Follow by Email


Tuesday, November 15, 2011

To Be Yourself Is To Be Perfect

I'm house-sitting for my friends Phil and Ann, with a couple dogs and fish in the outskirts of Moab. I don't get into town often on a dysfunctional bicycle, leaving me time to practice guitar and philosophize. I'm going to philosophize about religion a lot in this post. Religion contains the memes that drive whole cultures, including influencing those who are not religious. Religion is the most powerful tool for influencing culture there is, for good and for bad.  I know, it's usually bad.  But I'm taking a chance with it again.

Generosity is Artificial Institution,
Re-generosity is Life! 

I've been involved in some activist movements sprouting up in Moab.  And I just attended a weekend permaculture workshop taught for free to all by Joel Glanzberg from New Mexico, offered through Moab's local Community Rebuilds.  It was amazingly inspiring. 

I'm feeling in my bones that permaculture is a key to bring in gift economy, for whole populations to live moneyless.  I've never honestly cared for traditional agriculture, which I'm sure arose with money and barter, and was the beginning of our imbalance.  My ideal has been the hunter-gatherer model, which obviously wouldn't work today without a major die-off of people.  That leaves us permaculture, which is about creating a self-regenerating system, not only of agriculture, but of everything connected to it.  Machinery is generation.  Life is regeneration.  

This got me super excited, taking the principles of permaculture into social interaction:

Generation is generosity (which we see as a virtue). 
Regeneration is re-generosity - Gifts that keep giving. 
Generosity is a thing of artificial institutions. 
Re-generosity is a thing of living communities!
Generosity has a sense of self-righteousness, self-credit.  "I did my good deed for the day", stacking up credit points.  

Re-generosity is perpetual giving, such as breathing, having no thought of credits or debt.  You don't expect praise for every lungful of carbon dioxide you freely give to the world, you just egolessly do it.  And you don't feel guilty about every lungful of oxygen you take. Generosity comes from stores of excess, from possession.  In re-generosity, there is no possession, only perpetual flow. 

It makes no sense to "own" air in your lungs. 

When you own nothing, there is no effort in giving, no sense of self-righteousness. 

Life is not a charity, it is constant giving.
Permaculture is allowing everything to be its natural self, for greater efficiency and productivity with minimal effort, as all of nature works.

This  all connects with things I've been philosophizing on for a long time:

To Be or Not to Be, that is the Question  

There is one and only one reason we are imbalanced and our world is messed up:

we are not being ourselves!

Our true selves are perfect

To be yourself is to be perfect.

Be.  Perfect.  Even as I Am.  Perfect.

I'm talking about every single human as well as every single living thing in the world.

Is this unrealistically-optimistic thinking?  Before you judge it so, and even if you think your religion teaches that humans are inherently evil or flawed, from an ancient idea of "Original Sin," I ask you to hear me out.

The Virus of Wrong

Just the other day I had a debate with a friend.  He says not everybody knows what’s right and wrong. But we both know he knows everybody knows what’s right and wrong, but we pretend we don’t know.  Our pretense is so refined we convince ourselves we don’t know we're doing something wrong, and we pretend we don’t know that people don’t know that they’re doing something wrong!  This is how the virus of wrong excuses and perpetuates itself.

from Dungeons & Dragons

Whenever you find somebody doing something that both you and they know is disagreeable, you usually hear, “I’m just doing my job”, or, “That’s how business works.”  Everybody then goes silent, as if this were a valid argument for doing wrong. But just the fact we say "I'm just doing my job" or "that's business" shows positively we know it's wrong.  The idea of excuse comes from the sense of wrong. And this shows society has a common, unspoken agreement.  We’ve agreed that business trumps truth.  We believe Mammon is more powerful than Truth.  We say we believe in God, but our actions prove we believe Mammon is greater than God, meaning we believe Mammon to be the only God.

But maybe it's not so simple.  People have families to feed and rent to pay, after all.  Over and over I hear this:  “I don’t like doing this, but I have to make a living.”  Or,  “I don’t agree with this, but I have a family to feed.” 

In other words, we are not ourselves, because we think we have no choice. 

We believe ourselves so helpless that our actions are dependent upon our employers, leaders, corporations, the drugs of our addictions. 

Do you see it? 
We have given up all responsibility for ourselves.

It's strange how this would be considered radical:  What if we all decided to simply be ourselves?  I mean total sincerity. 

What if we decided we’d rather lose our jobs or starve or die or be ostracized than to not be ourselves? 

With full confidence I say we can never be happy and at peace until we're willing to give up all to be ourselves.  To be ourselves, we must give up all that we think is ourselves, all that we think we possess.  Our true selves possess absolutely nothing, and when we realize this, we are completely free (un-possessed by anything or anybody, un-possessed by the thought of possession). 

Lungs that possess air cannot breathe.  

What if we did everything, I mean every thing, not because we are getting paid, or for the credit of peers, or because we want to barter for something else, but simply because our hearts tell us to do?

We Think We Need Authority

And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right? (--Jesus)

Why are rabbits and ants and monkeys able to manage themselves and know what to eat or not eat, when to have sex, where to go, without bosses or governing authorities or contracts, without scriptures or instruction manuals or schools?  Consider the ant… who has no boss, no overseer or ruler.” 

If they can manage themselves and we think we cannot, why, then, do we consider ourselves more intelligent than other animals?

When I say this, many professed Christians often respond, “but we’re born in sin, have a fallen nature.  We're evil, flawed.”  They say it’s hopeless, and all we can do is wait for Jesus to come and rapture us away from this mess, completely ignoring the most basic of all basic Christian doctrines, that "Christ is in you, the hope of glory."  The usual religion gets us hoping for a future reward and day of recompense.  Stacking up credit.  This idea of original sin has had a grip on western civilization for eons. 

But, as one who was raised under evangelical Christian doctrine, having intensely studied the Bible since I could first read, I ask, is this really Christian doctrine?  Does it bear good fruit?  Is it Jewish doctrine?  Is it any religion's doctrine?  Since the Bible is the world’s most common book, a meme driving civilization, that doesn’t look like it’s going away anytime soon, let’s shine some light on its principle doctrines.   

“Original Sin”

The very first chapter of the Bible says everything God creates is good, and after Adam (male and female) is created, all creation is pronounced not just good, but very goodVery good is the Seventh Good, the Complete Good.  Adam (male and female) is created in the Image of God. Yes, the most fundamental message is that the Image of God is our true nature, and the Image of God is perfect goodness.  It’s that simple, the very foundation of all that follows!  The next chapter of Genesis proceeds to describe the fall from our True Nature.  It’s a simple description of how we decided to try to be something other than ourselves. 

Sin means debt.  And the "original sin" we've inherited is no more our nature than a debt we inherit from our parents' estate.  We've inherited a way of thinking, thought of credit and debt, which can be changed.  Our innate nature cannot be changed. 

When we do for the sake of doing, we return to our true nature.  The doing itself is the fruit, the reward in itself, enjoying right now.  Because it's always here, not future, it is fruit everlasting, the fruit of the Tree of Life.  It's the bread of life that perpetually satisfies.  When we act for the sake of getting something in the future, our fruit is forever future, never truly attainable, fickle, the fruit of the Tree of Thought of Credit and Debt, knowledge of Good and Evil.  If you doubt this is what the Garden of Eden story is about, you may want to read  The Seven-Headed Dragon: World Commerce ”  in the website,  showing how the Hebrew text confirms these things. 

The Core Principle of the World's Religions

Lao Tzu
Giving up thought of credit and debt, giving up working for the sake of future credit, is the core principle of the world’s religions.  If the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, as Jesus constantly teaches in the Gospels, rather than some future far-away place, then we work for Present Reward, and our work is the reward.  Then we are content in whatever state we are.  Invariably, good ideas are hijacked by the marketing mentality and take on opposite meaning.  Marketing mentality turned the present Kingdom of Heaven into some future heaven that really will never ever come.  Notice how we are so programmed that when we find something beautiful, the first thought in our heads is, “we could make a lot of money from that.”  Always thinking about future heaven.      

What is the central theme of the Baghavad Gita?  Do not work for future fruit.  The Tao Te Ching?  Virtue gives expecting no credit.  The Quran?  The same.  If you doubt this is the fundamental of the world’s religions, check out  Here's the One Point We Know the World's Religions Agree Upon.

When our doing is its own reward, this is when we become real, Real, Royal.  And we can say, I Am What I Am, no more, no less. 

I Am What I Am
The Way, the Truth, and the Life

This is a doctrine you can prove for yourself by direct experience.  There is no way to Peace, no way to Perfection, no way to Harmony except being exactly who you are, when you can say in perfect truth and confidence, I Am What I Am!  When you are who you are, you are the Light of the World.  Jesus said both:   “I am the Light of the world,”  and  “You are the Light of the world.”  The slave of the system will ask you,   “So who sent you?”   “What religion?”  What authority?”  “What scripture?”  “What organization?”  “Who employs you?”  If you want to short out their brain circuits: simply say,  "I Am What I Am; no one else sent me."  The only way to say this is to simply Be, with or without talk. 
The Burning Bush
Byzantine Mosaic
(Exodus 3:14)
(Quran 20:11)

When we leave the System of Slavery and escape to the Wilderness where there is no money, no government, our eyes suddenly open to the Burning Bush, and we finally hear our Name, the Name by which all life is called, I Am What I Am.  And we will understand true human nature and love it so much we will want to return to our fellow humans whose true natures are oppressed under slavery.  And we will proclaim the Name, I am what I am, liberating us to say, “Let my people go.”

Only when I am who I am can I ever see you for who you are.  This is love.  If I can't see my neighbor as myself, I can't love my neighbor. It is utterly impossible for me to love you if I am not myself, if I’m trying to be something else or trying to be what I think you want.  When I am who I am, I am love.  Love is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.  There is no other way.  Love is the one and only Image of God.  Love is God incarnate, here and now, your True Nature, here in the flesh.  I am who I am, the Name above all names, the name by which every created thing is called.  All other names are just words, illusion.  "The name that can be uttered is not the Eternal Name" (Tao Te Ching 1).

If you believe what I'm saying is blasphemy, I challenge you to look at those who harp the loudest that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.  Do they keep Jesus’ teachings?  If they truly believe Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, they will keep his teachings.  By their fruit you will know them, not by their talk.  If you actually practice Jesus’ teachings you cannot help but see Jesus is your own true nature.  Yes, what do you see in the mirror but the Image of God, universal, “Christ is all and in all”?  If you practice Jesus' teachings, you can't help but see that Jesus is Krishna, is Buddha, is the Tao.

With the heart concentrated by yoga,
viewing all things with equal regard,
he beholds himself in all beings
and all beings in himself.
He who sees me everywhere
and sees everything in me,
to him I am never lost,
nor is he ever lost to  me.
He who, having been established in oneness,
worships me dwelling in all beings,
that yogi, in whatever way he lives his life,
lives in me.
Him I hold to be the Supreme Yogi,
who looks on the pleasure and pain of all beings
as he looks on them in himself.
(Bhagavad Gita 6:29-32)

Muhammad, in the Hadith, says,

Allah made Adam in his own image (Sahih Muslim 40:6809) 

[and this Hadith passage mysteriously says Adam is 60 cubits long, refering to the length of the Jerusalem temple, dwelling place of God, in the same way Jesus refers to his body as the temple, in the same way the New Testament refers to the human as the temple]

Early Muslims had no problem saying Adam is in the image of God.  But later Muslims have tried to explain this away,  partly because they didn't want to be like Jews and Christians, partly because the Quran, like the Bible (the Torah and Isaiah) say there is nothing and nobody like God, seemingly contradicting the Hadith and Genesis. 

Hmm, yes, it is contradictory, that is, if you believe God and the Image of God are two different things!  Either the Image of God is God, which revolutionizes Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, or else the Bible contradicts itself and the Quran contradicts Muhammad and we continue with the same bullshit for another few millenia.  Either or.   

The Quran mysteriously repeats a story several times of how God made Adam from dust, then after breathing the Spirit into him, commanded the angels to bow down to Adam (Quran 2:34,7:11,  15:29, 20:116.  [Note how this is the Quran's commentary on the same idea in the Bible, Hebrews 1:6, even to the point of referring to the angels as fire]) .  Everybody bowed except Satan.  The Quran says over and over to worship, to bow, only to God (2:83, 3:64, 7:206, 16:49, 22:77, 25:60, etc).  Satan, appearing to be righteous, refused to bow, because he saw only dust, only flesh (15:33, 7:12). 

Again, the Quran says that God alone, referring to himself as We, will inherit the earth (Quran 19:403:180,15:23,19:40, 28:58).  Then it turns around and says people will inherit the earth! (Quran 39:7410:14, 21:105, 27:62).  This alludes to Jesus and the Psalms saying "the meek shall inherit the earth."  Then the Quran says that God alone rules the world.  Then it turns around and says Adam is his vice-regent to rule the world!  (Quran 2:30, 6:165, 38:26).

Now, compare these two mysterious Quran passages:

Once I perfect him, and blow into him from My Spirit, you shall fall prostrate before him
(Quran 15:29)

Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is.
(Quran 3:59) 

In other words,
Just simply Be, and you will be the Image of God, and you will be One with All and rule the universe.

Become Master of the Universe without striving
(Tao Te Ching 57)

If there is a good store of Virtue, nothing is impossible.
If nothing is impossible, there are no limits.
If a person knows no limits, he is fit to be Ruler.
(Tao Te Ching 59)

Why is the sea King of a hundred streams?
Because it lies below them.
If the Sage would guide the people,
He must serve with humility.
If he would lead them,
He must follow behind.
In this way when the Sage is Ruler
The people will not feel oppressed;
When he stands before them,
They will not be harmed.
The whole world will support him
And will not tire of him.
(Tao Te Ching 66)

And he sat down, called the twelve, and said to them,
"If anyone desires to be first,
he shall be last of all and slave of all."
Then he took a little child and set him in the midst of them.
And when he had taken him in his arms, he said to them,
"Whoever receives one of these little children
in my name receives me;
and whoever receives me,
receives not me but him who sent me."
(Mark 9:35-37)

Do you believe in that cross hanging around your neck? 

He who takes upon himself the humiliation of the people
is fit to rule them
He who takes upon himself the country’s disasters
deserves to be King of the Universe.
(Tao Te Ching 78)

"But I would follow truth, I would be myself, if I could,” so you say,  “but I have to make a living.   I have a family to feed.  My family and my church will ostracize me if I follow my heart, if I do what I know to be true, if I simply Be Who I Am.”  We all have been trapped into not being ourselves and feel this way, and breaking out of this into truth is what makes life scary and exciting.

This is where faith and the Cross come in.  Do you really believe in that cross hanging around your neck? 

First, you must make the decision: 

I will be myself no matter what, even if it means I lose my job and starve, even if it means I get crucified by my peers. 

If you honestly believe that God is good, then you start knowing that if you follow good, against all odds, against the world’s logic, that everything will fall into place and everything will work out for you and your family.  If you grow a bit of a spine, have courage, then you’ll figure it out, I guarantee it.  You have no more excuses.  Take responsibility.  Good is your nature and good will carry you through.  Good is God.  Love is God.  If you think you can’t live by being true, your faith is false, a pretend show.  Then you are an actor.  The Greek word for actor is hypocrite.

Sect and Political Party:
Seeking Credit of Peers

As soon as we join a sect or political party, calling ourselves a club name, we cease being ourselves, cease using our minds.  We can no longer say, I Am Who I Am.  We start parroting our club, not our hearts.  This is ego.  Ego is our put-on self, and ego’s sole purpose is to gain the credit of others.  Credit is praise.  Credit is money.  Credit is barter. 

We cease cooperating and start identifying ourselves by what "they" are not.  For example, do we think bailing banks out is wrong because a democrat bailed out banks, or simply because our hearts tell us it’s wrong?  Do we agree with bailing out banks because republicans are against it, or are we going against our hearts simply because it means not being like republicans?
And look what
Popeye could do!!
This is starkly clear in religion.  The ethical teachings of Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Krishna, for example, are the same.  All teach giving up possessions, all teach loving enemies, all teach overcoming evil with good, all teach keeping the mind in the present.  But as soon as somebody says, “I am a Christian” or “I am Muslim”, etc., they become ego, false, actors, hypocrites.  They identify themselves by what the other is not.  A self-proclaimed Christian, for example, is willing to completely trample on his or her own Jesus’ teachings in order to not be like Buddhists or Hindus.  This is why Christ’s fundamental teachings are mysteriously absent from classic"Bible-believing" churches.  This is why even the self-proclaimed Christian’s own Bible forbids taking on labels, including the label "Christian."

I appeal to you… that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. …there is quarreling among you, my brethren. What I mean is that each one of you says, "I am Paulian," or "I am Apollosian," or "I am Cephasian," or "I am Christian.”  Is Christ divided?

How much proof do we need? History shows us over and over that peace and rational thinking are impossible when we call ourselves anything.  You cannot be Christian if you call yourself Christian.  You cannot be Muslim if you call yourself Muslim.  You cannot be Hindu if you call yourself Hindu.  You cannot be Republican if you call yourself Republican.  You cannot be Democratic if you call yourself Democrat.  You cannot be Socialist if you call yourself Socialist.  You cannot be Libertarian if you call yourself Libertarian.  You cannot be Universalist if you call yourself Universalist.  How much more disaster must sectarian religion and politics wreak on the earth before we get it?

When will we get it that all we can be is ourselves?  I am what I am, nothing more, nothing less.  Only when we are each uniquely ourselves do we realize we are all One.  “My people who are called by My Name:  I Am What I Am

Our actions tell who we are, not our labels, not affiliations.  By doing nothing more than being myself, I declare the unspeakable Name, when I am who I am.  All energy, all liberation, all reality derives from simply Being.  How can we think we can be anything else than Who We Are?


  1. Thank you for your contribution at the Permaculture workshop and your post here.

  2. Loved the post.

    I don't identify with labels for the same reasons. I pratice what I found out people call "Rewilded English".

    It's similar to E-Prime. It tries to minimize or eliminate forms of "to be". Like, she mothers me instead of she's my "mother".

  3. "What if we decided we’d rather lose our jobs or starve or die or be ostracized than to not be ourselves? "
    This is so well put, and I've been trying to do exactly that, trusting that fate, karma, faith or whatever will provide, and it almost always does.
    It has been difficult to live intuitively and at times even depressing, but I feel that I am going in the right direction.
    I wish I had some kind of social agenda but I'm just trying to exist.

    I haven't the theological intellect you posess and express Daniel, so it's quite a gift and it's very enlightening,
    thank you!

  4. YES!!!! Excellent post. Thank you.

  5. Great post Suelo. I think you are on the right track here with a lot of what you have to say. My major goal in life is to find balance in my life and live in harmony both with the natural world and the man-made one as best I can. I know there are people out there who would say I can never do that or think I am crazy for worrying about it, but I have to do what I can to find inner-peace and that starts with being myself and nothing more just like you said. I have very little choice, but to accept the way things are in society and the world and then adapt my mind and be closer to what I was designed to be. I am very much concerned with moderation and doing my best to live in no extreme ways. Hopefully, those within my sphere of influence can follow the example I try to live if they find value in it and then they can influence thier sphere of influence and things can happen in that order. The world that man has created for themselves is troubled, but I refuse to give up on it. At the very least I can do good things for my little son and teach him some things that I have found beneficial and he can take the torch someday if he feels so inclined and re-generosity, like you say, won't end with me. My mind seems full of things to say about what you said, but suffice to say that I and my family enjoyed your latest post very much. My wife has been slow to accept your lifestyle and philosophy, but she is catching the vision like I have.

  6. Thanks, anon, UC, Jack, & Chris. I felt a sense of exhilaration writing the post and the same reading your comments.
    @ Jack - I like that E-prime concept. Yeah, we are verbs, not nouns! Nouns are possessions (illusions of permanence) and verbs flow in and out of our hands in regenerosity.

  7. Suelo, Thank you for that post. Thank you for the deep elaboration. Thank you for the sincerity. That is what is holding everything up. May the true sincerity of existence grow even deeper for you.

  8. That was a long posting but very interesting indeed. Perhaps I shouldn't comment yet since I'm only half through reading it. Oh well! Ha ha! I guess it takes all types to make the world go around. You sound like a bit of a Luddite intertwined with a bit of anarchism,philosophizer,and poet. Am I right about that Suelo?

  9. I'm impressed. Your post is very deep and yet expressed in a direct and simple way that gets to the heart of the matter. We've become so far removed from nature that we no longer hear that inner voice of reason that beckons us to do right simply for the sake of doing right. The rest of the animal kingdom seems to do fine without any set rules by a governing body and for the longest time that was how humans operated. If I'm not mistaken it was just a little over 10 thousand years ago.

  10. Hi Suelo

    Read your post and it got me excited too!! These are pearls man!

    Keep up the good Real work


  11. Hi Suelo - I loved this post and the idea of just being myself - we are not our jobs, our khakis, etc.

    One issue - you say that animals have no leaders, but don't ants and bees have queens? All the hive or colony serves the queen. Wolf packs have an alpha ... gorilla males fight for prominence and females.

  12. Thanks, folks, for taking time to read this & comment, even though it's unusually long.

    @ Stephan - I'm not really ludditish. I think technology springs from the same creative source as do trees and cats. But technology has gotten out of balance, due to greed, not the technology itself. As far as anarchy goes, I'm anarchistic if it means living without calculated (decided) leadership. But I'm not anarchistic if anarchism means no leadership, which brings me to SMT's comment:

    @SMT - you're right, I left out the fact leadership is inherent in many animals (as well as hunter-gatherer tribes). But it's very different than government/law of civilization. It's naturally arising leadership, not imposed through calculation or law or even democracy. The queen ant or bee doesn't rule the colony, she simply lays eggs & the colony voluntarily serves her, as they also serve the pupae, & they go where she goes simply because she is their source of life. Mammal alpha males arise naturally, leading the pack, often ascerting dominance, but by no form of calculated government. They lead, in the Taoist sense, but don't rule. Also, all animals prove they can manage themselves, with or without leaders. We "civilized" humans prove over and over we cannot manage ourselves with rulership. Hunter-gatherer tribes prove they can manage themselves and be in balance, with natural leadership, though no rulership. A point of interest: taking kings is denounced in the Old Testament, but naturally-arising judges are not.

  13. Nature is balanced because it's kept in balance. There are plagues of different species that happen from time to time in nature too.
    It seems nature contains all the characteristics of life. There's domineering alpha males who kill off the other males, fathers who seek to kill offspring, other parents who take journeys around the world in the most hostile environments just to lay eggs. There is dominance and submissiveness, there's cooperative living and there's autonomous living. There is extreme violence coupled with extreme self sacrifice.

    Every extreme that humans are prone to is also found in nature, but what makes it work is that all the extremes and ways of surviving balance each other out. The rest of the natural kingdom just doesn't have as much control over it's environment so it's not so destructive and in turn is evened out by other forces.

    Humans just haven't been checked recently, but we'll get balanced out soon enough.

  14. Sorry this is so long. I will have to split this into many comments as it seems there is a 4,096 character limit.

    I agree with most things that you say in this post, but I have somethings to add.

    Suelo says,
    "Life is not a charity, it is constant giving."

    Agreed. What is it with humans, especially in the USA that think it's their inalienable right to take more than they need? I think it can in some way be traced to the "pursuit of happiness" rather than what I think should have been written "pursuit of peace". So we have concentrations of people with more than they need making decisions on who gets either more, less or enough. How much is enough is not common knowledge, but it can be.

    Suelo says,
    "What if we decided we’d rather lose our jobs or starve or die or be ostracized than to not be ourselves?"

    What about the big ideas in which we need others to help us bring to fruition? For example, like building the Space Shuttle or making sure there's enough Snickers Bars and automatic weapons on every street corner. That is the reason we enmesh ourselves in hierarchies. We use hierarchy as a tool to process the information required to make the supposed big idea a living reality. Hierarchies are everywhere. It's as elemental as breaking down a number into it's prime.

    12 => 3x2x2

    When we factor a number into it's prime we have a factor tree. The factor tree is a hierarchy showing the number 12 unwrapped. But there's more than just hierarchies. When hierarchies overlap we have the semi-lattice.

    Suelo says,
    "We Think We Need Authority"

    These concentrations of authority are hierarchies. Hierarchies have out lived their usefulness and must be replaced with governing-information processing systems based on the semi-lattice. As I think you're seeing, I view this topic as patterns of information processing. Besides matter and energy there is also information. Information is the third element and I find no one considering it properly.

    If this is all mumbo-jumbo to readers then they are not yet ready to weigh-in or act. Which of course is ummm... 99%. No disrespect to the Occupiers because if they're are successful than they will have achieved a measure of creating a system of governance based on the semi-lattice rather than the hierarchy. So humans intuitively want a semi-lattice, they don't know how to ask for it.

    This author almost gets it. In the CNN Belief Blog, "Seeming parallels abound in Penn State, Catholic Church abuse scandals" by Dan Gilgoff.

    In the Penn State scandal, going to the police early rather than deferring to the hierarchy of the institution would have created a semi-lattice of information processing. We all know this would have been the right thing to do. So we naturally gravitate towards the semi-lattice of information processing but we, all too often, get stuck in hierarchy. This is because our neo-cortex, the most evolutionary advanced section of our brain is still a sloppy inept information processing device. It can only hold plus or minus 5-7 variables at a time. So we "chunk" information into hierarchal structures.

    Most everyone thinks the internet is a good thing. That's because it's a semi-lattice, although many corporations are trying to turn it into a hierarchy. They are buying up the distribution channels and charging a lot of money per month for access.

    To understand the difference between a hierarchy and a semi-lattice as it's applied to our communities read the famous essay by Chris Alexander "A City is Not a Tree". Or just Google semi-lattice, but you'll get a lot of impenetrable computer science research from University of Pennsylvania and Rutgers that seems to have made little impact.

  15. I find no one coming out boldly (and coldly) framing this as a purely information processing problem. The average triune brained human can't hold the logic. It would rather be jacked by it's more primitive mammalian and reptilian impulses because it feels warm, cozy and sensational. The average human can't stomach the idea that we are cold information and we are part of some larger processing of information.

    If we want fair governance the average unqualified human likely needs to be designed out of the system. This is the looming dilemma of Transhumanism. We have the testing and technology so that only qualified humans could vote on each and every nuanced law and issue rather than easily corruptible politicians. Look at the crowd sourced ranking on commenters on the site. Doing something like that, we could interactively determine who's making the most salient points. They-we get ranked higher and we-they get to make crucial decisions instead of what we have now, a high school popularity contest based on mammalian and reptilian impulses. I believe the Zeitgeist Movement's Venus Project has some useful ideas on how to do this.


    Suelo says,
    "“Consider the ant… who has no boss, no overseer or ruler.” If they can manage themselves and we think we cannot, why, then, do we consider ourselves more intelligent than other animals?"

    Ant's and bunnies don't count when talking about what we humans are here to do. Humans are more sophisticated and here's why. When we have energy traveling over both hierarchal and semi-lattice structures we have a circuit rich in feedback. When we have this hierarchal, semi-lattice structure with feedback we have consciousness. The semi-lattice is the life giving structure. The structure, feedback and density are key. Depending on the level of complexity and density of the structure it will yield a richer more sophisticated level of consciousness that will include further creativity. So the human brain compared to an ants is a denser hierarchal and semi-lattice structure.This structure does not have to organic. It could appear to us as inert. The structure could even be intangible to us. The expression “this rumor has taken on a life of it’s own” may be more than just a metaphor. It’s scale could range from the atomic to the astronomical.

    Here's some science and spirituality that supports my idea:
    Consciousness Drives The Universe

    We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. - Max Planck

    What Makes Us Human?

    The biological gap between us and our great ape cousins is small. At last count, only 1.23 percent of our genes differ from those of chimpanzees. But mentally, the gap between us and them is a Grand Canyon.

    From another source, George Lakoff, it seems the use of metaphor in human cognition is one main reason for this huge gap. According to the Bible man was made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26). Luke goes so far as to call Adam the Son of God (Luke 3:38).

    Suelo says,
    "When we act for the sake of getting something in the future, our fruit is forever future, never truly attainable..."

    I don't believe this negates the idea that we should continue to form hierarchies and semi-lattices to create something down the road. We should enjoy the whole process. We can know whether what we're doing is right or wrong intuitively. If ranked by a semi-lattice it will be put in it's place.

  16. Fascinating, Michael. Thanks!
    Now, simplify, then all members & levels of the lattice realize they already understand, as each cell contains the genetic info of the entire body.
    It's a paradox, but a paradox not at all hard to grasp if we stop trying to understand & simply be:
    When we stop trying to be smart and just be, we become smart.
    When we stop trying to create a lattice structure or hierarchy and simply be simple, balanced hierarchy and complexity arise naturally, automatically.
    When we stop trying to be leader on top & take the lowest position, simply being, we arise.
    Only the seed falling in death to the ground resurrects to comlexity, revealed genetic info.
    Only when we cease working for future reward and work for the reward of working itself are we rewarded in the future as well as the now.
    When we give up possession, we are rewarded in this life (now) and the life to come (future).
    Only when we cease worrying about what we're going to say can the planning of what we're going to say arise naturally. And the right words (information) will arise, as if we are transmitting info like a radio.

  17. Hello Suelo,

    I drifted in here via a link that Michael posted on another blog. While you both make excellent points, it seems to me that you're using a whole lot of words to make a very simple point.

    In my humble opinion, our highest purpose is to discover the essence of our being, then express that to the fullest through our words, actions, and way we relate to the world.

    "Know thyself" is sage advice, but it's also very elusive. I can't tell you how many times I've thought "ah... so this is who I really am" only to discover later it's but another layer in the infinite onion that is me. Therefore, I do my best to express who I am based on my current understanding of who I am.

    I would say further that people in general express themselves based on their current understanding of who they are and how that relates to the world around them. If they see the world as a hierarchy they will express that within their lives. Same for a semi-lattice, religious or cultural belief, political or corporate structure, socioeconomic model, family unit, or whatever else. This even applies to people "not" being themselves, as their current expression of self is to pretend to be something else.

    Take right and wrong out of it, as those are human constructs. We are where we are at this moment and that's how we express ourselves to the world.

    In that sense we are already perfect, even though it may appear differently to those around us.

  18. @ Maria - yes, for you and many of my friends it's a lot of words to make a simple point. But it's written for those on the edge of religion or with religious loved ones, searching for a way to penetrate religious barriers. Believe me, simply saying, "be yourself" and "know yourself" isn't going to cut it for a mind programmed into believing the self is inherently evil.

    Notice your statement "Take right or wrong out of it" is a statement of right & wrong! The brain works on right and wrong - the very nature of thinking (binary choice-making). To take right and wrong out is to stop talking, stop thinking (the point of meditation, consciousness beyond good and evil, which I recommend). But we must return to this world. In this world we all know it's a *wrong* choice to eat turds or walk in front of cars, and we know it's a *wrong* choice to not teach our kids to not eat turds or walk in streets. Though pure consciousness is beyond mind (beyond right & wrong)our human minds can never go beyond right and wrong. It's time we stop pretending to be beyond right and wrong, as an excuse for not taking responsibility for very real suffering & human cruelty.

  19. Nice post, Suelo. I've been reading similar ideas coming from many different places, all sort of leading to the same destination. Let's hope we can get there before it is too late, and that it doesn't hurt too much.

    You have a typo: "reek" ought to be "wreak".

  20. Thanks, Piper. I'll change it.
    BTW, I mentioned you in the website FAQ about using library computers :-)

  21. Good stuff all around. I resonate with a lot of what Michael says, though it often takes a while for me to understand where you come from, Michael. Overall, it seems to me that emotions are a very complex mechinism to process variables far beyond our limited reasoning. Emotions are very layered, and they're useful when constantly examined.

    Which brings me to the topic of right and wrong. Is saying we *should* take right and wrong out of a discussion a moral judgement? Is talking about right and wrong the *wrong* thing to do? I like Suelo's point about keeping that concept simple. Some things are wrong simply because they are wrong. Why is paedophilia wrong? Isn't it simply because it's wrong?

    That being said, I agree with Maria in the sense that "thyself" is illusive and therefore what's wrong to us is also illusive, maybe just dynamic. However, if we keep staying true to who we think we are, and if we keep examining the result of those actions and its effect on our sense of peace, then I think we'll all arrive at cooperative living. I see the only problem that we "know ourselves" and then tune out. "If you see the Buddha in the road, kill it." Knowing thyself is a continual process. The present is eternal, never ending.

    If we start with this is right simply because it's right, and visa versa, then I think that our sense of morality will be become more refined at the same time it becomes more dynamic and understanding. Flexibilty is the opposite of religion.

    Morality doesn't mean inflexible rules. It means high level complex forethought, coupled with unique and individual circumstances.

  22. I have had a problem with right and wrong for a while, not because of the obvious "teaching kids not to walk out in traffic or eat turds" but because it is so muddled up with our belief systems (religious and otherwise).

    A large percentage of what we think is right or wrong is really neither, but just our ideas based on culture, experience, and conclusions we've drawn about right or wrong.

    For instance, is it right or wrong to live together before marriage. That could spark a heated debate in some circles, but really... isn't it an individual choice?

    And what about how we raise our children? From my own experience as a mom, I can tell you that what was "wrong" in our house was perfectly ok next door, and what was ok with us was absolutely forbidden there.

    It's just that right and wrong isn't black and white. Therefore I tend to discount it in my own life because I can't really know what's right or wrong for you - only for myself.


  23. Hi Daniel,

    I love this post. It's a challenge to everyone to be strong in spirit. I'd love to come and visit again if you'll be in Moab for a while.

    Your friend,


  24. I'm finding we're in agreement, Maria. Actually, this is the theme of this post: we all know what's right and wrong when we simply be ourselves, & we don't need to be told or forced. But we're in a world where most people aren't being real (because we're following somebody's idea of right and wrong!) So we must infect the world with sincerity (Grace), making obsolete all the rules of right & wrong (Law).

    Good comments, Raj.
    And, Michael, I want to chew on your food for thought more.

    @Yolanda - Thanks. I've been thinking a lot about you lately. I'm sitting at the same house we stayed in before.

  25. Hey Daniel,
    Had the strangest dream last night, you were elected mayor of Cisco and it became a mecca for kindred spirits. Kind of like the "slabs" Utah style.

  26. Suelo, you are my idol. Hopefully after highschool i can come and hang with you :D

  27. I very much like the way you are thinking.

  28. It's interesting there are so few posts here compared to before. Maybe that's a good thing since there is less arguing.

    Being true to myself is great, though I also find that I often deceive myself into saying something is being true to myself when in fact I'm just being selfish. Some people would choose to be true to themselves by giving themselves up to all of their wants, which would destructive, though more honest.

    I think people that are more honest in this way bring about more change in the world, for better or for worse. Some people know they are greedy so they stop playing games and seek out wealth wholeheartedly. Others know this will only bring about destruction so they too stop playing games and seek out spiritual paths and solutions wholeheartedly.

  29. @raj -
    Yes, this is the dilemma: we are mass programmed to deceive ourselves that fakeness is our true self. We think we are our possessions, our accessories, or we chase after accessories to build ourselves. The simple fact we can't stop coveting what we don't have shows we're running from ourselves, and people who give themselves up to all of their wants know this. And doing something for somebody not from love, but to get reward/credit, is ulterior motivation, fake. I know this fakeness by experience. Simply observe the wealth-chaser in yourself & others & see if it jives with your sense of what is authentic. This is where I get black-and-white: "More honest" is not honest. There is only honest and dishonest, being and non-being.

  30. Animals don't choose how to live it is based on instinct. A male breeds a female he see's in heat because he has no choice. Wether they have many or one mate is based on instinct not choice.

    They eat when they are hungry and sleep when they are tired. Some get trained to follow commands of humans. However are not capable of rational thought or choosing there lifestyle. Humans are. They have to choose how to live can't run around on instinct.