This weekend was a very focused gathering of serious students of the Law of One. Looking forward to this weekend I initially had some reservations about whether our group would be able to stay focused on the rather arcane and slippery subject of the Archetypical Mind. There was also the possibility of what would happen when the inevitable disagreements arose - after all, the significance of these archetypes are fundamentally unique to each individual by their very nature. As the Law of One explains, the archetypes "haunt rather than explicate".
I am pleased to report that our gathering was most inquisitive, profound, and fruitful. Thanks to the moderation efforts of Tobey Wheelock, we were able to stay on or ahead of schedule most of the time. The consideration of each of these archetypes is properly the work of a lifetime, and nobody pretended that we could but scratch the surface of beginning to comprehend the subtle indications of the images. However, by rescuing us from the downward spiraling feedback loop of incessant and redundant intellectualizing, Tobey kept us moving along so that we were able to glean what limited interpretations in a balanced and comprehensive manner. I can imagine that it was sometimes difficult to cut off pregnant but inefficient avenues of inquiry, and I'm grateful for his discipline. He deserves a lot of credit for any success we've achieved.
Saturday was concerned with the study of the first five categories of archetypes: Matrices, Potentiators, Catalysts, Experiences, and Significators, each of the Mind, Body, and Spirit. I took lots of notes on the groups findings as well as my own reactions. Some discussions resulted in more consensus than others, and when there was disagreement my notes usually erred on the side of my own feelings and theories. It was an intense day, where the group considered, shot down, and left ambiguous many subtle concepts that are difficult to articulate. Hopefully my notes will describe the problems, since I doubt they solve them.
Read more...
The Archetypes Gathering continues this morning, as our group has gotten up rather early (for us: 8 AM) to meet for breakfast and the first stage of our study: the Matrix Archetypes. We began with a meditation and morning offering with the reading of excerpts from spiritually oriented texts like the Law of One, the Old and New Testament, and others. This was coupled with meditation and prayer. We then made the trip to the house of our host, where the discussions would take place (and, incidentally, breakfast was to be had).
Process is of especial interest to our group. How to discuss these matters in a meaningful way that simultaneously does not obscure individual interpretations is one of our primary concerns. Ideally, this experience of group contemplation and analysis of the archetypes would spur individual inquiry, not hamper or squelch it. Luckily, with as small a group as ours consensus can often be achieved, though disagreements are always present. There are dual aspects to this study: the more abstract consideration of what it means to be a Matrix of the Spirit or Transformation of the Mind, for example. Then there's the entirely different task of interpreting the associated images to inform our understanding of these more ethereal roles or states of archetypical significance. It seems that the real conflicts often occur in the latter, since interpretation is more intuitive and, therefore, personal.
We started our morning by considering the three Matrix archetypes (mind, body, and spirit). These include cards 1 (commonly known as the Magician), 8 (Justice), and 15 (The Devil). We then moved on to the Potentiators, breaked for lunch, then did the Catalysts. We are now engaging in a study of the Experience archetypes, which I must now end this update to engage. Tonight I hope to summarize more of our findings and perhaps document some personal interpretations of my own.
Read more...
My friend Tobey and I made the trip yesterday from Virginia to Louisville for the Archetypes Gathering sponsored by L/L Research. We are going to be studying the system of archetypes as discussed in the Law of One series. We're hanging out at the L/L house right now before we head to the place we'll be holding this weekend's festivities. So far I've had a great time talking with people - this gathering is only 10-12 people, and we'll be intimately exploring the archetypical mind and the principles of spiritual evolution. I plan to record our proceedings and use this blog to document any progress we make.
This evening we discussed the general aspects of the Archetypical Mind of the Logos. I'd like to blog more about this and explain in greater detail my understanding of these concepts, but right now I'm trying to participate and pay attention as much as possible. Suffice to say: the Archetypical Mind is a resource available to us humans in third density for grasping the nature of spiritual evolution in our incarnations. We are focusing upon the images of the Major Arcana of the Tarot, since these images serve as representations of the different aspects and tones of this all-mind.
The archetypes are broken up into 3 groups of seven, with a remaining 22nd archetype. There is a set of seven cards that represent the mind, seven for the body, and seven for the spirit. For each of these octaves of archetypes (i.e. sets of seven images) the particular position of a card in the octave designates the role of that archetype within the mind, body, or spirit. These roles or functions are Matrix, Potentiator, Catalyst, Experience, Significator, Transformation, and Great Way. The final archetype is that of the Choice, which represents the choice of polarity given to each entity in our world as they grow in spiritual understanding.
Read more...
Sheldon Richman has a great analysis of Bush's State of the Union address, including one of it's more popularly accepted points:
He says, "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. [Only 11 percent comes from the Persian Gulf.] The best way to break this addiction is through technology." I don't like to see the word "addiction" to applied even to drugs because it implies passivity. So it is inappropriate for the American use of oil. The fact is that by a combination of oil's nature and U.S. government intervention, Americans use oil because it appears economically sensible to do so. It's hardly an addiction. Let's fully deregulate the economy, adopt a noninterventionist foreign policy, and internalize all costs -- and we'll see what happens. In fact, we don't know what a truly free energy and transportation industry would look like. So Bush shouldn't be trying to imagine it and bringing his vision to fruition through subsidies and whatnot. That will be a disaster, although it will make big bucks for the well-connected companies that get the contracts.
He's only partly right when he says technology is the best way to end the use of oil (assuming that's really a good idea). But he left out the most important part: free, unsubsidized competition. Give someone enough taxpayer money and he will come up with a technological alternative to oil. Big deal. The real trick is to come up with an alternative that makes economic sense. The only way to know which technologies make economic sense and which do not is to let the market process play out without state regulation or benefit. In other words, no privileges for anyone. All costs internalized. Laissez faire, laissez passer.
I usually avoid both the actual address and the commentary, as both can tend to be worthless degressions. Sheldon has posted an article worth reading, though.
I didn't watch or read the address, so I'm not going to comment. However, Rough Ol' Boy has a great analysis of the history of the State of the Union address that puts it's purpose in perspective that's worth your attention.
Read more...
mutualism and
agorism) with which I've been flirting lately. It's a big philosophical step for me, and I'm trying to educate myself. I've built a personal approach towards politics for probably 7 years that is being drastically altered, since the state I once sought to remake in a libertarian image is now itself the problem to be removed. New arguments, facts, and principles are being absorbed, and I'm trying to become not just a follower but somebody who can speak convincingly on the topic. I always admired libertarians who were good at outreach (people like
Harry Browne).
In my trip down the rabbit hole, I recently received Kevin Carson's
Studies in Mutualist Political Economy. It's a great way to acquaint myself with an entire century of economic thought of which I - like most libertarians - am woefully ignorant. The writing so far is very well organized and lays out the arguments with a precision that I've come to expect from free market thinkers. However, the fact that it directly and fairly addresses economists whom other libertarians have always dismissed out of hand is itself a very refreshing change of tone from the norm.
I'm still not very far through the book, but I'm writing down lots of names on which to follow up. There's a huge blank spot in the history of economic thought between Smith and Keynes for me, and I'm determined to at least have a passing understanding of the subject.
Studies gives me just enough of the background to start building a philosophical foundation for many of the leftist beliefs I've always held but downplayed in my libertarian zeal. Many, many thanks to Kevin for compiling such a thorough treatment of mutualism.
Oh, and what made my day was that Kevin
blogged about (and indeed clarified) a recent
post of mine. I'm severely flattered.
The Mutualist Blog is literally my number one favorite blog. I try to hold off from blogging about his articles, as well as
Brad's and
Adem's, too often - more out of personal embarrassment than lack of things to say (hence the "Quote of the Day" features of late). :-)
Forget paramilitary activites in the drug war; now police are shooting people for gambling! A respected optometrist was accidentally killed by police officers who deployed tactical units to catch a suspected bookie:
Culosi came out of his townhouse on Cavalier Landing Court about 9:35 p.m. and was standing next to the detective's sport-utility vehicle, police said, when the detective gave a signal to tactical officers assembled nearby to move in and arrest Culosi."As they approached him . . . one officer's weapon, a handgun, was unintentionally discharged," said Fairfax Police Chief David M. Rohrer.
Culosi was not making any threatening moves when he was shot once in the upper part of his body, police said. He was taken to Inova Fairfax Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
Hopefully as in the case of Cory Maye (who, incidentally, deserves a post - I've put it off far too long), the blogosphere can attract attention to these incidents. The problem of irresponsible and dangerous police state tactics needs to be addressed once and for all in the public debate, before these kinds of situations become even more commonplace.
I cannot think of any reason whatsoever why a tactical police unit would have been necessary for this arrest. Moreover, I cannot think of any reason why gambling should be the subject of an intense police investigation. But it goes to show you that when you give the state authority to regulate, they take that charge seriously - deadly seriously.
Hattip: LewRockwell.com
Well, imagine that! From Yahoo!News:
A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.
If you're interested in exploring the problems with the government's conspiracy theory, there's a great film on Google Video called Loose Change that sums up many of the problems well. I don't claim to know exactly what happened, but I know we can't trust the authorities to tell the truth. I'm glad there are groups like 9/11 Citizens Watch holding our government to account for the discrepancies.
Yay.
I still oppose him, but I oppose most of the Supreme Court. The Constitution isn't a perfect document, but it can't work at all if the people who are supposed to be most versed in it don't understand it, let alone refuse to adhere to it. Not that I'm some sort of expert, but "Congress shall make no law" is pretty damn clear.
From Adam Kupi at A Pox On All Their Houses:
The economic fact of the matter as I see it is, if nothing is backing the dollar, then that means that everything is backing the dollar.In other words, all the goods and services that can be bought with dollars are "backing" the dollar. Think about it. When you take a $20 out of the ATM, you do so because you expect that you can buy something with that. And you have a pretty good idea of what that something will cost. That's the only reason why you want that bill.
This adds a little more weight to the metaphor of wage slavery as well. Because our labor is being farmed by the banking system, in an indirect way. We're holding up the dollars that they are printing for themselves with our labor. In a real sense, we're backing up their debt with our labor.
Go read the introduction from Jim Bovard's new book, Attention Deficit Democracy, posted at Lew Rockwell:
"Presidents have lied so much to us about foreign policy that they've established almost a common-law right to do so," history professor Leo Ribuffo observed in 1998. From John F. Kennedy lying about the Bay of Pigs debacle in Cuba; to Johnson lying about the Gulf of Tonkin resolution; to Richard Nixon lying about the secret bombing of Cambodia; to Jimmy Carter lying about the Shah of Iran being a progressive, enlightened ruler; to Ronald Reagan lying about terrorism and Iran-Contra; to George H. W. Bush lying about the justifications for the first Gulf War, entire generations have come of age since the ancient time when a president's power was constrained by a duty of candor to the public.
...
The government is exploiting public dread to redefine the relation between rulers and the American people. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, in a talk to Republican National Convention delegates in September 2004, praised Bush's role as the protector of the nation and assured them that "this president sees America as we think about a 10-year-old child. I know as a parent I would sacrifice all for my children." Card's comment generated almost no controversy. Yet viewing Americans as young children needing protection makes a mockery of democracy. Is servility now the price of survival?
A 10 year old child? Doesn't all the hoopla about security at any price make sense now - especially in light of the other attitudes towards parenting that conservative Americans hold? No wonder we're being smothered by our security, being told it's for our own good: the protection offered by this government - or any, for that matter - is not a relationship founded on mutual respect of any sort.
One more excerpt:
Read more...
Rhymes with Right has a great post about an all too typical situation in our crappy ass public schools (read his post for a better telling and analysis of the situation, I'm just going to rant here). A teaching assistant is falsely accused of inappropriate behavior with a female student. That's bad enough, but it turns out the dad sought out the accused and socked him - and is being praised by all the neanderthals.
But here's the kicker: even after the evidence has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that that teaching assistant was nowhere near the daughter at the time of the alleged incident, right wing neanderthals are still issuing macho maxims about how "if anybody touches MY daughter...". Facts are completely immaterial to some of these reactionary loons - what matters is kicking ass. The dad is making the rounds on the talk show circuit and even being praised as "Father of the Year". Because, as we all know, being a father means getting angry and violent.
In other news, another bunch of right wing hotheads ignored the facts to start a fight.
P.S. Alli praises the dad for being involved in his daughter's life. Uhh... I'm not sure where to begin. Apparently getting in a brawl means more than knowing your daughter well enough to be able to trust her? How does somebody with a criminal record and a temper translate into a good dad? We need parents to care enough about their kids to pay attention to them even when there isn't a good fistfight to be had. Moreover, we need parents - hell, even adults - who get to the bottom of a situation and don't simply go into kneejerk offspring defense.
It's shit like this that made me vote for Kerry.
From Roderick Long (yes, I know, these quotes just keep getting longer and longer):
Once when I was 12 or so I went up to the checkout with six comic books I'd picked out, only to realise I had just enough money to buy four. So the clerk at the cash register started to pick two at random to put back, as though I would have no preference as to which four of the six to keep. I was amazed.
When I was in high school I intended to become a novelist. One of the counselors thought this was a great idea, and advised me, "take a look at which novels are the best sellers, and try to write novels like that" -- as though I might want to be a novelist without having a preference for writing any particular sort of novels. Once again I was amazed.
I'm likewise amazed whenever I see the argument that "if you want to be successful in promoting libertarianism, you need to give up on feature X or feature Y" -- as though someone might want to promote libertarianism without caring about promoting any particular version of libertarianism. (I'm talking about cases where feature X or feature Y is part of one's view rather than, say, a dispensable rhetorical emphasis involved in promoting the view.)
That's a great way of putting it. We're libertarians because we care, not because we want to win or, for that matter, even be popular.
My friend Alli takes a good, consistent, and conservative position on the new Joel Stein column. Good for her, and the others who can stomach actual free speech. I've been saying I don't support the troops for a long time - and if I get a chance to explain, most people find that they can disagree with my position instead of condemning it (though it usually takes a lot of explaining to pierce the kneejerk reactions).
We should be striving for consistency in our beliefs, because otherwise we can't be principled. Besides, it's easier to understand each others' positions. There's no reason Joe Democrat should feel compelled to adopt Kerry's or Hillary's tortured wierd blend of pro-state patriotism and socially acceptable dissent. Stand the fuck up for what you believe in - and if you haven't given any thought to what you actually believe in your heart, well, why don't we start there?
What would you say if I said I opposed crime - but supported the criminals? Or what if I said I oppose the income tax even though I appreciate the hard work of the IRS in collecting my hard earned pay? You would say that I don't make sense. Yet Democrats thought they could win an election by saying this same thing. That's why nobody takes them seriously - a lot of antiwar Americans can't stomach doublespeeak, and have come to believe that at least Bush is straight talking (though nobody's sure if he actually understands what he's saying).
Being against a war means something - it has a particular context that has to be understood and appreciated. It means that you're against using war as a means in a particular (or every) case. If you believe that, then how can you support the institution designed to execute these means? Being against the troops doesn't mean you want them to be hurt, or that you don't sympathize with them. Rather, it means that you don't identitfy with the interests they claim to be advancing. You don't believe they're fighting for the good of America, just like you don't believe Bush or Kerry or Gore is doing the right thing for America.
One blogger claims that if you don't support the troops you should be scorning them:
Read more...
Via Battlepanda and Nathan Newman, this article about the Walmart Workers Association demonstrates that the spirit of self-determination is alive and well, even among the most downtrodden:
Non-majority unions such as the WWA don't wait for a court to license workers' use of collective action. They harness that anger and ingenuity to both win day-to-day victories and launch longer-term pressure campaigns. The strategy has roots in industries in which union recognition is rare: retail chain workers, state workers, and computer programmers and manufacturers.
"We have the right to organization, regardless of what the boss or the state do," said Smith.
Exactly. This is libertarianism: people freely associating to realize common interests. This is the marketplace for labor at work - the terms don't have to be set soley by big corporations and the National Labor Relations Board. They sure as hell don't need permission. Small, nimble associations of workers can function even in huge places like Walmart and get results:
To counter the widespread problems of inconsistent and under-scheduling, the WWA launched a campaign to encourage Wal-Mart workers to file for unemployment compensation.
Smith estimates that "hundreds, if not thousands" of Wal-Mart workers have filed for unemployment as part of the WWA's campaign. They usually win, according to Smith, costing Wal-Mart tens of thousands of dollars, and when they lose, they force Wal-Mart into a lengthy and revealing appeal process.
As a result, a number of Wal-Mart stores with higher levels of WWA member activity have changed their scheduling policy.
Many libertarians would argue that people who don't like how Walmart schedules workers should not work there. They have a point. However, they forget that the state creates many of the conditions that force people to choose between food on the table and virtual slavery. They always want a free market without government intervention, yet they look the other way when the state and big business go to bed. And after all, as Battlepanda says:
Read more...
Got any? Looking for something that runs small and allows me to download lots simultaneously. I've always used the original client and there might be something better out there. Looks like BitTornado is pretty nice. Any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Sorry I don't have more details about what I'm looking for - now that I have access to broadband at both work and home, I should be able to take advantage of this.
BTW, got any torrent site recommendations as well?
