Dan asked me a while back what my views were religious, political or otherwise and it was only recently that I came to the conclusion that I don’t really know. So I hope to start this blog clueless and finish being more organized in my own opinion. If I were to, off the top of my head, label myself it would be; politically a Negative-Libertarian Communist, and religiously a Mahayana Buddhist and I think it’s appropriate that already I start with a contradiction. I would only call myself those things because of a self-confessed ignorance. I can’t say I know everything about either and am wholly ready to change my mind if prompted to do so. I cannot say that they are untainted either; often they are opinions from half-remembered books and fragments pieced together to what I consider my opinion.
Pretentious is a word used a lot around me and I understand. But can I just get out of the way I’m not saying these things because I think they’re “cool” and if you think that about me I would say you didn’t know me very well. Neither am I the socialist who says, “I believe it can work in theory but not in reality” because that makes you a dick. What is the point of having a political theory if your not willing to put it into practice- that would simply be philosophy. Look at Footnote. I am fully prepared to argue the advantages of communism with facts and details and if you do want to discuss it come fully prepared to argue seriously and not do a ‘Ben’ when you realize there is evidence supporting the cause and descend into nonsensical crap.
I don’t want this to be a history lesson but I think the first thing people tend to do is say “look how the USSR turned out”. I want to say very roughly that the Russian revolution started with a divide between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks- the Mensheviks were the Marxist party that didn’t want to force the revolution but wanted a mass uprising, the Bolsheviks in very simplistic terms were the dickheads. The reign of the USSR was not strictly Marxist communist but did lay out some ground rules that proved communism could practically work- i.e. collectivization, an extremely communist ideology, that helped boost Russia from a country practically wallowing in the dark ages (Nicholas II and serfdom) to a country not only competing with America and England but making them shit bricks in an absurdly short period of time. If you’re going to use real world examples I would also like to point you to Castro in Cuba and Tito in Yugoslavia, both hugely popular reigns and hugely successful ones (I would drop some statistics but I can’t be bothered to find them so you’ll have to take my word for it).
The other most common argument is “hey, we are inherently greedy shit heads” and if that is your belief well then YOU must be a shit head and shame on you because I believe myself that I don’t have to be. You are the mass, if you think you have the ability to not be greedy then everyone else has. I’ll be the first to admit that I am an idealist and shoot me for saying, I believe humanity has the capacity for goodness and I don’t know why its so popular to think otherwise. John Lennon can put this in far better words than I can. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b7qaSxuZUg “Some may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. I hope one day you will join us and then the world will live as one”. The point is if nobody takes the leap of faith then it could never happen.
The negative-libertarian part comes in on one of the many compromises that must be made to live in a communist society. There are two types of ideal liberties, one is a society where a man can go out and do anything he wishes to. He can put some underwear on his head and sing the Swedish national anthem, positive liberty. Negative liberty is where everyone must live in a restrained society but a society that provides liberty in terms of what the people want to do productively. It is a society that is able to fulfil a person’s maximum potential. I didn’t explain this very well but hey, I’m not a teacher. Google it.
The other compromise is also in ‘Imagine’. No religion, no heaven or hell and quite frankly the song is laden with images of ‘oneness’ and ultimately a loss of identity. A society without hatred, racism or religious wars sounds great but at a huge cost to our cultural being. Now, Japan is a society I love but one that promotes conformity and an animosity to those that speak out. This creates some weird effects like a fucking creepy underground mentality, otaku and hikikomori. It’s all a bit whack.
But anyway, moving swiftly on to Mahayana Buddhism. Mahayana basically means they don’t worship Buddha as a divine being but just a mortal who has managed to achieve Nirvana. Hinduism and Buddhism are twin religions but the key distinction is that Hinduism is escapist and Buddhism is… a bit of a bitch. Hindus teach people the ways of their religion so that one-day they will go to Nirvana and chill. Nirvana is essentially a state of utter neutrality; it isn’t really a paradise more than an escape from the eternal loop we are stuck in. However, when Buddha went to Nirvana he returned and said “this is not the meaning of life we should be teaching simply ‘goodness.’”
But once again I shouldn’t be explaining because it is not my place to explain. I’m not sure I believe in Buddhism but the philosophy is very interesting and very logical. Buddha spoke in truths and lists and is often very bleak but believable in his teachings. Perhaps the most important of his lessons is that suffering is everywhere, felt by everyone and pretty much inescapable. There is a note of optimism however as cynicism I feel is not the way to go.
My problem is that why if everyone feels the same suffering do we never communicate it? I look at someone across the room and think are we really going through the same thing and if so why are we so different? Do I really feel the same suffering of that of a poor starving African child? Sometimes I feel self-pitying and I do think so, sometimes I am happy and I don’t. My fluctuating emotions can be the same as his. The child has so little that even a tiny gift can lift him to the highest spirits but I must have so much to change my mood at all and therefore I am unhappy.
I say I am grateful for all my woes because it has made me into the person I am, I feel enlightened. Hypothetically speaking I am secretly happy that I have a shit life because I see things differently and I have become more thoughtful. But if everyone has the same sight that I have bought with my sufferings, what is the point?
I think its funny Buddha and Nietzsche came to the same conclusion. Buddha went to Nirvana and back and realized there is no inherent purpose to life but a quest for goodness. Nietzsche conveys this through the metaphor of building a cathedral on water. Humanities greatest gift is its ability to look within itself for beauty and so an inherent meaning is not needed. ‘Tis all about self-improvement, man.
Footnote! I wouldn’t know how to accurately define ‘philosophy’ but essentially I reckon it means ‘thinking’. Thinking about things uncertain. I’ve been asked why I don’t study it considering it’s the exact thing I would love: the pretentious and waffly (In which my response would be fuck you). To be taught how to think just seems absurd to me however. What you really learn is how to categorize and label. Famous philosophers never got taught how to philosophize it was merely within their natures. In fact, take philosophers across the ages such as Plato (used miniature plays to convey ideas) and Nietzsche (the use of poetic and aphoristic language + a classical art scholar). Art is essentially the common denominator. It is art that facilitates true thought. Knowledge isn’t concrete and shouldn’t be treated as such. It is abstract and evolves just like art. Using 2001 as an example (the extreme end of the spectrum) Kubrick uses every trick possible to communicate his philosophy. Abstract symbolism such as the monolith panders to your subconscious as well as Strauss’ Zarathustra going all up in your face and ears.
It is a self-confessed fact that philosophy’s greatest gifts are the power of analogy and image due to the much-repeated mantra of ‘the inefficiencies of out language’. Once again art is a much more suitable tool. Using The Wizard of Oz as an example- Dorothy goes on a journey to find a wizard (God) who claims he can grant wishes (Freudian wish fulfilment anyone?). She arrives at his palace and discovers that it is simply smoke and mirrors- with a man behind them. This realization allows her to move ‘beyond good and evil’ and grant her own wishes. The logic is that a child is meant to watch the film and process the subtexts subconsciously. The moral is obvious even to a child but when it is labelled as ‘Nietzsche’s will-to-power to reveal ubermench’- not so much.
