Institutional Thought

Many people unconsciously operate under ideological or institutional assumptions. Without interrogating such assumptions people become ignorant, dangerous and uncreative.

When an individual or idea challenges one’s network of unconscious, institutional assumptions you will often find a violent, confrontational and aggressive reaction. To me this process occurs in all domains of human society and culture, for example in political and religious domains, and can be found on the left and right of the political spectrum.  

Clinging to ideological and institutional thought is dangerous because it pushes individuals and groups away from each other, discouraging cooperation. It promotes divisions and side-taking, because people will feel a vehement and aggressive need to defend specific positions, as though such positions were absolutely correct. It also greatly inhibits individual growth and the ability to see reality with clarity, sensitivity and accuracy.

I feel a significant ongoing hindrance to the development of human society and culture is that many of us unconsciously grasp to institutions and ideas and unhealthily identify with them. A degree of habit and order is necessary and we would be lost in chaos without this. But because so many of us are, I believe, fundamentally insecure, because naked reality is so frightening to the ego, many people unhealthily attach themselves to ideologies or simply established ideas and consequently resist fresh insight and genuine, fundamental change.

In my mind a healthy, psychologically mature or well-rounded individual is one who has developed a relatively consistent and flexible framework for interpreting and navigating the world and who realises the relativity of this framework, thus overcoming unnecessary aggression, delusional thought and narrow mindedness.

People might read these ideas but not deeply understand or integrate them, let alone meaningfully apply them. They might nod their heads and understand superficially but their ego, their conscious personality, would not realise them, for such insights would destroy their delusions and apparent psychological security.

Human Understanding

Any reflective work must be clear, from the outset, about certain processes. Few thinkers I have come across start from the simplest, most basic terms. Few of these thinkers are clear about their intentions and few of them form fresh insights. By fresh I mean free from platitudes and insipid ideological thinking.

I feel the ongoing confusions and divisions of human history need to be halted and everything, all the evidence, needs to be examined broadly and fairly. As far as I'm concerned we need to stop, pay attention, transcend the prejudices of the ego, dispense with preconceptions and, ultimately, find common ground.

Ideological autopilot needs to be switched off. We need to step outside and look within.

We can't change society until we personally develop. We can't personally develop until we are genuinely free of institutional conditioning and side-taking.

Human understanding must be viewed in light of two fundamental phenomena, language and naked reality.

In a broad sense language may be seen as the framework or context through which naked reality is translated and experienced. But language is ultimately derived, like everything, from naked reality.

The multiple elements of language are best seen as tools to understand, manipulate and cooperate with reality.

The urge to understand and attain clarity seems, with a number of people, to be a natural automatic process, an instinct. Arguably it is thus deeply rooted in biology and nature.

Understanding is about forming concepts, within the framework of language, that most accurately express naked reality, bearing in mind that naked reality is changeable. Accuracy can be determined through evidence and experimentation.

Human understanding is about aligning people and their conscious personalities with naked reality so that these phenomena move together in harmony.

Understanding is about consciousness and awareness. In this sense it is about receptivity and combating repression. Along with receptivity understanding must include attention and integration. To understand meaningfully one must be attentive and one must integrate information into consciousness.

To attain the most meaningful and rich pictures of reality it is necessary to take into account various forms of evidence, for example anthropological, biological, social, historical and cultural, to chart the development of understanding and consciousness and embed these phenomena in empirical and demonstrable contexts.

Parallelograms

From a familiar, external, conscious world the song Parallelograms by Linda Perhacs plummets the listener into an intuitive, Finnegans Wake, collective unconscious, dream world.

It speaks of the language and syntax of reality, explicitly through mention of geometry and biology and implicitly through its audial transition from a melodious, familiar dimension to a discordant, unfamiliar dimension.

The hidden dimension this song addresses may be described as the structural matrix and bedrock of reality. In the same way that we create two-dimensional images and fictional realities it can be said that a higher dimensional reality creates us and our three-dimensional world.

As a musical genre psychedelic folk is an apt way to express such insight. The folk element evokes old, rural, communal and spiritual tradtions and does so in a mysterious and beautiful way. The psychedelic element updates the folk aspect, employing electronic sounds and musical experimentation and embedding it in the historical and cultural context in which it was made. There is thus a melding of ancient and modern, tradition and revolution, continuity and change.

That Parallelograms, the song and the album of the same name, was largely ignored when first released in 1970 is testament to the overall commercialism and vapidity of the music industry and the ignorance of a society unable to perceive raw artistry and deep insight into the nature of existence.

The Least Among us

"We are led by the least among us" 

                                     - Terence McKenna

I've grown tired of arguing against the Conservatives. Is it not abundantly clear that their fundamental policies have always maintained or increased an extreme rich-poor divide and fuelled perpetual war and hatred? The Conservatives show no signs whatsoever of changing their fundamental policies, so clearly they show no signs of ending poverty, war and hatred.

One of the main arguments of the Conservatives is that they are the only party who can deliver a "strong economy". What is meant by "strong economy"? I rarely here this phrase explained in a reasonable, intelligent way. From a non-technical standpoint and judging simply by the hard evidence of many years of Conservative rule, including New Labour, it seems that the Conservatives' "strong economy" invariably equates to a staggering divide between the rich and poor. So in what sense do they mean "strong"? The Conservatives champion and preside over an economic system that allows one individual to be worth £9.5 billion and, simultaneously, for homelessness to rise. Is this not enough to make the population understand? It doesn't take an intellectual to understand that there is something inherently wrong with a political party and system that allows this to happen.

Even if economic efficiency was defined in terms of cold, abstract logic, the Conservatives do not deliver. Neoliberalism, the Conservatives' ruling ideology and economic system, their sine ne qua non, led to the 2008 financial crash. In other words it collapsed. Neoliberalism was started by Margaret Thatcher, the ultimate Conservative, the Conservatives' idol, and was continued by Tony Blair and New Labour. Blair and New Labour were, according to Thatcher, her greatest achievements. So even in cold, ruthless terms the Conservatives aren't worth voting for.

Humane political parties do exist. They won't solve every problem and they may have to operate in a toxic global climate for a while but who knows, maybe they'll set an example? Maybe they'll show people another way? Societal change has to start somewhere.

Why Might Momentum be an Object of Criticism?

I don't usually think in terms of left-wing or right-wing. I prefer more concrete terms; fair, unfair, sensitive, insensitive, empathetic, unempathetic. These terms carry more weight and meaning for me.

Alan Johnson has recently argued that Momentum is a "hard-left" group infiltrating the Labour party, drawing comparisons with the 1980s group Militant. But, as I constantly find in the popular press, this view isn't backed up. Johnson doesn't provide any circumstances or situations to show that Momentum is an extreme or militant group. His view is thus invalid.

Johnson also doesn't consider his view from different sides. Perhaps Momentum is around to combat the high levels of class injustice and inequality in our society and the waging of perpetual war, which is rife and which we aren't properly informed about it. In this sense his argument isn't remotely intelligent or sensitive.

Similarly Tom Watson and Neil Kinnock talk of "Trotskyists" infiltrating the Labour party without adequate explanation or exploration of what a "Trotskyist" is. I thus get the impression that this phrase is a scare tactic, like "hard-left", and when one delves into it one finds that it doesn't have any meaning. The popular press is full of such empty phrases and scare tactics. Much of the world-population thus end up living their lives based on a vapid and abstract political rhetoric perpetuated by self-serving individuals and a biased media. 

I wonder if Kinnock and Watson spoke out against Tony Blair in the same way they have with Momentum? Or even Ed Miliband who aimed to continue with austerity? One has to assume that Kinnock and Watson are promoters and members of the British establishment. The establishment, for the record, does not have the will or desire of the wider population at heart.

What does infiltrate even mean? Are any of our Labour MPs militant Trotskyists? Are militant Trotskyists going to take over UK government? I think it's far more relevant and beneficial to discuss and criticise Blairites and New Labour MPs who for many years had an overwhelming stranglehold on the Labour party, and probably still do to a minor extent, and whose record, such as the Iraq war and the promotion and practise of neoliberalism, is shameful.

Even if "hard-left" groups did exist and did have negative intentions, as it currently stands we have far more pressing problems that need to be addressed. We have the destruction of coral reefs, rising greenhouse gases, livestock emissions, the swift disappearance of many animal species, class inequality, mistreatment of disabled people and perpetual war, all resulting from insensitive and neoliberal, one might say right-wing, governments. In light of these catastrophes, that are occurring right now as a result of Western governments that have been in power continuously for many years, "hard-left" groups are not something I'm worried about.

It is funny when people talk of "hard-left" groups, as Americans do with Communists, when all we've had in Britain and the U.S for many years are right-wing governments. When you look at the records of such right-wing governments - ongoing wars in the Middle East, rising class inequality, nurses using food banks in the UK, private healthcare in the U.S, the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the U.S, the Vietnam war by the U.S, ongoing environmental devastation - you realise that an alternative form of government is needed.

As far as I'm concerned our society is fundamentally skewed and oppressive and when genuine beneficial change presents itself most of our politicians and media-outlets instinctively try to obliterate it.

Establishment Media with Reference to UK Politics

Before commenting on politics it's important to bear in mind that popular and establishment media create an image of reality that is often highly inaccurate. Many people, understandably, think and make decisions largely based on this inaccurate image. 

Honesty, accuracy, evidence and fairness are thus regularly absent from establishment media. The reasons for this are very complex and have much to do with maintaining a divide between the rich and poor. 

These points are tied up with spin and political rhetoric, which is about fooling people into liking and voting for you. Spin and political rhetoric is often about creating an inaccurate, abstract, negative and unfounded image of an opponent and is often about evading honesty, transparency and directness.

I feel that not only the wider population but many of our politicians buy into the political rhetoric they use and the abstract, unfounded notions of society that they promulgate. For example, I do think that most Conservatives feel that they are "working in the national interest" or that "living within our means" is a fair thing to say. But these phrases are part of an abstract political rhetoric that isn't tied to reality. I would describe believing in political rhetoric and distorted veneers of reality as some kind of mass delusion fed and sustained by a powerful, biased and reality-reversing media.

One of Friedrich Nietzsche's primary insights is that many of humanity's cherished ideas and views are motivated by shadowy instincts, drives and desires. The Conservatives' ideas and views, for example, are motivated by greed and insecurity. Such ideas and views are dressed up in a palatable way, "living within our means" kind of seems reasonable on the surface, but their essential meaning is bound up with greed and fear. In a more accurate rendition, living within our means is actually saying that "we aren't going to address the deep power and class imbalance of society but are going to steal money from those who need it most". 

When ideas and views are bound up with insecure self-serving drives you can expect volatile reactions. For example, David Cameron erupted in PMQs on the issue of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, shouting "It might be in my party’s interest for him to sit there. It’s not in the national interest... for heaven's sake man, go!" This reaction occurred because Corbyn represents a threat to the societal maintenance and dominance of the rich-elite, which is based on their self-serving insecure drives. When the rich-elite are faced with a character like Corbyn they thus lash out in an irrational way. This also explains Alan Sugar's, Richard Branson's and Rupert Murdoch's hatred of Corbyn.

The abstraction of reality that occurs with the application of political rhetoric and inaccuracy in the popular media also leads to desensitisation and depersonalisation. We are presented with a thin distorted layer of reality and aren't able to adequately connect with actual reality. In my view this occurs to an extent with any media, as media or language slides between people and the rawness of reality and can end up disconnecting us from the truth of our inner and outer worlds.

Rhetoric, inaccuracy and spin encourage increased detachment or desensitisation as they aren't about exploring and revealing truths. They are about manipulating people, distorting events, scaremongering, ignoring happenings and/or presenting situations in a one-dimensional way. The result is that we aren't able to properly connect with many events occurring in the world. This, I think, is partly why we have a PM who holds a first strike nuclear policy.

I don't think Theresa May emotionally understands the consequences of using nuclear weapons. Similarly Micheal Fallon, the Conservative Defence Secretary, holds an insensitive attitude towards military action. Fallon offers complete support for future military action in Syria to a government responsible for this. He must not remotely empathise with the many civilians that have died in the Middle East as a consequence of our foreign policy and he must not realise that our approach is fuelling perpetual war, hatred and extremism. If May was present for the atom bombing of Hiroshima and had family who died there and if Fallon had witnessed and had family who died in a military attack in Yemen they would, I'm sure, think differently about nuclear weaponry and military intervention.

Violence and death, then, have been depersonalised and we have been emotionally desensitised to horrific issues. This is why it is refreshing and inspiring, for me, that Corbyn is so reluctant to use military action. Presumably Corbyn is sensitive and empathetic to issues of violence and sees military action as a last resort. He genuinely prioritises diplomacy and dialogue. As far as I'm concerned he is a responsible and humane politician, seemingly a rare phenomenon.

In order to develop and flower as a society enough people need to understand the bias of establishment media and enough people need to be able to separate bullshit from accuracy, honesty from lies, substance from vapidity, spin from sincerity.

Concrete Issues with Reference to Jeremy Corbyn

I'm not left-wing, right-wing, feminist or marxist. I'm not trying to sell you an ideology. I'm not part of an institution. I'm an individual intuitively responding to perceived injustice and corruption.

When it comes to commenting on societal matters I think it's vital not to segregate yourself in a convoluted, academic, drawn-out and abstract verbal bubble.

It's also important to take control of knowledge where possible and to have the confidence to talk about matters without necessarily having a university degree in them. This is where the internet can be so brilliant and inspiring.

When it comes to Jeremy Corbyn I think the important things to remember are that he and his party want to reinvigorate the NHS, are anti-austerity, anti-privatisation of public services and have a thoroughly empathetic, sensitive, caring and forward-looking approach to foreign policy.

There are obviously a lot of complexities involved but honestly, at this point in time, the latter points are the things that matter. They are policies and attitudes that actually want to alleviate concrete issues happening right now.

It's easy for a commentator who isn't affected by disability work assessments, who doesn't have to go to a food bank, who isn't a Syrian whose family has been killed by US airstrikes or a Yemeni mother whose children have been killed by UK weapons to criticise Corbyn for pointless, abstract or trivial matters.

The elite and their vicious media chums have really done a number on the world population. They seem to have taken away an ability to empathise, emotionally connect and think freely about the world. In this sense, in the sense of how our minds work, we are caged and imprisoned.