Unconforming, Unindifferent Thinking & Acting for yourself & other beings

(the new, version 2, text starts after the first salutation below)

The error of, and dehumanization that results from, building upon a prior body of work.

2500 years of philosophical and academic rigor creates human rigor mortis and vacant education by suffocating individual initiation and public connection, relationship and acceptance. It subjectifies, separates, isolates, mystifies, vacuumizes and eviscerates ultimate meaning.

Why does Western Civilization start from and draw all its truth by starting at the Greek Civilization? 1.) The Greeks had a public realm that valued immortalizing people stories–their deeds, actions and words so that they created a body of work unprecedented in prior history. 2.) Political forces invalidated and erased ethically and politically undesirable African, Egyptian and Mesopotamian (Arabian) civilizations that were actually the sources of Greek and Roman philosophy and knowledge.

The indoctrination, prioritization, channelization, and limitation of gaining wisdom, learning knowledge, obtaining education, being considered qualified to increase society’s productivity, and making historical progress through the harsh inflexibility and unyielding methodology of precisely and exclusively building upon existing bodies of work as the singular method for educational and social achievement has killed mental curiosity, emotional passion, new learning initiation, group achievement, self-guided mastership, speaking and acting in the midst of others, self-disclosure, mutual acceptance, story telling, immortalization of the human experience, ownership of discovery, insight, intuition, breakthrough, invention, solution, and a personally distinct and unique learning process that is different for every person who has never before and never again will be like anyone else in the history or future of the world.

It creates a fear based, action suppressing, blaming, vengeful, retaliatory, judgmental, promiseless, ruler-subject dichotomy. It creates a meaningless, repetitive, offensively connected, inappropriately disconnected, superficially dominating, practically absent, cyclically stagnant pedagogy that is praxis deficient. It saddens, frustrates, becomes absurd, a waste of effort; reduces richness of interest and genuine intention to every manifestation of a hollow frame and shell, creates hiding through superfluous goodness or enraged criminality, contributes to the lie and useless purpose of the meaningfulness of means and ends and therein propagates the dehumanization of people in their careers and lives. This is opposed to living in cooperation with a balanced acknowledgment of human plurality with sustainable continuity through action, speaking, forgiveness and promise of increasing knowing and kindness. On the subject of conversation, connection, relationship: Democracy is about debate not hate.

from a discussion between Raul Nakasone and Robin Hood and Hannah Arendt

Since I first published these words, I have come across a paper by Laura Mandell entitled “The Original Author: A History of the Concept”; this is a concept that relates to the rigor mortis or academic rigor., This article traces the history of the idea of ‘the original author’ as it has its roots in the desire to turn books and ideas into PROPERTY so people could get rich, same old dehumanization that comes from ownership and the legal concept of property!, and the same old trend away from shared public domain, ‘the commons’ thinking, to an unnatural organization, arbitrary origin of, and hierarchical valuation of thought that stifles people’s courage to believe in the value and power or their own thought and their own equal potential to any past thinker or author.

http://www.units.muohio.edu/technologyandhumanities/eng495/paper2.htm#iter

The problem with the long tradition of law is that it is exclusively based on the exchange value of things (and makes all that exists into a legal thing, even air) and not their ‘use value’ as both Aristotle pointed out and Marx addressed in his earlier writings.  As the old example goes, when a man who is starving takes some food from a man who has surplus food, the law equates these men as proprietors and makes the first man a thief because he doesn’t exchange anything with the second man for the food. What the law completely misses is the need of the man that is starving and the ‘use value’ of the food, that is ‘to feed someone’. If this was taken into consideration, than it would behove the second man to give the food to the man who is starving until he would be well. And there would be no criminalization of and prosecution of the first man, to add insult to injury. The law invalidates our responsibility for each other and the real value of things in this world, it obliterates care and the concept of suffering, the legal system, in short, is a societal enforcer and conforming force that is not perceived as a source of indifference and constriction.

Always thinking and caring,

Robin

~ by hoorob24 on August 13, 2009.