Waking, Being, Dreaming, chapter eight

Continuing from this post:

Can we be conscious during deep sleep? It seems perhaps so, but it is a prereflective or reflexive sort of consciousness. When awakened from deep sleep sometimes we forget who are what we are, but we know that we are. This is a temporary loss of our reflective, autobiographical self that must be reconstituted by memory. But there is a certainly about our prereflective awareness in that moment. I'm reminded of the discussion of the aggregates in the fold thread, how they are impermanent and fleeting and must be continually reconstituted from moment to moment. But that would apply equally as well to this prereflective awareness, that it too is not some permanent, pristine or original face.

Anti-vaxers spread disease

Get a clue youse guys; this is about public health. Maybe give a shit about something other than your personal, self-involved freedom?

Who should fight our wars?

Following up on previous posts about American Sniper, I'm just wondering if we don't we need this sort of psychopathic patriot to fight our wars, as long as we're going to have them? Can one be a bright, compassionate warrior a la Kung Fu? Or is that a myth too?

Hayak as a regressive leader

See this article for the details. The regressives have long adopted Hayak's anti central planning agenda. He was certain that in all cases it led to totalitarianism and dictatorships, hence any government planning and intervention is bad. While that proved to be true in some limited historical contexts like Russia, in other cases like western Europe and the US he was completely wrong. So he had to adjust his fanaticism against a softer socialism like government regulation of business, social programs and higher taxes to pay for it. Such handouts destroy individual initiative, a common regressive theme.

Share the scraps economy

In this article Robert Reich explores the capitalistic coopting and exploitation of the sharing commons, thereby creating the "share-the-scraps economy." His view seems much more critical and realistic than Rifkin's more surface treatment of it as a transition phase. Capitalists have no intention of giving up this exploitation and will do everything in their power to ensure that a real sharing Commons does not become the dominant socio-economic model. They see well the threat so coopt it and uses its catch words (framing), meanwhile maintaining its economic stranglehold on its 'members.'

Who decides what Wilber means?

Continuing from this post, who decides what Wilber means? Or Adi Da? Just themselves? LP's suggestion implies that we can take their stated meaning at face value, that they know well the full extent of their meaning, and that we do not. So we must be careful in interpreting what they say but they do not because they have privileged access we lack due to Supermind? This guy I know explored this question 10 years ago and it still stands the test of time. In Wilber's own words, the problem arises when a theory tries "to make its context the only context worth serious consideration" (p. 113).

On blaming the victim via Supermind

Continuing from this post on the IPS thread on Supermind, LP noted the following on the language of such elevated stages of humanity:

"We also have to (or at least we could...) keep an eye on our own tendency to react toward such terminology. The Adi Da case is interesting because his writings are full of clarifications about how we should 'hold' that aspect of his speech."

 So we're supposed to accept at face value what Da or Wilber say about how they 'hold' such speech? And not question that it's perhaps rationalization? They couldn't possibly also be guilty of projection, since that's what your apology amounts to. Classic Wyatt Earpy blame the other of what one is guilty. But how could they possibly commit such a relative offense from that privileged access to Absolute Supermind? It's simply got to be a projection reaction from the lower level critic only. "Suck my dick," remember Wilber said in response to valid criticism? (Note: that episode was the inspiration for the well-deserved nickname kennilingus.)

The real welfare queens

Regressives hard endlessly about those on social welfare, how they're living high on the hog at our expense of paying them lower than poverty level wages. Meanwhile the richest corporations, while having a nominal tax rate, never seem to pay anywhere near that amount, if anything. So here's Robert Reich on the President's plan for a one-time 14% tax on US corporations' money abroad, which money they've stashed abroad for the very purpose of not paying their fair share in taxes. This money goes to upgrading our infrastructure, something the very same corporations use proportionally way more than the rest of us, so why shouldn't they pay their fair share? They shouldn't according to regressive faux reasoning (aka rationalization). Meanwhile, the infrastructure will put to work hundreds of thousands of Americans, another thing regressives can't stand.

From Reich's FB page:

"This morning President Obama sent to Congress a budget that includes a one-time 14% tax on the $2 trillion in profits big U.S. corporations have socked away abroad, in order to pay for upgrading highways, bridges, and public transit in the America. Republicans are already screaming the proposal is dead on arrival, but it’s a good idea – and it won’t be dead if more Americans understand the back story.

Maher's new rule on socialism

America did best under socialist programs, and income inequality is a direct outcome of capitalism. Maher explains it best with humor.

Nosuch nonesuch

Following up on the last post, and in response to this IPS thread on Supermind:

Today's word of the day is nonesuch:\ NUHN-suhch \  , noun;.a person or thing without equal; paragon.

I can see that in a particular activity, like basketball (Jordan), or even in a particular philosophy (like Aristotle for his time). But these pass in time and others replace them as the best in a very particular domain. However when it comes to an nonesuch for ultimate reality for all time, like Jesus for heaven etc., there is nosuch thing or person. That very notion is archaic, counterproductive and even harmful to contemporary society. And as this thread attests, Wilber follows Adi Da in setting himself up as the nonesuch avatar for eternal ultimate Reality as such. It is also highly questionable whether he is even the unparalleled nonesuch for this very particular (not ultimate) nondual state. Ordinary ego inflation is rampant in this evolutionary spirituality business, something readily apparent and repulsive to most of us.