A timid proposal for a new (a-xxxx) way of thinking and consideration

Hark!

I’m in the midst of a re-examination. Of everything. I’m questioning old arguments, old contexts, tattered paradigms.

I am discovering the kernels of a new vision that is based on a fresh, from-the-ground-up perspective. You know how some houses are in such utter disrepair that the new buyers decide to raze the structure and create something completely new? That’s how I feel about many old questions and old arguments. Old conflicts that send an electric schism bolt through the heart of man’s heart because the conduit depends on separate camps squaring off against each other rather than re-thinking or re-calibrating old arguments or feuds to begin with.

We are embarking on the age of release. I’ll call it this. The Age of Release.

The Age of Release because that is what it requires of us before it can reign. The Age of Release needs us to relinquish all the old arguments, tensions, conflicts, beliefs, stubborn intractable pissing matches, antipathies, ancient social artifacts…and in wiping the slate clean we will behold the new playing field that does not humor the stale paradigm.

This will be difficult. We are attached to our arguments. Not the facts.

We cling to arguments like waves of blood gushing from a severed artery, but it’s the argument we seek to protect. We worship the traditional arguments and rebuttals we enjoin to fulfill our patterns of dispute. We obey scripts of dissent and disagreement. All the comment squabbles, all the blog squabbles, the wars, the terrorism, the ideological clashes: this is all about the old arguments. We are shaped by the old feuds, the old enmities. When protecting our ego, we are loath to surrender the old argument.

There is a new way, but it is difficult because we are distrustful of those who demand we refute generational-tested arguments in favor of new angles. We are addicted to the accustomed distrust we know. We resist shaping a new outlook which might require surrendering distrust.

We are overly conscious of the brevity of our stay on this earth. Our nature is to witness change now in order to experience fulfillment in our life. To admit a greater, life altering “paradigm pull” infers that our life denotes nothing of significance more than a blip of minute sand particle in the ant procession to erect…what, we do not know.

We expect our existence signify something. If we approach social evolution from the angle that our thoughts and donations affect little or nothing immediately visible, we scurry. We cannot accept this. This is what happens when we ask people to forsake their old arguments in favor of a new paradigm. They are losing everything they held dear. The old arguments are the currency of self-worth.

I’ve entered this mid-life crisis mode that doesn’t really mean much. I’m examining old arguments and antagonisms and seeing clearly for the first time their archaic uselessness. They are limited by our blind devotion and unimaginative re-conjuring that faciltates itself over again each tireless generation. The old becomes older in the march of evolution when there is no mutation. Elemental human thought has not mutated for a very long time. We have been regurgitating old arguments since time immemorial. There is nothing new streaming out our dulled psyches. We are the same old crap over and over and over and over. We throw in different approaches under the pretense of progress, we form and recognize new schools of thought, but it’s the same thing graced with a new blade.

We should perceive anew. I thought of this when re-reading my rather glib, offensive (if you really think about it) comment yesterday. Looking back, it occurs to me that I didn’t spend enough time expounding on the thought. On the surface I essentially was telling people that god means nothing which is obviously not true. God means a lot to everybody. Civilizations rise and fall on the pretense of god. To disavow the importance of god is ludicrous. You cannot turn that clock back. The point I’m making is that the argument of god’s existence means nothing. It’s a trivial bitchfest.

What I really want to know is this: is the existence of god relevant? Does god matter?

Arguing the questionable reality of god imbues the concept with consequence. The atheist, arguing against that which he doubts, is thus breathing life into the imaginary character. The argument of the ages demands our attention. Does god exist.

Any argument to the effect, or against, does little to invoke the existence of a non-existent god. It is a foolhardy egotistic human charade to butt heads about something we can never have the ability to derive a concrete or scientifically repeatable answer. If you light a fire and measure that water boils at 212 degrees repeatedly under different conditions with different thermometer instruments, this is an irrefutable measurement. If you argue with someone about god over and over and still are unable to clearly answer the question beyond measures of absolute faith, the scientific conclusion is that we do not have all the facts in our possession. Without the complete set of facts at our disposal, what good does argument do? It soothes our self-involved fixation with an elusive truth which is just distraction because you can never know the truth if you don’t know the question. We do not know the question. We think it is “is there a god?” This is not the question. The is a muse. The question implicit in the grand god question is simple. Is there is an end? How do we seek reassurance that we can live this life’s dreary unknowns to the very end. We can never know if god lives or has ever. The argument placates our revulsion but answers nothing. Arguing about god is an exercise of vanity.

And then I also thought of my buddy’s blog, Right View from the Left Coast. The good right-winger that he is, everything in his life is painted and molded from the conservative angle, the rehearsed conservative angle and his political arguments are framed within the context of a viewpoint which is delineated by black or white. You are with us or against us. For the sake of fairness, I will not dwell on RVLC. He is sincere in his ideology. However, I use him as an example to illustrate the method of argument and rebuttal that is ingrained in political observers. We are committed and married to the argument, the viewpoint, the rehearsed refutations. We don’t disconnect for that Zen moment; a view of the argument and conflict with the clarity of indifference or “aconflict.” Aconflict as in asocial or atypical.

Not anti-, but a-.

I propose the Age of a-.

We are not antithetical to the idealogists and politicists. We are the new generation, new age, of a-‘s.

Our movement does not bother with opposition as a motive or justification. We merely observe other routes of beholding. You vote for the R or the D. You vote for no one. You vote for a paradigm. You vote for a pre-ordained system of perpetual fallacies that find strength in consistency. Voting for R or D is empowering humanity’s death. It’s not the politicians who are screwing you. It’s the system. It’s the process. The politicians reinforce the system by virtue of their existence and competition and monetary investment, and your vote for them is a vote for the system of self-enclosing doom. The world is too big. There are too many people. Worse, the world is too intertwined and everyone’s opinions are floating in the free fall curriculum of instant knowledge so knowledge is now the currency of “aignorance.” You are all screwed if you continue feeding the politician’s wallets and egos. Politicians are trivial and lifeless. They serve another but it’s not you. It’s not even themselves. Politicians are the most subterranean form of soulless sycophancy. Don’t entrust your life to someone who can’t even respect himself. The upward wavelike motion of respect and observance means nothing now because the ceiling continues to descend as the true lords seek to distance themselves from the chaos. We have no say. We have no quarrel with our quarrelers. The argument is now an illusion. If you continue to argue, you will increase the boiling point and those outside will enjoy the freedom of their clean air.

Stop. Back off.

Refuse the process.

If no one voted tomorrow, what would happen? When votes become currency, we turn into consumers of the politicos.

Stop.