in the name of Commandment(s).
The fallacy of Humility - as unlimited charity.
Another point though I have to condense for readability - is that of Religion's ignorance of finite realms. It assumes that all human nature (and all of fauna) are forever self-compensatory.
Religion assumes that charity is a force of compassion. Backed by unlimited contingencies. Should one thing depletes another compensates at keeping all symbiosis for such act of charity or of servitude - alive, enabled and going.
Sadly - this is absurd and hardly representative to the sacrificial biological, metabolical, chemical however they are part of Nature.
Owing to laws of thermodynamics ~ energy "dies", for something else anew.
Indeed more than what I can praise in a single line - anyone who is involved in the "front-line" or those devoted selflessly for others are noble in virtue beyond doubt. They are martyrdoms for the greater many. I only wish for them to be not to live perpetually as sacrificial exploits.
Timothy Meinberg @ Unsplash.com
Wrapping it up.
The Mouse Utopia Experiment reminds us all that abundance can indeed be defiled, misused or abused.
There is no energy crisis. Only a crisis of consent and conscience.
The underlying reason to this is from the interpretation between what is "use" and what is "abuse". Which remains yet to be individually reconciled at a biological level at interpreting what "enough" means.
My definition of Utopia may hardly be applicable. But it is at least believe-able. So long as you authenticate yourself away to challenges of life and of living.
A sense of belonging is simply a matter of finding biological, hormonal, neurological affinity with another. You should belong to whoever you find relatable to your moral "compass", not to everyone else's "religion".
A "solution" is likely to that as a willingly - self-dissolution through disassociation. Away from submissive confusions.
Live-it-forward,
AW™.