Defining words. The soul seems to refer to a simple form of identity, not so the persona. Between the two is the mind and brain.
These are 1. The Truth 2. The Straight 3. The Curve 4. The Crooked
The Truth as being the only truth, a moral and spiritual truth. But if the Truth be told then it be not the Truth for something so great cannot be uttered, sang, written, drawn or crafted by a consuming animal no matter how sapient they be.
The Straight has the advantage of direction which plants understand as they reach up for light and down for water, but homo sapiens see other directions akin to the flat earth antagonist. The direction of animals is for shelter and food and the animal is blindingly oblivious when in such a search mode to that which is deemed straight and straight forward is anything other than straight' but it is toward. It is this sense of direction that is bound and tied to satisfying fulfilment. Animals may have little else to fill than their stomachs whilst mankind is haunted by The Truth.
The Curve is but all any animal can managed in their hungry pursuit for if the prey deviates from a predictable path then the pursuers deviation from the fore-made plan is inevitable. Even plants will curve towards the sun and send out side roots in search of water, so what then can animals achieve. Taking the lot of other animals and plants there is little use in being straight let alone considering the truth or merits of the action when change is the only constant for an insatiable consumer.
The Crooked is a purely Homo Sapiens adventure. To actively deceive another thinking creature, not something other animals do to any notable degree and plants seem not to . To bend another person to the will of the crook, to steal when trust has been established or to break the bonds of the all so carefully crafted laws that bind humans in their pathetic adherence to a path that offers salvation from the storms of Earth. These are the peak survivors that by not holding to any earthly laws other than survival are closer to the real animals than homo sapiens really think they are. It is not the encompassing or denial of brutality than provides host to the mind games but that neither are a direction yet helps to keep the Truth out of reach.
People, and for that matter other animals, consume specific biological compounds, plants consume minerals, water and sunlight and the sun and other heavenly bodies consume indiscriminate mass.
Consumption, from my human perspective with that intellect born of homo sapiens is clearly an unpleasant aspect. This does not mean there is no joy in the taste of food the company of people, shelter from the weather but in the need to consume other matter, intellectual, emotional, biological, and mineral is demeaning.
It matters for two reasons, first that it means I am dependent upon a finite resource, so no immortality there and secondly if I were to adhere to an ethical style and that ethics included all others then I can not be happy knowing my consumption not only puts me in direct competition with other but that they are my potential food.
To counter this inhumane activity and bring focus to that which is immortal I have to reduce my consumption before death removes the option.
The ELF trust was created, well as I thought, by and for people who wanted to be responsible for a fair share of land wherefrom and whereon they would establish methods to reduce their consumption. The problem being I am the only survivor, with the disturbing notion that my aggressive, uncompromising stance alienates all others, apart from non-human animals.
I have no problem with a person who consumes as long as they do not campaign that others should reduce theirs or share their loot. People are basically animals that consume and is it up to the individual to assess how to satisfy their desires.
I do have a problem, however when confronted by the so called eco-freaks, the planet savers, the half-hearted vegetarians, the vegans who claim to care about all animal suffering, the tree-huggers and fair trade lobby. The clue is in the plural. People often achieve greater efficiency in consuming when working together, despite the fact that it is short sighted and only serves their ethical group of choice and thereby uses the resources even quicker - so no hope that any of them will tune into an everlasting consciousness. My problem lies in being caught or addicted to the relationships I have with these individuals, it's easy to keep away from the do-gooder groups. But when the individuals are family or long term friends it is difficult to deny them.
To labour the point. If ethics has any universal credit then it must apply to all. Treating your children equally is a simple objective but not really possible to achieve. Treating all the family, all religion, all the nation, all the people, all the animals, all the biological kingdom whist we consume each other is clearly a cruel deceptive aspiration applied to children so they are less demanding and work for the
good of all or better say wants of those they deem a requirement for their survival, comfort, lust and debauchery.
The best is to reduce consumption and allow others the freedom to grow. There is no point in consuming more, as charities do in supporting the homeless and hungry with shelter and food so that they can consume for longer, consume more and procreate other creatures of the same habit. The result is that people will have to exploit more resources for the ever growing population or more specifically to feed the desires of any ever increasing hopelessness of fulfilment.
Although some religions, without a complete lack of logic, claim that all will be sorted for the good at death, whilst the others will be born again into an increasingly deprived word; that does not equate to the same notion as reducing consumption. These religious people often use Jesus or Mohamed as guides to their resurrection,, or lack of whilst upping the inhumane and inhuman consumption they so vehemently lobby again - now we have a proliferation of charity workers and eco-freaks.
The religious use past guides to excuse them of earthly matters and wage war on anyone and anything that isn't of their ethics, whilst the charity and eco freaks try to save groups of people and the environment they are so dependent upon. Justifying their own lack of commitment of reduce they rest in the glory of the attention they receive from the forlorn consumers who's ability to fuck the planet quicker is in the charities workers hands and hearts. Weak hearts and hands that cannot look after themselves and increasingly depend upon the new order of so called humans to gather resources and share them out to the administrators design. Administrators Ach!
With the religious group I feel there is an ability to see beyond the earth for fulfilment, though I challenge any of their commitment, whereas for the humanists I see only their dependence upon each other as the primary goal, another sure way to screw the bio-sphere and any other resource that comes into orbit.
The few die hard religious freaks will, as they always must, perish and die in the flames and mayhem created by the blast of the thinking people when they leave Earth, aware that there's little more to take.
Although it is difficult to decide on priorities as in if the body without intelligence or intelligence without body should come first or prevail, there is no doubt in my mind that life must have a soul, at least from this lowly perspective.
Life is undoubtedly the immortal, the everlasting. That which would be worthy of investment as it cannot fail. Yet life is beyond interference with and betting 'your life' on immortality is a waste of mind.
Yet life being so distant so vague and untouched I would create a soul that life may be witnessed, not just imagined as a vague concept of my frustrated thinking.
Life may not have any other human conceivable properties other that being eternal but I image it is aware of itself.
By eternal I do not mean something that survives the time but outside of and unaffected by time, and my mind is so cast to the winds, the night, the toil of labour under the sun and the consistent activity of consumption, to ask, how do I imagine soul? It cannot be of me though I may strive to develop and feed the notion and in doing so create a fraction of my intellect to jar with all that is timely.
My person is well aware of this painful fracture painful, cutting and dire, though I'll not deny it and feed it whence I can, it is unfathomably hungry. Whatever scraps of wisdom or love I feed it it just disappears down a black hole with little understanding on my part. Now and then I see as if tantalising close a warmth that beckons rest and be with me, but then some other part of the vast intellect argues that the body corporeal needs to breath; but for what? To consume more and generate more labour.
Still I have convinced myself, for now, in this timed machine, that I have some understanding of what I am and I am preparing, once again to be not so much of that and yet I cannot see a way to hold onto the soul, no doubt as it is not mine.
Passing thoughts hearing someone has just taken a transport job. It seems fun to be travelling, especially in a high cab above the common traffic. Various new places and multitudes of people to meet and I imagine lucrative, especially if transporting arms, immigrants and drugs, more so if the commodity is illegal.
AID is a self serving business, as toxic as the consumer that receives it, yet who amongst us has not taken favour, friendship and food when offered. Yet that the day may come when AID is no longer sought or even offered.
There's an inherent danger in wanting to help someone. There's the assumption that the provider has something the needy wants. In that disparity the provider holds power over the other and will seem in a position to give or withdraw what to the other will undoubtedly seem nothing other than a power trip. It really is that, for in a world of equality each would be able to obtain their needs without recourse to the Havit's charity. The only reason the Havit's have anything to give at all it due to their acquisition of what Equality would argue, is a common source. That the Havit's have worked harder is not tenable.
Pages: 1· 2