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. There is no innocence in human instincts. Everyone is immune to their own anger.
- 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?”
Before we proceed, here is my disclaimer.
With all due respect to all professional “titles”, that is – dieticians, nutritionists, doctors, psychologists, professors, politicians, sociologists, data-scientists, lawyers, economists, engineers, chemists, physicists, philosophers, and scholars of the world wide web of various institutions – I hereby apologises for the sheer difficulties at writing and revising this article, over and over again for clarity. For I humbly carry absolutely none of similar profession credentials within my career taglines or in my curriculum vitaes as accomplished writer. I simply assert the need at addressing our turbulences of today in a whollistic, connected symbiotic manners inbetween all parallel concern/s of nutrition, psychology, biology, philosophy, and sociology. AW™ / andrewwiguna.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? Can we perhaps then, take a trip back to memory lane?
An impressive advance for mankind, indeed. However beneath all this pursuit; we continued to DIVERT such a 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. We can have as many “teachers” or “advisers” to our rulers, presidents or monarchs.
But no lesson – is ever convincing – as taught from inside out. And that conviction of a reminder – happens to be from within each of our own “selves”
We are at a “stand-still”.
What I genuinely fear; is that we are inching closer towards a global state of “stand-still”. So precarious if this were to continue it’d be likely petrifying.
That “stand-still” point I refer to is similar to the critique aimed against Calhoun’s Behavioural Sink. That is – Oblivious Irrationality. We know that, as hypothesized in part one – it was the excessive, totalitarian attempt for universal in-clusivity that contributes much to the mice’s declines. Leading to losses of individual liberties at reclaiming what is Authentically simply that – “individual”, peaceful, content in its own homeostasis.
Yet – if we were to translate this to our state of our present pedestrian normalcy – it is anything but peaceful nor quaint. Political myopism; aka. 1984 – is likely brewing to ever more increasingly heights of “reality”.
Why is this so? I can only speculate that once again – it is due to (helpless) totalitarian attempt for in-clusivity of all pedestrian “norms”. For structural “correctness”. First stemming as ideological concepts like “Religion” and/or “Faith”. Then structurally enforced as “Laws” and “Institutionalisations”.
Religion then instills us the comforting, human benevolence through warm, cosy and “emotive” doctrine(s) – of Monogamy and (infinite) servitude of Charity.
Yet little do we know, all this is a pursuit away from transcending ourselves. But instead to everyone else’s collectivism towards totalitarian in-clusivity. In other words, Totalitarian objectivity, in place of all Subjective Authenticities.
We thus increasingly are at failure to find a time asking ourselves a question. Is this life a “dream”; made to serve everyone else OTHER than one’s own “self”?
There IS an underlooked aspect – failure from reclaiming our own “selves”.
We can at least look at things pragmatically at present. 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.
All this of course, is just a “thought”. It is not mass-prescription.
However at least deep down, I feel that “simplicity” or “correctness-for-all” myopism is all futile pursuit. Perhaps it is this totalitarian objectivity that none other than the very elitist few high above, whoever such entities may be – are the ones prescribing this pursuit as a “Utopia” for all citizens.
My definition of “Utopia”.
I assert and declare no superiority of thinking, if at all, on what constitutes a “perfect” Utopia. But I know what constitutes pragmatism behind such as “proxy” towards a hopeful interpretation of this. Hint: it is likely never to prescribe anything to the masses as anything “linear”.
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.
Here I present those two (2) realms or notions which I believe should not belong under my pragmatic definition of “Utopia”.
Firstly – no more “politics”. “Epidemiology” is secondary. Anecdote = primary.
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.
Considering we now have entire country (or as several “states”) today; overruled by elitism of (1) entity alone. Entities whom we decoratively label as “Rulers”, “Prime Ministers” or “Presidents”. Then orchestrated collectively through correctional “Institution/s”; to decide and thus make every Structural Impositions.
Such paradigm is unthinkably limited and unempathetic to individual, anecdotal crisis. People will always look forth to overthrow kings and queens. Especially given that individual human variabilities grow exponentially incomprehensible when judged or treated as collective whole numbers.
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. Epidemiology or all meta-analysis MUST be secondary. Anecdotal means of evidence on the other hand MUST be embraced as priority – for the Technological supervision to truly understand and comprehend all that of human genome diversity in an automated, sophisticated manner that no human being may ever contest such accuracy, speed and consistency.
Hence, today’s archaic “Correctness Hierarchy” as our present, Institutionalised definition of Science today once again, must be eradicated.
“Religion”. This has to go.
For what little preparedness; for that I am likely to be disowned by those of my 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”.
I would not let any “Religion” or non-Physical codex subscription of “faith”; clouds over my primal Individuality and Authenticity. My first (and forced) subscription of such faith, “Baptism” – is merely a political passport to certify that life is thus granted under a given name. My name, printed nicely on a “certificate”.
Even if you live in a somewhat remote region, you are still exposed to modern civilisation. And You were already thus bound to have been indoctrinated to such a “certification”. A “given” name which permits you thus an “identity”.
But what else does “it” principally or primally offers you? 30, 40, 50, 80, 90 or 100 years later? Absolutely nothing. It doesn’t give you free credit, it doesn’t give you money, it doesn’t give you “Utility”.
But back to Religion itself. What good is it establishing this concept of “Commandments” as nothing more but a super-natural spreading belief of “Faith”? If real human beings are implicated in such a process? We’ve killed one another for far too long; stemming all from this concept of commandment(s).
A sense of “belonging” is simply a matter of finding biological, hormonal, neurological affinity with another. What does that have to do with “Faith”? Nothing. Does having a “Faith” have a say in all of this? No. Does one requires “Faith” to have a principal sense of belonging? Absolutely not. If one is principally or primally“nice” to me; then do I need to question his/her “sense of iconographic belonging”? No.
Why? It’s redundant for me to ask anyway. There is no need for this added criteria to conduct a humane exchange.
If we can dissect this very word “Religion” itself; we will one day realise their frivolous (or perhaps violent) redundancy to human progress.
“Re” = A repeat; A pattern. And “- Legion” = of soldiers as legionnaire to influence, dominate and conquer to preserve “faith” for the “supernatural”…. This vision is not rationally compassionate. I just cannot see it. I am sorry.
The fallacy of Humility – as unlimited charity.
Another reason I assert to Religion’s redundancy – is that of its sheer ignorance assuming all human nature (and all of fauna) are forever self-compensatory. Amidst all dangers, threats and scarcities.
I must admit that likewise similar assumption of “faith” is also apparent in my book. Since it is largely based more or less the Ketogenic nutritional principles. Which mimics to Fasting.
Although mine is Cyclically respectful to that of my contexts of needs. Does that mean I should Fast forever, as my codex of living? Absolutely not. I can be very selective of “food” because my concern on their use is based on context/s. Be it metabolic (digestibility / readiness / sensitivities) and sociological (degrees of accessibility).
The same questioning must be expressed likewise on how Religion and/or Faith can easily blurs/colours our interpretation of “Charity” into “Humility”. 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 you wish to call it – “cycles” of Nature.
As disclaimer I bear no frowns against those dedicating their lives and efforts to charity “work”. Indeed more than what I can praise in a single line – they are martyrdoms for the greater many. However sadly they remain unbeknownst for remain constricted; that their very own lives are owned or claimed by an entity so illustriously, majestically, ethereally “super-natural”. That they cannot help but succumb to hear voices other than their Authentic own.
I could deadlift for however as long as I want, by “faith”. But what if I become addicted to Tylenol? Or resistant to it? What if I am unable to afford surgeries, all for earning my next entry at a weightlifting champion event – under the so called moral motivation of “God”?
Is it my fault that I can no longer afford my monthly Oxfam® charity donation? If affording my petrol remains at jeopardy for that next job interview? Or appropriate interview clothing required sacrificing my own meals for the week?
Well, according to the divine virtuosity judgment of Religion – their answer is resounding “yes”. I am condemned for being not “good” enough. For that I am unable to simultaneously accomodate all circumstances.
Wrapping it up.
The Mouse Utopia Experiment reminds us all that abundance can indeed be defiled, misused or abused.
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.
If you are an institutionalised conforming pedestrian, you will have no idea what I have just proposed. If you are already living comfortably within your means, then none of this project including my book; appeals any relevance to you.
Perhaps let time be the merciful judge at determining when and/or how – the waves will turn against you. Beyond consent.
In the meantime, be content, without raising contempt. To do this, you must reconcile what you can or cannot do. Just remember one thing – once inflammation sets in beyond coping mechanism / beyond biological contingency – you will become at some stage – immune to your own anger.
My definition of Utopia may hardly be applicable.
But at least contemplative.